Irish Woman killed in Latest Al-Qaeda Atrocity

by James McKenna Wed May 14, 2003 13:16

What was her name?
Where was she from?
It wasn't SteakKnife , was it?

The Vinnell Corporations headquarters in Riyhad was destroyed by yesterdays commando attack . Vinnell is a CIA company which trains people to guard oil wells! Like the ones they are stealing in Iraq. In Gulf War 1 they fought alongside the Saudi army.

World media has carefully concealed the fact that this was not a single attack but rather bore the hallmark of an Al Qa'ida commander who likes to carry out simultaneous attacks . The "twin" blast in Chechnya was massive and the Russians say they lost around 50 soldiers but locals put the figure in the hundreds.
A double attack doesn't indicate The War Against Terrorism is going to well. Not if the prime target is still able to organise cross-continental, simultaneous attacks!

A confused Saudi citizen who has lived for decades under the US backed oppressive regime of the "Princes" asked, "What part of get out of the Holy Land of Saudi or we will kill you do they not understand"?

Attacks such as this look like increasing in frequency in Saudi, Iraq and Afghanistan as resistance to the global occupation of Muslin oil fields grows.

Safe home America ! Don't forget to say hello to the homeless, the poor the badly paid and the hungry when you get back to the land of the free. There are many people in the "Homeland/Fatherland" who could do with a few hundred of the billions and billions Bush is now stealing from their country to boulster his Corporate friends in this idiotic attempt to make "Amerika" wealthy by theft.

by d Wed May 14, 2003 13:23

You take the risk.You get paid very well.You pay the price.Simple as that.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 13:47

which helps the saudis keep dissidents down then she got what was coming to her.

by Sean - none Wed May 14, 2003 14:32

Don't justify Avi's flamebait by putting yourself in the absurd position of supporting Al Quaeda actions. They are psychotic lunatics, pure and simple and the fact that they hate some of the same governments and individuals as the anti-capitalist movement doesn't make them allies, they would kill you too in a heartbeat. Which doesn't mean you should like the Israeli, Saudi or American governments either, they are all scum too, just cleverer and more careful than the jihadis. Cop on!

by Sean Wed May 14, 2003 14:38

So Pat do you agree with psycho James in justifying murder of non-combatents? I thought you were better than that, it's expected from him but not from you!

by iosaf Wed May 14, 2003 14:44

US RULE IN POST-SADDAM IRAQ 'WOULD BRING TERRORIST ATTACKS'
by Tony Walker in Tehran
Financial Times, 21st February

Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, one of Iraq's exiled leaders, has warned
of terrorist attacks against US "infidels" if the Americans establish a
military protectorate in Iraq.

In a pointed warning to the US, Ayatollah Hakim, leader of the exiled Shia
community, said any attempt to impose US rule on Iraq in the post-Saddam
period would be "very dangerous".

"This will create a kind of popular sensitivity among the Iraqi people, who
will refuse foreign domination," Ayatollah Hakim said in an interview at his
heavily barricaded headquarters in central Tehran.

"Iraqi Muslims will consider an occupying force as infidels on Arab
territory. This will result in violence and resistance."

But as war comes nearer, he appeared to soften earlier warnings against
military action, saying President Saddam Hussein caused the "real problems
for the Iraqi people", and this needed to be "solved".

Ayatollah Hakim's remarks coincide with preparations for a meeting of
opposition groups in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. His warning reflects
growing anxiety among these factions over US plans for a post-Saddam era.

Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a largely secular
body of Iraqi exiles, this week described any proposed US military
administration as "unworkable and unwise" because it was "predicated on
keeping Saddam's existing structures of government, administration and
security in place".

A conference in London last December established a 75-member "co-ordinating
committee" to work on a power-sharing strategy, but the Iraqi opposition is
riven with differences.

Ayatollah Hakim repeated the standard refrain that a post-Saddam
administration must be representative of "Iraqi sects and groups", but he
made it clear that he expected Islamic law to be "the main source of
legislation in Iraq". He did not exclude the possibility of running for
elected office as leader.

Ayatollah Hakim's Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) is
the most visible of the Shia resistance groups, but it does not go
unchallenged. Shias comprise 60 per cent of Iraq's 23m people and their
representatives will expect a decisive say.

The other main opposition groups include - apart from Sciri and the INC -
the Iraqi National Accord, another Shia group, and the two Kurdish factions:
the Kurdistan Democratic party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistans. Kurds
account for about 20 per cent of Iraq's population.

Speaking Arabic, Ayatollah Hakim, who has been in exile since 1980, said
that Sciri had traditionally opposed war against Iraq but if there was no
other way, force would have to be used provided it was sanctioned by the
United Nations.

He likened moves to rid Iraq of Mr Hussein to a "police exercise" and said
that the Iraqi leader should be tried by the War Crimes Tribunal at The
Hague like Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav dictator. He described Mr
Hussein as "worse than Milosevic".

Ayatollah Hakim, who says he lost up to 50 family members at the hands of Mr
Hussein's security apparatus, called for implementation of resolution 688,
passed after the 1991 Gulf war. It provides for sanctions against Iraq in
the event that violence is used against civilians.

http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=18825683&template=kurdishpost/inde
xsearch.txt&index=recent

by iosaf Wed May 14, 2003 14:46

international papers What the foreign papers are saying.

An Inspector Calls Ahead
By Michael Young
Posted Monday, December 2, 2002, at 11:49 AM PT

As U.N. inspectors spent their fourth day visiting alleged Iraqi weapons facilities—Sunday's site was a former airfield—two incidents showed how much of a political and military minefield Hans Blix and his team are maneuvering through.

On Sunday, Iraq accused U.S. and British aircraft of bombing the offices of the Iraqi Southern Oil company in Basra, killing four and injuring 27. The Washington Post noted that U.S. officials confirmed an attack, but they said the planes had "hit air-defense facilities … in response to Iraqi antiaircraft artillery fire." The attack came amid a U.N. admission (reported in the Age of Melbourne) that investigators had warned the Iraqis they would be inspecting a former missile-building factory. Beirut's French-language daily L'Orient-Le Jour underlined the peculiarity of the warning, as U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 "insists on the fact that inspections must be a surprise." The paper called this "the first controversy facing U.N. inspectors."

Syria's official Teshreen, reflecting its government's anxiety about a conflict next door, focused on an anti-war demonstration in Istanbul. This included, it wrote, "thousands of people, belonging to 140 civil organizations, who condemned a possible U.S. war on Iraq, shouting slogans demanding that the Turkish government distance itself from any U.S. plan against the people of the region." The paper also misquoted a statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency's director, Muhammad Baradei, to the BBC, in which he is said to have remarked, "There are no signs whatsoever since the beginning of inspections that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." It omitted Baradei's key caveat, "but we are far from being able to reach a conclusion," a statement the Bahrain Tribune carried in full, including Baradei's avowal that inspections might last a year.

A key factor in a possible war in Iraq is how the country's Shiite majority would react to an allied attack. Recently, pro-Saddam Iraqi Shiites issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, prohibiting collaboration with the United States in the event of war. This drew a response from Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, the exiled head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the main Shiite opposition group. In the London-based Al-Hayat Sunday, he said: "No fatwa exists preventing collaboration with the Americans. … Collaboration is legal, if the aim is dialogue, and it requires three conditions: that it is authorized by the legal authorities, that it respects Islamic principles, and that it is intended for the collective good." The Tehran-based SCIRI is close to Iran, though Hakim, who has been wooed by the Bush administration, also underlined his differences with Tehran. He reported the organization would "open an office in the United States to oversee the affairs of Iraqis living there."

Perhaps the United States and Iran aren't as far apart as it sometimes seems. In a front-page story, the Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat quotes the influential former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsandjani proposing that Iran and the United States resume oil ties, on condition the latter reduces its "haughtiness" toward Iran, since "no one can guarantee security in the Gulf without Iranian agreement." The story refers to wire reports, citing unidentified European diplomats, suggesting the United States and Iran have reached "agreement allowing U.S. aircraft to violate Iranian airspace in the event they are the target of Iraqi anti-aircraft fire" during an Iraq war.

by iosaf Wed May 14, 2003 14:48

the IMC world even gave you all a game.
which ended with "YOU ARE IN THE SHITE".

Now on the fatwa potential list, were objects at the Bagdad museum.

hmmmmm.
Yes, those interesting objects were stolen for one of these reasons:

1. to re sell.
2. to use for dark secret ritual.
3. to keep safe from a post Saddam Islamic revolution.
4. to decorate the new river block of the Pentagon.
5. to help the White House bible study group with their Akadian script classes.

I shall offer no t-shirts for the correct answer.
except to say, we are a long way off the end of "WAR".

by kokomero Wed May 14, 2003 14:49

It's a remarkable turnaround for Avi ... only yesterday he was rubbishing Ireland for being part of the "British" Isles, suggesting that we were a minority in this geographical "entity".

Seriously though the guy has no interest in Ireland unless it is to belittle/berate us or pompously give us advice. I saw no concern for Irish people murdered by the Israelis and their proxies in Lebanon, all 47 of them killed while peace-keeping in Lebanon.

The price of peace is high but Israel unlike Ireland is too cowardly to pay it and prefers containment to real peace!

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 14:52

i dont justify killing of non-combatants but anyone working for a company training saudi security is quite clearly a combatant. the sames goes for anyone working on defense/security contracts in saudi.

its not a question of supporting al queda. these companies and state agencies put down all dissent. everyone from tory to trotskyist, secularist to fundamentalist.

saudi arabia is a theocratic dioctatorship (what the sparts would call a clerical fascist state). no dissent is allowed. people are literally killed for demanding the vote.

i do feel bad about any innocent family members of the mercenaries who may have died. but i have more sympathy for the thousands of victims of the foreign mercenaries.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 14:59

The foreign contract workers makes this repression possible.

Covering events from January - December 2001

SAUDI ARABIA

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Head of state and government: King Fahd Bin 'Abdul'Aziz Al-Saud
Capital: Riyadh
Population: 19 million
Official language: Arabic
Death penalty: retentionist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grave and widespread human rights violations continued to be reported. They were perpetuated by the strictly secretive criminal justice system and the government policy of barring political parties, trade unions and independent human rights organizations; international non-governmental human rights organizations were not allowed access to the country. The government failed to respond to any of the concerns raised by AI during the year. Hundreds of teenagers were flogged. Women continued to face severe discrimination. Arrests of suspected political and religious activists continued and the legal status of those held from previous years remained shrouded in secrecy. New information came to light on the torture of detainees in previous years. At least 79 people were executed. Over 5,000 Iraqi refugees continued to live in Rafha camp as virtual prisoners, denied the right to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia.

Background

While the human rights situation remained grave, there were two major developments which had the potential for a positive impact: the government announced new legislation and its human rights record was subjected to unprecedented public scrutiny by UN mechanisms.

In October the government announced that it had introduced, for the first time, a code of criminal procedure and a law regulating the legal profession. The two laws had not been made public by the end of the year and it was therefore not possible to assess their impact on human rights. For example, it was not known whether the new legislation would introduce legal safeguards against arbitrary arrest, lengthy incommunicado detention and secret trial proceedings or guarantee defendants the right to legal assistance throughout the judicial process and the right to effective appeal. However, Saudi Arabian lawyers and the media welcomed both measures as positive steps towards the recognition of the need for clear safeguards to protect the rights of defendants, and of the valuable role of lawyers.

The country's human rights record was subjected to unprecedented public scrutiny by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Commission on Human Rights. Both UN mechanisms expressed strong concern about the human rights situation in the country and called for redress. For example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child concluded that: ''[n]oting the universal values of equality and tolerance inherent in Islam, the Committee observes that narrow interpretation of Islamic texts by State authorities are impeding the enjoyment of many rights protected under the Convention''.

The government also submitted its initial report on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture and was scheduled to appear before the Committee against Torture in November. However, the government withdrew at short notice and, as a result, its hearing before the Committee was postponed to a later date. AI drew the Committee's attention to Saudi Arabia's failure in its initial report to provide adequate information on torture, which remained rife in the country.

Women

Media coverage of women's issues, which began in 2000, continued into 2001, but no concrete steps were taken by the government to tackle the issue of discrimination in law and in practice. In December, the government announced that it had issued some women with identity cards. However, in April, when asked about a study into the issue of allowing women to drive and providing them with identity cards, the Minister of the Interior had reportedly replied: ''It is not possible, and there are no studies on the subject at all... As I have said before, everything comes in its own time...'' Similarly, when he was asked about women's representation in the Majlis al-Shura (Consultative Council) he reportedly dismissed this by stating: ''Why make women a political issue... women are not a political issue, but a social subject...'' Membership of the Consultative Council was increased during 2001 from 90 to 120, all men appointed by the King.

Major Martha McSally, a female fighter pilot in the US Air Force, challenged the dress code imposed by the US Air Force on female military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia when off duty, on the grounds that it was discriminatory.

Torture and ill-treatment

Flogging of children

In January the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Saudi Arabia ''take all necessary steps to end the imposition of corporal punishment including flogging and all forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment to persons who may have committed crimes while under 18...''

The response of the governorates (regional authorities) across the country was to wage campaigns of extrajudicial and summary floggings, targeting teenagers suspected of harassing women and other behaviour deemed immoral. Such behaviour included talking to women, whistling at them, trying to pass telephone numbers to them, and wearing transparent or women's-style clothes. By the end of the year, hundreds of teenagers had been flogged, most of them in public places where the alleged offences had taken place. Their cases were widely publicized in the media.

Three youths were given 15 lashes each in the al-Rashid Shopping Mall in al-Khobar in the Eastern Province, where they had allegedly committed the offences. The flogging was described in the press as follows: ''Officials announced the punishment several times over the mall's loudspeaker system, delaying its implementation to give shoppers time to gather... The flogging caused such a scene that shopping at the... mall... came to a standstill as the three were punished.''

The campaign was spearheaded by the religious police, the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV). In some regions the CPVPV was assisted by a committee composed of representatives from the office of the respective governorate, police, and the Prosecution and Investigation Department. In a press statement to the al-Jazirah newspaper, the Deputy Head of the CPVPV explained in response to questions about the legality of the campaign that: ''...the case of harassment is not referred to the judiciary because it is considered expeditious matter for which the statute of the CPVPV prescribes 15 lashes. This is one of the prerogatives given to the CPVPV after agreement by the governorate...''

Torture in detention

As a result of the systematic practice of incommunicado detention, no detailed accounts of torture during 2001 were received. All those arrested during the year were subjected to incommunicado detention and when they were allowed access to families, or consular representatives in the case of foreign workers, this took place under strict supervision by prison officers and strict orders not to talk about detainees' treatment or the case concerning them. However, new information came to light on torture in previous years, and the press reported cases of domestic violence.

Kalesh, an Indian national who was accused of theft and held in incommunicado detention, stated following his release in December 2000: ''There were three people in civilian dress...They had a big stick with ropes at each end... I was asked to sit on the floor... At this time I am handcuffed and chained in my legs. The stick with the ropes was inserted through the folding of my knees...and the ropes were tied to my handcuffed hands. I became like a football... I was sitting/lying on the floor and these three devils... started kicking and beating me brutally with the rod... There are still marks... of that day on my body...''

Domestic violence

Severe discrimination against women continued to put women at increased risk of domestic violence. Foreign domestic workers were particularly vulnerable to such abuses. In March, an official from the Ministry of Labour was reported in the press as having revealed that around 19,000 foreign maids had run away from their employers. One of the main reasons cited was domestic violence against them.

In January, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about domestic violence and the harm it inflicts on children. It recommended that Saudi Arabia ''establishes hotlines and shelters staffed by women, for the protection of women and children at risk of or fleeing abuse''. However, cases of domestic violence continued to be reported in the Saudi Arabian media.

In May a journalist writing in the newspaper Okaz revealed that the neighbour of a 16-year-old girl who was locked up in the toilet by her father and stepmother for six months had informed the police of the girl's plight and constant crying, but the police did nothing.

Judicial corporal punishment

In addition to its use as extrajudicial punishment against children, flogging remained widely practised as a judicial corporal punishment handed down by judges as a main or additional punishment after unfair trials.

A military officer was given 20 lashes in March after a court of expedient matters found him guilty of using a mobile phone while in flight with the Saudi Arabian Airlines.
Muhammad al-Dawsari, Sa'id al-Subay'i and Muhammad al-Hadithi were sentenced in June to 1,500 lashes each, in addition to 15 years' imprisonment. All were convicted in connection with drugs charges. Four others tried with them in the same case were sentenced to death and executed. The floggings were scheduled to be carried out at a rate of 50 lashes every six months for the whole duration of the 15 years.

Prisoners of conscience and political prisoners

Arrests of suspected political and religious activists continued during 2001. Those arrested during the year were mainly members of the Shi'a and Christian communities, most of whom were released without trial after weeks or months of detention. In addition, there were unconfirmed reports that hundreds of people were rounded up in the wake of the 11 September attacks in the USA, but no details were available. It was not known how many remained in detention at the end of the year.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Amri, a Shi'a religious scholar aged about 90, was arrested on 9 March and held for about two weeks before being released without charge. He was reportedly detained because he was visited by some Iranian Shi'a Muslims on pilgrimage (Hajj) in Saudi Arabia.
Kamil Abbas al-Ahmad, aged 30, was arrested on 13 September at his home in Safwa and was detained at Safwa police station. The government did not provide any information as to the reason for his arrest, but it may have been related to his political activities. He had previously been detained on such grounds from July 1996 until June 1999, during which time he was allegedly tortured. He remained in detention at the end of the year.

The legal status and conditions of detention of those held from previous years remained shrouded in secrecy.

Sheikh Ali bin Ali al-Ghanim, who had been in detention since August 2000, was reportedly sentenced to five years' imprisonment and 500 lashes after a secret trial in prison. He was also reported to have been subjected to torture which allegedly included beating all over the body and sleep deprivation.

Death penalty

At least 79 people were executed. All were sentenced to death after unfair trials. They were convicted on charges which included murder, rape, or drug trafficking. The government continued to keep secret information on people under sentence of death and at risk of execution. The 79 included 23 foreign nationals, including seven Indian nationals and four Pakistani nationals. They also included two Saudi Arabian women, Badria al-Azizi and her mother, who were executed in connection with the murder of the father.

Refugees
Over 5,000 Iraqi refugees spent their 10th successive year as virtual prisoners in the Rafha military camp in the northern desert near the border with Iraq. The government continued to refuse them the opportunity to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia. They were among some 33,000 refugees originally housed in the camp. About 25,000 were resettled by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Europe, North America, and Australia. The 5,000 remaining in Saudi Arabia continued to live in the camp under military guard with no right of movement beyond the perimeter fences.

AI country reports/visits

Report

Saudi Arabia: Defying world trends - Saudi Arabia's extensive use of capital punishment (AI Index: MDE 23/015/2001)

Visits

AI renewed its request to send a delegation to Saudi Arabia following a statement to the press in December by the Director General of Prisons announcing that the government had invited AI to visit the country. However, by the end of the year, AI had not received a response to this request or other communications.

by Daithi Wed May 14, 2003 15:19

It is worrying when the definition of combatant is expanded. The whole idea of having a line between combatant and non-combatant is not to justify the killing of combatants but to protect non-combatants from peril. There are fairly detailed provisions under int'l law dealing with this, and like Bush with his 'war crimes against oil wells', phrases are flung around without any respect for the history or meaning of the concept.

The Geneva line on combatants must hold. It is slipping in recent years and the IRA, IDF, Hamas and the U.S. army are all guilty of this. In any event it's doubtful whether Al-Qaeda* in particular are subjects of this convention as a non-state actor, and it would be foolish to argue that they are (because it would legitimise the actions against Afghanistan). For the U.S. it's also dumb to bring them into a legal combat framework because it would knock our their pathetic Guantanamo games.

This may not sound good on a placard or with a series of exclamation marks following it, but the lasting effect of the past three years is a constant and deliberate undermining of humanitarian (i.e. 'law of war') protections. They're not ideal by any stretch and are products of a previous age (despite the attempts to incorporate actions in pursuit of self-determination), but they do provide a floor, beyond which no army (however that's defined) should go. Al-Q apologists and US hawks are united as one in wanting 'Geneva a la carte'. The only bits of international law that seem to count (and I would say the same about Israel/Palestine) are the bits that you can use rhetorically against your enemy.

The best test is reverse the roles; if this attack had been conducted by U.S. or C.I.A. forces, would it have been legitimate? Morally - well it depends on context and personal approach to violence. Legally, though, it would be a clear violation, and I would hazard a guess that there would be agreement in this place on the contempt of the US for humanitarian law. So why is acceptable when a fundamentalist religious group does it?

*assuming for the purposes of this meandering rant that it is Al-Qaeda that are responsible for this attack - although this is far from certain at this stage, it doesn't really matter which group it was

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 15:27

I think the attack has to be seen in the context of the saudi state. This is a theocratic dictatorship, even the most moderate opposition is ruthlessly crushed.

I would say the level of oppression justifys the way resistance is carried out. If someone is working for a company which is teaching people to be better torturers, then that person is imho a combatant.

i'm not supporting al qaeda, i'm pointing out that imho armed attacks on those who prop up the security apparatus of a fascist dictatorship, are justified.

by Pat D Wed May 14, 2003 15:38

This website is easily the most idiotic and juvenile Irish website that I've ever read. Why not change the name to "www.support-al-qaeda.ie".

Idiots, fools and morons.

by Daithi Wed May 14, 2003 15:47

Just to be clear I wasn't agreeing with earlier comments that suggested you (Pat) were supporting Al-Qaeda. Didn't mean to say that - I was rambling in the dark not directing my comments at anyone in particular. However I would just add to Pat that (politically, not legally) I feel a bit iffy about an attack on a repressive monarchy/theocracy propped up by the US by a violent and fundamentalist group like Al-Qaeda who, while they wouldn't push forward the corrupt and capitalist values of the US, would certainly be a force for repression in terms of gender, sexual orientation, religious liberty etc even worse than the current Saudi pretenders.

Sort of like supporting the result but not the action - Saddam's gone - good; US violated all standards of law and decency in attacking Iraq to get him out for selfish economic and political purposes - bad. The Saudi regime is attacked - good. One of the reasons for attack is that they don't incorporate enough of the ultraorthodox version of shar'ia law - bad. There's no easy answer.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 16:17

i take your point, i wish it was a secular socialist group which had carried out the attack.

when no dissent is allowed these kind of things will happen.

maybe some of us would be reduced to doing that if the SP or SWP ever came to power. ;)

by Paul Moloney Wed May 14, 2003 16:22 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

Pat (one of them, I can't be bothered
which) _might_ have had a point if he
was talking about an organisation
to lift oppression Saudi Arabia using
somewhat legitimate tactics.

However, we're talking about a group
that wants a fundamentalist pan-Arabic
state and would like to see Islamic
states in _all_ countries. There might
even worse things in the world than
the current dictatorship there, and it
beggars belief that some people here
welcome it. Years ago, Bin Laden offered
money to Afghan fighters to kill John
Simpson merely because he was an
"infidel"; do you think he's make a difference
between nice, non-colonial infidels, and the
rest?:

[begin extract]

Then he was just another rich Saudi, come to fight the infidel. I was filming a Mujahedin group firing mortars at the city when bin Laden leapt on to a wall, magnificently bearded and white-robed, and urged the Mujahedin to kill my colleagues and me. When the Mujahedin voted, on balance, not to kill us, he offered a nearby lorry driver $500 to run me over: disturbingly little, I felt. The driver turned him down too, and bin Laden went off and lay on a bed, weeping with frustration.

That was a different world. Now the man in white has carried out the biggest terrorist raid in history. And, it seems, he is about to spark off the greatest revenge operation in history as a result.

[end extract]

I doubt those dead Filipinos were working
for the CIA somehow.

P.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 16:31

wouldnt lose any sleep if he had killed an imperialist propagandist like simpson though.

by pat c Wed May 14, 2003 16:38

The Vinnell Corporations headquarters in Riyhad and the pentagon are military targets regardless of who carries out the attack.

by Paul Moloney Wed May 14, 2003 16:41 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

Pat, can you tell me why you became
a Spart (or whatever you are); do you
resent Daddy because he wouldn't buy
you a Merc?

P.

by James McKenna Wed May 14, 2003 18:01

I doubt that "psychotic lunatics" would be able to synchronise their watches let alone launch two attacks on two separate continents at the same time!

This operation was obviously carried out by a well trained commando unit who were prepared to die. Aren't all soldiers supposed to be ready to die? Are they all lunatics too or are they living in denial?

The War against "Terrorism" is obviously not going too well for the US apart from killing tens of thousand of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis and as an excuse for stealing oil.

So who is this "Irishwoman"?..... she exists only to link Ireland emotionally to "Amerikas pain" . In a day or so we will be told of some half-Irish / Oirish -American who was a "secretary" with a US company.

One thing is for sure the Brits and Yanks are the greatest liars in the world today!Don't believe their lies.

by Avi H Wed May 14, 2003 18:02

I am interested to see this awareness of the repressive nature of the Saudi regime. How come this does not translate to that of the Palestinian regime, which is extremely similar in the level of its repressiveness, and that of the Palestinian terrorist organisations financed by the Saudis, such as Hamas??

by Avi H. Wed May 14, 2003 18:04

I also find your casual dismissal of the life of an Irish compatriot totally sick-making.

by kokomero Wed May 14, 2003 18:32

Avi, as you are now so concerned by loss of life why not apologise for the 250+ UN peace-keepers killed by the IDF/puppets in Lebanon? They were not training people to kill and torture, and neither were they firing at the IDF? What's the excuse this time?

by kokomero Wed May 14, 2003 18:35

My name is General Tommy Franks
The father of "Shock-n-Awe"
When GB wants his oil cut-price
He sends out to war

Without so much as a by-your-leave
We pass the UN by
And its over Erin to Iraq
Where we'll MOAB them from the sky

With my trusty poodle by my side
I slaughter all asunder
But when the Belgians lock me up
I say it was no blunder

Those people in Falluja town
They shot first not we
Of course you know it must be true
Didn't they say it on TV

Them others slaughtered on the bridge
As they were driving by
Sure didn't they flash their lights at us
So we blasted them from on high

Wont we have a great excuse
We were looking for Saddams WMD
Now its over the border to Syria
Their next on the list you see

And then its on to Saudi
Where we're propping up the prince
We're teaching them to torture
By God we'll make them wince

And when it all is over
And there's no more an Arab to see
Sure I'll fly on down to Tel Aviv
And we'll give Avi the key

by James McKenna Thu May 15, 2003 07:17

I'm so heartened that Avi is worried about the life of a single "Irishwoman". Hope she's not related to any of the real Irish Defence orces soldiers the Israeli have murdered down the years. Any sympathy for them Avi, or do you agree with Sharon that , "nobody asked them to come here".

Looks more like this story is simply a propagana ploy to enlist the emotional rage and sympathy of Irish people, especially Oirish Americans for the US. Have we been fooled?

by .Lance Thu May 15, 2003 08:53

Sure - of course, Avi has been scouring the news to find some sympathetic casualty of Islamic nationalism other than Israelis or Americans or Brit soldiers(how can the death of willing butchers glean sympathy, after all?) to enlist readers on the side of marruading occupiers Israel and USrael, to further inflame the readers here against those who wish to return Palistine to the Palestinians.

Just as truthful reasonable people don't advococate USrael and Israeli murder and massacre we don't endorse Al-Queda's fatal ambush methods either.

However if chosen by democratic majority and religious choice, Islam and Al-Queda have justice on their side. Iran is an example case: After the USrael CIA was finally defeated in Iran and it's UNelected puppet ruler the 'Shah' was quietly murdered in a US hospital - Iran went through an oppressive dictatorial yet democratic choice of Shia muslim oligarchy. That was their choice and definitely superior to the Mossad and CIA torture-trained SAVAK secret police of the Shah running the country. Now without Israeli, USraeli or Britraeli help - Iran is operating as a democracy. There are conservative and populist forces disputing there - and the conservative Shia Islamists there are in political debate with the populists.

Iran is an example of majority rule when the USrael, Israel and Britrael are kicked out and people are permitted to choose for themselves.

If a militarially imposed theocracy is one of Al-Queda's policy aims - then reasonable truthful people should be as much against that as it should the USrael Israeli aim of Forcing by Military occupation a capitalist PLUTOCRACY on Iraq - headed by their drinking buddy Chalabi. USrael-Israel is forcing a USrael-Israeli chosen PLUTOCRACY on Iraq in order to rob the population of Iraq of their Oil and the profits from their Oil.

However Al-Queda's aim of getting the USrael and Israel out of economic(and hence complete power) domination of the Arab world is ENTIRELY just - and SHOULD be supported by truthful just people.(In this day, Sharonista-Likud-Israel does not fit the definition of a just and truthful people)

This group of swine has many low-level weaselings in their service. Such people get on any media that they can and find meretricious and crowd-deceiving minor 'incidents'like the death of an Irishwoman in an Al-Queda attack to get sympathy for the Israeli-USraeli mideast Oil dictatorship.

Get Out of political and military domination of other people's countries and you won't get killed. That is the truth of USrael and Israeli Occupation politics.

by Avi H. Thu May 15, 2003 09:47

incoherent,semi-illiterate rubbish. Thank god Ireland is a democracy and idiots like Lance and James McKenna are not in power. If you must know, I spend a lot of time in Ireland, have done for many years, and it is a country whose inhabitants I like very much.

by kokomero Thu May 15, 2003 10:04

As long as they are goose-stepping members of the PDs. I can imagine few others in this country who would have much time for your brand of free-market facism.

by pat c Thu May 15, 2003 10:13

how is it psychotic (or spartlike)to point out that armed struggle is justifiable when you are up against a fascist state?

if you want to engage in reasoned debate i'm happy to respond. if you wanna keep to your juvenile comments about mercs etc , then go to a kiddies site.

or how about a junior indymedia for paul m & avi? how about it editors

by John Thu May 15, 2003 10:27

The misnomer of the Holy Land of Israel as Palestine is a grievous error, which the world body needs to rectify. The borderlines of the Holy Land, which the Moslems call 'Palestine' do not reflect the true picture of the traditional Israel. The boundaries of the disputed region need to be politically redrawn for the capital Jerusalem to fall within the State of Israel as its traditional capital. Jerusalem would then remain as the physical capital of Israel and as the spiritual capital of the world open to all nations to go and worship there. Historically, the approximate size of the original Palestine was no more than the Gaza strip of today. Islamic states treat Assyria and the Assyrians as nonexistent, equally the same as Israel and the Jewish people. Dar Al-Silm considers both Israel and Assyria as, vanquished states and their respective peoples either extinct or Arab.

Arab Islamic states relate Israel and Assyria to ancient history. In fact, the estimated census of the Israeli people as at the end of 1999 is estimated at about eighteen million. Two thirds of its population still live in the diaspora. The Assyrians whose population has grown to about five million is in a worse situation. Their territory has been invaded and their properties and homes appropriated by the Kurds with encouragement of the Islamic states of the Abode of Peace to give the region a distinctive Islamic feature. Assyrian villagers in northern Iraq are being constantly threatened to move out and leave their homes to the oncoming hostile nomadic Kurds. The Kurdish manoeuvre is to discourage the international community from rehabilitating the Assyrians in their own traditional homeland. The Kurds cause tactical flare-ups to keep the UN and the international community worried and as an unwelcome gesture to the Assyrians to discourage their return to their old towns and villages.

The Jews have persistently claimed, based on historical facts, that the Biblical Land, Eretz Yisrael belongs to them. Their capital city, Jerusalem and the Temple on Mount Zion is an historical proof of their claim to their ancestral homeland. Since dispersal of the Jews in 131 AD throughout the Mediterranean Basin of the Roman Empire, for their constant rebellion against the Imperial power of the Roman rule, the Jews always ended their prayer with a plea for their return home. They hoped that someday their historical land would be restored to them and that they would all meet in their homeland, Eretz Yisrael, and praise their Jehovah God on Mount Zion.

For 19 hundred years while living in diaspora, many countries did not accept the Jews as equal and were told to go away. They lived an estranged life. No matter how faithful they were and how much they contributed to the country in which they lived, they were not accepted as full citizens and on occasions, were totally rejected. Now that they have gone back to Israel, to where they came from, the Moslem world does not want them. Why not? With the passage of time, enmity towards the Jews increased to the point where some countries treated them as outcasts, clamped down on their freedom. Still not satisfied, some undemocratic regimes in both the East and the West aroused deep anti-Semitic feelings and hatred against the Jews and conspired to annihilate them. Their systematic persecution and massacres, especially during the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews in World War II, culminated in their return from banishment to part of their ancestral homeland – Israel became a reality again.

The Physical Palestine

The confusion and arguments arising from the area referred to as Palestine seems to fall into three historical periods, namely, (1) ancient Palestine known as Gaza, (2) Arab Palestine known as part of the Abode of Peace, after the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and (3) the Mandated Palestine under the British rule until May 1948. During these three periods the borderline of the so-called Palestine fluctuated.

The approximate size of ancient Palestine was a narrow patch of coastal land that stretched along the southern seaboard of the Mediterranean Sea between Gaza and their northernmost city Ekron, known today as the Gaza Strip. During the Islamic conquest of the Middle East in mid-7th century AD, the Holy Land of Israel was historically different in size and immensely larger than ancient Palestine.
The territory traditionally known as Palestine by the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, and Ottoman Turks after its conquest encompassed the vast region of the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria of the Kingdom of biblical Israel and parts of Trans-Jordan. Palestine is a Greek misnomer for (AR-AT PLISHTAYI) the Land of the Philistines, which originally was no more than Gaza. Arabised Palestine, including the historical Holy Land of Israel, had become part of the Abode of Peace of an ever expanding domain of the Islamic (Umma) Nation.
In the aftermath of Post World War I I, the Arab states reluctantly accepted the British mandate of Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the international borderlines demarcated by the League of Nations. In their Covenant, the Arabs defined Palestine, at the time of its existence under the British Mandate, as ‘an indivisible territorial unit.’ They wanted all the mandated territory to be brought under the total dominance of the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinians argued that what landscape was left of the Palestinian territory, outside the mandated borders, had already been brought under dominance of the Arab countries, swallowed up by several neighbouring newly created Arab states. They were against any further dismemberment of the remaining Palestinian territory under the British Mandate.
The Palestinians demanded that the mandated Palestine be established as a unitary state, under Palestinian rule, in par with the rest of the Arab states in the region. The British government rejected the ‘Arab’ Palestinian demand for a unitary state on the grounds that auxiliary Arab nomadic tribes and militias had not physically participated in the liberation of the mandated Palestine. Besides, Britain had pointed out that it had never made such a pledge in the McMahon-Hussein eight-letter correspondence of 1915-16.

Not all the territory is up for grabs by the Arabs. If the present Palestinians are truly indigenous to ancient Palestine, claiming the historical Palestine as their home, then let them restrict their claim to within the borders of the Gaza Strip. If they, as they claim, are Arabs then they are invaders and occupiers. Let them accept what has been apportioned to them. Israel is a geopolitical reality and different from Palestine, period.

The Physical Israel

Jericho was the first Canaanite city that the Israelites conquered. After the death of Moses, Joshua the son of Nun took command. He was chosen by God and succeeded Moses. In the Spring of 1743 BC, Joshua assumed leadership of the Israelites. The Israelites, by God’s command and under Joshua's leadership, crossed the river Jordan on dry grounds and conquered the first Canaanite city, Jericho.

Consequently, with divine assistance, the seven condemned kingdoms that were within the borders of the Canaanite land were defeated, among them the city of Jerusalem. They fell to the Israelites in rapid succession in fulfillment of God’s promise to them. The Israelites conquered most of Canaan, the land that God had earlier designated and promised to their forefather Abraham that He would give it to His people the Israelites. The territory of Palestine, at the time, was no more than a narrow patch of coastal land that stretched along the southern seaboard of the Mediterranean Sea between Gaza and their northernmost city Ekron (Michael Avi-Yonah, 1972: pp 66-69; Holy Bible: Numbers 34: 1-13; Leviticus 18: 3-25; Deuteronomy 18: 9-12; Exodus 23: 23, 24; 34: 11-16; Joshua 3: 13-17). Present day Israel is significantly smaller in size than the ancient biblical Israel.

Tactics & Strategies of the Hardliners

The Arab Palestinians claim that the whole ‘Palestine’ is an integral part of the Arab territory and indivisible -- an ambiguous border definition of the ‘Arab’ Palestine. Arabs speak of their past glory and territorial landmass, presuming Israel as part of the Abode of Peace of the Islamic Umma Nation.

Pan-Arabism seems to have recently surged to a want of the whole of the Middle East and North Africa, as “the Arab World” – an overly ambitious notion of extending their domain, disrespecting the land rights of the indigenous people of the region. By their definition, all residents of Palestine, during and after 1947, were Palestinian Arabs, subject to the Arab rule of law. (Ref: articles two, five and six of the Palestine National Covenant). Islamic countries treat the indigenous Assyrians in the Arab States in the same manner as they treat the Jews, progressively altering their nationality to Arab.

Spain is an anathema in Islamic history. The Arabs, under the Berber leadership of Tariq Bin Zeyad, invaded Spain in 711 AD. Islam occupied Spain and ruled it for nearly eight centuries. However, the Arabs were ultimately forced out of Spain. Spain stemmed out Arab rule from its midst and restored Catholicism as its official Christian religion. It succeeded in liberating itself from (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace by bringing the Spanish political and military forces under one unified command against the Arab occupier.

January 2, 1492, marked the end of Islamic reign in Spain. It has since become an indelible black mark in Islamic history. Islam reiterates that Israel will not be a repeat of Spain. Islam as a whole will never endorse recognition of Israel. It is against their doctrine to surrender land that they have already won and falls within the realm of the Islamic Nation. In their dictum, the biblical land of Israel became part of Palestine, a so-called state of the Abode of Peace, after it fell to the Arab invaders during the early days of the Islamic conquests of the Middle East, and that it should remain so.

For example, the Palestine National Covenant declares in Article 6,

“The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” In Article 15 it states, “ The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty… and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.”

No matter how many Islamic states recognise Israel, there will always be some militant hardliners that will reject it. They will act on behalf of certain defiant Islamic states and continue to oppose its existence. With continued financial and manpower support by such hostile states, the militant Mujahideen act as proxy and fight their war.

All the Islamic governments in the Abode of Peace want to do away with their Western style parliamentary system and replace it with their own sectarian one, based on their religious law of (Majlis Al-Shura) the Consultative Assembly, or (Majlis Al-Watani) the National Assembly. They bitterly oppose the existence of Israel and restoration of Assyria to the end. Their jihad (holy war) slogan is: do or die; either perish or pressure the Islamic states to revoke their recognition of Israel and suppress the Assyrian identity to the end. The policy of the (Dar Al-Harb and Dar Al-Silm) Abode of War and the Abode of Peace dictates never to surrender gained territory but rather enlarge the community and ultimately declare their faith supreme globally. (Pryce-Jones, 1989: 27-28).

Losing Islamised territory outside (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace geographical zone is considered a relapse and regrettable, like Spain and the Balkans. But to lose Islamic territory within the borders of the Abode of Peace, like Israel and the future prospect of re-establishing self-rule in Assyria, is unforgivable - To Islam it is a bitter pill, hard to swallow. It is against their Islamic doctrine. It is contradictory to the adherence and fulfilment of their Prophet’s personal message of global Islamisation. Regress does not mean abandonment of their mission.

Mujahideen are the poker of Islam that faithfully keeps the Jihad fire astir. The demise of the Soviet presence and their troops in Afghanistan is still fresh in the Russian people’s minds. This was done by the surging wave of the Mujahideen against the Soviet troops not for the love of America or the West or mere hatred of Communism, but for the love of Allah and in fulfillment of their prophet’s message of global Islamisation. They insist on following the path of spreading their message (Al-Da’awah) by force rather than preaching it by oratory and open dialogue.

by Mr Angry Thu May 15, 2003 13:38

You are a world class cretin

by pat c Thu May 15, 2003 13:54

i am devastated by your wit, erudition and debating skills.

by Mr Angry Thu May 15, 2003 13:58

.. but you're still a cretin

by iosaf Thu May 15, 2003 14:11 Catalunya.

which is older than Spain.
Espana is like Britain, an entity that is younger than its junior component parts.
..........just as Scotland predates England
..........Catalonia predates Spain.

The moors invaded the ·Iberian Peninsula· before the establishment of Portugal, and the unified kingdom of Aragon and Castile, which thereafter unified with the BAsque lands and the ancient prinicipality of Catalonia which together with Valencia and the Balearics traces a direct linewage to Septania the European home of Sephardic Jewry.
Before the Moors, before the Bourbons, before Scotland before Ireland, before Spain before it all.

So bollox
to the above.
when the moors invaded Spanish or Castillian the language had not come into existance. But Catalan and Euskera had.
get the point?
?¿?¿?¿?¿?

by pat c Thu May 15, 2003 14:46

how do you do it? how many years did you spending honing your skills? with a couple of choice words you unman me.

who needs reasoned argument when me angry is about?

btw

are you demoting me? i thought i was a world class cretin.

by told you so Thu May 15, 2003 15:25

The alleged war on terrorism and al ciaeda doesn't seem to be working... after obliterating thousands of afghan peasants in Afghanistan and carpet bombing already half dead iraqis in Iraq. It now appears alciaeda terrorists were hiding close to home, in the busoms of uncle sam's other ultra capitalist totalitarian dictatorship colony Saudi arabia. what a surprise.. told you so

by pat c Thu May 15, 2003 16:29

TCDs Trinity News (7 May) boasts (perhaps unwisely) that the TCD dept of Biochemistry is in the forefront of the battle against Bio-terrorism.

They run a joint research program with Imperial College London. They have discovered the A52R gene which blocks the immune response to Smallpox.

This blowing of their trumpet could bring them to the attention of Al Qaeda. To be on the safe side, give the Buttery a miss for a while.

by $*$ Thu May 15, 2003 17:50

would Pat & James leap up and down cheering this victory for the down trodden son of a billionaire Bin Laden?

Al Qaeda are not fighting for a libertines utopia they are determined to bring their fundamentalism to the world.

If Al Qaeda were to bring about their Islamic state the many dissenting voices on this site would be among the first sacraficed on the altar of fundamentalism.

by Ali H. Thu May 15, 2003 18:23

There'll be a place for them right next to the millions sacrificed on the alter of capitalism which is much bigger and much more ornate.

by Aunt Gertie Thu May 15, 2003 23:54

the "physco's" were armed trained and financed by the CIA in the name of their crusade against communism.

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

by pat c Fri May 16, 2003 10:12

I like TCD! Honestly! Why would I want anyone to blow it up? I get my cheap IT there every morning, I love the iced doughnuts, the coffee is passable (in the best meaning of the word).

In case you haven noticed, (Vichy) Ireland is a (relatively) normal Bourgeois Democracy. Armed struggle (by fundamentalists, leftists or rightists) at the present conjuncture would clearly be individual terrorism.

by $*$ Fri May 16, 2003 12:07

I'm not suggesting TCD is likely to be blown up. I am however expressing my disgust at the serveral comments above which have expressed "you reap what you sow" type sentiments.If I am a secretary/ janitor/ security guard/ at a company who's business you disagree with am I combatant?

You may have the luxury of picking and choosing a job, but there are many workers who need to pay the bills and feed a family by whatever means they see fit.

I fully agree with Daithi's assessment that "it is worrying when the definition of combatant is expanded". Where does your definition of combatant end?

Moronic cheerleading from the sidelines baying for the blood of innocents does not serve your cause well. I for one don't want to have any part in your revoloution.

by James McKenna Fri May 16, 2003 12:56

I suppose the easiest image of an illegal combatant is the classic mercinary . The Vinnel Corporation is a prime example of international mercinaries workng for US Corporations if approved by US government .

The article I link to is a good description of the type of thing illegal combatants do - Vinell in particular.

In Afghanistan for instance the US force behind "Operation Anaconda" was entirely illegal. Indeed most legal people claim the bombing of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq are both illegal making all participants illegal combatants and complicit War Criminals.

Anyone heard about the 19 bombs in Pakistan today? Surely it must be bigger news than the lie that started this string? No mention on RTE? Imagine that , Shell and Caltec being raked out of Pakistan and they fill our heads with emption crap about imaginary "Irishwomen" being killed. Anythng but the truth for the suckers!

Don't go to the far east , dont go to the middle east, don't go to Africa, don't go to Venezuela, Cuba, ................Keep on rockin in the "Free World" even if it's shrinking quicker than an Irish Life Lifetime Share!

by pat c Fri May 16, 2003 13:01

if someone is propping up a fascist state like saudi arabia and in particular working for a cia company who trains torturers they have to accept the risks that come with the territory.

i also feel sorry for janitors, typists etc, but if in a country where peaceful change is imopossible they work for the oppressive state apparatus then they become part of the problem.

were the clerical workers, service personnel etc who worked in auschwitz & belsen innocent of all blame?

by kokomero Fri May 16, 2003 15:22

Correct as usual PatC,

the list of people who serviced machinery in concentration camps includes Dehomag, a German subsidiary of IBM according to Edwin Black author of "IBM and the Holocaust". [Not a bad read for the first few chapters after which it peters out due to repitition and lack of firm evidence.]

Interesting how Avi and his friends put ALL of the blame for the holocaust on Europeans, when it was IBM who provided the enabling-technology to catalogue and kill millions of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc., and people like Watson of IBM, Bush's grandad & Co. who provided a lot of the money and financial support to the Nazis.

A case of selective memory I'd say.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Fri May 16, 2003 15:57

"'Imperial Propagandist'?
by Paul Moloney Wed, May 14 2003, 3:41pm
[email protected]

Pat, can you tell me why you became
a Spart (or whatever you are); do you
resent Daddy because he wouldn't buy
you a Merc?

P."

Paul There was a time many moons ago when you were actually funny

..mind you at least you sue your real name on your trolling expeditions and it is nice to see you particpate in indy media as oppossed to knock it!

"So who was this 'Irishwoman'?
by James McKenna Thu, May 15 2003, 6:17am"

True I haven't heard any confirmation from foreign affairs

"pat c you wanna keep to your juvenile comments about mercs etc , then go to a kiddies site!

well he's only just come off ie-rant which is pretty close !

conor

by James McKenna Fri May 16, 2003 17:13

The Dept of Foreign Affairs have finally confirmed "no Irish person was killed or injured". They said the story was "wrong".

"Wrong" emating from the US Public Diplomacy Department via their Puppt Saudi State. Do these gangsters think that by infiltrating the media they can fill our heads with lies to decieve us and manipulate our emotions to do and agree to things that are not in our interest?

by Paul Moloney Sun May 18, 2003 00:47 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

Not trolling, Krossie, unless you think
giving counter-opinions is "trolling"
these days? At least it's strange
you pick out my article and not the
badly-written whacky rubbish that litters
this site. Yes, my last post was abrupt
and not very funny, but I did write a reason
first article in the thread.

I thought Indymedia stood for a
progressive viewpoint, and I hardly
see how Pat C's support of fundamentalist
islamofascists is meant to be in any
way progressive. His line:

"The Vinnell Corporations headquarters in
Riyhad and the pentagon are military targets
regardless of who carries out the attack."

suggests that _anyone_ who attacks Americans,
no matter how bad, are worthy of support, no
matter what their own intentions are and no
matter if the end result is worse than the status quo. This is an opinion so ludicrous as to deserve the term "trolling". And at least I put my full name to my opinions.

And nice try for Pat C to lump me in with Avi, thus dismissing my own opinions. I happen to want a strong Palestinian state, think Sharon should be in jails, and lots of other cosy Indy stuff, yadda yadda. Despite opinions to the contrary, my first name is not "Genghis".

But I still love ya, baby.

P.

by pat c Sun May 18, 2003 14:44

"thought Indymedia stood for a
progressive viewpoint, and I hardly
see how Pat C's support of fundamentalist
islamofascists is meant to be in any
way progressive."

Paul, you keep repeating the sdame line. Its obviuos from myn postings I do not supp al Q.

" His line:

"The Vinnell Corporations headquarters in
Riyhad and the pentagon are military targets
regardless of who carries out the attack."

suggests that _anyone_ who attacks Americans,
no matter how bad, are worthy of support, no
matter what their own intentions are and no
matter if the end result is worse than the status quo. "

Where does my comment suppoert attacks on Americans? (I presume you mean US citizens)
I support attacks on CIA and Military facilities.
The rest of your lines are illogical, they are non sequitars. AS is obvious if you read my commenys in full.

"This is an opinion so ludicrous as to deserve the term "trolling". And at least I put my full name to my opinions."

You havent proved its ludicrous, just repeating the same points doesnt achieve that. I dont see how th expression of a genuine opinion is trolling. My full name is generally known. But I wont repeat it here just for your convenience.

"And nice try for Pat C to lump me in with Avi, thus dismissing my own opinions. I happen to want a strong Palestinian state, think Sharon should be in jails,"

I didnt suggest you were a zionist, just that you shared Avis illogical style.

"Despite opinions to the contrary, my first name is not "Genghis"."

Is it Attila?

by Paul Moloney Mon May 19, 2003 11:06 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

>Paul, you keep repeating the sdame line.
>Its obviuos from myn postings I do not supp al Q.

Yet you support their actions in Saudi Arabia; I fail to see the Jesuitical distinction:

"I do not support that mugger, yet I support his
right to kick the shit out of that old lady."

You call Saudi Arabia a fascist state, yet seem
gladdened by attacks from an even more dangerous
bunch of fascists, who would like to impose a Taliban-like system of government on every country
they possibly can, and support violence that can
have no good outcome.

There's no black and white in this situation;
merely very very dark grey and black.

>> "The Vinnell Corporations headquarters in
>> Riyhad and the pentagon are military targets
>> regardless of who carries out the attack."

>> suggests that _anyone_ who attacks Americans,
>> no matter how bad, are worthy of support, no
>> matter what their own intentions are and no
>> matter if the end result is worse than the status quo. "

>Where does my comment suppoert attacks on Americans? (I presume you mean US citizens)
>I support attacks on CIA and Military facilities.

So, did you support the attack on _all_ the compounds in Saudi Arabia? Do you believe every compound was some kind of CIA front? Would you also support an attack on installations in Ireland that aid the US military? I believe, for example, that Iona's software is used by the US military. Also Skillsoft, aka Smartforce. Do you hold a distinction between Irish developers
working in these firms and, say, impoverished Filipinos working in Saudi Arabia for a pittance?

I'd like to think I've painted a few shades of grey in the superhero fantasy world of Freedom Pat Vs. The Fascists, but I doubt it; you're probably knitting your cape as we speak.

>I didnt suggest you were a zionist, just that you shared Avis illogical style.

Logic is hardly the strongpoint of someone whose worst term of abuse is "fascist" yets who supports attacks by fascist groups.

P.

by pat c Mon May 19, 2003 15:14

"Paul, you keep repeating the sdame line.
>Its obviuos from myn postings I do not supp al Q.

Yet you support their actions in Saudi Arabia; I fail to see the Jesuitical distinction:"

i pointed out that no peaceful change is possible in sdaudi. every form of opposition from the equivalents of ff, fg, pd lp to sf, gp & sf are illegal. in a situation like this, it is inevitable that opposition will flare up in the mosques.

by supporting the saudi oppressive apparatus, leaving no other outlet for dissent, the cia & us miolitary have created this monster.

""I do not support that mugger, yet I support his
right to kick the shit out of that old lady.""

only a very naive person or a rogue would describe the cia & saudi security as an old lady.

"You call Saudi Arabia a fascist state, yet seem
gladdened by attacks from an even more dangerous
bunch of fascists, who would like to impose a Taliban-like system of government on every country
they possibly can, and support violence that can
have no good outcome."

i do not support the al q network. you seem to be incapable of handling any sort of a complicated argument. the saudi state implements a regime which is no different from the taliban in its treatment of women, gays, progressives.

companies which help to maintain the saudi tregime in power are responsible for the repression. whether this is thru oil technology or anyother means.

they are just as responsible as the clerks and service personnel were in auschwitz.

in ireland dissent is allowed and political change is possible by peaceful means. obviuosly i would not say that al q attacks in ireland could in anyway be justified. again we get back to your simplemindedness. you just cannot handle difficult arguments.

">I didnt suggest you were a zionist, just that you shared Avis illogical style.

Logic is hardly the strongpoint of someone whose worst term of abuse is "fascist" yets who supports attacks by fascist groups.

P."

see above. only a fool or a rogue would argue that i support al q.