The Genocidal Policies of the US

Abu-Alwafa · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

The Genocidal Policies of the US
By Kareem M. Kamel

Researcher - International Relations

There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing
illegal weapons of mass destruction - yet we are using weapons of mass
destruction ourselves. Such double-standards are repellent.1

- Professor Doug Rokke, Former Director of the US army's Depleted Uranium
Project

We had a great day. We killed a lot of people.2

- Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, Fifth Marine Regiment, March 29th, 2003

With the international media deliberately focused on overly publicized,
highly exaggerated images of a few Iraqis dancing in the streets of Iraq,
most international observers were spared images of the horrific devastation
inflicted on the civilian population of Iraq. The tons of missiles and bombs
being hurled at Iraq caused unspeakable savagery in a country that had
already been bombed to the pre-industrial age in the 1991 Gulf War and
devastated by more than twelve years of US-instigated sanctions. The current
strategy of the US in its wars against both Afghanistan and Iraq is the
ultimate culmination of its disregard for the sanctity of human life and its
obliviousness to the human cost of war, as long as those bearing the brunt
of its military actions are hapless civilians in Islamic countries with no
recourse to the giant apologetic propaganda machine that the US has at its
disposal.

Despite multiple atrocities and flagrantly genocidal policies by the US in
both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US suddenly discovered the virtues of
international law when five of its captured soldiers were displayed on Iraqi
television. Donald Rumsfeld, the champion of mass distortion, immediately
complained that "it is against international law to show photographs of
prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating to them."

Still more to read:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U16725BB5

[1] Neil Mackay, "US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is Illegal," Su
nday Herald March 30th 2003

[2] Nidal Sakr, "The Shock and Awe Photo Gallery," April 23rd, 2003

Archived from group: aus>education

Max · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

"Ian McFadyen" wrote in message news:...
> So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you want to
> happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
> withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
> tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
> recommendation.

I don't care too much about his attitude, but your reply is very
interesting. You see, I don't understand few things:

What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
some ruined arabic country?

Max

Ian McFadyen · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

"Abu-Alwafa" wrote in message$f7.117346@localhost...
> In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
>
> The Genocidal Policies of the US
> By Kareem M. Kamel
>
> Researcher - International Relations
>
> There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing
> illegal weapons of mass destruction - yet we are using weapons of mass
> destruction ourselves. Such double-standards are repellent.1
>
> - Professor Doug Rokke, Former Director of the US army's Depleted Uranium
> Project
>
> We had a great day. We killed a lot of people.2
>
> - Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, Fifth Marine Regiment, March 29th, 2003
>
> With the international media deliberately focused on overly publicized,
> highly exaggerated images of a few Iraqis dancing in the streets of Iraq,
> most international observers were spared images of the horrific
devastation
> inflicted on the civilian population of Iraq. The tons of missiles and
bombs
> being hurled at Iraq caused unspeakable savagery in a country that had
> already been bombed to the pre-industrial age in the 1991 Gulf War and
> devastated by more than twelve years of US-instigated sanctions. The
current
> strategy of the US in its wars against both Afghanistan and Iraq is the
> ultimate culmination of its disregard for the sanctity of human life and
its
> obliviousness to the human cost of war, as long as those bearing the brunt
> of its military actions are hapless civilians in Islamic countries with no
> recourse to the giant apologetic propaganda machine that the US has at its
> disposal.
>
> Despite multiple atrocities and flagrantly genocidal policies by the US in
> both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US suddenly discovered the virtues of
> international law when five of its captured soldiers were displayed on
Iraqi
> television. Donald Rumsfeld, the champion of mass distortion, immediately
> complained that "it is against international law to show photographs of
> prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating to them."
>
> Still more to read:
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U16725BB5
>
> [1] Neil Mackay, "US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is Illegal,"
Su
> nday Herald March 30th 2003
>
> [2] Nidal Sakr, "The Shock and Awe Photo Gallery," April 23rd, 2003
>
So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you want to
happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
recommendation.

Ian McFadyen · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

"Max" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> "Ian McFadyen" wrote in message
news:...
> > So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you want
to
> > happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
> > withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
> > tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
> > recommendation.
>
> I don't care too much about his attitude, but your reply is very
> interesting. You see, I don't understand few things:
>
> What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
> globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
> will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
> care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
> some ruined arabic country?

Well this is central question. The US is spending a billion dollars trying
to rebuild this country and people are BITCHING about it. People like the
phony Moslem Abu-Alwafa are suggesting the US is committing war crimes etc
so I say to this pompous prick, what do you want to happen. The issue is,
okay let's say the Yanks pull out. What happens next? This country is broke.
Nothing works - not because of the war but because thirty years of Saddam's
rule left it unable to govern itself. There would be two outcomes of the US
pulling out - firstly a total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass
starvation and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is why the US is
going to stay.

Gregory Shearman · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 13

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:48:17 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
>>
>So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you want to
>happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
>withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
>tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
>recommendation.

US forces out...

Reparations of 100 billion to be paid by the US, UK and
Australia (and other members of the COW) to Iraq for the
purposes of rebuilding what the invaders destroyed. Immediate
lifting of sanctions.

--

Regards,

Gregory.

"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."

Gregory Shearman · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 13

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:28:24 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
>>
>> What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
>> globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
>> will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
>> care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
>> some ruined arabic country?
>
>Well this is central question. The US is spending a billion dollars trying
>to rebuild this country and people are BITCHING about it. People like the
>phony Moslem Abu-Alwafa are suggesting the US is committing war crimes etc
>so I say to this pompous prick, what do you want to happen. The issue is,
>okay let's say the Yanks pull out. What happens next? This country is broke.

100 billion in war reparations paid by the COW...

>Nothing works - not because of the war but because thirty years of Saddam's
>rule left it unable to govern itself.

This is a lie. This was one of the most prosperous countries in
the ME before the USA started meddling.

>There would be two outcomes of the US pulling out - firstly a
>total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass starvation
>and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
>revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is
>why the US is going to stay.

Can't have people deciding their own fate, eh?

--

Regards,

Gregory.

"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."

Ian McFadyen · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

"Gregory Shearman" wrote in message$d6.113307@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:28:24 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
> >>
> >> What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
> >> globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
> >> will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
> >> care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
> >> some ruined arabic country?
> >
> >Well this is central question. The US is spending a billion dollars
trying
> >to rebuild this country and people are BITCHING about it. People like the
> >phony Moslem Abu-Alwafa are suggesting the US is committing war crimes
etc
> >so I say to this pompous prick, what do you want to happen. The issue is,
> >okay let's say the Yanks pull out. What happens next? This country is
broke.
>
> 100 billion in war reparations paid by the COW...
>
> >Nothing works - not because of the war but because thirty years of
Saddam's
> >rule left it unable to govern itself.
>
> This is a lie. This was one of the most prosperous countries in
> the ME before the USA started meddling.
>
> >There would be two outcomes of the US pulling out - firstly a
> >total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass starvation
> >and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
> >revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is
> >why the US is going to stay.
>
> Can't have people deciding their own fate, eh?
>
The whole point is to build a country where the people CAN decide their own
fate. If the US forces pulled out, ordinary Iraqis would find their country
quickly ruled either by the relics of Saddam's forces, or organised crime,
or Islamic clerics - none of which count as legitimate governments.

Max · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

"fasgnadh" wrote in message news:...

> Don't be so modest, you clearly don't understand anything. Wink

I hope this is a sarcasm because I was already aware of everything you
said in your post below Smile

> Because they will lose control of the oil, and will have killed 30,000
> people and caused the death of hundreds of USSA and british troops
> for .....NOTHING! B^p

Well US$ was rising EUR was falling, untill some "Mustafa" blew the
oil pipe ..

> Only, in fact, they will have created a whole new batch of enemies,
> including widows and orphans wanting revenge.

Is there any reasonable explanation for that?

> Shit.. how can they hope to maintain the Empire if they can't
> even deal with broken backed, third world backwaters like
> Afghanistan and Iraq?

I don't know ...

Max

Max · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

"Ian McFadyen" wrote in message news:...

> Well this is central question. The US is spending a billion dollars trying
> to rebuild this country and people are BITCHING about it. People like the
> phony Moslem Abu-Alwafa are suggesting the US is committing war crimes etc
> so I say to this pompous prick, what do you want to happen. The issue is,
> okay let's say the Yanks pull out.

The first thing that was rebuilt in Iraq was not some hospital,
clinic, orphanage or homeless shelter but it was OIL transportation
system! Why?

What happens next? This country is broke.
> Nothing works - not because of the war but because thirty years of Saddam's
> rule left it unable to govern itself. There would be two outcomes of the US
> pulling out - firstly a total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass
> starvation and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
> revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is why the US is
> going to stay.

A very good explanation but I don't think theese are the top ten
reasons.

Max

JD · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

In @posting.google.com,
Max presented us with:
> "Ian McFadyen" wrote in message
> news:...
>> So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you
>> want to
>> happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
>> withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
>> tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
>> recommendation.
>
> I don't care too much about his attitude, but your reply is very
> interesting. You see, I don't understand few things:
>
> What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
> globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
> will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
> care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
> some ruined arabic country?

Probably because they ruined it

Gregory Shearman · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 13

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:23:07 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
>>
>> >There would be two outcomes of the US pulling out - firstly a
>> >total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass starvation
>> >and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
>> >revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is
>> >why the US is going to stay.
>>
>> Can't have people deciding their own fate, eh?
>>
>The whole point is to build a country where the people CAN decide their own
>fate.

Like they did in Iran with the Shah, eh?

History repeats...

>If the US forces pulled out, ordinary Iraqis would find their country
>quickly ruled either by the relics of Saddam's forces, or organised crime,
>or Islamic clerics - none of which count as legitimate governments.

So? Legitimacy is an external process... all it takes is
recognition....

--

Regards,

Gregory.

"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."

Franc Zabkar · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

On 29 Aug 2003 02:05:38 -0700, grubicm@hotmail.com (Max) put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>"Ian McFadyen" wrote in message news:...
>> So getting past all the rubric and rhetoric, tell us: What do you want to
>> happen now? Tell us simply and clearly. Do you want the US forces to
>> withdraw immediately? And if so, how can we stop prevent the country
>> tumbling into chaos? Who will rebuild Iraq. Just give us your
>> recommendation.
>
>I don't care too much about his attitude, but your reply is very
>interesting. You see, I don't understand few things:
>
>What is a problem for US if a coutry which is on the other side of the
>globe tumbles into chaos? Why sould US care about that? You asked "Who
>will rebuild Iraq" ... Why don't US just let the Iraqi people take
>care of themselves? Why should US citizens waste their tax money on
>some ruined arabic country?

Because if they don't, the world will see a new Islamistan run by yet
another Mullah Fullah-Bullah.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

Ian McFadyen · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

"Gregory Shearman" wrote in message$d6.118017@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:23:07 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
> >>
> >> >There would be two outcomes of the US pulling out - firstly a
> >> >total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass starvation
> >> >and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
> >> >revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is
> >> >why the US is going to stay.
> >>
> >> Can't have people deciding their own fate, eh?
> >>
> >The whole point is to build a country where the people CAN decide their
own
> >fate.
>
> Like they did in Iran with the Shah, eh?
>
> History repeats...
>
> >If the US forces pulled out, ordinary Iraqis would find their country
> >quickly ruled either by the relics of Saddam's forces, or organised
crime,
> >or Islamic clerics - none of which count as legitimate governments.
>
> So? Legitimacy is an external process... all it takes is
> recognition....
>
What? Can you explain that cryptic statement?

Gregory Shearman · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 13

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:38:47 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
>> >The whole point is to build a country where the people CAN decide their
>own
>> >fate.
>>
>> Like they did in Iran with the Shah, eh?
>>
>> History repeats...
>>
>> >If the US forces pulled out, ordinary Iraqis would find their country
>> >quickly ruled either by the relics of Saddam's forces, or organised
>crime,
>> >or Islamic clerics - none of which count as legitimate governments.
>>
>> So? Legitimacy is an external process... all it takes is
>> recognition....
>>
>What? Can you explain that cryptic statement?

For a government to become "legitimate", all it takes is
recognition by another sovereign nation not involved in the
government coup... as has happened in Pakistan.

--

Regards,

Gregory.

"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."

Warren · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:38:47 +1000, "Ian McFadyen"
wrote:

>
>"Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
>$d6.118017@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:23:07 +1000, Ian McFadyen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >There would be two outcomes of the US pulling out - firstly a
>> >> >total breakdown of the society, rule by gangs, mass starvation
>> >> >and a huge humanitarian crisis and secondly a Shi'ite Moslem
>> >> >revolution and another fundamentalist Islamic state. This is
>> >> >why the US is going to stay.
>> >>
>> >> Can't have people deciding their own fate, eh?
>> >>
>> >The whole point is to build a country where the people CAN decide their
>own
>> >fate.
>>
>> Like they did in Iran with the Shah, eh?
>>
>> History repeats...
>>
>> >If the US forces pulled out, ordinary Iraqis would find their country
>> >quickly ruled either by the relics of Saddam's forces, or organised
>crime,
>> >or Islamic clerics - none of which count as legitimate governments.
>>
>> So? Legitimacy is an external process... all it takes is
>> recognition....
>>
>What? Can you explain that cryptic statement?

I think he means that one man's legitimate govt is another another
man's junta/warlord/dictatorship/whatever. Depends on who you talk to.
Saddam's govt , for example, was at one point considered the
legitimate govt of Iraq by Donald Rumsfeld. Why, I've even seen a
picture of the two men shaking hands!