LowerCaseRepublican

FlaSoxx, I found a similar story on Yahoo News http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/iraq_attack_5 I wasn't alive for this but didn't, during the My Lai Massacre, the US army say that the villagers were armed etc.?

The password is "Flaming" Peter: You. Tony Randall: "Actor." Peter: Yooooooou. Tony Randall: "Tony? Peter: Yooooou.

Perhaps you missed this part of his post (put in bold for emphasis)

The idea of a "liberal media" is a joke. Geoffery Nunberg, a Stanford professor of linguistics and research scientist, used a database of the top 20 most popular newspapers and found that "media" appears within 7 words of "liberal bias" 569 times while "conservative bias" is found just 17 times. It raises the question: if the liberals control the media, why do they spend so much time and effort publicizing their ruthless suppression of their adversaries? Back in 1995, Bill Kristol admitted "I admit it. The liberal media was never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Newspaper editors, the ones that decide what stories get printed, 48% voted for Bush and only 23% for Gore in publication endorsements by their papers. (The others chose another candidate or did not endorse) In papers with circulation of less than 50,000 Bush won by a margin of 3 to 1, under 100,000 Bush won with a margin of 5 to 3 and over 100,000 Bush won endorsements on an average of 5 to 4. A study commissioned in 1990 showed that of the top 7 pundits who got regular space in over 100 newspapers, 4 of the 7 were conservative: Will, Kilpatrick, Safire, & William F. Buckley. Only one, Ellen Goodman was classified as a liberal. This is similar in 1999 when they made it the top 14 columnists by simple volume of how many papers their articles were published in and how many readers they had. All of the top 4 were conservative in in the list in total: 9 conservative, 3 liberal and 2 centrist. Re: Clinton, I'll quote Ralph Reed "I think if you look at the way Clinton's been treated, for example, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the persona liberal ideological views of most reporters...have somehow led to a free ride for Bill Clinton." Gore and Clinton getting smashed over the Buddhist temple "fundraiser" that never took place, the Gores and "Love Story" debocles, smashing Gore over the "creation of the internet" while Bush has gotten soft hits on Meet the Press etc. John Harris states "Are the national news media soft on Bush? The instinctive response of any reporter is to deny it. But my rebuttals lately have been wobbly. The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton. Take it from someone who made a living writing about these uproars." Conservatives enjoy the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, United Press International, CBN, Tribune-Review, Weekly Standars, National Review, Fox News Channel ad nauseum. NBC's channels had the Wall Street Journal editorial board host their own show, Michael Savage, Alan Keyes, Laura Ingraham, Ollie North, Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Lawrence Kudlow, Jerry Nachman and Don Imus. All conservatives. The one liberal they hired was Phil Donahue who was fired even though he had the highest ratings. Whistleblowers within NBC released the documents showing that he was fired because he "would give the anti-Bush and anti-war audience a voice without a conservative counterpart to dispel the claims". If the media was so damn liberal, wouldn't they want that? Even in 2001, when CNN brought Carville and Begala to Crossfire, thee was an informal directive that leaked from the Senate Republican leadership discussing a GOP boycott of Crossfire in an attempt to intimidate the hosts or CNN management.

The majority of Americans were against giving women the right to vote for a long time. The majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. The majority of Americans were against civil rights for African Americans. If we kept listening to the majority then we'd be really f***ed. Having the US Constitution codify discrimination is disturbing. I really fail to see how homosexual marriage of people that love each other destroys the institution of marriage any more than the s*** job that heterosexuals have done to it already. The day heterosexual couples decide to "respect the institution of marriage" then they can really open their mouths about protecting it. Also, I'd love to see those verses that show Jesus codifying marriage.

I bow down to your ethnocentrism. All heil the racially superior Americans! /seigheil Americans are executed a lot here. It's called capital punishment. No American should be executed but pardon me if I put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are more than content to f*** up the s*** of every Muslim in the Middle East right now w/ your vitriol. And if you want Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to die, then a few months ago called. MSNBC reported on March 4 that he was killed in a US bombing campaign before this film was made. One of the clues the FBI and CIA is studying is the large gold ring Zarqawi is wearing on his right hand, giving off a glare several times during the six-minute tape. -- That is forbidden by Islam. One would think that a hardcore Wahabbist would know and abide by that.

Most pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. Also, the whole "protecting the institution of marriage for a man and woman". I think straight couples have done more than enough damage to the institution of marriage with crap like "Married by America", "The Littlest Bride", Gingrich giving his wife divorce papers while she is recovering from cancer, Neil Bush getting divorced after catching herpes from orgies with Hong Kong prostitutes while married, OJ murdering his wife, etc. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period. Never have I heard a line in a marriage vow that includes a requirement that the couple have children. The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam. When gay marriages are allowed, a bunch of guys are not going to stand up and go "You mean I could have married a guy? Goddamnit!" As Ayn Rand says, the smallest minority is the individual and the majority cannot revoke the basic rights of the minority. And if we want to bring the Bible into this for the traditionalist view of marriage then I have a few demands as a heterosexual. Marriage in the US shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women (Gen. 29:17-28, II Samuel 3:2-5). Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chronicles 11:21). A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut. 22:13-21). Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Gen. 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30, II Corinth. 6:14). Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce (Deut 22:19, Mark 10:9-12). If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow or deliberately does not give her children, she shall take off his shoes and spit in his face in the presence of the Elders (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10). If we wanna get technical with the Bible condemning homosexual marriages then lets go hog wild with everything the Bible says about marriage.

Very nice pitch Schoe!

The CIA has done lots of insane stuff before and haven't been the best about not being sloppy. Read former CIA agent Ralph McGehee's book "Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA" for more information.

This could get interesting. Last time I checked in '99 w/ Yugoslavia and our war crimes there the US said that the ICC had no authority and we are not bound by whatever they dictate. That's the US stance but it's somewhat unclear as to if any possible punishment would/could stick.

Real conservatives are for smaller government, an end to the nanny state, increased personal freedoms, lack of government involvement in peoples' lives. Increasing the size of government 43%, increasing govt initiatives like corporate welfare etc. to increase the teats of the ineffective nanny state, the PATRIOT Act decreasing personal freedoms ie http://www.hillnews.com/news/051204/patriot.aspx "Presidential push fails to quell GOP fear of Patriot Act", increasing the drug war and starting it hardcore under Reagan etc. I think real conservatives are Libertarians and not the shills that the Republican party has become.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Wow.

I have watched the vid since Prison Planet reposted now (It was taken down initially and then they put it up). The guy on the far right is pretty finicky with his movements throughout the video. It's just weird Berg goes from US custody to *wham* in the hands of these guys. It's fishy to say the least. Even his hand didn't have blood. Even if it doesn't spray, it pools. Cutting off some guy's head, you're bound to get your hands stained with blood. The decapitator didn't. There are problems in consistence with the vid (see you didn't address most of the claims) and they need to be addressed.

He won't run w/ Kerry as he already said and Bush and he don't get along after Rove's shenanigans to get Bush the nod and McCain doesn't agree w/ Bush's policies much at all since McCain is a real conservative and Bush is a neo-con thug.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/21552.php Some 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake," according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/m...owingpapers.htm BBC report that people are being held for traffic violations and not having papers at checkpoints. In watching the Rummy testimony on C-SPAN a fun factoid came out that out of the approx 43,000 we've arrested over 33,000+ have been released because they have no intelligence value and are innocent. It's, as Tyler Durden said in Fight Club, "The illusion of safety."

I just find the inconsistencies weird that Berg was held by US forces and then all of a sudden he's kidnapped by Al Qaeda. Something smells fishy. Michael Berg lashed out at the U.S. military and Bush administration, saying his son might still be alive had he not been detained by U.S. officials in Iraq without being charged and without access to a lawyer. We detained him up to very close to his death. Then all of a sudden he's in the hands of Al Qaeda...it's more than a little odd. Chi_Sox, I'm not saying that I lend 100% creedence to Alex Jones's ideas but skepticism about the vid is a good thing and necessary before all of us decide to go headlong into "Who gives a f*** if we torture them! Let Rummy keep his job!" etc. As they said during World War II and it's true now: You can do anything to the American public as long as you scare the s*** out of them.

The US government has no qualms killing it's own people. According to former State Department member, William Blum, and the US Army, the US Army has admitted that "between 1949 and 1969, 239 populated areas from coast to coast were blanketed with various organisms during tests designed to measure patterns of dissemination in the air, weather effects, dosages, optimum placement of the sources and other factors." Testing over such areas was supposedly suspended after 1969, but there is no way to be certain. Open air spraying even continued at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. Here's a list of the places the US government sprayed with dangerous bacterias. Watertown NY area & Virgin Islands: 1950, the Army used aircraft and homing pigeons to drop turkey feathers dusted with cereal rust spores to contaminate oat crops to prove that a "cereal rust epidemic" could be spread as a biological warfare weapon. San Francisco Bay area: Sept. 20-27 1950, 6 experimental biological warfare attacks from the US Army. It began on a ship where the Army used bacillus globugii and serratia marcescens, at one point creating a cloud about two miles long as the ship traveled slowly along the shoreline of the bay. One of the stated objectives of the operation was to study "the OFFENSIVE (emphasis mine) possibilities of attacking a seaport city with a biological warfare aerosol" from offshore. Beginning on September 29, patients at Stanford University's hospital in San Francisco were found to be infected with serratia marcescens. This type of infection had never before been reported at the hospital. Eleven patients became infected and one died. According to a report submitted to a Senate committee by a professor of microbiology at State University of New York at Stony Brook: "an increase in the number of serratia marcescens can cause disease in a healthy person and...serious disease in sick people." Between 1954 and 1967, other tests were carried out in the bay area including some with a base of operations at Fort Kronkhite in Marin County. Minneapolis: 1963, 61 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide in four sections of the city involving massive exposure of people at home and children in school. The substance was later described by the EPA as "potentially dangerous because of its cadmium content" and a former Army scientist, writing in the professional journal "Atmosphere Environment", in 1972, said that cadmium compounds, including zinc cadmium sulfide, are "highly toxic and the use of them in open atmospheric experiments presents a human health hazard." He stated that symptoms produced by exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide include lung damage, acute kidney inflammation and fatty degeneration of the liver. St. Louis: 1953, releases of zinc cadmium sulfide over residential, commercial and downtown areas, including the Medical Arts Building, which presumably contained a number of sick people whose illnesses could be aggrevating by inhaling toxic particles. Washington DC area: 1953, aerial spraying of zinc cadmium sulfate mixed with lycopodium spores from a height of 75 feet. Areas sprayed include the Monocacy River Valley and Leesberg, Virginia...30 miles from the capital. In 1960, the Army conducted 115 open air tests of zinc cadmium sulfate near Cambridge, Maryland. Earlier in the 1960s, the Army covertly disseminated a large number of bacteria in Washington's National Airport to evaluate how easy it would be for an enemy agent to scatter smallpox through the entire country by infecting air passengers. The bacterium used, bacillus subtilis, is potentially harmful to the infirm and the elderly, whose immune system is impaired, and to those with cancer, heart disease or a host of other ailments according to a professor of microbiology at the Georgetown University Medical Center. A similar experiment was carried out at the Washington Greyhound bus terminal. Sometime during Richard Nixon's time in office, the Army "assassinated" him with germs via the White House air conditioning system. At a building used by the Food and Drug Administration surreptitiously placed a (supposedly harmless) colored dye into the water system. Whether anyone suffered harm from drinking a certain quantity of the water is not known. Florida: 1955, the CIA conducted at least one open air test with whooping cough bacteria around the Tampa Bay area. The number of whooping cough cases in Florida from 339 and one death in 1954 to 1080 and 12 deaths in 1955. The Tampa Bay area was one of three places that showed a sharp increase in 1995. Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida: 1956-58, The Army, wishing to test "the practicality of employing aedes aegeypti mosquitos to carry a biowarfare agent", released over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of this mosquito which can be a carrier of yellow fever and dengue fever, both dangerous diseases. The Army stated that the mosquitos were uninfected but prominent scientists said that, for several reasons, the experiment was not without risk and was a "terrible idea." The actual effects on the targeted population will probably never be known. New York City: 1956, a CIA-Army team sprayed New York streets and Holland and Lincoln Tunnels using trick suitcases and a car with a dual muffler. June 6-10, 1966, The Army report of this test was called "A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents". Trillions of bacillus subtilis variant niger were released into the subway system during rush hours. One method was to use light bulbs filled with the bacteria; those were unobtrusively shattered at sidewalk level on subway ventilating grills or tossed onto the roadbeds inside the stations. Aerosol clouds were momentarily visible after the release of bacteria from the light bulbs. The report noted that "When the cloud engulfed people, they brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." The wind of passing trains spread the bacteria along the the tracks; in the same time it took for two trains to pass, the bacteria were spread from 15th Street to 58th Street. It will never be known how many people later became ill from being unsuspecting guinea pigs but the United States Army exhibited not the slightest interest in this question. Chicago: 1960s, the Chicago subway system was the scene of a similar Army experiment. Stockyards: November 1964-January 1965, The Army conducted aerosol tests over stockyards in Texas, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska using "anti-animal non biological stimulants". It's not clear why stockyards were chosen or what effect this might have had on the meat consumed by the public. Nuremburg: The International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, Germany 1946-1949, revealed many details of the Nazi medical experiments on involuntary subjects, leading the judges to create a set of principles known as the Nuremburg Code...a bill of rights for people participating in medical experimentation. The Code's first tenet states: "The voluntary consent of the subject is absolutely essential." Very shortly thereafter, the US Army-CIA testing program began and although the tests, of course, were nowhere near as grotesque as those of the Nazis, and the subjects of the tests were not humans as such, but rather the behavior of certain substances in the air, the fact remains that the testers knew that untold numbers of humans were being directly contaminated and none of the reports of the tests mentions a word about obtaining the consent of any of these humans. If the testers did not "know" that the contaminating substances were potentially dangerous it can only be because they didn't investigate this question, which is saying the same thing as they didn't know because they didn't WANT to know. Face to Face Human Experimentation: For the human experimentation, the various government agencies appear to have chosen as their subjects primarily those who had the least political clout, such as servicemen and women, conscientious objectors, prison inmates, blacks, the poor, mentally retarded, the elderly, the young, mental patients..."It's a little cockail. It'll make you feel better." Helen Hutchinson recalled the doctor telling her in July 1946, during a visit to the Vanderbilt University Hospital Prenatal Clinic. It didn't make her feel better at all. It contained radioactive iron. She was one of 829 people to receive various amounts of the potion over a two year period. Both Hutchinson and the daughter she carried went on to suffer a lifetime of strange ailments. Hutchinson's hair fell out at one point, she suffers from pernicious anemia and she is highly sensitive to sunlight. Her daughter, now grown, suffers from an immune system disorder and skin cancer. In 1999, the American public might have learned something. When it was disclosed the government organization in Los Alamos National Labratory was going to release a strain of bacteria into the atmosphere to test new biowarfare detectors, the public outcry against it stopped it from happening. One resident said at the public hearing: "If the bacteria is so safe, why don't you release it into the office of some one in Washington DC?" Dating back to our destruction of the USS Maine to get involved in the Spanish American War to making up the fight at the Gulf of Tonkin to get involved in Vietnam, the United States has been pretty good at making up events to get anger up so high that the government can do whatever the hell it wants. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff badly wanted an excuse for us to invade Cuba. So, they created "Operation Northwoods". Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war. Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations." The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed. There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized." Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings: *"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government." *"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation." *"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba." Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight." They even stated that after the attack "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." Seizing on this indignation, they could easily get support for whatever programs they wanted to install. Northwoods was a highly popular program and the only reason it was not used was thanks to President Kennedy. So, it can be seen that the US government has absolutely no qualms whatsoever about killing its own people as long as the deaths allow them to further their political agenda. source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html History's an interesting thing. .01% of aid and people think that is a lot. Comparing percentages of GDP we do not give that much as the rest of the world. Chomsky discusses that a lot in "Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and World Order". This thing isn't a knock against GWB, he's just a shill for little masters just like Clinton was.

Kap, newsflash .01% of our GDP goes to foreign aid. Check it out next time. 1993 WTC - FBI helped cook the bomb Dec. 15, 1993 Chicago Tribune article states that it was an FBI informant that built the bomb that was used. Even the New York Times stated on Oct. 28, 1993: "Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said. The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers." source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...OK/wtcbomb.html I'm not saying I 100% buy the explanation made by Infowars.com re: Berg's execution but it does bring up some questions that should be answered before all the sheep start "Baa"ing and allow Bush more carte blanche to do whatever the f*** he wants. Skepticism - it's a good thing.

Can you be a little bit more condescending cuz that'd be great.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5119272 Most Baghdad residents on Wednesday condemned al Qaeda's beheading of a U.S. civilian in Iraq, but many said his death was just the latest atrocity in a cycle of violence that is driving them to despair. Even in the Baghdad Sunni Muslim stronghold of Adhamiya, where there is fierce opposition to the occupation, many residents were appalled by the decapitation of Berg. "We denounce this act. No-one can accept the killing of another human being in this horrible way," said Yassir Saleh, a 30-year-old barber. But he too pointed to a tide of violence that has swept the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. "Sometimes I really can't understand the logic of what is happening, all the violence that I could have never imagined would take place in my country," he said. See IlliniBob, there are Arabs condemning the action.

Yeah, having the Afghans fight our war for us and then leaving them high and dry with a destroyed infrastructure. (Remember the Marshall Plan of WW II?) That tended to piss a bunch of people off. They got used to fight for US interests and got left with a destroyed infrastructure. It was, as they say, "The Great Betrayal". Insert the madrassas when their abject poverty overtakes people and they can't eat and hey, what do you get? A bunch of radical Wahabbi fundamentalists who see that the US used and abused them. And we wonder why they hate us? 15-20 years ago? There tends to be a long history in that region if you don't remember. (i.e. Israel going back to ancient times for their claims to the land) Hell, during the Iran/Iraq war Saddam made posters of himself as a military leader from approx 600 AD to commemorate military victories. There is a long history there. And by your thinking then when 9/11 is 15-20 years ago, we should just let it go and forget it? I think not. Genocide in Iraq. Technically under international law, Madeline Albright could be prosecuted for intent to commit genocide. I dunno if you've read the list of banned items on the sanctions list when it was established or if you've had the ability to speak to anybody who has been to Iraq. I've had the opportunity to do both (people who have been to Iraq both military and humanitarian work bring food/meds into Iraq) Banned items included tape, televisions, toothbushes, nail clippers, fans, etc. And if we really get technical there is some evidence of Al Qaeda helping Chechen rebels. Plus they defeated the Russians back in '89 so the Moujhadeen and the USSR as an entity sort of dissolved and Russia sorta has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE. Apartheid regime in Israel. Supporting the IDF killing of children, bulldozing of houses, not allowing people to get through checkpoints to go to work, not allowing Palestinians to use streets yet if my friend Adam (a Jew, necessary for the story) goes to Israel without checking his background he can use the highways because of his Jewish heritage. Yet everyday Palestinians who need to go to work or a hospital cannot use them. The UN, in its anti-semitic idiocy, went and created the nation of Israel in 1948 because the Security Council nations wanted to get rid of their Jewish populations. When you walk around the world for 50 years doing whatever the f*** you want since World War II and we only get 1 9/11 then we have to consider ourselves DAMN LUCKY. Read my other post in the "Islamic web site..." thread. There is more evidence that the Berg assassination was a psy ops to create the outrage you're feeling so torture of Iraqis in prison would be tolerated if they do it in the future and the outrage over the current scandal would subside. Looks like the propaganda just might be working.

Um, I have no clue what poll you're looking at. The only major one done by the Gallup company in Iraq in all regions shows 57% of the country does not want the US forces there even though they believe it will make the country more violent. From USA Today: But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers." That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him. Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions. The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people.

I was just checking Infowars.com (Conservative/Libertarian site run by a big conspiracy theorist) I dunno about the authenticity of the claims about the vid (I have yet to watch it) but he raises some interesting points that could be debated. With several news outlets reporting that Berg's family is angry from the US government over their son's violent death and revelations that "Berg was detained by Iraqi police at a checkpoint in Mosul on March 24. He was turned over to U.S. officials and detained for 13 days" (in other words, he was detained by the US military just prior to his death) -- (AP 5/11/04) we have to question what really happened and who was really behind Berg's horrific murder. 1) extremely convenient "wag the dog" timing at the height of furor regarding U.S. torture of Iraqis 2) CNN poll question: "Is the Berg killing a reason for withholding any remaining Iraq prisoner abuse pictures?" Bush has been reported to be struggling with question of whether Pentagon should release additional torture photos. Given that the alleged decapitation of Berg was allegedly prompted by the first wave of torture photos, Bush could now cite "national security" issues for witholding additional materials. 3) Berg's last known whereabouts was in U.S. custody. 4) Berg shown in video wearing orange jumpsuit known to be of U.S. issue (compare with pictures at Guantanamo). 5) Berg mysteriously captured by Al-Quaeda (still wearing jumpsuit). Either he escaped from U.S. captors or U.S. let him out -- with orange suit and all -- to be immediately apprehended by Al-Quaeda (before he had a chance to change). 6) Tape obviously spliced together and heavily edited. Goes from a) Berg sitting in chair talking about family, to B) Berg sitting on floor with hooded "militants" behind, to c) blurry camera movement, to d) almost motionless Berg on floor as head cut off. 7) Audio clearly dubbed in. 8) "Arab" reader flips through pages of "statement" and keeps ending up on the same page. Perhaps doesn't even known enough Arabic to recognize what page he's on? 9) "Arabs" have lily-white hands and (other exposed) skin. 10) "Arabs" have Western-style body posture and mannerisms. 11) When Berg decapitated, there was almost no blood. If Berg were still alive at this point, with the cut starting at front of throat, blood would have been spraying everywhere. Berg's severed head, the floor, Berg's clothes, and even the hand of the "Arab" who decapitated Berg had no visible blood on it. 12) Berg's body didn't move while on the ground. Although held down, Berg would have tried to instinctively wiggle and writhe away from captor's grip. 13) Camera angle made it impossible to see if Berg's eyes were even open. 14) Alleged "scream" from Berg sounded to be that of a woman and was clearly dubbed in. 15) Berg goes to great trouble to identify himself, providing information about his family. Why? To elicit greater sympathy? Or to provide a positive ID. FBI visited Berg family in an attempt to "verify his identity". Guy in video looks very little like Berg photos provided by family. It's cynical conspiracy theorist in me but this could be a psy ops operation. Berg video released at height of furor over U.S. torture of Iraqis and just before Bush was to decide whether to release additional torture videos. Now torture videos will be witheld from public for reasons of national security. Now "patriots" everywhere will laud the virtues of U.S. torture of "enemies". Sensitivity level of public gets heightened in terms of what's acceptable treatment of prisoners. Juxtaposed with decapitation, piling naked men into pyramid is nothing. Such treatment will be considered more and more acceptable even in domestic situations.

The violence that began 9/11. Gee, could it be the US proxy war in Afghanistan throughout the 80s when we left them with no support afterwards? (Note: In Muslim circles in the Mid-East this is known as "The Great Betrayal") Or our destabilization efforts in Iran of the fundie Islamic regime after propping up the Shah? Or how about Reagan and Bush preventing the hostages from being freed during the Iran-Contra scandal? Or the bi-weekly bombing and genocide of 1.2 million Iraqis due to US induced UN sanctions in Iraq? Our support for the apartheid regime in Israel that kills children with gunships and tanks...that just might be another reason. Those were just a few instances of violence that came off the top of my head.

Since you asked, I'll be 22 on Nov. 27 of this year.