Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News
| About Us | Contact Us | Calendar | Publish | RSS |
|---|
|
Features • latest news • best of news • syndication • commentary Feature Categories IMC Network:
Original Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotechSurviving Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv |
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments A message for those who protest to prevent war against Saddamby Dr.Nazad Hawramany Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 8:07 PMA message for those who protest to prevent war against Saddam
Report this post as:
WRONGby mymicz Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 8:21 PMwe are the only ones interested in the safety of these people, Bush was never interested, his family and friends made Sadam who he is. You have been officially played by the war machine, how does it feel? How many more Iraqi's have to die. The Israeli's could take out Sadam in 5 minutes flat, we don't have to kill all those people to do it. To say inspections won't work, is to say that peace will never work. UN peacekeepers could potentially empower the people to do something about their own dictator. We cannot do it for them, we've done enough meddling to destroy the region already. I feel sad for those who can't see how the Corporate world has trapped us into this fear and war. It's all about money, you have to know that. No life mattered before to anyone BUT us Human rights activists. It certainly doesn't matter to Bush. 400,000 Americans are sick from Gulf War syndrome. Bush's uncle sold the suits that were supposed to protect them that were either undistributed or defective. How much more evil can you get. We have to stop acceding to Bush's stupidity just because he is an American. The two dictators are equally stupid and should both be tried. Bush's grandfather was a Nazi collaborator for profit, the apples don't fall too far from the tree.
Report this post as:
Dear Dr. Deathby Fascism is Doomed to Failure Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 8:32 PM
Since the proposed attack on Iraq is a clear violation of the UN Charter (Chapter VII, Article 51), and since the proposed "Shock and Awe" attack proposed by the US which calls for 800 cruise missles to rain down on Baghdad within two days, undoubtedly killing thousands of innocent civilians- a violation of several international law and treaties, a war crime, and a crime against humanity, and since the current US rulers are considering using weapons of mass destruction (nuclear), what would remain to prevent a military dictatorship like Pakistan or Korea from preemptively attacking its neighbors?
More directly, if you support killing people without the support of the world community, and without any basis in law, what reason remains that would prevent me from kicking your fascist punk ass from here to San Antonio?
Report this post as:
Dr.Nazad Hawramany Kurdistan observerby Sheepdog Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 9:37 PMYou can take your sanctimonious
chocolate and cheese eating ass back to the 'neutral' slopes of your little banking kingdom. Your government was no friend to democracy when you were sucking up gold from the third reich, and prolonging the war while turning away jews during the slaughter.
Report this post as:
Dear Fascism Is Doomedby Jay Lowe Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:04 PMWhat a riot you are. Of course, your right, fascists like Saddam are doomed to failure. . . notwithstanding the Left's support for him!
But more to the point, this war will not be in violation of international law. . . it will be to ENFORCE international law, ie. 17 UN resolutions! If civilians die, it will be because the war criminal Saddam Hussein puts military targets in civilian neighborhoods, in violation of international law. If you cared about crimes against humanity, you would not have supported the likes of Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho, and now, Saddam. Yet you have and do. What are we to assume?
Report this post as:
OneEyedManby KPC Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:11 PMJBlo: "If civilians die, it will be because the war criminal Saddam Hussein puts military targets in civilian neighborhoods, in violation of international law. "
Well, I guess an idiot like you has a lotta lies you gotta tell youself everyday just so YOU can continue to believe them... ...you're a shit, JBlo, this post puts the lie to your and your ilk's feigned concern for the Iraqi people
Report this post as:
Jay Loweby Sheepdog Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:20 PMI'll just assume that you are a
nit wit. Hint; ( a nit is a louse egg) What a twisted leap of 'reasoning' to equate the reluctance to massacre civilians to the approval of mass murderers.
Report this post as:
Dear Jayby DOOMED I SAY! Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:33 PM
Your arguements are as weak as Anus Powell's plagerised dossiers. To say that the US has the right to violate the UN CHARTER in order to enforce UN resolutions, is like saying that Geedubya has the right to violate the US Constitution under the auspices of the Fascist Patriot Act. No country has killed more innocent civilians, or violently overthrown more democratically elected governments than the US. No country has blocked more UN resolutions and Inetnational Criminal Court rulings than the US.
Claiming that I have supported the list your heros is rediculous, as I wasn't even alive when many of them were in power. If you support murdering thousands of innocent people because some chimp of a coked-up hillbilly says so, why not drag your twisted, cowardly ass down to the demo to explain that to me. My boot doesn't care whether it is kicking your ass south of the Pecos, or that of the good Doctor Death. I don't know who this "we" is that you mention unless you are speaking French, but when YOU assume something, YOU make an ASS of YOU, not me.
Report this post as:
In Addition...by DOOOOMED!!! Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:41 PM
error
Report this post as:
As Well As...by Fuck Fascism! Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 10:43 PM
error
Report this post as:
Can we say Propagandaby Diogenes Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 at 11:59 PMThis is an old C.I.A. trick started back duing the Vietnam protests. You hire a shill to write a piece for a local news outlet and then push it into other venues.
No one argues the fact that Saddam the shoeshine boy is a depraved lunatic. However, Bush I left him in power when the Third Armored Corp had 60 miles of open Desert between them and Baghdad. He then encouraged the Shias in the South and Kurds in the North to rebel against Saddam - and when they did he stood back and enjoyed the fun as they were massacred. No one should be under the illusion that this war is being conducted for humanitarian purposes.
Report this post as:
correctionby Rowell, H.A. Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 8:18 AMHe stood back ...
...while Saddam used the Helicopters that he purchased from the US ("Iraqgate" [ask Powell, he was there]) to kill any dissension.
Report this post as:
Oh My Lordby Steven SeagaHl Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 10:54 PMFf the iraqi people want the US to invade iraq in order to depose saddam hussein for war crimes AND if they are willing to fight... im all for it.
i am however, opposed to the US invading under the premise that Iraq is a threat to this world and I am opposed to having the US set the terms for Iraq's post-Saddam political nature. I am sickened by how George W. Bush uses the idea of "liberation of the Iraqi people" as a reason for war considering that he doesnt really care about the people.
Report this post as:
Why the war?by Bush Admirer Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 11:59 PMFirst of all, let me say that I don't think, and didn't ever think, that war is the first option for the Bush Administration. They've been trying to get Saddam to blink, and high-tail it to Libya or Syria with his billions in Swiss accounts.
Failing that, we will invade. As Diogenes said, "No one argues the fact that Saddam the shoeshine boy is a depraved lunatic." Liberals just don't want to do anything about it. They'd rather let the depraved lunatic operate without restraint. It's interesting that the left agrees he's an unstable lunatic, but that's where they stop. They don't want to do anything about removing the lunatic.
Report this post as:
Without restraint?by Sheepdog Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 1:09 AMHe can't fart without permission & protection
with CIA or CIA proxy hit teams out. The people are just waiting for the loud noises to begin. There is so much fire power ringing that beaten, starving, ravaged nation it's a wonder someone hasn't triped yet over their own dick. But I'm sure there are a few who salavate at the prospect of an 'incident' or 'event'.
Report this post as:
Want Saddam Out?by Diogenes Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 5:13 AMFind his location, isolate it, provide protection for people wanting out of the siege and wait for the bastard to either surrender or be killed by his bodyguards.
A minimum of fuss and minimum of "collateral damage" i.e., dead innocents.
Report this post as:
The fate of the war ultimately rests in Husseins handsby Joab Rubio Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 11:40 AMI see the rallies and people that portray President Bush as a warmonger and a greedy man who wishes only to take the oil of Iraq.
I find this concept ludicrous and downright wrong. It seems that people have no concept of the moral integrity our president is showing by evoking the ridicule of our countries peers by standing up for it's commitments as put forth in the resolutions the entire UN agreed to and adopted. To go to war with Iraq for the cause of liberation, global security and undeniable duty upholds the principles which is the basis for all free countries. Saddam has taken the freedom from his people and rules through terrorist acts of violence and barbarity. If a serial killer was stalking our streets we would do everything in our capabilities to find him and have justice dealt to him. Out of fear of our own safety if for no other reason. Well we have a serial killer before us. Saddam is that serial killer. He has murdered his neighbors, his colleagues, even members of his own immediate family. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. The very people who he is supposed to protect. He has done this for no other reason than to bring them into compliance. He has done to his own people far worse than we would do in the event of war. We would be saving thousands of Iraqi lives. If Saddam is able to continue to produce more biological and chemical weapons, not to mention nuclear weapons, he will endanger not thousands or even hundreds of thousands, but millions, and I stress MILLIONS of lives, even yours, and your mothers and your sons, or daughters, wife, or husband. Friends, and family will all be under a fatal threat by a regime that views Americans as it's worst enemy. A country that drops chemical weapons on it's own citizens. By a man who took his children into an Iraqi prison handed them guns and forced them to commit murder by executing political prisoners with their child hands. Raising them to be more vicious then he himself. These are the people who will be in control of these terrible weapons. If they will use such violence against their own citizens and neighbors think of the things he would do to us, if not through deliberate attacks then through terrorist channels. September 11, made the proud people of this country feel terrified, and insecure. We hope to forget that tragedy and we become complacent. Yet we are now under a greater threat than ever before. A threat no jumbo jet could compare to. This threat is not caused by President Bush. The consequences Iraq faces for non compliance is the only driving force in it's recent concessions to UN weapons inspectors. If we cannot talk Saddam out of his weapons, or even into compliance, we MUST be ready to support our President in this time of vulnerability. To be divided endangers not only ourselves but our soldiers in the field, one of which is my own brother. It is utterly disheartening to a soldier to see his/her own brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers show no support to them in their time of greatest need, a time when Americans should rally to their cause. We sap their strength, and we sap their courage, and make them question themselves when they need their wits and courage the most. When they need to be focused. If we DO go to war, and I hope we do not, we need to be behind our President and behind our brothers and sisters in the field. We need to show them our support. We need them to know they are doing the right thing. I said my goodbyes last week to my brother when he shipped out for the Middle East. I let him know that I was behind him. And in the event that we would never see each other again he told me that he was confident that he was doing what was necessary to assure the safety of his family, of his wife and three little girls. He has no doubts about this cause, and if he does meet his end in this fight for a cause "we all" should believe in, he will have no regrets. In conclusion, I hope beyond hopes that if not the world, than at least our citizens can set aside their differences and come together as one people, to rally behind this cause that is not about oil or power, but about protecting the world and ourselves against murderers, terrorists and tyrants. We are not thieves who would take by force the resources of others. We are liberators who would give something more valuable than gold. Security, happiness, and FREEDOM. Thank you for listening and I hope you will pass this on to the public. Sincerely, Joab Rubio of Utah Just as a side note. We do NOT wish the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. In the event of war we will do every thing in our power to prevent the deaths of innocents. Furthermore, I am sure we can all remember the interviews Saddam did with reporters during the Gulf War that showed him using children as human shields to prevent assassination attempts. He hid behind those children to protect himself. He has the luxury of choosing his battleground we do not. He has chosen once again to use innocents as human shields. He has decided to barricade himself inside the walls of Bagdad to hide behind civilians. He could choose exile and ALL war would be prevented. Alternatively, he could choose total compliance with the UN. an easy thing to do. South Africa did just this and look at them now, they enjoy the freedom of democracy, thank's in no small part to the U.S.A.. They even attend UN meetings. But if he chooses to defy and endanger. The lives lost will be on his head. Yes we will try to prevent innocent deaths, but he will not. You can be assured of that.
Report this post as:
No cruise missiles heading to Switzerlandby truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:08 PMYou must be feeling nice and safe there in Switzerland,
Dr. Hawramany. Bush has tried to sell this war based on WMD, because they can't manage to fake a justification in international law for "regime change". If they were really just motivated by regime change, they wouldn't have protected Saddam when he attacked the rebels in 1991, and they would end the sanctions, which only strengthen him.
Report this post as:
truthtellerby tells lies Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:14 PMum, explain how sanctions strengthen saddam, and we did not protect saddam againsts rebels in 1991, you dirty liar!
Report this post as:
Jay Lowe is an idiotby truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:20 PM"If civilians die, it will be because the war criminal Saddam Hussein puts military targets in civilian neighborhoods
in violation of international law." The U.S. military will launch 800 cruise missiles in the first two days. Are you claiming that, if any of them hit civilians, it will *necesarily* be because they were intentionally aimed at civilian neighborhoods because Saddam Hussein put military targets there, and that the latter is illegal but the former isn't? You must really work at being that stupid. Can you even name a single "international law"? (Other than UN Resolution 1441 -- which the U.S. is in violation of by not providing the inspectors with intelligence information.) The first rule of international law is that unprovoked initiation of aggression is illegal -- which we've already violated in Iraq by bombing the "no fly zones", a concept created by the U.S. and never authorized by the U.N.
Report this post as:
explanations for lowlifesby truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:31 PM"um, explain how sanctions strengthen saddam"
He has a monopoly on supply. "and we did not protect saddam againsts rebels in 1991 , you dirty liar!" Then how did he succeed in crushing them when we had an overwhelming advantage and yet withdrew? The fact is that you're a complete and utter ignoramus who knows nothing of the events of the time; all you can do is bark. Go hang out with the other lowlifes in the nearest bar -- you don't belong here.
Report this post as:
Bush's "moral integrity"by truth tellet Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:34 PM
Report this post as:
i thought i was an idiotby but im surpassed by truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:44 PMsanctions weaken his country as a whole, his military cannot function with a weak economy, cuz how can they buy weapons, get more recruits, etc, plus if you want to get rid of sanctions which hurt the iraqi civilians, then lets get rid of saddam..
youre talking about the kurds, yes, well, thanks to liberals we couldnt help them, because that would be ``interfering in a soveign country'' and you dirty vietnam anti-war protesters would be everywhere, plus we support the state of iraq, not thousands of seperate countries in iraq based on what groups exist where.
Report this post as:
one more thingby idiotramus Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:45 PMi forgot, if saddam didnt have sanctions, would he still have a monopoly on supply?! the answer is yes, idiot
Report this post as:
"i thought i was an idiot"by truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:47 PMYou were right.
Report this post as:
The answer is "yes, you're an idiot"by truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:49 PM"i forgot, if saddam didnt have sanctions, would he still have a monopoly on supply?! the answer is yes"
I can see that the basics are quite beyond you.
Report this post as:
truthgaylerby truthgayler Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:51 PMyou frickin retard, you used that as a reason why saddam gets stronger, but now ive proved that hes weaker, are you freakin dumb? YES
Report this post as:
Q.E.D.by truth teller Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 12:59 PMIf you've proved anything it's that , as Geoge Tenet said,
Saddam is no threat to us. But the sanctions do strengthen his hold over the people of Iraq, as has been pointed out by Scott Ritter and others. As I expect that none of your other postings will be any more informed or reasoned than the previous ones, I'll leave to you rant without me.
Report this post as:
sorry for calling you an idiot so many timesby I'M the idiot Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 1:07 PMSaddam may not be a threat to us now, but what about his weapons, what about when he hands them off to his terrorist friends, what about when his regime collapses, what will he do then? Go peacefully or take out everything, i dont know, but hes a definate threat to us. Do you notice what N Korea is doing, blackmailing us for everything, threatening war if they dont get what they want. Even though they havent attacked yet, its ruled by a messed up dictator who will DEFINATELY use his weapons once something bad goes his way. Can we have another N Korea on our hands?
Scott Ritter is a joke, he molested children and he obviously is being paid off by the Iraqis. Thanks for gracefully bowing out to the master debater, ME!
Report this post as:
Mr. Mas rebaterby Sheepdog Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 4:42 PMYou got wasted.
Nice try. Now clean up that mess. Snap it up.
Report this post as:
Observer?by Sister J Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 6:03 PMDear "doctor" in Switzerland,
You call yourself an "observer", yet you are not very observant of the messages of the demonstrators in the United States. . In the United States, this is supposed to be a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. We are protesting our own government, because our government's foreign policies are unjust. Many people have protested against the other injustices which you have named, but then, as now, our government did not listen to us. You are simply seeing more protesters at this time because more people are tired of being ignored. In the United States we supposedly live in democracy, but it is not without limitations. Our government does not represent us, the people. Our Congress, whom we pay with our tax dollars, now "votes its conscience" rather than represents its constituents. Our government suppresses our movement and our speech. Our government is owned by corporations, who also own the mainstream media, thereby making the media's message and the government's message one-in-the-same, which is why you never heard the voices of the protesters before. You say that we have no right to protest. How convenient for you to sit in Switzerland and criticize the people of the United States for dissenting against our own government. Are you an American citizen? I thank God for the millions of Americans who have finally had enough of our corrupt, corporate, Capitalist rule and are willing to exercise their right to proclaim their dissenting view. They are the true patriots.
Report this post as:
Bush Admirer- In her own wordsby lickbushnow Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 at 9:55 PM
Bus Lover summed up her position when she says:
"First of all, let me say that I don't think, and didn't ever think..."
Report this post as:
Do you really believe those lies?by howdy Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2003 at 2:23 AMSaddam doesnt have any terrorist firends,you moron. Atleast TRY to think for yourself!Pluuuuease!
Report this post as:
|
