| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang Bang Jynndi" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2004 06:37:06 AM |
| Object: |
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
This from a woman that visited our troops in Iraq last November. Now
she comes back and says that Iraqis were better off under Saddam?
Essentially, what she's saying is that she doesn't support the troops;
that they shouldn't be there.
Once again, the truth comes out...liberals prefer totalitarianism over
freedom. Saddam knew what was best for these women, didn't he
Hillary?
--
Liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They are mean,
vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded, selfish,
intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
.
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
05 Aug 2004 02:25:25 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2004 04:37:06 -0700, (Yang Bang Jynndi)
wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe.
And it would be even harder to believe, except for the fact that it's
true. Now that Saddam is gone, the religious nut cases are free to
oppress women to the same degree as in most other Muslim countries
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
04 Aug 2004 01:48:29 PM |
|
|
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
04 Aug 2004 08:41:09 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this, because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
05 Aug 2004 08:44:55 AM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
Go learn some fucking history retard.
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this, because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
Sry the US installed Saddam....it's a matter of record.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
05 Aug 2004 02:32:12 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411239d6$0$2922$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
Go learn some fucking history retard.
Oh really? You're the one who insisted that the CIA established
this Soviet client state, exhibiting an ignorance in the service
of loony-left fanaticism that is hard to believe. The point is:
you learn some history, retard. Before you go revising it, you
may want to make sure your revisions are too obviously false.
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this, because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
Sry the US installed Saddam....it's a matter of record.
No, it isn't. It's a matter of propaganda of the most UFOlogistic
variety. It's depleted tinfoil, urban legend mongering, will
believe anything if the propaganda source is politically and
theologically correct, Seeker of Conspiranoia *****. And
obvious ***** at that. I mean come on, who's being the
retard, here, folks? Seriously. Even if we ignore the lack
of evidence for your claim (aside from UFOlogistic sources, of
course), we are stuck with the problem that Saddam was always,
up until Gorbachev cut him off, sucking at the Soviet teat.
That's why in Gulf War I, he was stuck with so much crappy
Soviet weaponry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
05 Aug 2004 03:42:43 PM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411239d6$0$2922$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
Go learn some fucking history retard.
Oh really? You're the one who insisted that the CIA established
this Soviet client state, exhibiting an ignorance in the service
of loony-left fanaticism that is hard to believe. The point is:
you learn some history, retard. Before you go revising it, you
may want to make sure your revisions are too obviously false.
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this,
Tinfoulers...lol it's you who's in cloud cookoo land, as I said, go
learn your history.
because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
Sry the US installed Saddam....it's a matter of record.
No, it isn't. It's a matter of propaganda of the most UFOlogistic
variety. It's depleted tinfoil, urban legend mongering, will
believe anything if the propaganda source is politically and
theologically correct, Seeker of Conspiranoia *****.
Your not really that fucking dumb are you ???
As I said...go learn some HISTORY not PROPAGANDA.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
05 Aug 2004 10:37:40 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41129bc2$0$2929$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411239d6$0$2922$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
Go learn some fucking history retard.
Oh really? You're the one who insisted that the CIA established
this Soviet client state, exhibiting an ignorance in the service
of loony-left fanaticism that is hard to believe. The point is:
you learn some history, retard. Before you go revising it, you
may want to make sure your revisions are too obviously false.
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this,
Tinfoulers...lol it's you who's in cloud cookoo land, as I said, go
learn your history.
Oh come, now. Just because I have indicated to you that your conspiracy
theory has seriously contradicts some well known facts, you don't have
to go getting hysterical on me.
because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
Sry the US installed Saddam....it's a matter of record.
No, it isn't. It's a matter of propaganda of the most UFOlogistic
variety. It's depleted tinfoil, urban legend mongering, will
believe anything if the propaganda source is politically and
theologically correct, Seeker of Conspiranoia *****.
Your not really that fucking dumb are you ???
As I said: hysterical.
As I said...go learn some HISTORY not PROPAGANDA.
Well, what you mean to say is: go to www.leftwingnuts.com and see
if they pull this urban legend out of their ***** too. Isn't that
what you mean to say?
It's in the same category as "the US really attacked Afghanistan
so Unocal could build an oil pipeline", or "Richard Gere wound up
in an emergency room with..." (you know the rest), or, even better,
"Micheal Moore is a talented humorist".
Fact is, before Saddam was HMFIC, he was an advocate of nationalization
of the oil industry, in which he later played a part (also before he
was HMFIC). That's so pinko. Why would the capitalist running yellow
lapdogs want him to be HMFIC again? It just doesn't make any sense
on its face. I'm sure you can see that. Please post proof of your
sentience by answering the question "Why would the CIA install a pinko
regime?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
06 Aug 2004 09:21:07 AM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41129bc2$0$2929$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411239d6$0$2922$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41112f7b$0$6446$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment when
Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
Yeah, right. The US established a totalitarian socialist state in
the Middle East during the height of the cold war. Why would they
do that? Did they feel sorry for the Soviets and decide to aid
them in spreading their influence?
Go learn some fucking history retard.
Oh really? You're the one who insisted that the CIA established
this Soviet client state, exhibiting an ignorance in the service
of loony-left fanaticism that is hard to believe. The point is:
you learn some history, retard. Before you go revising it, you
may want to make sure your revisions are too obviously false.
It's funny when the tinfoilers say this,
Tinfoulers...lol it's you who's in cloud cookoo land, as I said, go
learn your history.
Oh come, now. Just because I have indicated to you that your conspiracy
theory has seriously contradicts some well known facts, you don't have
to go getting hysterical on me.
You mentioned 'conspiracy theory' not me.
I wonder why that is ?
because it is a matter of
history that the Ba'ath Party looked to the Soviets to be their
primary benefactors, this was still true after Saddam assasinated
his boss in order to get a promotion. It was true until Gorbachev
changed the USSR's Middle Eastern foreign policy, which was long
after Saddam came to power.
Sry the US installed Saddam....it's a matter of record.
No, it isn't. It's a matter of propaganda of the most UFOlogistic
variety. It's depleted tinfoil, urban legend mongering, will
believe anything if the propaganda source is politically and
theologically correct, Seeker of Conspiranoia *****.
Your not really that fucking dumb are you ???
As I said: hysterical.
Ah...you are that dumb ! I thought so !
As I said...go learn some HISTORY not PROPAGANDA.
Well, what you mean to say is: go to www.leftwingnuts.com and see
if they pull this urban legend out of their ***** too. Isn't that
what you mean to say?
LOL 404 page not found.
It's in the same category as "the US really attacked Afghanistan
so Unocal could build an oil pipeline", or "Richard Gere wound up
in an emergency room with..." (you know the rest), or, even better,
"Micheal Moore is a talented humorist".
Fact is, before Saddam was HMFIC, he was an advocate of nationalization
of the oil industry, in which he later played a part (also before he
was HMFIC). That's so pinko. Why would the capitalist running yellow
lapdogs want him to be HMFIC again? It just doesn't make any sense
on its face. I'm sure you can see that. Please post proof of your
sentience by answering the question "Why would the CIA install a pinko
regime?"
Go read some Chomsky, Fisk and Pilger on the matter.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
09 Aug 2004 02:24:12 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411393d3$0$2925$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
You mentioned 'conspiracy theory' not me.
Well, as you must know, this story of how the CIA installed
Saddam is somehow left out of mainstream History, it is only
in the prose of True Believers. Somebody must have kept this
story out of the mainstream. Voila: there's your conpiracy
theory.
I wonder why that is ?
Because it is neccessarily the case that somebody must have
covered up this story of how the CIA established either
the Ba'ath regime in Iraq or at least Saddam, since it isn't
in mainstream sources.
As I said: hysterical.
Ah...you are that dumb ! I thought so !
That is something you ought to leave to the jury to decide.
As I said...go learn some HISTORY not PROPAGANDA.
We are getting to the answer to the question of who it is who
is blindly, uncritically accepting propaganda.
Well, what you mean to say is: go to www.leftwingnuts.com and see
if they pull this urban legend out of their ***** too. Isn't that
what you mean to say?
LOL 404 page not found.
LOL. It was a joke. It was supposed to point out the nature of
what I assumed was your source for the "CIA installed Saddam"
theory.
Fact is, before Saddam was HMFIC, he was an advocate of nationalization
of the oil industry, in which he later played a part (also before he
was HMFIC). That's so pinko. Why would the capitalist running yellow
lapdogs want him to be HMFIC again? It just doesn't make any sense
on its face. I'm sure you can see that. Please post proof of your
sentience by answering the question "Why would the CIA install a pinko
regime?"
Go read some Chomsky, Fisk and Pilger on the matter.
I am well acquainted with the works of Chomsky. Isn't he the guy
who called Washington the "torture and murder capital of the world"
and the Khmer Rouge a progressive hope for the proles in Cambodia?
For a guy who likes to paint himself as a hard-headed critic of
propaganda, he certainly seems to be a sucker for propaganda when
it comes from the politically correct source, don't you think?
And consider just what sort of regimes he considers politically
correct.
The other guys' work I am less familiar with, but their reputation
precedes them. The verb "to Fisk" has been coined because critical
analysis of his work is quite popular on the web. The practice
of debunking a text, in Usenet style, by interjecting pithy responses
between the quoted text has come to be known as "Fisking".
On what basis do you assume that the work of these three is not
itself propaganda, worthy of criticism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
10 Aug 2004 11:20:32 AM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<411393d3$0$2925$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
You mentioned 'conspiracy theory' not me.
Well, as you must know, this story of how the CIA installed
Saddam is somehow left out of mainstream History, it is only
in the prose of True Believers. Somebody must have kept this
story out of the mainstream. Voila: there's your conpiracy
theory.
Ah so if a tv news prog refuses to cover a story...it's a conspiracy is it ?
Your an idiot.
I wonder why that is ?
Because it is neccessarily the case that somebody must have
covered up this story of how the CIA established either
the Ba'ath regime in Iraq or at least Saddam, since it isn't
in mainstream sources.
No-one has covered it up...the details are freely available, just
because the fox-news whores don't report it, doesn't mean it never happened.
As I said: hysterical.
Ah...you are that dumb ! I thought so !
That is something you ought to leave to the jury to decide.
As I said...go learn some HISTORY not PROPAGANDA.
We are getting to the answer to the question of who it is who
is blindly, uncritically accepting propaganda.
Are we ?
Well, what you mean to say is: go to www.leftwingnuts.com and see
if they pull this urban legend out of their ***** too. Isn't that
what you mean to say?
LOL 404 page not found.
LOL. It was a joke. It was supposed to point out the nature of
what I assumed was your source for the "CIA installed Saddam"
theory.
Why do you refuse to believe that the CIA installed Saddam ?
It's a fact.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/iraq-m31.shtml
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=856
Thats enough for now...do your own google search........loads of
articles reporting that Saddam was installed and supported by the CIA.
Fact is, before Saddam was HMFIC, he was an advocate of nationalization
of the oil industry, in which he later played a part (also before he
was HMFIC). That's so pinko. Why would the capitalist running yellow
lapdogs want him to be HMFIC again? It just doesn't make any sense
on its face. I'm sure you can see that. Please post proof of your
sentience by answering the question "Why would the CIA install a pinko
regime?"
Go read some Chomsky, Fisk and Pilger on the matter.
I am well acquainted with the works of Chomsky. Isn't he the guy
who called Washington the "torture and murder capital of the world"
Are you saying it isn't ?
Go read up on how many dictators the US has supported.
and the Khmer Rouge a progressive hope for the proles in Cambodia?
For a guy who likes to paint himself as a hard-headed critic of
propaganda, he certainly seems to be a sucker for propaganda when
it comes from the politically correct source, don't you think?
And consider just what sort of regimes he considers politically
correct.
The other guys' work I am less familiar with, but their reputation
precedes them. The verb "to Fisk" has been coined because critical
analysis of his work is quite popular on the web.
From idiots like you who don't like being told the truth.
Fisk is a very well respected journalist, who speaks as he finds...hence
his un-popularity with the mainstream press-whores.
I wonder why the media whores keep silent......not the wages surely !
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/169600.html
The practice
of debunking a text, in Usenet style, by interjecting pithy responses
between the quoted text has come to be known as "Fisking".
Only by brain-washed idiots, who believe anything Fox-news spews forth !
On what basis do you assume that the work of these three is not
itself propaganda, worthy of criticism?
Their reporting, which has been consistent over many years.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
11 Aug 2004 10:46:39 AM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<4118f5d9$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Well, as you must know, this story of how the CIA installed
Saddam is somehow left out of mainstream History, it is only
in the prose of True Believers. Somebody must have kept this
story out of the mainstream. Voila: there's your conpiracy
theory.
Ah so if a tv news prog refuses to cover a story...it's a conspiracy is it ?
It has nothing to do with what any "tv news prog" has to say.
The authoritative history of the Saddam regime, _Republic of
Fear_ by Samir al-Khalil, pseudonym of Kanan Makiya doesn't
even mention the CIA.
Your an idiot.
Again, you'll have to convince the jury of that. Assertion
does not an argument make.
No-one has covered it up...the details are freely available, just
because the fox-news whores don't report it, doesn't mean it never happened.
Fox news isn't even relevant here. I know you would like to think
that my sources are as bereft as yours. But they are not.
We are getting to the answer to the question of who it is who
is blindly, uncritically accepting propaganda.
Are we ?
Yes.
LOL. It was a joke. It was supposed to point out the nature of
what I assumed was your source for the "CIA installed Saddam"
theory.
Why do you refuse to believe that the CIA installed Saddam ?
It's a fact.
A fact, is it?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
The newsmax story here is based on the reports of anonymous alleged
former officials. Apocrypha is not the same as fact.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/iraq-m31.shtml
The World Socialist Web Site? Unfortunately, this story doesn't
even mention the genesis of Saddam's regime, but rather alleges
that the current choice for PM of Iraq is a CIA asset.
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=856
This seems to be a reiteration of the same story Newsmax put out.
I find it interesting that you posted a link to two rigth-wing
sites and one left-wing extremist site (I once found an article
on wsws.org claiming the kulaks were Nazi-sympathizers and
deserved to die. Stalin was not too hard on them.)
The story is only on the right-wing sites. I have not investigated
those sites to see just how extreme they are. But it doesn't
change the central point that the report is apocryphal.
Thats enough for now...do your own google search........loads of
articles reporting that Saddam was installed and supported by the CIA.
Indeed. There are also lots of articles reporting that Unocal plans
to build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan, even in such places as the
BBC's site. The only problem is there is no such plan by Unocal.
Another urban legend.
I am well acquainted with the works of Chomsky. Isn't he the guy
who called Washington the "torture and murder capital of the world"
Are you saying it isn't ?
Go read up on how many dictators the US has supported.
It pains me that you missed the whole irony of Mr. "The Khmer
Rouge are being unfairly slandered in the West" Chomsky claiming
that Washington is "the torture and murder capital of the world."
It's noteworthy that Noam stuck up for what was certainly the worst
regime among all third world regimes that ever existed during the
cold war, the regime of Pol Pot. Perhaps you remember that one.
and the Khmer Rouge a progressive hope for the proles in Cambodia?
For a guy who likes to paint himself as a hard-headed critic of
propaganda, he certainly seems to be a sucker for propaganda when
it comes from the politically correct source, don't you think?
And consider just what sort of regimes he considers politically
correct.
The other guys' work I am less familiar with, but their reputation
precedes them. The verb "to Fisk" has been coined because critical
analysis of his work is quite popular on the web.
From idiots like you who don't like being told the truth.
Yeah. Idiot infidels are so annoying, eh?
Fisk is a very well respected journalist, who speaks as he finds...hence
his un-popularity with the mainstream press-whores.
I wonder why the media whores keep silent......not the wages surely !
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/169600.html
The practice
of debunking a text, in Usenet style, by interjecting pithy responses
between the quoted text has come to be known as "Fisking".
Only by brain-washed idiots, who believe anything Fox-news spews forth !
As I've said before Fox doesn't enter into it. I don't even watch
TV news, aside from a few minutes watching CNN headline news
occassionally.
On what basis do you assume that the work of these three is not
itself propaganda, worthy of criticism?
Their reporting, which has been consistent over many years.
Well, Noam has certainly been consistent. Like a broken clock
is consistent. It's not as if anything is going to soak through
his thick exoskeleton of dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
11 Aug 2004 11:10:51 AM |
|
|
On 11 Aug 2004 08:46:39 -0700, (ShrikeBack)
wrote:
Thats enough for now...do your own google search........loads of
articles reporting that Saddam was installed and supported by the CIA.
Indeed. There are also lots of articles reporting that Unocal plans
to build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan, even in such places as the
BBC's site. The only problem is there is no such plan by Unocal.
Another urban legend.
Ah so all the news contrary to your deeply held world view is "urban
legend"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
Unocal acknowledges it was part of a consortium through 1998 to build
such a pipeline and with drew in late 1998
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm
Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
PakNews.com
December 28, 2002
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a
framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project
passing through the three countries.
The ceremony was held at the Presidential Palace with the three
leaders, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, President
Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai
signing the document.
The framework agreement defines legal mechanism for setting up a
consortium to build and operate the pipeline.
According to a study by Asian Development Bank (ADB), the 1460 km
pipeline would use gas reserves at Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan,
which has world's fifth largest reserves, while passing through
Afghanistan into Pakistan.
The three countries had earlier signed a trilateral agreement to
develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan into Pakistan in May this year, during the first
trilateral summit in Islamabad.
The three countries are laying great importance on the project as it
could provide much needed boost to their economies.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
SO the pipeline is real, Unocal is currently claiming no interest in
constructing it or owning it, and yet . . .
it so convenient that Karzi was once a consultant for Unocal.
"Reuters: 18Feb2002 AFGHANISTAN: UNOCAL'S PEOPLE LEAD AFGHANISTAN.
http://www.democracyunbound.com/afghanpds.html
On May 13,[2002] the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike
a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country
to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.
Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani
and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's
biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister
for Mines and Industries told Reuters.'
It's probably true that Unocal has no current plans to begin
construction. Thjey're going to have to wait for security to reach a
level they can begin.
`Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among
those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic
meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.
_______
Vote Bush/Voldemort 2004!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
10 Aug 2004 11:48:07 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:
The other guys' work I am less familiar with, but their reputation
precedes them. The verb "to Fisk" has been coined because critical
analysis of his work is quite popular on the web.
From idiots like you who don't like being told the truth.
Fisk is a very well respected journalist, who speaks as he finds...hence
his un-popularity with the mainstream press-whores.
I wonder why the media whores keep silent......not the wages surely !
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/169600.html
These are interesting articles....
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030430_Chaining_Watchdog_1.html
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030503_Chaining_Watchdog_2.html
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
10 Aug 2004 11:52:16 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
Jez wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:
The other guys' work I am less familiar with, but their reputation
precedes them. The verb "to Fisk" has been coined because critical
analysis of his work is quite popular on the web.
From idiots like you who don't like being told the truth.
Fisk is a very well respected journalist, who speaks as he
finds...hence his un-popularity with the mainstream press-whores.
I wonder why the media whores keep silent......not the wages surely !
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/169600.html
These are interesting articles....
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030430_Chaining_Watchdog_1.html
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030503_Chaining_Watchdog_2.html
And part 3
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Edwards_Watchdog3.htm
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam! |
04 Aug 2004 07:18:29 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
Yang Bang Jynndi wrote:
The Hildabeast: Women were better off under Saddam!
This is so outrageous, it's almost hard to believe. But she said it,
so here we go. The women of America need to remember this moment
when Shrillary finally steps into the presidential sweepstakes.
During a speech last week at the Brookings Institution, Hillary
actually said that Iraqi women were better off under the reign of
Saddam Hussein. Apparently the rape rooms and Uday's bride-stealing
slipped her mind, because she said "on paper, women had rights. They
went to school, they participated in the professions, they
participated in the government and business and, as long as they
stayed out of Saddam's way, they had considerable freedom of
movement," droned the smartest women in America. So what would she
have us do? Return Saddam to power? What a nutcase.
Why not ?..The US put the fucker there in the first place.
And he was very profitable to the Shrub family, Cheney, Rumfeld,
and many many many more. They sold, gave, encouraged, aided
and abetted the 'atrocities' they later screamed about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
