I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
baudmax23 at earthlink.net
baudmax23 at earthlink.net
Sat Dec 20 20:30:45 PST 2003
At 05:41 PM 12/20/2003 -0800, "James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:
> --
>On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
> > Re saddam et all...
> > http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
> >
> > The war of words over Saddam & Bush is quite amusing. The
> > blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to
> > support force that is in such extreme measure overpowering
> > and statist such as the dropping of tons of depleted uranium
> > high explosives shows that some on this list have not
> > broadened their news reading beyond fox news.
>
>I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
That is quite a presumption there. "If you're not with US, you're with the
terrorists", eh? Same old sorry ass script, dug up but unoriginal dullards
as the boilerplate world domination scam. You know, the Nazis were just
make the world safe for freedom, fighting those pesky Commies, and oh yeah,
those "terrorists" who burned down the Reichstag...
WTC-Reichstag 2. Same old story. Yep, just no decent boogymen, since the
commies gave up the good fight. They tried replacing them with "the drug
menace", but that never quite took the same way. People were yet too
skeptical because too many people like gettin' high themselves. Oh ok,
here we go kiddies on our neverland joyride interminable "war on
terror". Oh yeah, that's a REAL good one, that'll keep the proles cowering
for the protection of the feudal state's protection. O. Protect Me, Thine
Lord, and I shall prostrate my ass to your minions at the airports! Pucker
up to prove you don't a bomb hidden up yo ass, boy.
>Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose
>the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription,
>and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting
>efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of
>war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of
>creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse
>incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy.
>
>But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi
>Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending
>ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of
>Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what
>became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party,
>murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted
>a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
"Uncle Ho" was the leader of the Indochinese resistance, leader of a
popular anti-colonial nationalist movement (remember, Indochina was a
French colony, before the Japanese seized it from them). The original viet
cong tunnel complexes, dated back to the nationalist resistance movement
which was fighting the Imperial Japanese occupation of
Indochina. Eisenhower actually considered Ho to be a great ally in the
region at the time, for giving the Japs such hell. After the War, however,
the Frenchys wanted their old colony back so they could rape it some more
of it's cheap natural resources, and well, Ho having fought the dickens out
of the Japs, wasn't having any of it. Eventually the French gave up (ever
hear of dienbienphu?) Then WE got involved in that mess (under the pretext
of "anticommunism proxy warism"), and rather than just let them have their
own country, killed a lot of peasants and made big defense contractors some
mega money, before the Amerikan youth finally rebelled at being sent off to
be slaughtered for defense contractor profiteering. Ho had actually
admitted to being an avid admirer of the founding fathers of the US, I seem
to recall.
>And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about
>poor victimized Saddam.
Saddam is irrelevant, and the real joke on US will be when we come to
understand it. OK, whoopy-dee-do, "We Got Him!" (nevermind that WE MADE
HIM, nevermind that we built up his bio-chem WMD proggies, to counter the
reaction in Iran after our tyrant Shah THERE got his ass kicked out by the
people). A CIA puppet who got out of control. Don't want to believe it,
look for how he was part of a CIA team recruited to assassinate Kassem. He
was useful while he did US bidding. Once he outlived his usefulness, we
set him up ("the greenlighting of kuwait invasion, ala April Gillespie and
Poppy Bush), so we had a great excuse to dump our obsolete inventories of
older military hardware, as well as battle-test our latest weapons
technologies at the same time.
Chickens always come home to roost. This is the case with Saddam, same as
it was for Bin Laden as well (another CIA Frankenstein, run amok on
Master). Do you not see a PATTERN here, of building up and tearing down,
and making monster profits every step of the way, and the hell with those
useless eater peasants by the millions? Look at all the Panamanians we
slaughtered, so Poppy Bush could "take out" a noncompliant Noriega, who was
threatening to spill the sloppy details or Poppy's CIA cocaine
trafficking. Silenced him real good, didn't we. Now he can talk to the
wall in a Fed prison if he wants to talk...
>Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off
>by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually
>defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this
>administration is doing it.
>
>Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by
>visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the
>heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose
>it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life
>should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should
>lose, and their way of life perish.
>
Why the insecure need to dominate others? You think "American culture" has
no flaws? You think Islam has nothing of value? Do you not see the logic
of actions and reactions (and chain reactions ad infinitum)? Why should
one have to dominate/annihilate the other? How about
symbiosis? Coexistence? How about finding a balance where we become more
self-sufficient, so that we do not need their oil, and therefore do not get
"in their faces". You know, picking sides, like the Israeli-Palestinian
mess. Oh yeah, I guess you just swallowed the Bush lie hook line and
sinker about how they "did it because they hate our freedom". Oh yeah,
well, Bush and Nazi Asscroft have taken the most important freedoms, and
undermine daily anything left, so they shouldn't have any reason to hate us
anymore. I'm surprised Bush didn't claim Osama got a bad burger once at
the Riyadh McDonald's, and just then and there decided that we've just
simply "got to be destroyed".
Gotta stop watching so much TV, it's rotting your brain. You think the USA
can do NO wrong, we ALWAYS have only the truly noblest intents, eh? Look
at history, look at how we have related and treated others. Oh, sometimes
we have done the right things, but at least as often if not more we have
done the wrong things, to the tune of millions of dead foreign peasants
usually. Look at all the genocidal CIA installed dictators... Suharto in
Indonesia, Saddam... etc etc etc
WHY THEY HATE US--DUH!
http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2002-October/003148.html
in particular: In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader
who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But,
however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup
in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such
anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of
nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the
US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run,
US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist
Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was
Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed
assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a
young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully
assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first
time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head
of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi
regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist
activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his
policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the
CIA's close friends in Iraq.
>Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had
>it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the
>corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
The people in the Towers were innocent victims, like most palestinians in
the occupied territories, like oppressed peasants everywhere, and any and
all "collateral casualties" to our militarist ventures and
CIA-coup-installed-corporate friendly dictators. And if the "people" in
the US will not face the reality of what our "illustrious" leaders in
Washington inflict upon others around the world, then we will unfortunately
become "collateral casualties" ourselves in such reprisal attacks. Is it
right, is it good? Of course not, but at the same time, will it stop if
"we the people" can not learn our "lesson" and correct the inhuman policies
our leaders pursue in our names?
You are not facing logical reality if you fail to account for these
facts. In fact, your position, as you state it, is vacuous, and devoid of
logic. The usual "treat the symptoms but never acknowledge or deal with
the underlying cause" mentality, which is so prevalently marketed to the
Amerikan consumer by the corporate "bread and circuses" media controllers
who profit most from failed militaristic policies.
The only way to "win" will be in respect, in humility, in dignity. That
"all life has value, even the lives of non-Americans. That all people want
the same things, family, happiness, love. And that an American life has no
greater or lesser value than that of any other". But instead, we spiral
into accellerating degeneracy, destroying ourselves and taking the whole
world along for the ride to the bottom. Another historic failure of
culture and civilization, a needless waste of physical resources and human
life. But how could it be otherwise, when most can not conceive it's true
nature?
-Max
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> XwnNnDWaFm4T8flPHGpKzyaV4jg8/RzK3pUzhOzQ
> 4+xdZmD79Z+1bt+2a7gG1vL9K6V53m4xxeoRxCt4p
------------------------------------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government.
--George Washington
-------------------------------------------------
Smash The State! mailing list home
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate
---
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list