The inevtiable conclusion to Teddy Mo part 2

 

The Mohamed Teddy Bear..for sale on E-bay, and comes with this warning:

For sale due to a change in the school curriculum.

Mo is a delightful little bear who all children would love, but not some adults.

Condition: As new, but by time of delivery may have 40 scratch marks on back.

Oh man! We are never gonna hear the end of this!

Comments

  1. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

    Tell me about it man. This is utterly pathetic. I’m embarrassed and ashamed.

  2. Gentlemen,

    My crap detector is buzzing really loudly over this one.

    I’ll bet the teddy bear naming was just an excuse. So, who is trying to steal this woman’s property, or intimidate the parents, or force concessions from the school principal?

    This kind of thing is never really about religion.

  3. I don’t totally understand why anyone would object to having a teddy bear named after Mohammad. After all, teddy bears are by definition cute and cuddly. What’s wrong with that? That’s flattering. I mean, there are worst things one could say that really would be blasphemy, but teddy bears are nice. What’s wrong with nice?

  4. OK, ok … I’m kidding. But, really, this is so trivial. Why are so many people overreacting, even calling for this teacher’s death? This is insane.

  5. SudaneseDrima:
    GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

    Tell me about it man. This is utterly pathetic. I’m embarrassed and ashamed.

    Wait ’til you see Muslims sawing off heads while chanting Allahu ackbar…..

    Oh, wait…

  6. Okay, another Joanne posting here……..well, at least they aren’t calling for the stoning of the child…..you just never know with these people; logic or common sense doesn’t ever seem to enter the equation.

  7. To be sure, I don’t know much about the AP writer Mohamed Osman but I was outraged by his characterization of Sufi “tenet” in his 11/30 article that I wrote to the AP:
    I am writing to express my dismay at Mohamed Osman’s misrepresentation of Sufi belief in his article Teacher hidden as Sudan mob urges death.

    A Sufi would NEVER NEVER EVER call for someone’s death, does not condone mob psychology, and certainly would deride blind obeisance to any prophet. Sufis are considered heretics by many Haditha oriented demagogues and routinely martyred by jihadis for their intelligence and worldview. These people won’t eat an animal, for heaven’s sake. They love Jesus as well as all the prophets. I am shocked that this AP writer would present Sufism as a polemic, atavistic philosophy that judges anybody for a misunderstanding of cultural values.

    The man should be ashamed for allowing this sad example of untruth to reach a global readership.

    I wonder about his motive. It certainly is not accuracy in reporting.

  8. Teacher’s actions were totally innocent of cause. This ebay teddy bear is designed for insult.

    Well, you reap what you sewn. I am sure there will be more to come.

  9. SM

    That’s what I fund trying to access eBay:
    This listing (270192422059) has been removed or is no longer available.
    Hmm……….somebody got scared?

    I’ll bet the teddy bear naming was just an excuse. So, who is trying to steal this woman’s property, or intimidate the parents, or force concessions from the school principal?
    This kind of thing is never really about religion ,

    You may be right, but I think it may be both.
    Religion do sometimes mean intimidation.

  10. But the Sufis we see on TV, would see an Arab being killed and expelled by an Israeli and would “see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil” and then they would speak about love between Israelis and Muslims as if no Muslim blood is being shed daily bu Israelis.

    just as Sunni Islam has been mediajacked been extremists, Sufi Islam has been mediajacked by opportunists.

  11. “Religion do sometimes mean intimidation.”

    Usually, not sometimes. What is the myth of Hell in Christianity but a threat? And Islam has copied this myth.

  12. Heidelbaer says:

    It’s absolut obvious – imho – that the Sudanese government takes hostages as they all do, when they get troubles. Remember US-Embassy in Iran? Shelter Now Helpers in Afghanistan? Human Shields in Iraq? Now the Brits have a muslim Lord in Sudan for inofficial negotiations. And they will hear, that Darfur is an internal matter of Sudan. That’s politics over there. Perhaps the Brits should show that the SAS is still able to get this teacher out there without any political concessions.

  13. Pretty sad that offending “the Prophet” is more serious than the rape, murder and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of non-Arab Sudanese.

  14. Will sudan ever make it to the 12th century.

    i changed all my wifes teddy bears names to
    muhammad, muhammad 1, muhammad 2,
    my stuffed dog name is I AM A NUT JOB after the iranian short shit.
    and the stuffed fish is now named Arafish

  15. I am a devout new ager. To me, it is a really safe belief system. Children love teddy bears. Their naming the class teddy bear Muhammad was because they love their Prophet Muhammad. That is a positive not a negative. So why are the Sudanese so insecure in their beliefs. To me that is what their negative response is really all about–their own insecurities in their belief system. If they were secure in their belief system, nothing anyone said or did would bother them.

  16. Josh Scholar says:

    I SOOO want a Mohammad bear with (what do you call those) head coverings, and the knife. He so cute. But what is that spring thing by his left ear?

    Anyway the auction was canceled. Probably EBAY or the charity thought about being blown up for a teddy bear and screamed NOOOOOO! A victory for Muslims everywhere.

    Ironically, Aisha was the last Muslim allowed to play with dolls. But she was married to Mohammad at the time.

  17. Josh Scholar says:

    By the way, since no one mentioned it, the auction wasn’t really for the teddy bear who, according to the original text was “likely to remain in custody” but to donate to a charity:

    Any proceeds to Prisoners Abroad http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk


    If you bid you are simply making a donation to the above charity which will be sent straight to them with Ebay final fee and Paypal charges deducted. Bear likely to remain in custody.

  18. well, we gave them the right to make all that… great sudanesse.

  19. This incident has little to do with teddy bears or Mohammed and everything to do with throwing up a smokescreen to help Sudan continue to resist UN and Western efforts to halt the rape, slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

    Now, Jean-Marie Guehenno, the United Nations peacekeeping chief, has said that the obstacles raised by Sudan are putting in doubt the planned deployment of a peacekeeping force for Darfur.

    Is the UN any use whatsoever?

    (more at blogolob)

  20. Josh Scholar says:

    Also, can anyone think of any reason for the toy grasshopper in the foreground of the picture?

  21. Western women in Sudan? How retarded is that?

  22. John Cunningham says:

    My ancient Egyptian history may be off, but, aren’t these savages the descendents of the Nubians that presently claim to have built the pyramids?

  23. 20. Steve M.:

    “Is the UN any use whatsoever?”

    No. Never have been, never will be. The worlds biggest dictatorship has veto rights, for crying out loud! My suggestion: Pack up the UN and start up the UD (United Democracies) with only passive seats for non-democratic governments.

    22. perry:

    “Western women in Sudan? How retarded is that?”

    Very. Expats should take this as a hint and get the hell out of dodgy areas immideately.

  24. “Is the UN any use whatsoever?”

    No. Never have been, never will be. The worlds biggest dictatorship has veto rights, for crying out loud! My suggestion: Pack up the UN and start up the UD (United Democracies) with only passive seats for non-democratic governments.

    Yes, setting up a UD could be a good idea, if they could decide who was and who wasn’t democratic.

    Why should the non-democratic governments have a seat, even passive? Let the bastards stand.

  25. THE LATEST IDEA OF THE UN IS TO TRY AND STOP US GETTING HANGED FOR SAYING AND DOING POLITICALLY AND SOCIALLY INCORRECT THINGS IN THE WRONG COUNTRIES.
    BUT IT IS ALSO HELPING CERTAIN COUNTRIES TO STOP HANGING SO AS TO GET LOWER CUSTOMS TARRIFS INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION.AS IN PYRAMIDS ETC.
    HOW DO GAY JEWISH TEDDYBEAR HOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN THEIR BEARS RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT NAMES FEEL OVER THERE IN IRAN ?
    BE CAREFUL ! : THEY’VE JUST GOT TILL THE 19/20 DEC UN VOTE TO HANG US.
    SUPERMAXES ARE A LONG TIME NOT TO SEE DAYLIGHT AND OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
    CAN JUST SEE THE HANGMEN HOLDING THE BLACK HOOD ITCHING TO GET IT ON IN TIME UP THERE IN HAIKSTEP.
    PROBABLY WITH THE FULL BLESSING OF MY NEIGHBOURS…….

  26. THE LATEST IDEA OF THE UN IS TO TRY AND STOP US GETTING HANGED FOR SAYING AND DOING POLITICALLY AND SOCIALLY INCORRECT THINGS IN THE WRONG COUNTRIES.
    BUT IT IS ALSO HELPING CERTAIN COUNTRIES TO STOP HANGING SO AS TO GET LOWER CUSTOMS TARRIFS INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION.AS IN PYRAMIDS ETC.
    HOW DO GAY JEWISH TEDDYBEAR HOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN THEIR BEARS RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT NAMES FEEL OVER THERE IN IRAN ?
    BE CAREFUL ! : THEY’VE JUST GOT TILL THE 19/20 DEC UN VOTE TO HANG US.
    SUPERMAXES ARE A LONG TIME NOT TO SEE DAYLIGHT AND OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
    CAN JUST SEE THE HANGMEN HOLDING THE BLACK HOOD ITCHING TO GET IT ON IN TIME UP THERE IN HAIKSTEP.
    PROBABLY WITH THE FULL BLESSING OF MY NEIGHBOURS…….

  27. Islam brings ridicule upon itself with idiocy like this.

    BHG

  28. That is funny, I am going to check it out on ebay right now (laughing). But seriously, what a sick thing to get mad at her for.AW’s Blog, click here

  29. It is no doubt we should drop League of Nations number 2 but we do not need UD or anything else either. Let’s keep it as natural process. States unite and grow apart depending on their best interests. It have always been like that. Why ruin good thing.

  30. Thanks for speaking out about the Teddy Bear incident. Do you ever hear from Leilouta and will she ever go back to blogging? I discovered your blog through her, and I miss reading about her thoughts and adventures.

  31. 32. leo:

    It’s good to have a forum in which to debate; else some countries would have trouble getting heard and others would be dificult to ‘get a hold of’…

    Incidentally, they should announce Jerusalem as the new capital city of the UD with no connection to any specific country or religion – that way one of the biggest problems in the Israel/Palestine conflict would be solved and both parties could save face. :)

  32. i renamed all my wife’s teddies except for the ones that came from victories secret, I mean if renamed those it would sort of kill the mood

    hunny put on your black lace muhammad and come to bed. that would kill all the desire.

  33. I think it sucks that she got a pardon. One white person gets in trouble and they get a presidential pardon. There are millions of people being killed in Darfur and no one gives a toss. The woman went to Sudan willingly and she contravened that country’s laws. She should have completed her 15 day sentence- every country has its own laws and they should be respected however retarded you may think they are. I got a 100 pound fine for leaving my car parked for 2 mins longer than i should have, which i wouldn’t have got back home. That is very retarded and if i don’t pay i have to go to court- how harsh is that. So can i go and make a fuss and say boo hooo i don’t like the law, i want a pardon and i want it now. Pathetic.

  34. Anna @ 37,

    Are you sure there is law in Sudan forbidding naming teddy bear a Mohummed?

    Oh, and it is not her fault you got lousy parking ticket.

    This women did not screw up your day, you did.

  35. leo, what are you going on about? Go back and read what i wrote.

    It is an offence to insult Islam and that was an deemed an insult, therefore she contravened the law. Everyone else has to abide by laws they don’t agree with. I too UNKNOWINGLY broke the law but was informed sternly that IGNORANCE WAS NOT AN EXCUSE and will not be receiving a pardon. Rules should apply to everyone, no?

  36. I dunno what should be new about it. Wasnt there a swedish music group called ALLA? Oh, wait, that was ABBA. But my cat and even my Hangbellypig is named Mohammed, because this is the Name, they received from the ultimate God, Allah II – Directors cut.

  37. “It is an offence to insult Islam and that was an deemed an insult”

    Can you clearly define what is and is not insulting to Islam?

    Is there law in Sudan, which describes forbidden actions to be construed as insults? Or is there free interpretation by anyone depending on mood or political situation? Looks like it all in the eyes of the beholder.

  38. Love It!!

    SK

  39. How the Sudanese wish to interpret and enforce their laws is their business and they shouldn’t be pressurised by bullies.

  40. ratedrsuperstar says:

    AnnA Said: How the Sudanese wish to interpret and enforce their laws is their business and they shouldn’t be pressurised by bullies.

    –kind of like how Nazi Germany wished to enforce their laws on the Jews in the 1930′s huh?

  41. “Wasnt there a swedish music group called ALLA? ”
    Alla is actually a very popular Russian name. There are zillion of Allas in Russia, have been for years; none of them Muslim.

    I am surprised nobody took offense in this practice. Wonder what would happen if one of Russian Allas went to Sudan. This one will pass, though.
    http://www.behindthename.com/name/alla

  42. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, Ms. Gibbons was not pardoned because she is ‘white’. She was pardoned because she’s a citizen of a country that was pissed off by the event, and Sudan doesn’t have too many friends in the West as it is (it’s the genocidal image, doesn’t buy too many friends).

    Darfurians aren’t citizens of a foreign country that has to look after its citizens abroad, but rather the citizens of the very country that is making sure that they won’t get any equality any time soon, other than the equality of the grave.

    As for laws regarding insulting Islam – the kids named the teddy. Their parents did not complain. Ask Sudanese just how unlikely such an event is to be viewed as an insult by most Sudanese, who already had their share of theocracy and aren’t that keen on going back to the days of fanatical madness. Ms. Gibbons was arrested and tried months after the event itself took place, an event which didn’t seem to bother the authorities there too much until very recently.

    You know what? I smell a rat. Someone decided that focus should shift to an infidel, and this was done. Laws, or even the views of Sudan’s own Muslims’ views regarding what would be deemed acceptable or insulting, were never part of the equation. But had they been…

    Had they been, I would have never taken an idiotic moral relativist stance. Hell, the original sentence was meant to be several months, and some people were even calling for death by firing squad! I wonder, Anna, had Sudan still been Turabi’s theocratic regime, and had Ms. Gibbons’ chosen punishment been death, would you still be talking about how each country has its own laws and how we musn’t ‘bully’ the legal process? Think about that.

  43. Allochka, I think you are safe. You are not teddy bear :)

  44. Roman Kalik @ 47,

    Do you think Anna does not know that all?

    She just wants to prove that 2 + 2 4

  45. 2 + 2 <> 4

    Damn html

  46. Roman

    “Ms. Gibbons was not pardoned because she is ‘white”

    There are cases in Saudi like this all the time but Saudi is a big boy and noone likes upsetting them. Guess you didn’t hear of the Egyptian who was executed in Saudi for leaving a koran in the washrooms at a mosque. This is all about political muscle. As for the sudanese public, does it matter what they say? At the end of the day, the rule of law is what matters and if the Sudanese people want to change it then they haven’t shown any initiative yet.

    I am glad for the lady and my argument is about Britain throwing its weight around and getting a presidential pardon, despite the fact that she only had 5 days left. The UK gets peeved when the US throws its weight around but it doesnt hesitate to do the same. Every country has its own laws and customs and it’s disrespectful to come into someone’s house and start rearranging the furniture how you like it.

  47. I’m sorry to barge in guys, but you’re missing the whole point.
    The point is about mutual respect & honesty. Let me explain:
    The English teacher worked at an English school for little boys and girls. How would you feel if you were a Christian and you found out that the very teacher you entrusted your children with actually told your children at a very young age that it was Ok to refer to the cross as the “plus sign”?. Well it’s dumb, I know. But trust me; for any concerned religious parent, this would be a biggy!!. And how would you feel if you were a Jew and some teacher told your young children that the Star of David can be called “the Moses Ninja star”? Would you be Ok with that?

    Any teacher is entrusted with the children they teach and any decent teacher should ask for and respect the preferences of the parents before they do any experiments.

  48. Thrash @ 52,

    Your point is valid and of cause there would be people who would not like it very much. However, the most you’d be in danger of is loosing your position as the teacher at that particular place.

  49. I’m sorry, I know this is OT, but can anyone explain to me the deal with comment #38?

  50. “I’m sorry, I know this is OT, but can anyone explain to me the deal with comment #38?”

    Sorry, I have no idea who does it and why.

    Our host might shed some light.

  51. Enrika and leo, it’s like a pingback thing, i think, where someone has linked an article to their own blog ie it’s not actually a comment.

    no.52, thrash, i think she assumed that because people are called Muhammad, it was therefore ok to call an object that too. The thing is british law doesn’t usually make excuses for ignorance so it’s a unfair to plead that for her, when she’s under another country’s law system.

  52. Roman Kalik says:

    @Anna, No. 51: I would be more concerned by the fact that the Egyptian government couldn’t care less about how its citizens are being executed abroad. It’s not just the rule of law that matters, it’s the duties that a government has to its country and citizens.

    @Thrash, No. 52:

    Very nice, except that the neither the children nor the parents were bothered, and nor was the vast majority of the staff. From talking to Sudanese, neither do most Sudanese Muslims view this as anything short of idiocy. Supposedly a co-worker filed a complaint to the Ministry of Education (rather than going to the school management), and after the complaint wasn’t even looked at for a very long time, it was suddently dug up to start a riot.

    Incidentally, a teacher in a Christian school not telling kids that it’s wrong to call the cross a plus sign would at most be admonished by school management, told how she should behave and educate, and fired should her behavior persist. A teacher at a Jewish school calling the Star of David a throwing star would just be laughed at – the Star of David being the crest of the royal house of David rather than a religious symbol anyway, and then getting an explanation on the matter. Nowhere is prison implied. Or violent death. At most we’re talking about losing your job. See the difference yet?

  53. Roman,

    yes, you are right there. The british care very much for their people and because of that i have the utmost respect for them. I don’t believe the Egyptian government did as much as the british to help him. Perhaps because they viewed what he did as being serious too and so did not want to appear to take it lightly. In any case, the Egyptian government don’t care about their citizens and i think they take the view that one less person will make their job that little bit easier.

  54. Thank you for the clarification, Anna.

  55. Anna,

    Thank you for the info

  56. bureaucrat says:

    The riots in Khartoum were about a perceived insult that Theodore Rooseveldt’s hallowed name was userped by the prophet Mohammad. A little known fact that Teddy has a huge Sudanese following. Crowds were heard chanting into the night “Teddy Yes, Mo No” & “No Mo’ Mo” outside the courthouse where Gillian Gibbons was tried and sentenced. Much of this story was lost in translation.

    N

  57. “Guess you didn’t hear of the Egyptian who was executed in Saudi for leaving a koran in the washrooms at a mosque.”

    If I understand correctly Mohammed was illiterate. This means Koran was written by his followers and not by himself. I also heard that there were multiple versions of Koran up until few centuries ago.
    Granted, process of selecting one version out of many and destruction of the rest was very long and very careful and was performed with assistance of great many learned Muslim scholars but still does it exclude error completely? So much so that man has to die for forgetting Koran in the washroom?
    Is Muslim god so unforgiving that its followers have to be so strict (mildly put)?

  58. John Cunningham says:

    Anna, ever consider going to the neighborhood tavern and having a few with the locals?

  59. Anna

    There are millions of people being killed in Darfur and no one gives a toss.

    That’s utter nonsense. The West and other countries have been protesting against the genocide for about 4 years now. There have been numerous public demonstrations in the US over it, demanding that the UN do something.

  60. leo @ 53

    Well I could only say that I totally agree with you that it should be the schools business (and the schools alone) to take care of any misconduct of any teacher. I’m with you on that one.

    Roman Kalik @ 58

    I do know that many parents were upset. And no one mentioned a death sentence, the worst thing talked about was wiping. (Not that I agree with the latter).

    But I have to say that there are similar ‘stupid’ things in the ‘free world’, and no body seems to mind.
    Well for instance did you know that according to the federal law in the US: burning the US flag or hanging it upside down is a crime punishable by prison?
    And that’s just a piece of fabric, Not the symbol of all what you think is decent.

    Did you know that as a scholar you can file a thesis that proves or disproves the existence of a God in most US and European universities in many departments, but if you file for
    A Thesis discussing the holocaust (even if it was a real objective historical analysis) you will be automatically rejected and you will be notified that you may not peruse any more education or degrees at that school?

    Did you know that in France only nuns can wear a head cover when present inside any educational institution? But muslim girls & non-nun women don’t have that privilege, and any female student (or staff) insisting on wearing a head dress will be picked up by the schools security and thrown out of that school or university?

    And speaking of France; Did you know that there are well documented archived evidence that proves that what France did in Algeria and Indochina (current day Vietnam) totally outweighs anything the German warmacht did in Europe in WWII? But if someone tries to suggest that France should just apologies for slaughtering all those people, that poor bastard would be dubbed and idiot and a terrorist savage barbarian.

    I have tons of other infinitely stupid things but I don’t wish to take half the blogs space.

  61. “…but if you file for a Thesis discussing the holocaust (even if it was a real objective historical analysis) you will be automatically rejected and you will be notified that you may not peruse any more education or degrees at that school ?”

    Coming from one of the country with the strictest laws regarding Holocaust denial (Austria – because they had a share in causing it), I strongly suggest you back up that claim with sources. From what I know, you can get into problems for outright DENYING THAT HOLOCAUST EVER HAPPEND (or only happend on a very small scale). That’s a restriction of several freedoms, and there’s a lively debate going on right here if it should be kept (I am for keeping it). But I really disbelieve that writing an objective analysis about the Holocaust will get you into troubles – I mean, there already ARE tons of the stuff, and they are published very openly…

  62. Well for instance did you know that according to the federal law in the US: burning the US flag or hanging it upside down is a crime punishable by prison

    As far as I know, the Supreme Court has tossed out all cases related to persecution of desecrators, citing that desecration is a form of free speech which must be protected.

  63. Toady,

    you live in a lovely world that i wish existed in real life.

    Don’t the americans justify the iraq war on the basis that they brought ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to Iraq. America only acts when it’s in its own favour, why not help the darfurians by bringing democracy and freedom to Sudan? Oh i forgot, Sudan has no massive oil reserves or any important political position in the middle east, leave them to kill each other.

  64. John Cunningham says:

    Anna, can’t do everything for everybody all of the time. Africa’s been around for about 5000 years. You’d think all those old “civilizations” would be more than willing to help their neighbors. Still can’t even feed themselves, but, no doubt you’ll find someway to blame the US. Yea, we’re legally paying for the oil we’re buying. No law against that. In the Middle East and we’re trying to keep a lid on the eternal never ending Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson shake-down. Silly twit.

  65. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, Sudan has large oil reserves. In fact, most of them are in the Darfur region, and China has been buying this oil like crazy. There are also other important resources (like Uranium) in the country.

    And in fact, the Bush administration has been heavily involved in Sudan (though not militarily). The US put heavy pressure on Sudan to end the North-South war, and didn’t give the country the promised diplomatic goodies when Darfur started happening. So far, the United States has been one of the few countries of the world to officially call what’s happening there a genocide (the UN Human Rights Council is too busy with Israel). But the US military can’t be everywhere, the post-Iraq unpopularity of US military actions doesn’t allow the US to even send troops there as part of a US peacekeeping force, and any sending of such US troops would make the country a magnet for “Liberating” Islamists, much in the same way Iraq turned out to be.

  66. Anna,

    What is wrong with oil? I need it badly and if freedom and democracy are by-products of my struggle well then, what can I do.

    BTW, I do not believe democracy can be forced upon. However, it does not mean one should not try to create favorable conditions and hope for the best.

  67. leo,

    “What is wrong with oil? I need it badly and if freedom and democracy are by-products of my struggle well then, what can I do.”

    i need oil, and if i need it badly i will go and kill people to get it. You see, it’s that sort of attitude that got you 9/11. Carry on with your gung-ho, we own the world deal and you might get another bunch of bedouins knocking over a few more towers. you bought a lot of things to Iraq, like death, destruction, triggered a civil war, created refugees of million iraqis.

    At least, you have the decency to admit that you pillaged a country for its oil.

  68. Anna,

    “You see, it’s that sort of attitude that got you 9/11″

    If not for Bali-likes I would’ve considered this.

    I think, you are putting carriage before horse unless you are implying that Saddam’s rule is preferred by jihadis over that of House of Saud. If so, then I am lost completely. Still, what is wrong with oil? Did you learn how to survive without it? Show me how then.

    “At least, you have the decency to admit that you pillaged a country for its oil.”

    If I need oil why would I want to pillage country, which produces it? To get less and less of it? Do I steal oil or do I buy oil? Who do you think Iraqis are chasing away all over their country? Isn’t your blame misplaced?

  69. Anna;

    Oh i forgot, Sudan has no massive oil reserves or any important political position in the middle east, leave them to kill each other.

    Sudan does have oil, as people have already pointed out. America isn’t the global policeman. There are some 20 conflicts going on in the world right now where people are killing each other. The US isn’t going to get involved in every one of them – sorry. People do need to sort out their own shit. Additionally, the rest of the middle-east would consider America’s involvement in Sudan as ‘interference’ in their affairs.

    You might also ask yourself, that given 197 other countries in the world, when are they going to take some initiative and do something about the world’s problems instead of expecting America to do it all?

    you bought a lot of things to Iraq, like death, destruction, triggered a civil war, created refugees of million iraqis.

    So Iraqis had NO OTHER CHOICE but to go after each other with bombs and electric drills because a foreign power toppled their government?

    At least, you have the decency to admit that you pillaged a country for its oil.

    Anna, you’re spouting off here with no reference to empirical reality. Did America actually take Iraq’s oil? Did America get any special deals on oil from Iraq? Did the price of oil go up or down? Does America pay for the oil it gets from Iraq? Did America take any oil in 1991 when it would have been easy? Etc .. etc ..

    Considering the price of oil was just at $100 USD a barrel, who exactly is being pillaged here?

  70. To

    Georg @ 67

    First of all, as a scholar, it is well known that if you would like to prove something you must start with a clean slate that doesn’t have any biased information. Which means that you have to start with an assumption that (event A for instance) may or may not have happened, and (event A) may have been as big or may have not been as big as it is arbitrarily believed.

    So I can’t understand how you can make that assumption while it is initially a crime to even doubt the certainty of (event A) and it is legally not allowed to question the undisputable dogma regarding the scale and massiveness of the event ?

    Let alone, that it is one of the most widely used approaches in all disciplines (mathematics initially) that if you would like to prove (theorem A), you may start with an assumptions like (let’s assume that theorem A is false), and by proving the falsy of that assumption you then have proved the validity of (theorem A). I hope I don’t sound too geecky :)

    So I quote:
    “From what I know, you can get into problems for outright DENYING THAT HOLOCAUST EVER HAPPEND (or only happend on a very small scale)”

    Isn’t that enough backup to my point?

    One more thing; There isn’t a single historical issue that didn’t ignite a debate. Can you tell the name of one book or one author or one scholar or a researcher or a professor who actually published a paper discussing the possibility that the Holocaust wasn’t as big as every body thought? Of course I ask for someone who wasn’t crucified after publishing :)

    And if you want names of people who treaded that way, and who weren’t even asked to present their argument to the world, people who were thrown in jail (guantanamo style) without even giving them a chance to explain. I can get you quite a hefty list.

    And for Xylo @ 68

    “As far as I know, the Supreme Court has tossed out all cases related to persecution of desecrators, citing that desecration is a form of free speech which must be protected”

    I stand corrected, you’re right and I found out that I was wrong about that one.

    Thanks for the correction.

  71. Toady,

    please learn the art of sarcasm and then reread my comment in light of it. The operative word in my comment was “massive” oil reserves. I believe before the US led invasion, oil was cheaper than water in Iraq. So yeah iraq was a little gold nugget. Interesting how the US and the UK have a monopoly on all the building contracts, which i am sure will be a good boost for the respective economies. You said it yourself, you dont go in and fix people’s problems on demand. I don’t know what your country is doing with the oil toady, all i know is your SUVs don’t run on air and the US is so desperately oil dependent.

    Leo,
    the death rate in Iraq until recently was approx 3000 month. Facts are the death rate under the US occupation is way higher than they were under Saddam. It is a fact of life that the US invasion triggered a civil war. With power comes responsibility is the cliche, is it not.

    Roman
    if the price of oil was cheaper than the price of water in Sudan, then there would have been no problem in “liberating them”.

  72. RE KILLING LOADS OF PEOPLE AS BY THE FRENCH,GERMANS ETC.,PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO WORK OUT THE PRESENT AGES OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE.PLEASE LEAVE THE PRESENT PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES LIKE ME OUT OF THIS.MOST OF US ARE FAR YOUNGER.I EVEN LIVE IN AN ARAB MAJORITY SUBURB OF PARIS.
    PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE UNITED NATIONS IS TRYING TO STOP THE DEATH PENALTY EVERYWHERE AFTER 20 DECEMBER 2007.
    SO INSTEAD OF GETTING HANGED FRIEND CHEMICAL ALI WILL JUST GET A MEDAL IN A LONGTERM INSTITUTION ? HOW DO PEOPLE IN HALABJA (THOSE STILL LEFT) FEEL ABOUT THAT ?
    AS WE SAY IN FRANCE RE CRITICISMS ”SWEEP IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN DOOR FIRST”.
    FOR THE REST SEE #27.
    PS I HAVE A TEDDY BEAR.HE IS OVER 50 AND HASN’T GOT A NAME.IT’LL STOP MORE WARS LIKE THAT !

  73. “the death rate in Iraq until recently was approx 3000 month. … With power comes responsibility is the cliche, is it not.”

    ‘until recently’ actually comforts me very much because as you correctly said with power comes responsibility (cliche or not, when you are right, you are right).

    But you a still missing the point. US did not cause all this death. Immense love of average Iraqi for his fellow man on top of jihadi propaganda and direct jihadi action caused that. Good thing it is dying down. We are not of the woods yet, though.

  74. Anna;

    All large developed countries are oil dependent. The US gets 60% of its oil from foreign sources, the rest comes from domestic sources. Actually the US is less dependent on foreign oil than the mid-east oil states are dependent on dollars. If we developed alternative energy sources (and we will), where would your leaders get the dollars to buy technology, medicine, and everything else the West produces but their economies do not? Not to mention the gold they use to plate their toilets?

    the death rate under the US occupation is way higher than they were under Saddam..

    The US made mistakes in Iraq but it isn’t forcing Iraqis to slaughter each other. Unless you believe that Iraqis are dumb sheep with no free will of their own, you should consider that Iraq’s problems are rooted in a primeval culture that sees tribal vendettas, clan feuding, religious xenophobia, and honor killings as acceptable codes of conduct. It’s a highly dysfunctional country with highly dysfunctional people.

  75. leo,

    everyone in the ME knew that Saddam was keeping the Shia’s in check. We knew that getting rid of him would be a disaster but no one listened. Yes lots of deaths are due to civil war, but that was because power was used without any forsight or regard for the cultural hotbed that is Iraq. I agree, it’s a good cliche.

    toady

    “If we developed alternative energy sources (and we will), where would YOUR leaders get the dollars to buy technology, medicine, and everything else the West produces but their economies do not? Not to mention the gold they use to plate their toilets? ”

    You seem to be struggling with basic geography toady. Egypt is not part of the gulf and we are certainly not part of OPEC. We don’t do gold taps either- that’s Saudi- get it right. And for the record, just as not everyone who is white is french, neither is everyone who is middle eastern from an OPEC. We produce our own world class medics, thankyou very much, a lot of them are currently propping up your health service coz yanks are too busy getting obese and claiming state benefits to actually do any work.

    Acceptable codes of conduct, ehy? I believe your glorious history shows you forcing black people to defeacate in each others’ mouths. Americans talking about dysfunctionalism- that’s rich, i thought that was your speciality.

  76. “I believe your glorious history shows you forcing black people to defeacate in each others’ mouths”

    Like so much middle-eastern common beliefs, it’s wrong. Never get information about American history from anyone who’s drooled saliva on their El Che T-shirt.

    “e produce our own world class medics, thankyou very much, a lot of them are currently propping up your health service. Americans talking about dysfunctionalism- that’s rich, i thought that was your speciality”

    Why would so many world class medics want to go to such a dysfunctional country as America?

  77. “everyone in the ME knew that Saddam was keeping the Shia’s in check.”

    By what means?

    “We knew that getting rid of him would be a disaster but no one listened.”

    I think it was probably the biggest mistake on US part to discount this possibility. We are definitely smarter today than four years ago. Although, I doubt it would’ve stopped anything. Saddam’s goose was cooked by then. May be we would’ve been prepared better and could’ve prevented more death but I am speculating here.

    “Yes lots of deaths are due to civil war, but that was because power was used without any forsight or regard for the cultural hotbed that is Iraq.”

    Again, I agree. But look on the bright side. After all mayhem that Iraqis self inflicted they are too smarter today and neither Shias not Sunnis nor Kurds are needed to be kept in check as you say. It looks like today they beginning to like peace more and more. No Saddams are necessary.

    BTW, Saddam had 20+ years to make Iraq beautiful. Give us this much and then we will compare the results.

  78. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, you are using loaded arguments. Building contracts are *nothing* compared to war expenses, and what’s the point of invading a country that has really big local oil subsidies? Out of spite?

    Sudan has large oil reserves, it simply doesn’t pretend to give a hoot about its populace, and prefers to sell as much of the oil as possible to China. Neither the US nor any other Coalition member profited from the war – between the huge war expenses and the damage (yes, damage!) to the international oil market, the Iraq war has no financial bright spot whatsoever.

    Want to know who profited? Oil-based econmies. Saudi, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, all got a huge unexpected bonus and now have an interest in stoking the flames to keep the oil price in the red. They had a clean profit – no risk, no huge expenses, just an amazing profit margin.

  79. xylo, lol@ middle eastern common beliefs, i learnt that from a text book written by a british historian. Please try learning your own history. People emigrate to the states because of greater earning potential and cheap cost of living, nice weather and coz you’re a relatively likeable bunch.

    leo, im not clued up about iraqi politics and history but everyone in the ME knew that Saddam was holding his people back from hacking each other to bits. I have no loyalty whatsoever to Iraq, i was just giving some raw facts that there were less people being killed under the dictatorship than under the new democracy.

    Roman, your sarcasm is duely noted but the buidling contracts are in addition to the revenue from oil fields. I am not an economist but i think rebuilding an entire country is quite good boost. Roman, the fact that the allied forces messed up the Iraq war is immaterial. I am sure at the time, when they produced the fabricated dossier to invade IRaq, they thought it was going to be very lucrative indeed. You don’t go into war to knowingly damage your country’s economy and deplete your armed forces unnecessarily, or do you?

    I think it’s time for a new post!

  80. “I think it’s time for a new post!”

    Ditto! I miss my Sandmonkey! Post, damn you, post!

    (((((Sandmonkey)))))

  81. Roman Kalik says:

    It is indeed time for a new post.

    Also, Anna, in case you forgot the old pre-war news… Everyone thought Saddam still had WoMD’s, be it the European countries that didn’t participate in the attack, or Iran. Keeping that illusion further by playing hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors furthered that hidden threat of his: aimed mainly at keeping Iran at bay. Also, you greatly oversimplify reasons for war into simple economics – a common practice that ignores nearly all the human complexities involved in such affairs.

    The war costs – as well as the damage to the oil market – were factors so predictable and simple (much simpler than the ethno-religio-political reality within Iraq, for example) that it would have been impossible to ignore. There is also no profit in reconstruction – the US invested a lot of money into that, rather than serving as some kind of wrecker/rebuilder mobster. There is simply no monetary gain in this war – never was, and never will be. Oil is not stealable, as it is sold into an international market, and bought from that market. The US is a net oil importer, which means that any fluctuations up in the oil market can cause major damage to the economy. The only countries to profit are net oil *exporters*.

    No, this wasn’t a war based on economy, it was a war based on changing the political reality in an unstable and increasingly hostile region, with Saddam simply being viewed as the single most dangerous ruler in the region. Read up about Vietnam when you get the chance, especially the feared Domino Effect. One of the main factors in this war was trying to start such an effect, though there were many other considerations.

  82. John Cunningham says:

    So, in closing, we’ve been convinced that anna is a psycho. Still not too late to stop in that bar and have a few with the people. It would be better than your mother’s basement constantly adjusting the eye slit on your berka.

  83. lol, Roman, Saddam was a threat? lolol, do you know Saddam’s reign was mostly secular? Do you know that he allowed alcohol distilleries to operate (big deal in the ME)? do you know that other faiths lived in peace while he was in power? the guy never supported islamic terrorism. I can’t see how this brought any stability to the region, but please do enlighten me. IF anything it has served as fuel for the fire of terrorism.

  84. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, Saddam Hussein, though not a religious fanatic, has proven himself to be the most unstable and dangerous Middle-Eastern ruler over the past three decades. For his myth of religious tolerance, see the cleansing of the Jewish community in its entirety by the Iraqi Ba’ath, and the clear favorism regarding Sunni Arabs in all of Saddam’s national policies. See his wars (and there was more than just Kuwait), and the ease with which he used weapons of mass destruction (against Iraqis, even). See his insanity, his personality cult, and his support of terrorists when the Islamists in question weren’t openly against Iraq (Saddam Hussein was the biggest financer of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose families he also provided with money post-suicide-attack to encourage such operations).

    Saddam? Saddam was a lunatic who gained control of a country. A middle-eastern Joseph Stalin, who viewed fascist leaders as people to emulate. He was the single most unstable leader in the entire middle-east, even moreso than Ghaddafi or Ahmadinejad. Ghaddafi can sound sane every Tuesday or so, and Ahmadinejad is only a potential madman for the moment, whereas Saddam has proven himself ten times over.

    Not an Islamist? Sure he wasn’t an Islamist, but his removal would have certainly appeared as a stabilizing measure to many, and a catalyst for regionwide change.

    I’m not saying that this reasoning was right, mind you, but I see it as more than likely, especially when regime change in Iraq has been official White House policy since Clinton was elected back in the day.

  85. only a mental midget or a open anti-semite would say the holocoust did not happen.

    my wife’s family was butchered in the holocoust this sort of propaganda proves to me that some are planing a second one, that is what the ‘short shit’ of iran has in mind when he says Israel should be wiped off the map.

  86. saddam had and used WMD’S you can ask the Kurds about it.

    saddam was playing a game, he wanted the iranians to believe he still had them so they would not invade iraq.

  87. John Cunningham,

    Granted, we do not agree with Anna on many points but this is wrong:

    “So, in closing, we’ve been convinced that anna is a psycho.”

    Nothing is absolutely clear. Not to you, not to me, not to her.

    John, please correct your error.

  88. John Cunningham says:

    How’s this correction, anna and those that agree or try to excuse her psychotic attempt at moral equivelancy are morally bankrupt. That’s what I say.

  89. Trash @76: “First of all, as a scholar, it is well known that if you would like to prove something you must start with a clean slate that doesn’t have any biased information.”

    I agree that you shouldn’t use BIASED information. You should use unbiased information that is backed up with facts (and not start “with a clean slate” if that means that you should ignore all other scientific work and start from the beginning every time). Now since there is a lot of scientific work which empirically goes towards proving holocaust, starting by assuming that Holocaust has happened doesn’t seem biased to me, whereas starting by assuming that Holocaust hasn’t happened seems biased since the scientific evidence for that is rather thin.

    But I digress. In my comment, the emphasis should have been on that it is forbidden to OUTRIGHT (i.e. without supporting the claim with ample empirics) deny that Holocaust ever happened.

    This also – in my view – doesn’t mean that you can’t use the assumption that Holocaust never happened as a theorem to be used in scientific work, if only you state that you treat this assumption purely as a theoretical aid for scientific work, and not as a given but non-proven reality.

    “And if you want names of people who treaded that way, and who weren’t even asked to present their argument to the world, people who were thrown in jail (guantanamo style) without even giving them a chance to explain. I can get you quite a hefty list.”

    I do want the names (and if possibly, the cases) of those people, if you could provide me with some of them.

  90. Trash @76: I also think that if you have more to discuss on that matter, maybe it would be better to do that via e-mail (h0351484 [AT] wu-wien.ac.at), since none of the other people in this thread really seem to be interested in the topic ; )

  91. Roman Kalik says:

    Georg, I suspect that I can quite accurately predict one of the names that will be presented to you: David Irving, historian turned Nazi fan.

    Taking the ‘Holocaust never happened’ as an unproven reality is more than just bad science, as the core of the argument is that everything written that says otherwise is a lie. This implies an international conspiracy, with the “fake” victims being the benefitiaries. And personally, I see no scientific research in people who start by taking worldwide Jewish conspiracies as a fact of life. I see idiots at best, and hate-driven people with an agenda at worst.

  92. Roman, Saddam, was a threat to his own people, like many others, but this war was touted as a war on terror and an islamic fundamentalist he was not. So no he wasn’t a threat, not like Ahmadinejad is a threat. If he was such a threat, then why didn’t they finish him off in Gulf war 1, reportedly they were within range of killing him when Bush Senior said to back out…hmmm. Ahmadinejad arms Hezbollah and all the terrorist groups in Syria which then go on to kill in Lebanon and Israel.

  93. North Korea is developing nuclear, Kim is more nuts than Ahmadinejad and Saddam combined with his prison dictatorship. Yet I don’t see the US rushing over to bring democracy to them. Oops north korea isn’t part of OPEC. Don’t tell me this isn’t about oil.

  94. Roman Kalik says:

    Um, AJ wasn’t a factor in 2003, and Kim isn’t even in the middle-east (the Far East isn’t viewed with as much interest as it was in the 50′s-70′s period, and back then the US was heavily involved against various Communist factions in the region). Should Kim do more than just be an asshole, and should he prove to be a real risk to Japan or South Korea, he’ll be a smoking crater before you can blink. But as it is today, China implies that it can keep that particular madman in check, and the US has no interest in starting a global conflict with China.

    As for Hezb… Even Israel, that has a clear reason to fear Iran, is loath to attack a country that could easily become an ally should the current regime be overthrown. Even in today’s reality, Radio Voice of Israel transmits in Iran.

    Again, you use a loaded argument. I don’t know what Bush Senior’s considerations were, maybe he figured that taking Saddam out and trying to rebuild Iraq would be too much of a hassle when the goal of the Gulf War was already reached, and the ME wasn’t at all viewed in the same manner back in the 90′s. You can thank Osama bin Laden for changing that perception regarding the volatileness and risk that the ME has towards the rest of the world. What I *am* certain of though, is that “he was a member of OPEQ” is a non-argument. A lot of countries are members of OPEQ. Saddam just happened to be an unstable nutter who was a risk to more than just his own country, he was a man who just about walked around with a MADMAN neon sign over the past twenty years. In short, Saddam wasn’t just a nutter but a nutter who brought a lot of attention to himself.

    As for Iran funding Hezbollah and placing Lebanon and Israel at risk, I agree. The difference is that Hezb didn’t bring much attention to itself until very recently. The ME didn’t pay much attention to Hezb, and you expect a foreign country to do it?

  95. John Cunningham says:

    Roman, the first Persian Gulf War was halted when saddam was thrown out of Kuwait because that’s all the President could get a UN mandate to do. Get him out of Kuwait and that’s all. They didn’t listen to Patton when he said that we should continue to Moscow, they didn’t listen to common sense when they didn’t go all the way to Baghdad. Do it now or do it later. One of the things the UN then mandated was the no-fly zones over the top third and bottom third of Iraq. saddam continually locked on with radar and numerous times fired upon UN mandated aircraft.

    Holocaust deniers believe that the newsreel footage of Eisenhower touring the death camps after we liberated the Germans from the nazis was filmed on a Hollywood back lot next to where they filmed the moon landing. They are the same ilk that say the US attacked itself on 9/11. They are stark raving lunatics.

  96. you keep saying this is about nutters and that Saddam was a nut, and i just pointed out another nut (Kim) to you who is also anti inspectors, does nuclear blah blah. So why pick on Saddam? The only reason the US bothers with the middle east IS that theyare in an oil rich area. What else does the gulf give to the world????? If Kim obliterated S. Korea, would it really matter to the US? But if Saddam had taken over Kuwait/SAudi like last time, then America is scuppered for oil.

    I would really like to know why you think the US has their hand in the gulf. Why would the most powerful country in the world want with a bunch of bedouins in the desert? Why ally with Saudi? Why ally with Egypt? Why get involved in ME peace talks instead of say do peace talks with tutsis and hutus? What is so special about the gulf? How can someone like yourself who clearly uses reasoned arguments deny that the war was not about grabbing oil?

  97. Anna

    If it was about oil, the US would have just cut a deal with Saddam, who was desperate to remain in power. Or the US would have just invaded Venezuela. It’s closer, smaller, oil-rich, part of OPEC, and not full of extremist retards hell bent on killing each other. Far easier to manage.

    You have a load of wrong information about Gulf War 1, and you keep spouting out sound bites about oil, oil oil! yet you’ve presented no cognitive proof why this might be so, nor have you tried to offer a reasoned counter-argument to some of the points the posters here have presented. It would make for a better debate if you did :-)

  98. xylo, please do say what is wrong with the information given about gulf war 1 and provide a reference.

    i think it’s you who likes to spout but can’t really support anything, the reasons given thus far
    he was a nut, plently of nutty dicatotrs
    he was suspected of having WMDS and being anti american- plenty of those who are not even suspected but declare to have nuclear too…
    he was systematically supporting terrorism- that’s actually iran and perhaps the cia got confused between iran and iraq.

  99. John Cunningham says:

    anna, anna, anna, we got saddam, next we’re going to get immadinnerjacket and the mollusks and then we’re coming after you. It’s the United States’ never ending effort to rid the planet of stark raving lunatics, one lunatic at a time.

  100. To Georg @ 95

    My question still stands unanswered! How do you investigate something that is forbidden to question in the first place? And how can you honestly investigate the (event H) if you already know before doing any thing that mentioning the possibility of falseness of (event H) is a major crime? (You know what I’m saying is not complicated, we’re not discussing the Gauss-Ostrogradsky divergence theorem for goodness sakes!!). it’s simple.
    I need someone to prove me wrong by an abstract argument, not a random collection of feelings and emotions. I need a simulated ‘do process’ that describes what should an investigator do in order to do an objective study about (event H)

    And since I try to be a man who keeps his word; here are some of the names:

    Maurice Bardèche (journalist &literary and art critic journalist)
    Robert Faurisson (professor of French literature at the University of Lyon)
    Paul Rassinier – (France, History professor, published 2 books)
    Germar Rudolf (Chemist)

    And I would really like it to exchange e-mails with you, but what started on the blog should stay on the blog . I’d be honored to e-mail you regarding other subjects.

    And for

    Roman Kalik @ 97

    David Irving was also accused of being a homosexual pedophile (and a lot of other things) and, I think, he is still in prison. (How’s that for a nice crucifixion?)
    I think that civilized people should refute books with books, not with calling the one you disagree with a prison-deserving blood-thirsty homosexual-pedophile!!

    If you call people who disagree with you ‘Nazi sympathizing idiots’ and those who disagree with you call you ‘a conspiracy collaborating devil’; How can the world communicate and listen to each other. May be the majority of people are not as bad as the majority of people think!

    But thanks for he attempted correction anyway

    And
    For John Cunningham @ 101

    Talking about Eisenhower, I deeply respect Dwight D. Eisenhower; I think he was one of the best Generals in human history. But there is something that I don’t understand; Eisenhower gave General Mohamed Najeeb (of the Royal Egyptian army) a German Luger once. (For those who know a thing or 2 about WWII; that is a grand gesture of respect and recognition).. But Mohamed Najeeb was one of the main army leaders who fought the Zionist army in 1948 and Eisenhower gave him the gun after that. Does anyone have an explanation? I never heard that Eisenhower gave a Luger to any Israeli commander !!

    Can that be explained?

  101. John Cunningham says:

    Thrash, a lot of Americans think that Nazi “stuff” was cool looking. The nazis put a lot of effort in designing form into the function. I didn’t kill him, but I once shot a North Vietnamese tax collector. I got his pistol belt, had a red star on it. Pretty cool, huh?

    All the rest is mental masturbation, kind of like thinking, in fear, if one doesn’t think, they’ll forget how to think. They remind me of cell phone psychos. What, are they afraid if they don’t keep talking they’ll forget how to talk? They tend to link up with agenda driven psychos.

  102. Trash @106: I thought I WAS giving you an argument and not just some emotions. But I’ll try again…and quote from my last post:

    “it is forbidden to OUTRIGHT (i.e. without supporting the claim with ample empirics) deny that Holocaust ever happened”

    Now if you want to investigate the Holocaust and not just assume it as given based on the empirical stuff already there, you could, for example:

    Start by assuming as a purely abstract theorem that Holocaust didn’t happen, which is fine if, as I stated above, YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS A WORKING ASSUMPTION AND NOT AN UNPROVEN CONCLUSION. Proceed from there, for example by working out the consequences of Holocaust not happening, and seeing if those consequences can be empirically found in the real world. If you finally come to the conclusion that this assumption is justified, fine. But for that to be the case, you would either need a ton of empirical evidence, since there is already so much evidence to the contrary, or you could alternatively point out some logical fallacy that all the other historians made in interpreting their evidence, thus rendering it useless.

    To my knowing, the reason people get into jail for writing about Holocaust is that, contrary to the above formula, the ton of empirical evidence or the pointing out of a logical fallacy isn’t there. There is usually insufficient evidence, or evidence from very dubious sources, or outright false evidence.

    I’ll take a look at the names you gave me. But – to really give you an emotional argument now – in addition to everything said above, what further contributes to my negative view of scientists coming to the conclusion that Holocaust didn’t happen is that those very scientists are often found speaking in person at events organized by neonazi or at least extremely right-wing groups (sometimes they are illegal, sometimes legal). And I have a hard time believing in the objectivity (or intelligence) of someone who spends his time willingly supporting the cause of some of the dumbest, most biased and most hateful people on earth.

  103. john cunningham,
    you seem to be quite desperate to get female attention with your nasty preoccupation with me despite me not ever communicating with you or wishing to do so. This will be my first and last communication with you, out of pity for your hate filled heart:

    “elmabeyehtermesh nafso mesh momken hayehterem ghero”

    translation: if someone has no self respect, then they can’t respect others.

    I suggest you get some self respect.

  104. John Cunningham says:

    anna, anna, anna, I love rattling the cages of self-absorbed psychos, be they male or female. Get yourself a drink with the people.

  105. To Georg @ 108

    Point taken and argument understood and I do agree. I just hope that most history departments of all universities share the same level of confidence in absolute objectivity.

  106. Roman Kalik says:

    Thrash, David Irving is a free man, walking around the UK spouting the same drivel regarding conspiracies to sully the Germans and fake victims milking money and sympathy. His recentmost yarn was about how the Jews deserved to be locked up for being subversive.

    His sentence in Austria was overturned by a judge affiliated with an extreme nationalist party. As for calling a pedophile and the like, I never did that and find it irrelevant to this discussion.

    Anna, while you are a reasonable person, you have yet to present any arguments that show that the war in Iraq was about oil. Yes, in general the interest of oil-based economy states in the middle-east’s stability is because the region has something that they need, but then again Israel has no oil, neither does Lebanon (which US troops attempted to stabilize twice, somewhat succeeding in the first effort and failing in the second)…

    There was no way to ‘steal’ oil from Iraq. Never was, never will be. You can argue that the entire interest the US holds in the middle-east’s stabiliy is based on wanting an oil-rich region safe, but that is a far shout from your previous argument of “robbing poor Iraq”, is it not? What is relevant to me is that the US sees a reason for wanting the area free from overt strife and war, and frankly until Osama came along, the US was quite content in leaving the ME to its own affairs. Bush in particular had no interest in foreign policy whatsoever. There are always many factors at play, though, and Al-Qaeda made people shift their view of the ME 180 degrees. From a region that had largely become quiet even to itself, it now appeared to become one that could blow itself *and* others up if left to its own devices. So the US and others became interested in changing the local stagnated politics.

    Your mistake, Anna, is in looking too much for short-term and petty gains. There aren’t any, not in this place and not for the oil market. The US will be suffering from the war’s expenses for years to come, and yet there was an interest in long-term stability *for the entire region*. Because if the entire region went up in flames, oil-consuming economies would crash and burn. We’re talking Great Depression II, and worse. *that* I see as a very good interest in keeping this area calm. That, and the fact that we seem to produce many madmen if left to stagnate, madmen with apocalyptic dreams and some skill when it comes to executing them.

  107. I have supported my arguments with common sense but that is not regarded highly in politics :) You keep presenting generic arguments that could apply to any dictator at any point in time. You say it’s not about oil, but then you don’t say what it is about. The gulf is made up of bedouins and oil. I doubt the US is after the bedouins, although they do make great tea.

    How is taking out Saddam going to stabilise the region exactly? Any person on a blog can see that taking out Saddam, equals leaving Iran to have free reign. If anything Saddam was keeping IRan that other great nutty nation in check. Didn’t the west arm Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war? Someone said that Israel is afraid of Iran, heck everyone is afraid of Iran even Ay-rabs. As for Israel, well ISrael is unique and the US supports them for entirely different reasons.

  108. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, there is no common sense in your argument because there was no way to fight over the oil, short of annexing Iraq. For you it may be obvious that removing Saddam would have brought chaos, but it wouldn’t have been obvious to the US administration today, as it was listening to the Iraqi expat community. Many of us were, for that matter, ask Big Pharaoh. The risk of removing Iran from deadlock far outweighed the potential gain of starting a wave of stability throughout this increasingly fanatical and unstable region. Relying on two madmen to stay in a deadlock is an incredibly stale gambit, especially when the regional reality is changing and becoming increasingly radicalized (and say what you will about Shi’a extremists, the Sunni fanatics beat them ten times over).

    Was it a correct gamble? Probably not, though we’ll see that for certain in ten years’ time, maybe even twenty.

    The fact is that after 9/11 changed the way the ME was viewed by the US, just as further terrorist attacks in Europe and in other locations further changed that perception later on. The reality that allowed to let the madman stay on no longer existed, as far as the US administration was concerned, and nor did it exist much beforehand. Clinton would have likely acted to topple Saddam had he not been caught with his pants down.

    You seem to obsess over an unsupportable and simplistic argument, Anna. You see the US *only* as a resource-parasite, regardless of what is happening on the ground. You assume that the US acting as an oil-grubber is a *fact*, and try to build an empty argument around that.

    Why did the US get involved in Lebanon twice, Anna? Why is France acting so dilligently (and blindly, I might add) to solve Lebanon’s politics?

    Tell me how the oil could have been stolen, Anna. Tell me, or at least try to reason it through yourself. You think this region is a sea of oil, a glittering gem that makes people mad with greed, and yet you cannot present a single argument except for that, and you ignore every reasonable argument and reasoning while chanting “OIL!” as some kind of mantra.

  109. Roman Kalik says:

    *The risk of removing Iran from deadlock was far outweighed by the potential gain

    sorry for any potential mix-up.

  110. anne what brand of KOOLAID ARE YOU DRINKING?

  111. Your argument that the US had the war for stability. Why do they want the region to be stable then? Just please just answer that in one easy sentence.

    You said that the US hand on heart after consulting, went to war to ‘stabilise’ the region. That’s just farce and not just obvious to me as you say, but to the whole middle east which forcefully warned the US that this would NOT bring stability. This was stated very clearly by Egypt, the US’s key ally in the middle east, so don’t give me piffle about the US not having the magic of hindsight. I believe Mubarak’s warning to the US about starting the Iraq war was something like:

    “this war will create a 100 binladens”.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1125657.ece

    and what he said at the time seemed over the top but now seems quite innocuous. This war could possibly tip Iraq into a theocracy like Iran and Saudi- and Egypt looks like it could go the same way too if the MB have their way. Great, you go from one secular nut to a region of AJ/khomeini type characters. Stabilisation, here we come! Please explain to me how this war was never going to be viewed as an attack on islam and therefore fuel the fires of fundamentalism which is the driver for theocracies in the middle east.

    “Trying to stabilise an increasingly fanatical ME”. WEll that’s funny, since most terrorist attrocities in the west are committed by terrorists that are homegrown. All the london bombers were british or most of them and any training that was received was actually in Afghanistan not Iraq. In fact not one of the 9/11 bombers was Iraqi. Having lived in Europe and the Middle East, I can safely say that there are more fanatical and fundamentalist views in Europe than in the middle east. Abou hamza, one of many expat nuts who has assylum in europe, the guy who has the death penalty on his head for terrorist activities in Egypt, was granted assylum in the UK, given a council house and until recently had all his expenses paid for by the british government while he preached hate in the streets of finsbury park for years. Or how about the myriad charities in the US that fund terrorism that we keep reading about…http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0724096320070807

    If this was really about the war on terror and not about oil, then the west need have looked no further than its own back yard.

    .

  112. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, you have no arguments from me about Islamist extremists being aplenty in Western countries. The UK in particular granted asylum and entry to some pretty fucked-up people over the years, without bothering to think about it overtly. What you forget though, Anna, is that Western countries have only started to realize that the madmen are in their own backyard over the past couple of years. Until then, the prevalent perception was that they all came from here.

    The US had a fairly arrogant approach to the ME during the past five years, that much is certain. The administration was certain that they had everything worked out, and that it just takes a little effort to put things straight. And like with ‘Nam, reality proved a bit more complicated than that.

    As for why the US is interested in our region’s stability, you tell me. Keeping the oil flowing is certainly part of it, but there are a myriad of other factors. Factors that cultimated in two Lebanon interventions, and continuous US support for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan (none big oil countries), and Saudi Arabia (the one big oil country of the group). The fact is that until the whole War on Terror business, the prevalent approach to the ME had been to ignore it. Mistakes were made when that perception changed, arrogant mistakes. We’ll see if anything was learned from the arrogance and mistakes, though I think that Iraq had been so badly mismanaged that a lot of chances had been blown.

  113. no no no, you tell me Roman. i was hoping you would enlighten me with the main factors that compose this complex situation, seeming that you think im being quite simple in stating that it is about oil. Support for Israel is unique. As i said before, we need to set that one aside. Intervention with lebanon, well prolly because lebanon is half syrian and is partly dominated by hezb- need i say anymore? Egypt, well we’re the moderates who do the talks and we get paid off to do so. We’re the US’s key to the middle east- without us they’re screwed. Same for Jordan probably- moderate has a peace agreement with Israel.

  114. Roman
    Why is France acting so dilligently (and blindly, I might add) to solve Lebanon’s politics?

    “Why is US acting so dilligently (and blindly, I might add) to solve Israel’s politics?”

    eh, question of solidarity

  115. Uchuck the Tuchuck says:

    Anna wrote:
    “North Korea is developing nuclear, Kim is more nuts than Ahmadinejad and Saddam combined with his prison dictatorship. Yet I don’t see the US rushing over to bring democracy to them. Oops north korea isn’t part of OPEC. Don’t tell me this isn’t about oil.”

    I think there is a very different political equation/dynamic at work as regards North Korea. Yes, Kim is crazier than a shithouse rat, and yes he is working on nukes. He also has a common border and common (basic) political ideology with the People’s Republic of China. This, I think, effectively eliminates the possibility of any direct US action against the Norks absent a direct and overt attack on the United States by the PRK with a nuclear weapon. I don’t think it’s the lack of oil.

  116. unchuck, N.Korea is an example of the many other countries that “need democracy” yet won’t be “helped out”. N.Korea could easily be replaced with Zimbabwe and so on and so forth

  117. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, Hezbollah did not exist until the 80′s. The first US intervention was several *decades* before that. During the second US intervention, Hezb was still a two-bit player in a huge civil war, and largely an unknown to all involved. Sadr, by the way, remained the major leader of Lebanese Shi’a until his visit to Lybia – from which he never returned. It was the period after that that truly allowed Hezbollah to gain power.

    Africa’s quite rich, by the way. Mother-lode of resources, be it commodities, oil, or nuclear resources. Great place to conquer and raid and whatnot. And yet the one place the US ever bothered with is Somalia. A place of fanatical and tribal lunatics, of all places. I wonder, what was *that* over?

    Kim, as I said, can be contained, or he is at least sufficiently protected by a slumbering superpower.

    It’s all a great mess of various interests, really. Focus on oil, and you make yourself blind and simplistic. You have yet to supply any reasonable way of stealing the oil, by the way, or reasoning through the damage to the oil market caused by a large war in an oil-laden region. You have yet to make this simplistic argument make any sense.

    Oil? Only a factor by geopolitical standards, and by those it would have been better to just leave Saddam here, and arm him a little too. Make him acceptable again, legitimate, *buy* him.

    But enough, I’m tired of this. I’m tired of repeating the same thing over forty comments. Let it end.

  118. Roman, you would not need to repeat yourself if you had at any point answered the question, regarding the many reasons that you keep mentioning but never expanding on, for the iraq war.

  119. Uchuck the Tuchuck says:

    Anna wrote:
    “unchuck, N.Korea is an example of the many other countries that “need democracy” yet won’t be “helped out”. N.Korea could easily be replaced with Zimbabwe and so on and so forth”

    Anna, are you proposing the creation of a United States Third-World Hegemony? Should the Americans “take up the white man’s burden” as suggested by Kipling in 1898? Parts of your argument seemed to be based on an assumption that there are people groups out there incapable of governing themselves, places that are in need of a brutal regime to keep the peace between rival groups.

    Oddly enough “unchuck” is what two of my nieces used to call me before they could pronounce the word “uncle.”

  120. Roman Kalik, wrote, “Africa’s quite rich, by the way. Mother-lode of resources, be it commodities, oil, or nuclear resources. Great place to conquer and raid and whatnot. And yet the one place the US ever bothered with is Somalia.”

    Roman you don’t know what you are talking about. The United States is involved in the Congo, Ethiopia. Uganda. Rwanda, Sudan, etc The mainstream media doesn’t report on it as much as it reports on the Middle East.

  121. Roman Kalik says:

    Anna, I have stated them time and time again, and you would see that had you bothered to read my replies fully and not just shallowly.

    Randall, go back to your “truther” conspiracies, will you? The only good you and your ilk bring to the world is the amusement value. I mean, you could so easily become spy-thriller authors, the way you guys can twist and turn every baseless rumor into a grand conspiracy. Hollywood awaits you!

  122. wtf!

  123. Some people are up and yelling that their country this and their culture that. And most people in the world love to make fun and feel superior to Americans.
    These kinds of people always see what’s wrong in the US and choose to ignore or marginalize why they are blaming someone who is conveniently far away rather then someone in their own backyard. Same ones would jump to the opportunity to accept help from the western devil ( : if it was offered.

    It makes people forget about their own messed up countries and governments when they bitch about someone else (USA). It makes them proud to be whatever they are because they don’t have (let’s pick something everyone makes fun of) obese people in such numbers or in such sizes. All this political correctness and quick jump to the humanitarianism excuse is used by the younger sibling to try and bring down a notch the older one. Why? Jealousy comes to mind.

    You know who you are. You’re always in the comment section acting holier than the Pope. This is all the answer you get from me. I am not overworking my small brain to try and have an “Actually you are wrong, no you are actually wrong” kind of dialog. I kind of got tired of these world saviors and finally I posted this. I guess I wasted my time. ( : I feel better now, thanks for asking.

    SM keep on keeping on!