Post American

I agree this guy should have his head cut off. He is a hypocrite. The Third World War was started by cartoons, no!

Why I Published Those Cartoons?
I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression? On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard?

Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.
It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.

...the Danish cartoonist whose drawings originally sparked the furore, Kurt Westergaard, used an interview with a British newspaper to defend the right to a free press - and said the Islamic faith provided 'spiritual ammunition' for terrorism.,,1713178,00.html
He defended it as 'a protest against the fact that we perhaps are going to have double standards [in Denmark and Western Europe] for freedom of expression and freedom of the press'. The inspiration for it was, he said, 'terrorism - which gets its spiritual ammunition from Islam.'

Double Standards HUH?

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
This ends the claim that this is a free-speech issue.

Danish Paper won't run Holocaust cartoons
A prominent Iranian newspaper has said it would hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West extends the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to the Muhammad caricatures.

Poland will not let Iran "research" Holocaust
"It goes beyond all imaginable norms to question, even discuss or negotiate the issue."

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population"

Selling War against Iran
Propaganda campaign portrays Iran as a pariah state

Rice: Iran Is Terrorism 'Banker'

Iran was on edge; now it's on top
The war in Iraq has bolstered the regime's influence in the region and made it bolder.

What Bush Is Up To
I'm going to tell you what the real Bush administration policy is. I have no take-it-to-court proof. No one does, because the administration doesn't tell the truth and is very secretive. But from conversations I've had with people from the Middle East and from extensive reading, I infer that the Bush administration's policy encompasses three goals: One of the goals is to replace the present Syrian government with one the administration hopes will be more pliable in its policy toward Israel. Another is to construct four permanent bases in Iraq, and that means the administration has no intention of ever withdrawing all U.S. forces. The third goal is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way.

Rumsfeld Says Extremists Winning Media War
What is quite revealing about this statement is the prior assumption that if one spends enough money on lies, one will ultimately be believed. This is, of course, a fallacy. The US Government and mainstream media have spent incredible fortunes on their lies and propaganda. TV shows, movies, newscasts, all of these involve investments in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet blogs running on spare change are getting the truth out, and the reason is simple, because we ARE telling the truth, and the truth is what the people are starting to realize they must have.

Repub. Senator: If Cheney Had "Been In The Military, He Would Have Learned Gun Safetyā€¯...

British Troops Executed Unarmed Iraqi

Not terribly pro-life, is it Mr President?
Last month, the military forces that this same president commands aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghan border. Eighteen people were killed, including five children. The target of the attack, al-Qaeda's No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was not among the dead, although lesser figures in the terrorist organisation reportedly were. Bush did not apologise for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Apparently, he believes that the chance of killing an important terrorist leader is sufficient justification for firing a missile that will almost certainly kill innocent human beings.

Presidential Incoherence
George Bush gave another speech yesterday on the "Global War on Terror." If one actually sits down and reads these speeches, it really is staggering how much deceit and propaganda gets packed into each one of them. What they have him say is not just factually false, but directly contrary to claims he made in the past or which other Administration officials are making now. Sometimes, the most compelling argument against the White House's propaganda is simply to place it side-by-side with prior Administration statements and/or undisputed political facts.

I knew we're at war when they attacked us. As a matter of fact, I was down here in Florida. It didn't take long to figure out what was going on. And I vowed that day that I would not rest, so long as I was the President, in protecting the people. So a lot of my decision-making is based upon the attack.And I know we're at war, see -- I knew it then, and the enemy has, unfortunately, proved me right because they continue to attack. In order to win the war against the enemy you got to understand the nature of the enemy.And we've got a coalition of countries. I spent a lot of time reminding people about the nature of the war. Listen, the tendency for folks is to say, well, this really isn't a war.ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES,
testifying on February 6 before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.I only want to clarify that, because there are implications.Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force. _____________BUSH YESTERDAY:
So I want to share some of the strategy in winning this war on terror. Make no mistake about it, we're going to win the war on terror.
Bush during the 2004 Campaign:
President Bush ignited a Democratic inferno of criticism on Monday by suggesting the war on terrorism could not be won, forcing his aides to scramble to defend his remarks just as he had hoped to bask in convention accolades.On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Mr. Bush sought to emphasize the economy, but his comments on terrorism dominated national attention. In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show, Mr. Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.Asked "Can we win?" Mr. Mr. Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." ________________BUSH YESTERDAY:
And we have a plan to achieve victory [in Iraq]. Victory is a state -- a democracy that can sustain itself and defend itself and join America in fighting the war on terror. That's the goal of victory. That's the definition of victory. REPORTS ON THE IRAQI ELECTION:
BAGHDAD, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Sick of bloodshed that has hit their economy and inflamed sectarian wounds, Iraqis held little hope on Monday that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari could cure in his second term the ills he failed to heal in his first.As prime minister, Jaafari angered the Sunni Arab minority by visiting Shi'ite Iran and describing ties between the old foes as "very friendly and strong and expanding". Patrick Cockburn, Middle East Correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent:
Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated. . . .Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq." . . .Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force. . . . __________________BUSH YESTERDAY:
Generally, people in a democracy don't campaign and say, vote for me, I promise you war. They say, vote for you -- vote for me, I work for the peace. I want your children to grow up in a peaceful world. That's what people say to get elected.
To summarize: within the Bush administration, even before their first days in power, there had always been both the motive and the rationale to invade Iraq. The events of 9/11 worked to add a sense of urgency to this predisposition by offering both a window of opportunity and a stronger motive to make this confrontation seemingly inevitable. Yet there was a more compelling reason to talk about invading Iraq in the summer of 2002 than can be explained by these predilections alone. And sadly this had more to do with political strategy than it did with national security. . . .Karl Rove's strategy to campaign on military issues, leaked reports about a possible invasion of Iraq from military sources, Bush's State of the Union speech citing an "axis of evil" and Bush's initial tough stand on Iraq before relenting and asking for Congressional consent on the brink of the midterm elections; are all dots that can be connected to show how impressive the forethought and planning of the Republican party's midterm campaign strategy actually was.Going into the 2002 election cycle, no one would have thought that a war with Iraq would come to dominate the political dialogue. And yet the efforts of the Bush administration combined with media coverage worked to push this issue to the forefront.
____________________So, to recap:We're at war - we're not at war.We will win the war on terror - the war on terror can't be won.We're in Iraq in order to bring democracy there because the Government will help us fight the war on terror and that's how we'll have "victory" -- a Shiite theocratic party with close ties to Iran now controls the country.Democracies never wage war because politicians can't promise war and win elections - Americans should vote for Republicans because they will start a war in Iraq and never stop waging that war.


"Four years later [..] a growing and increasingly prominent group of Americans believes that a government conspiracy is the only explanation of "the new Pearl harbor" that makes any sense. Armed with a spate of books, compelling videos, and a recent high-profile ad campaign, the loose community that some call the 9/11 Truth Movement has moved from the shadowy basements of the Internet out into the open. Across the board, the movement operates on the conviction that the U.S. government is keeping the whole truth under wraps. And that it either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and rolling back civil liberties at home."
Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home
neither Right or Left

My Photo
Location: Albuquerque, The Homeland

So when do we get invaded to remove the rogue government that spies on its own people, gases its own people during anti War protests, stages "terrorist" attacks, holds crooked elections, attacks other nations without cause, and uses torture on innocent people looking for WMD that don't exist?

200501 / 200502 / 200503 / 200504 / 200505 / 200506 / 200507 / 200508 / 200509 / 200510 / 200511 / 200512 / 200601 / 200602 / 200603 / 200604 / 200605 / 200606 / 200607 / 200608 / 200609 / 200610 / 200702 / 200703 / 200704 / 201004 /

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]