Hello all. My name is Ikonoclastia and I am interested in participating in discussions here on the board. I live in Sydney, Australia.

My positions on subjects range from conservative to liberal depending on the subject and I sometimes find that people desire to have me silenced by moderation.

My primary interests on political forums relate to the oddly named 'War on Terror' and the economic, political and militarilistic agression of the US against arab nations. I also have a interest in the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli-American forces.

Looking forward to debating these and other interesting topics with you all.

cya



Ikonoclastia

Welcome Ikonoclastia . All points of view are welcome here. Your thoughts and views will not be silenced provided that they are made civily and without personal insult to those that may disagree with you. Having said that, I realize the topics discussed here are of a contentious nature and heated discussions will result and tempers will flair on occasion. We look forward to your contributions.

Phil

uh huh and I suppose you are going to tell us all about how 9/11 was cia/zionist/us sponsored conspiracy correct?

Here we go again.

let bullshit begin.

Or if there is another more interesting reason for people wanting to silence you let's hear it.

Otherwise the conspiracy US imperialism song and dance is pretty tired.



Time to quit reading Michael Moorian fiction.


Curious: what part of islamofacist terrorism don't you understand?
Is there something about wanting to stop the suicide bomber from boarding a crowded bus and killing as many people as possible that might have escaped you?

Welcome Ikonoclastia! Jump in anywhere!

9/11 Conspiracy involving the US? I don't think so. Involving misinformation / ommisions by Mossad, thats always a possibility considering they had spies in the pentagon possibly influencing the decision to attack Iraq by supplying misleading information.

In response to your islamofacist terrorism comment - I find it interesting that you would refer to the Islamic religion and the goals of Osama as fascist when the label is more correctly applied to the actions of the coalition of the willing and in particular the new oppressive US government and its regressive 'terrorist' measures and regressive moral stance on human rights and contempt of international laws designed to protect the human rights of combatants and civilians in wartime. I think the motives and the goals of Al Queda are more honarable then the motives and goals of the Bush administration. However I think that both organizations lost the vision quite a long while ago.

Stopping a suicide bomber from boarding a bus and killing people is a good thing and I support it. However there is no justification for doing so if in the process of stopping that bomber from boarding a bus you blow up 50 other buses. I don't care if those buses only have Arabs on board because in my mind, an arab is as valuable as a european and a muslim is as honarable as a jew.

Do you realise that the US has remotely piloted vehicles flying in Iraq and Afghanistan equipped with hellfire rockets that they use to blow up 'suspected' terrorists in cars and buses. The CIA controls these and has total control of the decision to kill people at random as long as they think there is aninsurgent target in the vehicle.

Now tell me, what is the difference between an arab blowing up a bomb on a crowded bus for his cause, and a CIA operative blowing up a crowded bus with a hellfire because he suspects' that an insurgent might be inside it? Is it better because your bomb is less personal, or worse? Think about it. One man is killing innocents with passion for a belief, while the other is killing innocents, with no passion, in cold blood, for a paycheck.

Things are not black and white, the sooner the so-called 'right' understands this the better off they will be.

Ikonoclastia

Oh boy....here we go again.

I like foward to making a fool out of you in the future. However for now I am busy.

Now there is some news worthy stuff. 50 busses blown up indescriminately by the CIA using drones and hellfire missiles. Sheeit! When I suggested laying off the Michael Moore fiction I didn't think you would try out a Tom Clancy immitation!
You certainly have something worth developing here. May I suggest you have your work translated in French and Farci first as I think that will be your best market. You will be rich like Michael Moore!

Welcome, mate! Exactamundo! Few things are clear and precise when it comes to war, the cause of and or righteousness of war as well as its eventual outcome.

I would add one little epitaph to your comment on who will be better of learning the lesson you describe.

I would remind my Australian brother that in now on to three democratic elections of the main participants in this freedom revolution in the Region, the US, Aussyland and the UK, it seems the majority have sounded out loud and clear in all three, that they HAVE GOTTEN IT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER and few die hoards, like your self have NOT.

Similarly, it is now on to 2 years and 3 months, far to late to argue the right and wrong of Iraq I surmise.

The die is cast, the game is on and to intellectualize the righteousness of killing by either side in a war or this war is like quantifying master bastion.

It is unlikely to change the root cause, nor affect the possibilities of it existence or happening, nor will it stop the behavior and most assuredly, given the political outcome as mentioned that supports it, one can surmise, it will not carry much measure as to its, being the right thing or wrong thing to do, for some years in the future or when the final toll has rung and or the results are in.

It is what it is, few are likely to stand on the other side of the issue, be they foe or friend, as most by now stand where they are, some walk the walk of lessons learned and few talk the talk of one still unlearned but well demonstrated as lacking leadership as in support and ideology.


It seems you monacor Ikonoclastia is either ell liked or you spread yourself like a virus over dozens of forums seathing the same idom, which pray tell is true?

That is all!

Heh. These vehicles and their usage for assassinating 'suspected insurgents' is not a secret. In fact the US openly admits using them for the purpose I have outlined.

The RQ-1 Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which the U.S. Air Force describes as a "medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle system." The aircraft can carry, and use, two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The aircraft has been in use since 1995, and been in combat over Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Yemen. Since the end of 2004 it is also used by the Italian Air Force.

Link to the RQ-1 Predator



Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Albert Einstein

Ikonoclastia

edited to fix formatting

Yes I know about the Predator drones. The point I was making was about the 50 busses blown up by hellfire missiles from UAV's is fiction. Make up your mind ikonoklastia do you deal in fact or fiction? Perhaps you can try out for a screenwriters job? Michael Moore is fiction. GWB, 9/11, "The war on terrorists" are all facts. Kapish?

Lets address fiction.

Firstly I never said that 50 buses were blown up by hellfires and in fact you managed to take one sentence from the first paragraph of my post and successfully mate it with another sentence from a totally different paragraph .

Secondly, I said "Stopping a suicide bomber from boarding a bus and killing people is a good thing and I support it. However there is no justification for doing so if in the process of stopping that bomber from boarding a bus you blow up 50 other buses."

This was completely hypothetical and easily seen as such. It relates to the so-called 'Saving' of the Iraqi people in that the US may have 'Saved' for example one thousand but in doing so they killed one hundred thousand 'accidently'. Its a stupid idiotic way to save people.

Good Day. Or not.

Ikonoclastia

The one hundred thousand number has been debunked so many times its now a joke. The study was taken by taking the average number of people killed per household in the cityof Baghdad, then compounding that number exponentially to cover all of Iraq, thus arriving at a massively inflated number.

The decidedly anti-war www.iraqbodycount.org currently puts the number at about 25,000 last time I checked.

Either way it ends up being fairly irrelevant because

A.) Saddam Hussen was responsible for the deaths of nearly 3.5 million Iraqis and

B.) Make no mistake that the US is in Iraq to support US interests, not because we just woke up some morning and decided we felt like doing the people of Iraq a favor.

Hmm so the US is incapable or unwilling to establish the body count of innocent civilians in its own very public war but it has concrete numbers on the amount of people Saddam covertly murdered? I smell something unpleasant.

But Kudos to you for admitting that the US is there for its own benefit and is killing for reasons other then 'Saving the Poor Heathenites'. I'm not really opposed to the war as such but rather to the idea that people will try to put themselves into my state of rightousness while committing such heinous acts against humanity.

By that I mean why should we be so opposed or disturbed by the US war and its criminal conduct when lots of other nations are out there doing the exact same thing - the only real difference is the US is trying to keep its status as a world leader and bastion of freedom and morality intact at the same time as it lowers its standard of barbarism to levels reminscent of its English imperialistic beginnings.

I think this is what makes people so angry - the pretension of innocence.


Ikonoclastiafv

Please thank these dead US Soldiers for giving you the opportunity to run your mealy mouth.

Nomad the opportunity for me to run my mouth is a result of my societies rule of law, its police officers, its citizens, its defensive military.

It is NOT a result of an attacking military casualties while involved in an offensive preemptive strike and I doubt very much you could provide any basis to support such an idea (that a completely offensive operation could somehow be defensive of a persons civil rights).



I'm not sure if we're allowed to post such images here on the forum but what you linked is easily countered with the thousands of images of torn, mutilated, disfigured, tortured, raped, and ravaged innocent citizens of Iraq.

If you want I'll happily link you a video or two of Americans executing wounded fighters and laughing about it, or torturing animals or ...

The image you linked is grusome yes however the method in which that man died was not unduly cruel and long lasting. He was dead within a minute and in deep shock within seconds. His killers didn't cause him any unnecessary extra pain other then which was usual for a beheading.

Remember the guy that was found in Abu Graib, his body covered in ice to stop him rotting? He was severely beaten over a prolonged period of time under torture, that beating or beatings resulting in his death. A much crueler drawn out process which you Americans seem to have no problem with in comparison to a beheading - A method of execution that is common in that part of the world and one which we subject animals to in stock yards around the world every single day.

Ikonoclastiafv

That isn't hypothetical it's fantasy. Hypothetical insinuates it is a, at least, likely possibity. USA isn't going to indiscriminately blow up 50 busses loaded with civilians to kill one enemy fighter that may possibly be on the bus. Absolute fantasy

A military does not need, nor would it be intellegent, to wait and fight all battles on their own turf. Once the war is declared, it can be fought wherever the advantage takes it. Make no mistake, a war had been declared against western powers long before any real action was taken. A very complicated, never before encountered, type of war. Also make no mistake, far more Iraqi civilians are being intentionally targetted by the opposing forces than are targetted or incidentally killed by Iraqi and Iraqi allied forces.

Good Lord. I have already clearly explained the 50 bus for 1 bus scenerio. If you read my explanation and still have difficulty understanding then you probably don't want to debate here on these forums, especially with me.

You say that a declaration of war has been declared. I assume you mean some sort of attack on the U.S.A. Okay now the U.S is at war. However before a war can be prosecuted, the parties to be warred against must be identified. When identified that party and its members (both official and supporters) become your war targets. No other people other then those members and that organization can be warred against. The US should also formally declare a state of war against the organization and its members so everyone knows about it and won't interfere / accidentally get involved.

Now heres the crunch. Your at war with 'Terrorism'. Terrorism is a concept. Terrorism can't be an organization and terrorism cannot have members. Only a specific terrorist organization can have members.

What G.W Bush is trying to do is create a blank war check. He wants the American public to fund him and his wars, yes plural, indefinitely. A permanant state of war for his dream of being The War President. Its a retarded concept created by a retarded president and supported by a public retarded by 9/11.

Let me say that again, YOU CANNOT WAR TERRORISM, its impossible, you can only war real things, not concepts. Warring terrorism is like warring conservatism or liberalism.

Ikonoclastia

Actually its very black and white. The Arab blowing up a bus of civilians has occured repeatedly. The CIA blowing up the bus you have imagined??? fabricated in an attempt to make your point. For some the division between reality and fantasy is difficult to discern,and for some the distinction is irrelevant. I would suspect you fall in the latter. MARK

Bullshit.


The War is morally right, plain and simple, Saddam Hussein killed almost 3.5 million people.

The fact that the United States of America went to war to protect it's own interests is the given. No nation in history has ever gone to war for any other reason than protecting it's own interests. Nor should they have. However they is no real moral case against The War In Iraq.

As to your questions about the War on Terror. The Bush Doctrine made it very clear that The US is giving the Governments of the Middle East a Strong Message: We are tired of this bullshit. Shape up or we'll get rid of you.

Saddam Hussein was the first example.

So whats the excuse for the 45% of Australians who support the war? MARK

Fascist dont go around the world helping install democracies such as in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. And I think you must have a differnt concept of honor if you see it in the motives and goals of Alqaeda. Do you know what those goals are? Are you a Muslim?
MARK

I agree, Fascists don't go around the world helping install democracies. They go around the world forcing their ideals on others, in this case democrazy or the distorted version that we have in Iraq - WE COME IN PEACE BUT WE'LL SHOOT YOU IF YOU RESIST!!!!.



Ikonoclastia

ai-ai-ai , Ben-T ! not good, not good !

this is against Forum's rules - baiting and flaming fellow members !

especially self-confession of planning to do such thing !

Hmmm! Are we to assume by your use of this insightful commentary of Albert’s, that acknowledges man prejudices in his opinions, but not of his ability to delineate substances from the lack thereof, that you meant, that these elections, so referred to, that were so irrational to and reverse of your idiom, where not of the right disposition, that, one, like yourself would concede, in conceit or otherwise, to the majority, as having your sense of untouchable equanimity, despite their wide dispersal of social environments, where said majority rejected, the equanimity and righteousness of your argued yet defeated ideology and idiom of opinion?

Even now, those of similar political yoke, who lead the way, as exampled leaders of this dialect of ideology so expressed, see viable and serious challenges to their furtherance of such idioms.

Has my honorable friend read of the potentialities of the political realities and tittering prospects of the ultra liberal Green Party inspired Herr Schroeder and Monsieur Chirac, and the potential fate of the EU that as well tediously balances of late.


Nothing is more conducive to the righteousness of argument, substances of debate and the success of an ideology than not having any opinions at all and seeing, in reality, the declining fortunes of the essayist idiom, when put to the test of such broadly divergent courts of public opinion so tested of late.

P.S.

The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers. Ralph Nader

The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them. - George Bernard Shaw


That is all!

.

We are not forcing our ideals on anybody. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are writing their own Constitutions according to their ideals. And whats this nonsense about coming in peace. We came to remove the governments with a shower of steel fire and depleted uranium from above and a jugernaut of military might upon the ground. You have a strange perception of reality. MARK

We don't come in peace.

We come saying "Your governments have been directly threatening both our interests and our national security since the late 70s and we are tired of it. Time to shape up or ship out."

aha! here is the clue then ...

but - how the selection is done - which to "re-shape" or not ? seems like it is partial - is there any favoritism involved, like on old friend Saddam ? coz still there are a lot of countries which are never touched by such tenderly caring concern ...

?????Thats because very few countries pose a threat to the US. MARK

Dixon or is it Mark, has it right imo. Its outright robbery in Iraq, not saving the world as the Bushites pretend it is.

However this last comment is utter nonsense. China and North Korea, India and Pakistan and Iran are and were more dangerous and pose a much greater threat now then Iraq did and does. Think again, the answers are there, I'll give you the first and most obvious pieces - Oil, Israel, Haliburton.

USTrader - I agree wholeheartedly with your post but I am staunchly opposed to what you said.

Ikonoclastia

Your not capeable of comprehending the meaning of my statements. Iraq was very much a threat. MARK

Instead of insults why not try to back up what you say. I hate to see part of your finite lifespan wasted in such a silly way. Lets start afresh and you tell me how Iraq was more of a threat then the following two countries:

North Korea - a country with an unstable dictator which has threatened nuclear strikes agaiinst other nations.
Iran - a country with a more fanatical religious base then Iraq (in comparison quite moderate) and that aspires to and is more then likely already producing nuclear weapons.

Also it would be interesting to hear your opinions as to why Iraq was any threat to the US or its interests at all?

Looking forward to your intelligent and well thought out response.

Ikonoclastia

It wasn't an insult. Razin legitimately does lack the ability to comprehend the complex workings of Foreign Policy.

My mistake. Since you are capeable, QUIT purposely misrepresenting my views.
And under your view of threat assesment we should probably attack the Soviet Union and China first. Nations all over the world have the ability to inflict damage on the US, that doesnt make them a threat. Saddam was the threat, the man, not the capeabilities. MARK

The man who danced and celebrated the 9/11 attacks! The man who openly supported Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes sir he was a threat. It should be quite difficult to misread those signals!

Please allow me to put my slant upon this statement.

We come acting upon the fact that "Your governments tyrany and abuses have incited people to directly threaten both our interests and our national security since the late 70s and we are tired of it. We're not going to support you any longer. Time to shape up or ship out." We then gave them 12 years to shape up and they didn't. Bon Voyage!!!

Hehehe I would say you hit a bit closer to the target than I did.