CheesalaIsGood

Again, if it kills the Dems, why would you care? Because a one-party state is very much not in anybody's interests. -=Mike This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I know. I voted for the guy IN New Hampshire and even I'm like "Yanno, Ralph. I just want the fucking thing to be over!" Now just go get a job at Crossfire and beat up Novak daily.

Somebody call my momma!

Well the point is to make any wondering about whether or not anyone misses Saddam as moot. For certain Iraqis, its just Monday today. No different from any other. But hey they must be guilty of something. Right?

Internet threats are the best. oh and two words.... Rape Rooms. http://slate.msn.com/id/2100014/

So lame. Even if it was found that Republicans were stuffing the proverbial ballot boxes with giant golden ~W~ its not gonna make a lick of difference. They have the power now and thats how its gonna be. And yes, I threw away my vote on Nader. I guess that makes me a terrorist. Officially. Allah Akbar.

Haven't watched much TV lately but I have seen this in several places on-line. News seemed to have come to a crawl anyway post-election. People are tired. As far as the french go... Projection can be a telling thing when it comes to the truth.

Neal Boortz: Don't know him. Glenn Beck: Eh, only heard him a couple of times. Wasn't in to it. Tim Russert: Seems like a good guy. I'm with KKK on this. Dennis Miller: Punk bitch sell out. How he got where he is from where he came from confuses the shit out of me. The HBO show was awesome stuff back in the day. Now I don't know who he is anymore. Michael Medved: Douche Bag. He is a nobody. Bill O'Reilly: Hate his fucking guts. What he did to that kid whose father died during 9-11 was unforgivable. Still I am compelled beyond my comprehention to watch. Sort of like passing a car wreck. Jon Stewart: Funny stuff from the Daily Show. Wish I could catch it more often. Chris Matthews: Took me awhile to figure him out. Yeah he leans left but at first he seemed really conservative to me when I first saw his show. He is good at yelling. I fear his haircut. Rush: He has a great show. Yes, his humor is very underrated as I have often listened to his show over the years and had my fair share of laughs. Good for him losing the weight so the meatshits can have one less thing to jab at him about. The drugs scandal thing should just go away. Michael Savage: Asshole. Amusing asshole. Racist, homophobe and from what I heard today ( A Patriot Act) to sum it up he is a "Gay homophobe and a Nazi Jew". Thats right folks good old Weiner is gay, jewish and hates both of those things about himself and others. Do your own research. Or just read his first book. Ann Coulter: Ugliest neck in all humanity. Looks strung out on coke. Too bad wouldn't be bad looking otherwise. As far as her opinion on things? Just needs a muzzle. She needs to shut the fuck up. Ted Rall: Who? Laura Ingraham: Reaaly REALLY needs to get laid. Listen to her and Savage on my way to my 3rd shift zombie job. Unconvincing arguements that even GreatOne could counter. I will offer my services to straighten out that lack of sex problem. Hannity and Colmes: Both of them suck. Moreso Colmes cuz you know who the catcher is and who the pitcher is. Wolfie and the rest of CNN: I hate CNN. Boring boring boring.

Awesome stuff. The space battle stuff looks incredible. Sidious' teeth look nasty as ever.

Hey look you voted and they still don't care! Its almost like... YOU CAN DO NO RIGHT!!! Typical.

Neither did I fuckhead. I do not oppose America. I just oppose YOU.

Americans get what we deserve. And, Bush was the best possible President for these times. -=Mike Why does that NOT sound like an endorsement?

So is "Buffet Closed." I feel disenfranchised that Mikey didn't say anything to me. And to think I was going to wear my Mikey Moore is Fat t-shirt to the polls, but instead I went with I <{ Halliburton... Don't you mean I <3 Haliburton?

I was responding to Cheesalaisgood's general comment about teaching our kids not to fight, nothing more. It's an analogy Swift. Of course people are allowed to defend themselves. Our beef with AQ is entirly justified. I have never said otherwise. But I don't confuse any issue with Iraq with OBL and co.

Mike will take whatever the FNC says as gospel. Nope, no bias there! Same with CBS. Liberals do the same shit. You guys are coming from the point of view that there IS objectivity out there. Its what you SAY you expect. But apparently only from those you perceive to be on the left. The media is a huge problem since its not there to serve a public interest instead to make money from adverts. Big corporations folks. They have agendas. All that aside the point of my post was that what went down in AG makes me sick and I think that MY country should be taking the higher ground in cases like this. I'm really disappointed, because i see this as a bad setback when we are supposed to be winning the Iraqis "hearts and minds". Is that not a priority anymore? So that later down the road fewer of them will take the leap to terrorism and attack soldiers and other innocents. Its preventative maintenance folks. It was a fucking stupid mistake from which we will likely never be forgiven. Instead, we have a shitload of them pissed and fucking OBL has more ammo to rile them up. "Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is saying they lack the right to post brain-dead drivel. Just that you'd be a fucking moron of the highest level to buy it." -=Mike Oh I get it alright. Cuz no matter what anybody on the other side says you'd just tell them to shut up anyway regardless of "their right to speak". You'd have to be a fucking moron to only listen to one side of the story in the first place. Yanno, cuz things like listening and asking questions tend to get in the way of agendas. Besides don't assume that everything that everybody posts is something they 100% endorse as the gospel truth. Just differing opinions that I think should be heard and done with whatever the reader thinks. I don't blame you or anyone for being skeptical, Mike. But you cavalier attitude to just dismiss everything is tired. But I doubt you give a shit right? Thought so.

Is Ashley Banfield a republican? If so I will end up agreeing with Mike about the hotter chicks being GOP.

So if someone came up to you and punched you in the face, you would wanna sit down and talk right? ~No, I wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. Then again, Iraq isn't exactly a DEFENSIVE move is it? As much as you'd like to paint it as one. What the fuck does that mean. If they had no reason, you wouldn't have a problem with them attacking America ~Of course it pisses me off that they killed so many people. But I'm not so narrow minded and stupid to go flying off the handle lynch mob style. I want real justice AND I want to know WHY it happened. It pisses me off even more how we got to be were we are! You'd think we'd at least send the Afgani's a thank you card for fighting our proxy war with the russians. Sure Mikey, you got that tin foil hat on tight. Im sure it was so stupid getting rid of Saddam Hussein, how pointless is that. People are quick to demonize the U.S for problem in Iraq now, but forget that in the past 20 odd years, Saddam did much worse ~I won't subscribe to the "yeah, this was wrong but THIS is worse which makes this other shitty thing ok." No way. I don't vote that way nor would I support it as policy. Again, what the fuck do you mean. Do you read what you are typing? ~Read it again, as I am low on pie charts. Kill someone, somebody dies. Don't kill someone and no one is being murdered. Simple math. why yes, Im sure they will open their arms wide open for Al-Qeada, because you know they haven't killed any civillians in Iraq with their bombings. ~Who knows. Enough bombs come out of the sky and destroy enough neighborhoods.... What brings in more ratings, news about the good being done in Afghanistan, or the pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq? They have had their elections, but how much of it was reported on the news? Remember the old phrase "Bad news is good news" ~Doesn't make it right OR a good thing. BTW, what pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq? I remember there being something of a BAN on taking those pictures. Than WWI & WWII was just the Allies commiting giant acts of terrorism ~Yes, you see that was a real WAR. By the definition. THIS is more like the DRUG WAR. Not the same thing. At least its similar in how it should be handled. But its too late to go covert now. You can't fight this fight like you can when you have an opposing army. Get yourself ready, cuz this is going to last a long time. generations of terrorists are going to come and go and this thing is still going to be there. Cuz now we don't just have AQ against us we have so many more. Just double check that tin foil hat. ~Dick Cheney isn't under CRIMINAL investigation? Sorry in advance for my lack of messageboard savvy. I don't know how to cut up my quotes. This ~ marks my answers.

Isn't THAT cute? He seems PROUD that OBL has seen his movie and is using it for talking points. -=Mike ...If you support Moore, you oppose America... What a crock of shit. After leaving F-9/11 I felt as patriotic as I have ever felt. I was more into my country than I had ever been. I was more motivated to do something about than I would have ever been otherwise. Yeah, I'm AGAINST America. Right. I DID notice however that was was SLIGHTY overweight.

SO you are saying that due to bias and bias alone is enough reason to not at least LISTEN to someone? That is a shallow arguement. If that were how it worked than no one would have ever listened to Fox News or Micheal Moore cuz they wouldn't be allowed speak. Because afterall, truth is determined by what? Objectivity?

Here is some writing for you to judge poorly on. Published on Friday, October 29, 2004 by CommonDreams.org Upon a Second Viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11 by Guy Reel Michael Moore has said repeatedly that if he could just move one or two percent of the vote with Fahrenheit 9/11, then it is quite possible he could swing the election. When I first saw the movie, the day it was released nationwide on June 25, I doubted it would make much difference. Its allegations about the Afghan oil pipeline seemed too fanciful; after all, nearly all Americans were unanimous in backing our decision to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban. If a pipeline came out of that, so what? We may not admit it, but we demand the fuel anyway. And President Bush’s ties to the Saudis and bin Ladens — well, they have all the mightiest of big oil connections — is it so unlikely that they would know and do business with each other while building power on a global scale? That’s the way the old military-industrial complex works. Sure, Bush looked vacuous and contemptible in the movie, but we already knew that. I came out of the theater agreeing with the film critic who said allegorically, “If you shoot at the king, you better make sure you kill him.” And I didn’t believe Moore accomplished that. I was wrong. This movie is getting its second life through DVD and VCR rentals; many who missed it in the theaters are seeing it for the first time, while many others are seeing it for the second. And it’s the second viewing that made all the difference for me. It is apparent now, only hours before the presidential election, how brilliant this movie was in demonstrating the despicable venality of the Bush administration — its contempt for life, for freedom, for the armed forces, for America. There in Moore’s film is then-Rep. Porter Goss, now CIA director, praising the Patriot Act; there is Donald Rumsfeld, remarking that people are going to lie to you sometimes; there is Bush himself, chuckling with that ridiculous grin, “Bring ‘em on,” as our soldiers are shot up, maimed, mutilated, and killed. There is Bush condemning terror and moving on to the more important matter in his life as he remarks, “Now watch this drive,” and hits a golf ball. There is Bush saying how troop deaths hurt him; gone in this scene are the crocodile tears that he shed at the Republican convention, but at least he isn’t smirking. When the movie was made the troop deaths were at a little more than 800. Now they are at 1,110. To Bush supporters: if your man is re-elected, what do you believe is the most likely outcome of the next four years? Seems like it could easily be another 4,000 dead American soldiers, and thousands more maimed; another $3 trillion to $5 trillion debt, forever crippling our ability to fight terror and help our citizens; more giveaways to polluters and cronies; more public policies set by lobbyists for energy companies and pharmaceuticals; and a dismantling of basic social safety nets, including Social Security and education for all. And that’s looking at the bright side. One never knows what sort of strange nuclear brinkmanship Bush may be planning with Iran or North Korea — he certainly isn’t going to tell us. If you are a Bush supporter and you’re reading this, you’re in denial about all this, of course. You must believe in Bush’s policies despite all facts to the contrary. To look at the outcomes of his policies reasonably would effectively be an admission that you were duped, that you were lied to by a person you respected, that you were, in fact, supporting a disastrous regime that, given another four years in power, may very well change all of our lives forever. The thing is, in this movie, Moore is also tough on Democrats. Most did vote to authorize the war resolution; not a single Democratic senator stood up to protest the outcome of the electoral vote when the results were placed before the House and Senate in early 2001. But that’s a key point. Moore believes these actions show Democrats’ weakness, but it could easily be argued that they demonstrate the Democrats’ willingness to put the country’s interests first. Had the situation been reversed, do you believe that not a single Republican senator would have signed a protest against President-elect Gore? Do you believe that ANY Republicans would have refused to sign? The Democrats wouldn’t sign a protest against Bush’s “election” for the sake of national unity and the good of the country; do you think the Republicans think that way? Had President Gore demagogued Congress into voting on a war resolution right before the midterm elections, how many Republicans would have gone along for the good of the country? Perhaps some of them would have, but given the same disastrous planning and horrific outcome, how many do you think would be ready to impeach him today? Fighting our foes demands unity, strength, will, reason, and toughness. Which party demonstrates these qualities? The movie makes it all so clear. Bush divided the nation and the world and weakened our army. He tried to cut combat pay for soldiers and cut taxes for the rich while fighting a war, and following 9/11 he refused to go after Osama bin Laden with the full force of the United States. The United States never had more than 11,000 troops in Afghanistan, and it took Bush two months to go after bin Laden. It was two months’ head start, Moore remarks in the film, for a man who murdered 3,000 of our citizens. What would have been the fate of President Gore had he taken that course? There is a wonderfully disturbing scene in which Bush is shown repeatedly vowing to “smoke them out of their holes,” or variations on the phrase — and then Moore inserts a clip from an old Western with some scraggly cowboys vowing to “smoke them out of their holes.” Then Bush is shown later saying he hadn’t given much thought to bin Laden — a statement that he denied ever making during the third debate with Kerry. That was an outright lie or lapse of memory on the most crucial issue facing America today — a lie or lapse of memory that demonstrated Bush really did not have as his first priority the defense of America or the capture of the man who attacked us. It was an outright lie or lapse of memory committed during a crucial moment in the debate, and it disappeared from the media in a wisp. Gerald Ford made an ignorant debate remark about Poland not being under Communist control and the media went on about it for weeks. Bush made one of the most crucial blunders in debate history, one that that demonstrated his utter incompetence or inability to recall his own outrageously inept worldview, and we ho-hum and note that 48 percent of the electorate still say they support him. That 48 percent is dangerous territory for an incumbent but it doesn’t guarantee Bush’s defeat — in fact, it is near a majority. Could it be that Moore’s prophecy hasn’t yet come true? That his movie will finally knock Bush’s support down that one or two crucial percentage points? Perhaps it will be upon the second viewing — the round of the DVDs and VCRs — that it will happen: Bush gets 46 percent, and Kerry 51. Guy Reel is an assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University. He can be reached at [email protected] ~There is a wonderfully disturbing scene in which Bush is shown repeatedly vowing to “smoke them out of their holes,” or variations on the phrase — and then Moore inserts a clip from an old Western with some scraggly cowboys vowing to “smoke them out of their holes.” Then Bush is shown later saying he hadn’t given much thought to bin Laden — a statement that he denied ever making during the third debate with Kerry.~ This is my favorite quote of the article.

In the news today.... Army staffer: Halliburton case ‘worst abuse’ FBI widens investigation, company sees election ploy in allegations NBC, MSNBC and news services Updated: 6:55 p.m. ET Oct. 29, 2004 WASHINGTON - An Army contracting officer who led the FBI to widen its investigation of Pentagon contracts to Halliburton told NBC News that she had never seen a worse case of contracting abuse. advertisement "It was the worst abuse of the procurement and contracting system that I have seen," Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers’ chief contracting officer, told NBC in an exclusive interview. Halliburton dismissed the allegations as election politics. Sen. John Kerry's campaign has seized on the allegations to accuse the Bush administration of playing favorites. Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton before taking office. FBI agents this week sought permission to interview Greenhouse after she alleged that her agency unfairly awarded KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for work in Iraq. The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers for fuel in Iraq, and it elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism to Cheney’s former company. Related story New audit slams Halliburton work in Kuwait Whistle-blower protection sought Greenhouse’s lawyers said Thursday their client will cooperate but that she wants whistle-blower protection from Pentagon retaliation. “I think it (the FBI interview request) underscores the seriousness of the misconduct, and it also demonstrates how courageous Ms. Greenhouse was for stepping forward,” said Stephen Kohn, one of her attorneys. “The initiation of an FBI investigation into criminal misconduct will help restore public confidence,” Kohn said. “The Army must aggressively protect Ms. Greenhouse from the retaliation she will encounter as a result of blowing the whistle on this misconduct.” FBI agents also recently began collecting documents from Army offices in Texas and elsewhere to examine how and why Halliburton, a Houston-based oil services conglomerate, got the no-bid work. “The Corps is absolutely cooperating with the FBI, and it has been an ongoing effort,” said Army Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders. “Our role is to cooperate. It’s a public contract and public funds. We’ve been providing them information for quite a while.” The FBI declined to comment Thursday, but a law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the investigation does not involve anyone in the White House — including Cheney’s office. Halliburton's response Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said the company is cooperating with various investigations, but she dismissed the latest revelation as election politics. She noted Congress’ auditing arm, the Government Accountability Office, found the company’s no-bid work in Iraq was legal. “The old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election,” Hall said. “The GAO said earlier this year that the contract was properly awarded because Halliburton was the only contractor that could do the work. More politics • Kerry, Bush crossing paths in Midwest • Curry: Will it come down to Wisconsin? • NBC poll: Bush, Kerry remain deadlocked • Cheney invokes memory of Pearl Harbor • Most voting complaints so far are in Fla. “We look forward to the end of the election, because no matter who is elected president, Halliburton is proud to serve the troops just as we have for the past 60 years for both Democrat and Republican administrations,” she said. Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems, asked if investigators had contacted the vice president or his office about the contracts, said they had not. Democrats have tried to make Halliburton an election-year issue, and vice presidential candidate John Edwards quickly seized upon the latest development. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee who has been investigating Halliburton’s contracts, said his office was told the FBI recently sought documents from various government offices. The requests focused on how and why Halliburton got the Iraq contracts. “This multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton was suspicious from Day One, and now our worst suspicions are confirmed,” Lautenberg said. “The FBI doesn’t get involved unless there are possible criminal violations.” E-mail ties Cheney office to contract In a formal whistle-blower complaint filed last week, Greenhouse alleged the award of contracts without competition to KBR puts at risk “the integrity of the federal contracting program as it relates to a major defense contractor.” The contracts were to restore Iraq’s oil industry. Among the evidence cited in the complaint was an internal 2003 Pentagon e-mail that says the Iraq contract “has been coordinated” with Cheney’s White House office. The vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation from when he was Halliburton’s chief executive in the late 1990s, has steadfastly maintained he has played no role in the selection of his former company for federal business. The Army last week referred Greenhouse’s allegations to the Defense Department’s inspector general. Documents show FBI agents from Quad Cities, Ill., asked Tuesday to interview Greenhouse. Greenhouse alleged in her complaint that after her superiors signed off on the Iraq business in February 2003, a month before the war began, and returned it for her necessary approval, she specifically asked why the work was being extended for several years. Beside her signature, Greenhouse wrote: “I caution that extending this sole-source effort beyond a one-year period could convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition,” the complaint said. The oil restoration work was given to KBR without competitive bidding through 10 separate work assignments called “task orders.” The orders were issued under an existing contract between Halliburton and the U.S. military that was awarded competitively in December 2001. While the Corps was authorized to spend up to $7 billion for the oil restoration work, the actual cost so far has been $2.5 billion. Halliburton is still working on the oil facilities, but it is now operating under a new, competitively awarded contract. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Criminals???? Oh my!

I wouldn't let that bitch make me a SAMMICH!

I actually really like this match...though the crowd was COMPLETELY dead for it, there's some cool stuff there if you go back and watch. I was there for it too. The crowd was dead dead dead. Til Rock and Austin came out and tore shit up.

http://www.bloggerheads.com/abu%5Fghraib/ Go here and see the video they put together as well. I'm very afraid of the photos and videos still yet to be released. The ones that are out are bad enough. I could have done without the Benny Hill theme though. But it makes its point strong. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ABU GHRAIB: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE "It puts its bag on its head and it gets into the truck." If you've watched Silence Of The Lambs, you'll know exactly what I mean by this. 'Bagging' or 'hooding' was standard operating procedure in Iraq. You cannot blame a few 'bad apples' for standard operating procedure. Hooding not only served to disorientate and distress prisoners, it also helped to dehumanise them. The process of torture began as each person was taken into custody. This was US policy, to set the foundation for interrogation during the process of detention - and the practice was also adopted by the British. Did this practice stop when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke? No. It only stopped nearly a full year after the first abuses came to light. (Telegraph 11 May 2004) - Troops broke ban on hooding PoWs: British troops serving in Iraq broke a 33-year ban on hooding prisoners for interrogation, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons yesterday as he offered an "unreserved" apology to any Iraqis who had been mistreated. (Guardian 3 Sep 2004) - U.S. Changes Arrest Techniques in Iraq: The U.S. military is avoiding once-common arrest techniques like bagging suspects' heads, the U.S. commander in charge of the Iraqi capital said, because such actions are considered humiliating by Iraqis and pushing new recruits into the insurgency. Well, duh. Even if you can somehow forget about the moral argument, how can you ignore the practical one? This very public practice served then and serves today as a recruitment tool for rebels in Iraq and terrorists abroad. Also note Geoff Hoon's "unreserved" apology. General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the British Army, said during the interview referenced here that: "The abuse of any individual is to be condemned without qualification. However, I would observe that if the leaders of a country, or the leaders of an alliance, talk in terms of 'them', 'the enemy' rather than treating them as people, how can they expect the lowest common denominator, the basic soldiery, to interpret it in any other way? Leadership comes from the top and soldiers at the lowest level will interpret their need to act from the guidance given by leaders. They are either well led or badly led. Ultimately the responsibility for the actions of soldiers must come back to the leaders." Compare this attitude with that of Donald Rumsfeld, who's still busy qualifying for the troops in the field and the folks at home... (MSNBC 13 Sep 2004) - Rumsfeld defends Pentagon in abuse scandal: Amid allegations he fostered a climate that led to the prison abuse scandal, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the military’s mistreatment of detainees was not as bad as what terrorists have done. "Does it rank up there with chopping someone’s head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn’t." Is Torture OK for Terrorists? (Guardian Jun 24 2004) - Bush memos show stance on torture: The most damning document is an August 1 2002 memo from Jay Bybee, then assistant attorney general, which argues that torture - and even the killing - of prisoners could be justified to protect US security. It gives the president legal authority to override rules on torture. The memo proposes a narrow definition of torture, saying it would apply only to excruciating pain. Officials tried to distance the White House from the memo. But its author was made a federal judge last year. OK, this is a very long debate. Myself, I'd finish it with; "Doesn't using terror make us as bad as the terrorists?"... but here's the kicker - the people who were tortured in Iraq were not terrorists. In fact, the U.S. held many Iraqis hostage in an attempt to get their relatives to surrender, and were at this for quite some time. Some of the 'detainees' that were abused appear to have been women taken hostage in order to make their husbands surrender. This Is Where It Gets Really Evil OK, take a moment to study the picture below, taken in Abu Ghraib sometime in late 2003. My, my, my... doesn't everyone look ever-so-serious and ever-so-busy? Does this look like a late-night lark to you? Does this look like the work of a few out-of-control troopers who just happened to be stupid enough to take pictures of their crimes... or does this look like a professional set-up? Prepare yourselves. The word 'abuse' has been transplanted for 'torture', but you're about to see this ever-so-useful replacement word in a whole new light... (Salon 15 July 2004) - Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape: "Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." There it is. Abuse. Not so bad, right? Child. Abuse. Whoops. Why Do These Pictures Exist? Before the Nazis started gassing Jews and other 'undesirables', they shot them. In large numbers. But bullets were expensive and manpower cost money. The Nazis also found that this practice had a distinctly negative effect on the troops doing the shooting. That's why they got high-tech and used selected prisoners to do most of the dirty work. Fast forward to the 21st century. Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in Iraq. Thanks to the wonders of technology, soldiers operating under the direction of the CIA (and British intelligence operatives) could torture a few detainees and show the results to many as a softener. Hello, and welcome to Abu Ghraib. We have a few questions for you, but first I'd like you to draw your attention to this laptop. Here are some JPEGs of some fellow Iraqis being sexually humiliated. Not enough for you? OK, here's a nifty MPEG of a woman who watches as her child is sodomised. Now, before we take you for similar processing, let's get back to those questions... Why Were These Detainees Interrogated? The US were probably trying to find Saddam. Or perhaps they wanted to find out where these people went after choir practice. But most likely, they were after evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction? There aren't any. There weren't any. But my uncle Abdul once made a petrol bomb out of a drink bottle and some kerosene he soaked up with a rag. I'll give you his address. Just please stop hitting me. Established Media: The Willing and the Whipped By now you may be wondering why this is the first you've heard of this. I'll tell you why; it comes down to the overwhelming power of media and the Bush administration's control over it. I'll get some proof to you in a moment. In the meantime, let's be charitable and operate under the assumption that the media by and large is objective or maybe even wildly liberal... Even though Rumsfeld hid many detainees from the Red Cross, they picked up what was going on, reported it to the US authorities, and the UK authorities as early as February 2004. A lot of this information reached the internet. Some of it even made it to print. But nobody took any notice until there were some pretty pictures to see: Memory Hole - Photos of Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel Memory Hole - Photos of Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel - Page 2 All of a sudden, we saw - some - action (and, of course, a chase for a handy scapegoat or two). Bush had to go on TV and be ever-so-human in the hope that few enough people would remember one of his favourite moral justifications for war, that he was removing from power a man who detained people illegally, then had them raped and tortured. Now, let's get back to the media's role... The Myth Of Liberal Media Even journalists who don't like what's going on in the world and work for a relatively independent newspaper have their problems. This has been the case since well before the September 11 atrocities. And beyond 'professional' methods of intimidation, there's also this to consider; any criticism that actually threatens to do damage to the Bush administration draws the attention of right-wing nuts (online, they are known as Freepers or digital brownshirts). Many journalists have given accounts of harassment, career sabotage and death threats (take Robert Fisk for example). Then there are the editors and journalists who are equally willing - but pretty much work for the establishment. There are many players in this game, but the most powerful player is Rupert Murdoch. In the US, his strongest weapon is FOXNews (for more information about how this outfit operates, you really can't do better that the documentary Outfoxed). In the UK, it's the tabloid newspaper The Sun. The Sun helped Blair to power and has been the official mouthpiece of the government since they came to power (except when Rupert feels that Tony needs a slap over issues like immigration or Europe). The Sun helped to sell the WMD lie. The Sun has semi-naked girls on Page 3 that feed the public editorial content. And (you'll need to scroll down on this one, but it's worth it) The Sun gave more coverage to a puppy being thrown off an overpass than it did to human beings being tortured in Iraq. They Shoot Voters, Don't They? I'd like to introduce you to an image that I first saw when I was 10 years old and visited Dachau. It was quite a wake-up call for a white-bread Christian boy from the Lucky Country, I must say - and it has stuck with me ever since. The image is by the artist A. Paul Weber, and is titled "Mit den Wölfen mußt du heulen" - roughly translated as "Howl with the wolves you must." I had a lot of questions about the Holocaust, but what really puzzled me at first was how it came to be; how a country full of human beings would allow something so inhuman to happen. The answer is there when you look for it. It's a slow but steady creep, and the main factor is propaganda and its cumulative effect on the populace. I've actually had someone say to me that I should get back to him "when they start shooting people for voting." People like this should get a grip. Seriously. We're not being beaten into submission here, folks - we're being smothered. And that smothering is dressed up as love. The Threat of Terrorism Is Real - The War on Terror Is a Lie You must fear the terrorists. They want to hurt you. We will protect you. You must not question us, because this helps the terrorists. Who want to hurt you. We will protect you. And so on... But who are the terrorists? The line has already started to blur, and that beating I mentioned before is yours for the taking if you'd care to step outside of a Free Speech Zone. Yes folks, if you so much as raise your voice, you become a terrorist.... (Salon Dec 16 2003) - This is not America" - "There is a pattern developing cross-country with regards to the interaction between police and protesters," says Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "That pattern sadly involves the police viewing protesters as terrorists and treating protest situations as crisis situations akin to war or combat." In the US, money earmarked for the War on Terror has actually been spent fighting protestors. In the UK, anti-terror powers were used against protesters at an arms fair. And that's why you should care about this folks.... 1. The War on Terror is a lie that will not protect you from terrorists 2. The War on Terror is being used to curb civil liberties and human rights 3. The War on Terror has been used by the Bush administration to justify torture 4. Including the torture of people who aren't terrorists 5. One day, it will be you with a bag on your head, and you'll wonder how it all came to be A Plea To Americans You came in rather late, but thanks for saving our asses in WW1. Again with the lateness, but you did it again in WW2. It's appreciated. Now, if it's not too much trouble, we need you to save us from WW3. It's going to take more than your vote. You also have to reach out to the people around you and show them what's really going on. And that's not going to be easy. Tim Ireland, 17th September 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought this kind of thing only happened in OTHER countries. Least thats what they told me in school. Thats what I grew up thinking. Fuck thinking, KNOWING! Guess I was wrong. But hey, they are all sub-human monkeys right? They deserve what they get right? Go ahead Mike, tell me this is justice. You'll probably just try to minimise this as not being that big a deal. Or something John Kerry did was worse. You tell me how MY country is doing things any better than OBL or Saddam or any of the other assholes out there. Maybe my expectations are too high?

Hmmmm, let me get this right. Whats the best way to solvve a problem? Even better whats the best way to solve a fight? Don't we teach our kids that NOT fighting is a better alternative? Hehe, its those little morals that seem to carry the most weight. Hmmm, the enemy seems to think we are being disingenous when it comes to our being benevolant. I wonder why? Maybe if we gave them a REASON to not WANT to kill us then we wouldn't have a problem of them parking planes into fucking buildings. Or a stupid ass war for money scam. Or over a 1000 dead soldiers, one of whom I was informed a few weeks back, was a freind of mine. But hey, not wanting someone dead and then NOT killing them has ALWAYS led to more deaths. So have at it. The families of the 10,000 or more dead Iraqis are sure gonna be mad for a LONG time. I wonder who they will listen to the most when they get a knock on the door? US military or the AQ. I wonder how the families of the VICTIMS of the 9-11 attacks feel whenever they turn on the news and so little is said about any progress Afganistan. You know, the assholes who actually DID attack us? Perhaps a better list of priorities would serve us better as a solution to what AMERICANS want to get out of this WAR "on terror". Namely the capture of OBL. "Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. Is it strange, or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?" No, it is not strange. But when there is money to be made...