The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

[48Highlander]

It seems to me that anyone with a view other than that of your 'enlightened self' is accused of spouting BS and you feel the need to question their integrity or intelligence...while you honestly believe that you are the only one who KNOWS and SPEAKS the truth.

I see you've met, observed, analyzed, and effectively categorized Britney all in one day.  Good job!

 

[Dare]

Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS. Why don't you enlighten me about all the "Caucasian countries" currently being subjugated by Arabs? I'm afraid my liberal media has said nothing about it.

It was a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the Sudan doesn't ring any bells of a racially motivated war conducted by Arabs against Blacks? Maybe blacks world wide would be justified in waging a jihad against these imperialists? OR would it be racist to invade the Sudan to prevent this racially motivated genocide because we'd be fighting "them over there"?

Read my post. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it?

Weak response.

Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?

My point is proving you are a hypocrite. Which I have successfully done. Good day.

 

[armyvern]

I see you've met, observed, analyzed, and effectively categorized Britney all in one day.   Good job!

Well, I guess unlike her observation that I know nothing...I may perhaps know at least something after all...My parents will feel better knowing that they did not waste all my tuiton for Mount A...and that I actually learned about the locals when deployed and how much 99% of them support and agree with what we are doing....not just the media spin which leaves much much much to be desired.

 

[Scott]

Let's keep it civil please.

 

[Kirkhill]

Women could drive cars and go to University in Iraq. Iraq was the most secular, non-radical Arab country of them all. Better go get some more Kool-Aid.

JFHC - yes they could drive a car until Uday decided that they were pretty hot - then he could rape them at leisure.  If they squawked then he would kill them.  If they didn't their brothers or fathers would kill them.  If their brothers tried to intervene to prevent their sister taken in the first place they were fed to the meat grinders in Abu Ghraib.  

Crooks, smugglers and terrorists were all tolerated by Saddam as long as they didn't cross his patch and fed him enough graft.  That apparently included Arab socialists, Shia clerics, Russian arms manufacturers, French oil companies, Scots politicians, Canadian bureaucrats and American businessmen as well as local tribal sheikhs - a veritable model of modern internationalism.

You lot don't flaming get it do you. It is all about order - that is what the Iraqi's are clamouring for now, the imposition of order but a just order.  Saddam's mates, the Sunni Arabs and secular socialists (he only found religion after Gulf War I) are ultimately pissed because there was order and risk for them was low and manageable while benefits were high.  For the other 80% that couldn't go to university, couldn't learn english, were being gassed, slaughtered, driven out of their marshes by thirst there were damfew benefits to that ORDER.  

In the meantime those that greased Saddam's palm could do as the damwellpleased.  There was no obligation on his part to support international order.  His country, as much as Afghanistan, the Sahel and the High Seas was a place without controls, where criminals and anybody else could do what the wanted.

The West cannot tolerate that lack of order.  The Iraqis, and every other sentient being, craves order to get on with their lives.  But it must be a JUST order and OBLs Sharia based Order can never be JUST.

Every liberal notion that you have has come from people that encouraged and incubated free thought and expression. Often they had to impose those freedoms on others - forcing others to accept that kidnapping brides was not acceptable in Scotland, nor was Blackmail. Forcing people to accept the authority of parliament, not the local clergyman. Forcing people to accept that suttee, the practice of burning widows, was abhorrent.  Forcing people to accept that slavery was not acceptable much less ordained by God or Allah.  Forcing people to forebear from raiding into Britain or Russia to kidnap people for ransom or to be sold into slavery in the Middle East.  


None of the people indulging in those practices, those decidedly illiberal practices welcomed being required to stop.  To cease and desist. They regularly rallied their troops on the basis of blood, nationality, race and religion.  Those us and them divisors are as ancient as Cain and Abel, if you are believer, at least as ancient as the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians if you aint.

Your peace that permits you the opportunity to spout is only the result of imposed order.  The real threat to the world just now is the breakdown of order.  Somebody has to impose it and frankly I would rather that it was folks that permitted folks like you to speak as you wish.  

Please feel free to keep on speaking.  It is your right.  A right whose observance is imposed on the rest of us by the force of law, backed up by the police and the army.

I will exercise my rights and start ignoring you.

I regret that my country IS being run by the likes of you.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Damn, I wish I could write like that, good post and message.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Kirkhill, well said.

 

[Britney Spears]

It was a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the Sudan doesn't ring any bells of a racially motivated war conducted by Arabs against Blacks? Maybe blacks world wide would be justified in waging a jihad against these imperialists? OR would it be racist to invade the Sudan to prevent this racially motivated genocide because we'd be fighting "them over there"?

Oh, so now it's HYPOTHETICAL....

I'm not against foreign intervention in Sudan, but I don't know what any of this has to do with Iraq.

JFHC - yes they could drive a car until Uday decided that they were pretty hot - then he could rape them at leisure.  If they squawked then he would kill them.  If they didn't their brothers or fathers would kill them.  If their brothers tried to intervene to prevent their sister taken in the first place they were fed to the meat grinders in Abu Ghraib. 

Crooks, smugglers and terrorists were all tolerated by Saddam as long as they didn't cross his patch and fed him enough graft.  That apparently included Arab socialists, Shia clerics, Russian arms manufacturers, French oil companies, Scots politicians, Canadian bureaucrats and American businessmen as well as local tribal sheikhs - a veritable model of modern internationalism.

You lot don't flaming get it do you. It is all about order - that is what the Iraqi's are clamouring for now, the imposition of order but a just order.  Saddam's mates, the Sunni Arabs and secular socialists (he only found religion after Gulf War I) are ultimately pissed because there was order and risk for them was low and manageable while benefits were high.  For the other 80% that couldn't go to university, couldn't learn english, were being gassed, slaughtered, driven out of their marshes by thirst there were damfew benefits to that ORDER. 

In the meantime those that greased Saddam's palm could do as the damwellpleased.  There was no obligation on his part to support international order.  His country, as much as Afghanistan, the Sahel and the High Seas was a place without controls, where criminals and anybody else could do what the wanted.

The West cannot tolerate that lack of order.  The Iraqis, and every other sentient being, craves order to get on with their lives.  But it must be a JUST order and OBLs Sharia based Order can never be JUST.

Every liberal notion that you have has come from people that encouraged and incubated free thought and expression. Often they had to impose those freedoms on others - forcing others to accept that kidnapping brides was not acceptable in Scotland, nor was Blackmail. Forcing people to accept the authority of parliament, not the local clergyman. Forcing people to accept that suttee, the practice of burning widows, was abhorrent.  Forcing people to accept that slavery was not acceptable much less ordained by God or Allah.  Forcing people to forebear from raiding into Britain or Russia to kidnap people for ransom or to be sold into slavery in the Middle East. 


None of the people indulging in those practices, those decidedly illiberal practices welcomed being required to stop.  To cease and desist. They regularly rallied their troops on the basis of blood, nationality, race and religion.  Those us and them divisors are as ancient as Cain and Abel, if you are believer, at least as ancient as the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians if you aint.

Your peace that permits you the opportunity to spout is only the result of imposed order.  The real threat to the world just now is the breakdown of order.  Somebody has to impose it and frankly I would rather that it was folks that permitted folks like you to speak as you wish. 

Please feel free to keep on speaking.  It is your right.  A right whose observance is imposed on the rest of us by the force of law, backed up by the police and the army.

I will exercise my rights and start ignoring you.

I regret that my country IS being run by the likes of you.

That's nice, got anything relevent or on-topic to add?

For that matter, what exactly are you disagreeing with?  ???

 

[armyvern]

Once again Ms. Spears... it would seem that it's only relevant or on-topic if it's you that's posted it or if it backs up your position.

Quit insulting people. We're not as stupid or naive as you like to state.

And as for the "I don't know if any of this has to do with Iraq" comment, it seems it's alright if you yourself interject comments that have nothing to do with it ie "the fighting in the streets (Katrina)" comment so do us all a favour and stop slamming others acting in same said manner as yourself. 

 

[wongskc]

I fail to see how Britney's last response was insulting.

Britney was refering to Iraqi society as a whole re: rights of women, etc. while Kirkhill took the case of one individual from Iraq that had immunity from the state's law.






Edited to explain my postion better.

 

[armyvern]

I find it insulting in that each time someone posts a view contrary to her own she deems it "irrelevant", off topic, or feels the need to ask them "do you know ANYTHING?" It is not becoming.

I would argue that the overwhelming portion of Iraqi society as a whole feels a whole lot better now that Mr Hussein is no longer the leader of their past "most secular and anti-radical" country as many including Kirkhill have attempted to point out... Just my point of view.  :-\

 

[tomahawk6]

What you expect from someone who is gender confused ? By this I mean Britanny internet nic and in real life is a guy. Dont let him/her get under your skin.

 

[Britney Spears]

Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic), and ad hominem attacks (thanks tomahawk6, really raising the standards here)  I asked you a question:
Pretend I am an average, moderate Iraqi and explain to me how you morally justify "fighting them over there", an action which has resulted in massive destruction of my homeland and the death of thousands of my countrymen. You have offered nothing,  aside from:

Not every Iraqi has seen loved ones killed by Coalition forces. Although many Iraqis can say they have lost loved ones to Saddam Hussain.

 

and something or other about your mother. How charming.

And you were still wondering why they fight? No, according to you, they are not fighting at all!

Maybe there is a reason that in a country with 26 million people and twice that in rifles hasn't risen up.

There is no Iraqi resistance, American troops are not getting blown up, the article that Infanteer posted, and all the articles that I've posted saying the same thing, are just liberal lies. The title of the thread is a lie. Everything is just going peachy. Hail Bush.  :

Do you have a serious answer? I'm still listening.


By the way, here's a pretty damn good reason why they're fighting.

Published on Monday, July 25, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Shots to the Heart of Iraq
Innocent civilians, including people who are considered vital to building democracy, are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops
by Richard Paddock


BAGHDAD - Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.


'AMERICANS ARE RECKLESS'
Police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji was hit by bullet fragments when U.S. troops shot at two men he was dropping off on his way to work in Baghdad. One of them died. (Saad Khalaf / For The Times)
At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan's driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.

The soldiers drove on without stopping.

This kind of shooting is far from rare in Baghdad, but the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.

"The reason they shot us is just because the Americans are reckless," the general said from his hospital bed hours after the July 6 shooting, his head wrapped in a white bandage. "Nobody punishes them or blames them."

Angered by the growing number of unarmed civilians killed by American troops in recent weeks, the Iraqi government criticized the shootings and called on U.S. troops to exercise greater care.

U.S. officials have repeatedly declined requests to disclose the number of civilians killed in such incidents. Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 â ” an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police.

The continued shooting of civilians is fueling a growing dislike of the United States and undermining efforts to convince the public that American soldiers are here to help. The victims have included doctors, journalists, a professor â ” the kind of people the U.S. is counting on to help build an open and democratic society.

"Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition," said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. "The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them."

Among the biggest threats U.S. forces face are suicide attacks. Soldiers are exposed as they stand watch at checkpoints or ride on patrol in the turrets of their Humvees. The willingness of the assailants to die makes the attacks difficult to guard against. By their nature, the bombings erode the troops' trust of the public; every civilian becomes suspect.

U.S. military officials say the troops must protect themselves by shooting the driver of any suspicious vehicle before it reaches them.

Heavily armed private security contractors, who number in the tens of thousands, also are authorized by the U.S. government to use deadly force to protect themselves.

One contractor who works for the U.S. government and saw a colleague killed in a suicide bombing said it was better to shoot an innocent person than to risk being killed.

"I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six," said the contractor, who insisted that he not be identified by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The U.S. military says it investigates all shootings by American personnel that result in death. But U.S. Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the multinational force in Iraq, said he was unaware of any soldier disciplined for shooting a civilian at a checkpoint or in traffic. Findings are seldom made public.

A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said "making no new enemies" was one of the military's priorities. At the same time, he said, "it's still a combat zone. There are going to be times when what the soldier needs to do and what the civilian feels he should be able to do come into conflict."

On June 27, the day he turned 49, Salah Jmor arrived in Baghdad to visit his family.

His father, Abdul-Rihman Jmor, is the chief of a Kurdish clan that numbers more than 20,000. Salah had left Iraq 25 years ago for Switzerland, where he earned a doctorate in international relations and eventually became a Swiss citizen.

For a decade, he represented Iraqi Kurds at the United Nations Office at Geneva. In 1988, he helped call the world's attention to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja and the massacre of at least 100,000 Kurds in what is known as the Anfal campaign.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Salah Jmor was offered a post in the new Iraqi government. But he turned it down, preferring to remain in Geneva, where he was an associate professor at the Center for International and Comparative Programs of Kent State University of Ohio.

The morning after he arrived in Baghdad, he decided to go with his younger brother, architect Abdul-Jabbar Jmor, to his office. Abdul-Jabbar, 38, drove his Opel hatchback down the eight-lane Mohammed Qasim highway through central Baghdad. It was 9:30 a.m. and many vehicles were on the road.

The Opel hatchback is a model favored by insurgents.

The brothers were in the fast lane as a U.S. military convoy of three Humvees was entering the highway from the Gailani onramp. Neither of them saw the soldiers, Abdul-Jabbar said.

Abruptly, Salah slumped over into his brother's lap. Abdul-Jabbar asked what was wrong and then saw blood pouring from Salah's head. There was a single bullet hole in the windshield.

He saw the convoy moving ahead as he pulled over to the side of the road. He said he had seen no signal to slow down and heard no warning shot.

The soldiers turned around and came back a few minutes later. One said he was sorry, Abdul-Jabbar said. Together they waited more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive.

"I asked them, 'Why didn't you shoot me? I am the driver,' " Abdul-Jabbar recalled. "But they didn't answer me."

Abdul-Jabbar said he and his family had supported the U.S. troops when they first invaded Iraq, but no longer.

"This kind of incident makes people hate the Americans more and more," he said. "They don't care about the lives of the people. Each day they make new enemies."

Switzerland has requested an explanation of Jmor's killing. In Washington, the State Department said the United States had sent its condolences to the Swiss government and Jmor's family and that the Pentagon had begun an investigation. In Baghdad, Abdul-Jabbar said the family had met with the Swiss ambassador but had received no expression of condolences from the U.S. government. No U.S. investigator has contacted the family, he added.

There is a strong tradition of revenge in Iraq's tribal culture. The killing of such a prominent clan member could have triggered a bloodbath that would claim 200 lives, said the patriarch, Abdul-Rihman. But the Jmors, a well-educated family of doctors and engineers, say they want the judicial process to hold Salah's killer accountable.

"People say if they kill my brother, I have to kill one of them," Abdul-Jabbar said. "But I believe in justice. I can't just go kill them. The United States says it is the leader of justice in the world. Let us see that."

In Iraq, the U.S. military has redefined the rules of the road.

Military checkpoints â ” elaborate affairs with mazes of concrete barriers, razor wire and snipers' nests â ” have been set up at intersections all over Baghdad. Signs are posted in English and Arabic saying "Deadly Force Authorized." Cars that approach too quickly risk being fired upon by troops who shoot to kill.

At times, troops set up temporary checkpoints during raids or other military operations. These can be even more dangerous for civilians because they can appear on city streets without warning.

Military convoys, usually made up of three Humvees, patrol the streets. In each vehicle, a gunner stands with his upper body partially exposed and ready to operate a machine gun mounted on the roof. For troops, it is among the most hazardous places to be in Iraq.

The military expects all vehicles to stay at least 100 yards from a convoy. When cars come too close, troops signal them to move back, sometimes by waving a little stop sign and sometimes by holding up a clenched fist.

Some Iraqis say the fist can be easy to miss. It also can be confusing for motorists in Iraq, where the normal signal for stop is an upraised open hand, as it is in the United States.

On the highway, traffic normally bunches up well behind the American Hummers. But keeping the required distance from a convoy can be difficult when the military vehicles unexpectedly change course or merge onto a highway.

The U.S. rules of engagement call for "escalation of force" when a vehicle comes too close. Soldiers are trained to give hand and arm signals first, then fire warning shots and ultimately shoot to kill, the senior U.S. official said.

"Nothing in the rules of engagement takes away the right of self-defense for him and his buddies if the soldier feels threatened," he said. More than 1,770 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq theater since the March 2003 invasion.

Despite the rising number of civilian deaths, the official said escalation-of-force incidents had fallen by half in the past four months. He declined to provide specific figures.

According to one European diplomat, the American military's emphasis on protecting its troops has made U.S. soldiers more likely to kill and injure civilians than are other members of the coalition, such as the British, who are stationed in southern Iraq.

"The U.S. has force protection as their No. 1 priority," said the diplomat, who asked not to be identified because his remarks did not have his government's prior approval.

"The British have it as a priority, but not by any stretch the absolute priority. I think that makes the U.S. soldiers more jumpy."

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the transitional National Assembly, said he personally knew three people, including Salah Jmor, who had been shot and killed by U.S. troops during traffic incidents. Of the other two, one was an athlete, the other a doctor who had been called to her hospital to handle an emergency.

"I understand American soldiers are nervous. It's very dangerous," said Othman, who was a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council that helped run Iraq after the invasion. "But the killings are undermining support for the U.S. government. It has helped people who call themselves the opposition. It has helped terrorism."

A recent case highlighted by the Iraqi government in its criticism of the U.S. was the June 24 killing of Yasser Salihee, 30, an Iraqi special correspondent for Knight-Ridder newspapers. Salihee, a physician, had taken a rare day off and planned to take his wife and daughter swimming. He went to get gasoline and was returning home at midmorning. By then, U.S. troops were conducting a military operation in his neighborhood. It appears he did not see them until it was too late.

The route he chose was not blocked off and there was no sign warning motorists to halt, witnesses say. As he neared the scene of the military operation, a U.S. Army sniper fired at his car. One bullet hit a tire. The other hit Salihee in the forehead. That bullet also severed fingers on his right hand, indicating he was holding up at least one of his hands at the time he was killed. U.S. officials are investigating the shooting.

Salihee's widow, Raghad al Wazzan, said she accepted the American soldiers' presence when they first arrived in Iraq because "they came and liberated us." She sometimes helped them at the hospital where she works as a doctor. But not anymore.

"Now, after they killed my husband, I hate them," she said. "I want to blow them all up."

 

[48Highlander]

Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic), and ad hominem attacks (thanks tomahawk6, really raising the standards here)   I asked you a question:
Pretend I am an average, moderate Iraqi and explain to me how you morally justify "fighting them over there", an action which has resulted in massive destruction of my homeland and the death of thousands of my countrymen. You have offered nothing,   aside from:

There is no Iraqi resistance, American troops are not getting blown up, the article that Infanteer posted, and all the articles that I've posted saying the same thing, are just liberal lies. The title of the thread is a lie. Everything is just going peachy. Hail Bush.   :

Do you have a serious answer? I'm still listening.

You don't ask questions Britney, you make statements phrased to superficialy look like questions.  You talk about people here using a "typical conservative tactic", but you yourself use a "typical liberal tactic" - taking a bunch of unproven baseless allegations and generalizations, lumping them together into a "question", and then repeating them endlesly and pretending to be surprised when nobody answers you.  AND the odd time that someone takes the time to answer you, you shift topics or make a sarcastic comment, or find some other way to dismiss them, after which you go back to asking the same "question".  You're this boards very own Cindy Sheehan.

 

[armyvern]

Dare, before your cohorts derailed the discussion with a whole page of meaningless, irrelevent polemic and flag waving (a typical conservative tactic)

A typical liberal response...

And I am quite sure that you are the one who brought the "secure SUV mom into this discussion" how soon you forget.  

 

[Britney Spears]

Which one of my allegations are baseless? Do you dispute the fact that:

-  Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?

-  Most Iraqis are moderate?

- The Iraqis were not behind 9/11?

- Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?

With answers like this, am I supposed to be "suprised"?

 

[48Highlander]

Which one of my allegations are baseless? Do you dispute the fact that:

-   Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?

-   Most Iraqis are moderate?

- The Iraqis were not behind 9/11?

- Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?

With answers like this, am I supposed to be "suprised"?

Your memory must be a little spotty....let me refresh it.  Here's your original "question":

Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?

So originaly, you make the following allegations:

1)  The war in Iraq was a "blatant war of agression"
2)  Iraq is ebing run by "foreign soldiers, or foreign muslim extremists"

in addition you imply that:

1)  The war was at least partialy motivated by race - that to the US administration the lives of "brown untermensch" are worthless.
2)  That the US is intentionaly causing "a constant state of terror"
3)  That the war was fought in order to gain access to oil.
and finaly
4)  That my mom's SUV is somehow the cause of all that is evil in this world.


Where in that entire diatribe do you cove any of the following things:

-   Many Iraqi civillians have been killed and injured during the war, and there has been a lot of damage to the infrastructure?
-   Most Iraqis are moderate?
- The Iraqis were not behind 9/11?
- Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?

Take your time.

I'll be here waiting when you come up with another way to try and swing our attention off of your initial statements.

 

[armyvern]

Brittany, No-one disputed your "facts" just your generalization that most Iraqis felt the same way. Fact of the matter is it sells more newspapers to show death and destruction, bombed Iraqi civilians and protests against the coalition forces than it does to show them talking with the troops, expressing their appreciation for Saddam's ouster and the troops working with locals to restore same infrastructure, and to allow them the right to vote. Please note that there are a hell of a lot more average Iraqis lining up to join their military and Police Forces, and run-in and partake in the elections than there are radical extremists lining up to blow themselves up, as a matter of fact I believe the extremists take no prisoners when it comes to blowing up the same innocent population when they do go out and vote yet that hasn't stopped the average Iraqi from doing so. Majority rules and right now the majority of Iraqis seem to be working towards that which will give them a better life in the long run...freely and fairly with their ballets not their bombs.

 

[Britney Spears]

Well, the upside is that argueing with you  doesn't actually take very long.

1)  The war in Iraq was a "blatant war of agression"

Absolutely, do you dispute this? Or are you claiming that Iraq has engaged in a unilateral act of war against the US?

2)  Iraq is ebing run by "foreign soldiers, or foreign muslim extremists"

Absolutely, do you dispute this? Or Americans are not foreign?

1)  The war was at least partialy motivated by race - that to the US administration the lives of "brown untermensch" are worthless.

I am claiming that US public opinion on the Iraq war was motivated at least partially by race, due to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs, and that Arab terrorism has long been a public spectacle. This IMO is ignorance.

2)  That the US is intentionaly causing "a constant state of terror"

The US intentionally started a war which is causing this situation. Do you dispute this?

3)  That the war was fought in order to gain access to oil.

Absolutely, do you dispute this?

4)  That my mom's SUV is somehow the cause of all that is evil in this world.

I never said anything about your mom, but it's true that I dislike people who drive SUVs soley for the sake  of appearances.

Where in that entire diatribe do you cove any of the following things:

If you are not going to read what you quote, then stop wasting my time.

I didn't claim in my original post that

- Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives?

But I thought that was kind of obvious. Maybe it's different in Toronto?

 

[armyvern]

Well, the upside is that argueing with you   doesn't actually take very long.

I never said anything about your mom, but it's true that I dislike people who drive SUVs soley for the sake   of appearances.

Actually Brittany what you said was "Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown   untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?"

???

Edited to add: "and my how you do like to argue."