Re: I was misled

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Who said anything about negotiating.

The poster I was replying to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The US has got to stop
treating the nations and their people as US serfs (our national
interests first) and stop supporting others who deny them their
existence as humans.

Two points. One, the terrorists are a stateless program. Two, the
only time a particular state enters into the equation is when they
openly support terrorism, and so far all those affected support your
second point (that is, they both caused the fall of those states "who
deny them their existence as humans".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Terrorist = cockroach. You don't negotiate with cockroaches.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There you go again, dehumanizing the entire people of the middle
east. Cut it out and become aware of condescending paternalism
that makes US foreign policy so odious. You seem not to notice the
tone at all. ... and of course some of them are my best friends.

You have terrorists that are your best friends? Oh my, you HAVE gone
off the deep end. You really REALLY want to defend terrorists? Wow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You make a good point, but then seem to imply "the entire people of
the middle east" are terrorists?? Or to imply that the scum deserve
something less than condescension??

Not at all. It was Mark who justifies our imperial dominion over Iraq
by saying we shouldn't give terrorists any civil liberties, when
terrorists are made of ordinary citizens who feel that there is no
future for them under the circumstances and that playing by the rules
the occupiers dictate, their lives are still subjugated to a foreign
power. For clarification of this I suggest people listen to the
interviews on NPR with such people.

Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"? Do you write for
Michael Moore?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They didn't become subhuman by any of Mark's words, it was
by their own hands.

They are called cockroaches. That is sub human to me and they are in
large part ordinary citizens who have turned to this by having been
subjugated to a life with little light on the horizon. As I said,
listen to the interviews on NPR:

They are subhuman. In fact, if I were a cockroach I supposed I'd be
offended by the comparison.

Quoted message said:

The situation in Iraq is not the way the administration pictures it.
That of jubilant citizens feting their new independence on the 4th of
July. The enthusiastic voices I heard on the news sharply contrast to
what was found by the Harvard research team, whose report I posted
here.

Keep those blinders on, Jobst. Don't consider the progress or the
opinion of the majority of Iraqis. Go see Moore's film a few more
times before you start considering "the other side".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

...
Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Mark Hickey sloppily quoted:
-snip-

The text immediately below my name in this excerpt was not
written by me, nor do I agree with it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Since when do "foreign occupation resistance" target and kill their
own civilians? Women and children from their own country?

Quoted message said:

Were not those opposing the Vichy and Quisling regimes "freedom
fighters"? How is opposing a puppet government set up by the conquering
nation anti-freedom?

They don't want freedom - that is obvious. They're terrified of
freedom in fact - with it goes their power.

Car bombs in crowded streets are not the tools of "freedom fighters".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

A Muzi said:

Mark Hickey sloppily quoted:
-snip-

The text immediately below my name in this excerpt was not
written by me, nor do I agree with it.

I didn't misattribute anything, just replied to JB's post. Your
quotes are preceded by ">>", the one in question by ">>>" - though by
JB's trimming off the previous author attributes other than yours that
isn't as obvious.

Sorry for any confusion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:54:21 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Car bombs in crowded streets are not the tools of "freedom fighters".

You are right, and the Iraqi opponents to American occupation denounce those
attacks. Not that you hear about that in the right wing press.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

They don't want freedom - that is obvious. They're terrified of
freedom in fact - with it goes their power.

Well, that's what Bush says because it's a simple, easy answer that he
can readily understand. Reality is a bit more complex.

Quoted message said:

Car bombs in crowded streets are not the tools of "freedom
fighters".

From your perspective and mine. But if our country had been occuppied
by a foreign power, our government had been toppled, Dubya was in
prison... what would you do? Would you passively let that invader
tell you how your country is going to be run? Or would you fight back
in whatever way looked the most effective to you?

I'm not saying I think car bombs are right, or even defensible; what
I'm saying is that you are looking at it from a perspective guaranteed
to prevent you from understanding all sides of the situation. There
are many in the US who want to prevent you from doing that, because it
might very well change how you think about the situation and the
leaders who got us there.

A young friend of mine just got back from a tour in Iraq. He was
gung-ho to go and do his job for his country and fully supported Bush,
even though it was his life that was going to be on the line. He just
got back from Iraq. He's not going back. And he's voting for John
Kerry. You and I haven't been there, and we don't really have a clue
about what the troops are going through.

Mark Hickey said:

Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
Yes, stay away from any truly objective reporting. It will force you
to actually think about the entire complex situation. Do you really
think the terrorists in Iraq (the ones killing many Iraqis, bombing
the oil pipeline and doing their best to prevent a new Iraqi
government from forming) are "freedom fighters"?...

Mr. Hickey's statement presents bias as fact, when he refers to the
foreign occupation resistance as terrorists.

Since when do "foreign occupation resistance" target and kill their
own civilians? Women and children from their own country?...

The primary targets are collaborators, who are necessary for the
occupation to succeed. By collaborating, they become part of the
occupation, and therefore are legitimate targets for an occupation
resistance.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

A Muzi said:

Mark Hickey sloppily quoted:
-snip-

The text immediately below my name in this excerpt was not written by
me, nor do I agree with it.

Correct attribution of quoted material in Usenet posts is probably the
one policy we can all agree on.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:28:45 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> from

Quoted message said:

A young friend of mine just got back from a tour in Iraq. He was
gung-ho to go and do his job for his country and fully supported Bush,
even though it was his life that was going to be on the line. He just
got back from Iraq. He's not going back. And he's voting for John
Kerry.

Kerry likes this war just as much as Bush. In fact, he likes it so much, he
wants to increase the number of troops there. Your friend is screwed, because
Kerry will send him back just as surely as Bush. Tell your friend to look at
the Libertarians if he is a conservative type, the Greens or Nader if he's
smarter than that. 🙂

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:53:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> from

Mostly Disorganized said:

The primary targets are collaborators, who are necessary for the
occupation to succeed. By collaborating, they become part of the
occupation, and therefore are legitimate targets for an occupation
resistance.

I'm afraid this is one of those moments more rare than a harmonic convergence
of the planets: Mark Hickey and I agree on something. The overwhelming
majority of the people killing civilians in Iraq are foreign insurgents
rightly called terrorists. The "legitimate" resistance, those people from Iraq
attacking troops and larger strategic targets, have renounced the terror
tactics. I've read recently how the puppet government and the resistance are
holding secret talks to coordinate efforts to fight the foreign insurgency
together. I hope that is true, because it opens the door to wider negotiations
and the possibility of peace for the Iraqi people.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Kevan Smith said:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:54:21 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Car bombs in crowded streets are not the tools of "freedom fighters".

You are right, and the Iraqi opponents to American occupation denounce those
attacks. Not that you hear about that in the right wing press.

There are plenty of Iraqis that want the US out of Iraq. It's now a
majority and I'm VERY happy about that. It is time for them to stand
up and shoulder the burden of their society, and to make it "all it
can be" (to borrow a military phrase).

Did you catch the blurb where one local Iraqi group of armed masked
men has told Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to get out of town or get carried
out in a box? Sounds like the WWF, huh? That and the two Iranian
agents that were caught trying to set off a car bomb seems to have
just about used up the patience of the Iraqi people. Hope so.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey said:

They don't want freedom - that is obvious. They're terrified of
freedom in fact - with it goes their power.

Well, that's what Bush says because it's a simple, easy answer that he
can readily understand. Reality is a bit more complex.

It's also true (however simple it may sound), though yes - there are a
million facets to the reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Car bombs in crowded streets are not the tools of "freedom
fighters".

From your perspective and mine. But if our country had been occuppied
by a foreign power, our government had been toppled, Dubya was in
prison... what would you do? Would you passively let that invader
tell you how your country is going to be run? Or would you fight back
in whatever way looked the most effective to you?

That's a bad analogy - now if it was Clinton that was toppled... (only
kidding). Look back to the post-WWII Germany and Japan to see a
better example of how it should work. Even then I believe it took 9
years before Germany was ready for "real" elections - so by all
comparison doing it in a couple in a country as "un-western" as Iraq
is VERY agressive indeed.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying I think car bombs are right, or even defensible; what
I'm saying is that you are looking at it from a perspective guaranteed
to prevent you from understanding all sides of the situation. There
are many in the US who want to prevent you from doing that, because it
might very well change how you think about the situation and the
leaders who got us there.

The difference between "freedom fighters" and the ones doing the
damage in Iraq is that freedom fighters fight FOR the people, they
don't kill them trying to frighten them.

Quoted message said:

A young friend of mine just got back from a tour in Iraq. He was
gung-ho to go and do his job for his country and fully supported Bush,
even though it was his life that was going to be on the line. He just
got back from Iraq. He's not going back. And he's voting for John
Kerry. You and I haven't been there, and we don't really have a clue
about what the troops are going through.

I've talked to a lot of soldiers first and second hand, and while it's
obviously not unanimous, they do tend to be very supportive of the
war, and very disappointed that we get only the bad news since there
really has been a lot of progress.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Kevan Smith said:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:28:45 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> from

Quoted message said:

A young friend of mine just got back from a tour in Iraq. He was
gung-ho to go and do his job for his country and fully supported Bush,
even though it was his life that was going to be on the line. He just
got back from Iraq. He's not going back. And he's voting for John
Kerry.

Kerry likes this war just as much as Bush. In fact, he likes it so much, he
wants to increase the number of troops there. Your friend is screwed, because
Kerry will send him back just as surely as Bush. Tell your friend to look at
the Libertarians if he is a conservative type, the Greens or Nader if he's
smarter than that. 🙂

It gets worse / better. Edwards voted for the war too, and thought we
could use more troops. Then again, a majority in the US still feel
that the Iraq war was justified so maybe that's not such a dumb
position.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Kevan Smith said:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:53:45 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> from

Mostly Disorganized said:

The primary targets are collaborators, who are necessary for the
occupation to succeed. By collaborating, they become part of the
occupation, and therefore are legitimate targets for an occupation
resistance.

I'm afraid this is one of those moments more rare than a harmonic convergence
of the planets: Mark Hickey and I agree on something. The overwhelming
majority of the people killing civilians in Iraq are foreign insurgents
rightly called terrorists. The "legitimate" resistance, those people from Iraq
attacking troops and larger strategic targets, have renounced the terror
tactics. I've read recently how the puppet government and the resistance are
holding secret talks to coordinate efforts to fight the foreign insurgency
together. I hope that is true, because it opens the door to wider negotiations
and the possibility of peace for the Iraqi people.

Did I just see a pig fly by my window? ;-) Well said.

The Iraqis are smart enough to know the best way to get rid of the
coalition forces is to not NEED the coalition forces. And let's all
not forget that the "puppet government" (harsh term, though not
entirely untrue) has a January expiration date. The only Iraqis
likely to want to really stir things up before then are those who want
a bigger piece of the action than they're likely to get based on their
numbers.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman said:

A Muzi said:

Mark Hickey sloppily quoted:
-snip-

The text immediately below my name in this excerpt was not written by
me, nor do I agree with it.

Correct attribution of quoted material in Usenet posts is probably the
one policy we can all agree on.

Well, that and greasing tapers...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame