(V): Thanks for the post. Some of our politicians have admitted as much, saying that Iraq ought to be divided into smaller regions based on ethnicity. Of course the point being, "look how they can't get along," not revealing or admitting that this situation is precisely what we've engineered.

I remember Joe Biden, for example, our new VP, talking about this (that Iraq ought to be broken up) on the Bill Maher show on HBO, back before he was even picked to be Obama's running mate.

The Usurper: It's what she says....

"the second thing which is most interesting, is that the US occupation forces are very well aware that the police is infiltrated right to the core by the most criminal and sectarian elements of Iraqi society. Yet despite this obvious affiliation, it seems that the Americans want to turn the puppet security forces into some obedient patriotic Iraqi nationals. Which clearly is not the case.
I argue that the Americans want to very much keep the sectarian nature of the security forces and this shall be explained later on...

.....- which brings me to the fourth point -- the Americans are very well aware of this double bind. Namely on the one hand the Shiite sectarian nature of the forces they unleashed with their occupation and on the other the paving of the way for Iran's subtle and not so subtle influence and control over Iraqi affairs, politics and society...

- so my fifth point is a question that I and other Iraqis keep asking ourselves.
Could it be that the Americans have been so stupid and reckless in conducting this invasion and occupation or is that a continuous deliberate plan to tear the Iraqi fabric into sects and ethnicities, so that Iraq remains some mirage, a loose country with no identity and no weight in Middle Eastern and World politics ?"

Bernice: What I think you have a problem with is that the 'conspiracy's' and secrecy is so big and wide.

But as an example, us British kept secret the existence of our ability to break the enigma code used by the Germans to send commands and positions throughout quite a period of WWII.

....the Palestinians

....their lands weren't so devastated, perhaps some Iraqis & Afghanis would come on this international website and defend themselves.

Guess I'll have to take up the slack.

An Arab Woman Blues
http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/

Great blog. Too much truth & wisdom for most of you.

Bernice: Not good enough, because I don't actually believe you. lol

The Usurper: I believed you had some credibility, now I don't believe a damn thing you are saying....is that good enuff?

To be sure, the Talmudic sources are clear that the life of a Jewish woman whose pregnancy endangers her takes precedence over that of her unborn when there is no way to preserve both lives. (That is why Agudath Israel, while we oppose Roe v. Wade's effective "abortion on demand," has not and would never favor a wholesale ban on abortion.) And, while the matter is not free from controversy, there are rabbinic opinions that allow abortion when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother's health. But those narrow exceptions do not translate into some unlimited "mother's right" to "make her own reproductive choices" - the position Hadassah enthusiastically trumpets.

Moreover, in the specific context of "intact dilation and extraction" - to use The Times' preferred nomenclature - Jewish law certainly confers no right to kill a live baby whose head, or most of whose body, has already emerged. Indeed, once birth has already occurred, Jewish law makes clear, the newborn child has no less right to live than does the mother. Stated simply, what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits is, in the eyes of Jewish law, little if anything short of murder.

Nothing, of course, prevents a Jew, or Jewish organization or rabbi, from ignoring the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.

But intellectual integrity, if nothing else, should prevent anyone from misrepresenting the content of a law, or what Jewish tradition has to say about killing an unborn child, or a born one.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Partial_-_Birth_-Abortion-.asp

Bernice: "Im starting to disbelieve everything you say"

Don't be so coy. You have to believe something before you can start disbelieving it.

Iraq Body Count project

An independent UK/US group, the Iraq Body Count project (IBC), compiles reported Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation, including those caused directly by coalition military action, those caused directly by the Iraqi insurgency, and those resulting from excess crime (the Iraqi Body Count project claims that the Occupying Authority is responsible to prevent these deaths under international law). It shows a minimum of 89,369 and a maximum of 97,568 as of 27 November 2008.

This total represents deaths that have been published by at least two media organizations.[13] However, the IBC has been criticized for counting only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because they only include deaths reported by respected media agencies.[73][87] IBC Director John Sloboda admits, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[88]

The Usurper: Yep... Ecclesiastes, the other is Nietzsche.

HUBBA.. HUBBA!!! 

ScarletRose: opportunity is a great thing

well I have decided to open a fellowship on knitting....Ursurper you are becoming so bizarre that Im starting to disbelieve everything you say....your facts are only other peoples opinions and mean nothing.....

I feel sorry for AD trying to moderate this board...I wouldnt be able to keep my mouth shut with a few of you in here

oh well as they say....there are lies, lies and damned lies....which category do you put yourself in? (aimed at all of you)

Im going to start my knitting classes hahahahahhaa

(V): "Reminds me of a certain passage..."

Sounds like Ecclesiastes, correct? The other quote is profound also, but I don't know the author.

Czuch: "Complicity" has a broad range of interpretation, from LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) to MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). The evidence points more to MIHOP, but even LIHOP is a treasonable offence.

unbelievable

When one country invades another country unprovoked, it is State Terrorism and every death resulting from that invasion is unjustifiable.

The U.S. invaded Iraq unprovoked.
The U.S. is therefore practicing State Terrorism in Iraq.
Every death in Iraq is unjustifiable.

"Murder" is actually not the appropriate word, here. "Genocide" speaks more to the facts.

The Usurper: Point you miss is that you do not have any numbers for how many of the killed civilians were killed at the hands of US murderers????

Unless it is your point to blame the fact that the us was there at all, for every killed civilian?

The Usurper: overwhelming proof of U.S. government complicity.

Well complicity in what happened is a far cry from it happened in a completely different way!

Artful Dodger: "Even distortions"

Don't confuse independent researchers with U.S. distortioners of evidence.

The Usurper: Even distortions

Artful Dodger: And it is not impossible to know. The best estimates are made by those who research the issue, like ORB, as posted below.

Artful Dodger: Sure, there is plenty of good information you can find by googling.

Czuch: "Can you give me somewhere to find where the FBI says they have confiscated video that they do not want to release?"

Do you want me to provide you with a Bush-Cheney confession tape also?

These confiscations are based on testimony. Maybe all these people are lying. Again, you would prefer to conjure up any nonsensical loophole you can find, rather than actually do any legitimate research of the issues. With someone so intent as you are to remain uninformed, what is the point of debate? You "see no evil, hear no evil," no matter the evidence.

The Usurper: Rubbish. You're using google mined stats. I used the first one's I found. And one of the links gives numbers from 90,000-600,000 but concludes it's impossible to know. And your charge of murder is simply not true and a manipulation, sheer propaganda.

Artful Dodger: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Those are the numbers YOU choose to use. Why? Because you don't want to know the truth. That's ok. There are always those who will support war crimes with any justification and who will deny the evidence even when bodies are laying in front of them.

Czuch: "For your version of 9/11 to work, it must work in all facets and in all and every instance....."

Not so. It is not a chain argument, but a cable argument. In a chain argument, you break one link, the whole case falls. In a cable argument, certain strands may snap, yet the cable hold.

There are so many strands in this cable as to amount to overwhelming proof of U.S. government complicity. You simply haven't researched it.

On the other hand, the official conspiracy theory is defeated at every point by overwhelming evidence. Again, you haven't researched it.

However, MANY Americans have researched it, and many more are doing so. The numbers of those who know are climbing and the truth, in this age of information, cannot be withheld.

It makes me sad. I'm sorry it happened. It makes me angry, that a group of Neo-Cons would destroy America. Many people who voted for Bush now have seen the evidence & become painfully reconciled to the truth. Many people who did not vote for Bush have gone through the painful experience of recognizing their Democratic leaders are also guilty of crimes.

The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers the centralized authority, standing armies, power concentrated in a few hands. It's why the Revolutionary War was fought. Those who worship American power today (YOU) are not moved by the spirit of 1776.

The Usurper: So what. You google mined for those stats. As I correctly pointed out, no one knows for sure. You're using the WORST stats you could find. That's disingenuous. Also, you said the US murdered these Iraqis. That is a deliberate false statement. And as I have pointed out, most of the deaths were carried out the terrorists - the Muslim kind. ONLY where the US deliberately ignored civilians when they bombed an area or when they deliberately bombed civilians do you have a case that even comes close to murder. This is what I mean by propaganda. YOu use these terms so loosely that I just blow off everything else you say. You play so loosely with the facts that your credibility with me is in serious jeopardy. I'm beginning to think you will say anything, just to support your point. Facts be damned! Michael Moore IS a BIG FAT LIAR. Don't be like him.

Military Slaughters Iraqi Civilians:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/68980/


Targeting Civilians in War (A Book):
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18227/targeting_civilians_in_war.html


The Laws of War, US-Style:
--More than three hundred Iraqi civilians died on 13 February 1991 when two US F-117 stealth bombers targeted the al-Amiriya bunker in Baghdad. Photographs of the charred and twisted bodies of women and children shocked a world which, thanks to Norman Schwarzkopf and CNN, had seen little of the horrors of the Gulf War. Pentagon officials, who claimed to have intelligence indicating the bunker was a command and control centre, denied knowledge of the civilian presence. Had they known, the attack would probably have been classed as a war crime.--
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/byer01_.html


Belgian Law Suit Accusing the US of War Crimes in Iraq:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle05172003.html


The list goes on. I could copy & paste for hours. Here is the pattern:

1. The U.S. bombs and kills civilians.
2. The military reports casualties of enemy combatants, but not civilians.
3. Third parties then report the civilian deaths.
4. U.S. Army denies it knew civilians were present.
5. Repeat ad infinitum.

--Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.--
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm


--BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.--
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/


--Finally, they point out that more recent data confirm their findings and even suggest a higher figure. The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

Czuch: Nope... it's a statement saying that only the parents have the ability to decide to have an abortion, and that it cannot be for silly reasons. Eg The mother's life is in danger in some way from the pregnancy, or like in some cases the mother develops cancer.. what then?

And you'll find that it is usually a joint decision in a relationship, but when it comes to a single person... ... I feel then things get complicated.

Artful Dodger: "biological fact"... yes biological, an animal is biological, plants are biological, all life .. well.. most.. is biological.

But we are more then just biological. Breath of life and what not, or have you forgotten soul and spirit?

"There is no energy rush. That is metaphysical mumbo jumbo."

I beg to differ and will do so till I discorporate.

Czuch: The idea of "potential" human life is just plain nonsense. It's not scientific. We know better these days what we are dealing with.

Sperm is alive. Basic biology. So is the egg. From these living cells comes another kind of life: human. At conception, we have life. There is no point in the human chain of existence where life of some kind wasn't present. So this notion of potential life flies in the face of the facts. And basic biology tells us what kind of life is present at conception.

Biology science is in agreement on this. Yes you can find scientists who will say otherwise, but the majority of scientists make the bold statement that there is NO QUESTION that human life begins at conception.

(V): Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually"

That sounds like abortion to me

You cannot have a life without a father, why do they not have any consent in an abortion?

(V): It's a biological fact that human life begins at conception. Science is settled on this question. Life is present at the moment of conception. And clearly, nothing significant differs from 5 mins before birth to 5 mins after. There is no energy rush. That is metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

Czuch: Beacuse it is the termination of a possible life to be without consent. The baby might die (as in the physical element) before birth. The life is...... ""potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually"

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion

(V): How come when you murder a pregnant woman it is a double homicide then?

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

"In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body."

Which from experience seems to be true. Something happens at the moment of birth, it's like a rush of energy entering this world.

(V): we already have tear gas and others....

Czuch: Why not... It would be great for urban combat, great for hostage situations.

The lives saved alone in military op's involving urban combat in the form of our troops would be worth the investment alone.

(V): yes, a bomb that releases a chemical, thats what I meant...... like I said a great idea, but its no wonder the military isnt much interested in developing it

Czuch: Not a bomb, more like a spray or airborne chemical that causes paralysis.

I did.

Czuch: Seems to me that all the problems the US has to put up with regarding "detainees" it would be much easier to just shoot them all. Easier to shoot and bury them than it is to accommodate every whine of the left over their treatment

*note to critics: not saying we SHOULD do this. Just seems so odd that more of a stink is raised over the US and its actions and you hear almost NOTHING from the critics regarding the terrorists. Hamas fires rockets everyday into Israel. Israel does nothing for months. Finally Israel responds and WHAM, the critics are there defending poor Hamas and Gaza and condemning Israel But little to no mention of the constant rockets being fired into Israel. Were the tables turned, Israel would be condemned for the rocket fire and Hamas would be justified for a heavy handed response.

(V): I thought you were asking why we dont make a bomb that disables instead of kills?

check your mail will ya?

Czuch: Um you said that it'd be better to kill enemy troops rather then take them as POW's.

Sorry I wasn't quite precise, but technically it is supposed that you try if possible to take prisoners rather then kill everyone. One of the reason military bullets are jacketed.

(V): I said nothing about killing POWs???

I said if you had a bomb that only temporarily disabled people, you would end up with a problem of way too many POWs, as compared with if the bomb simply killed everyone