...Would you also you condemn as despicable men, women and children at Massada- who chose sucide rather than surrender?... Interesting question, one that I am happy not to have to confront in this life. Let's see. Vespasian and then Titus had largely eradicated the Jewish population centers. The group at Masada were entirely surrounded, no escape was possible. They were facing crucifiction for the men (the slowest and most painful form of execution ever invented), rape of their women and slavery for their children. I can see why they chose suicide. Interesting, the index in my edition of the works of Josephus, doesn't have an entry for Masada. I guess it didn't loom as large to the translators in 1867. On the other hand, not all of them chose suicide. Josephus reports that a woman and five children hid to escape. His account leaves open whether the women and children chose suicide. I don't know what choice I would make in this kind of situation.

.."...And invading and occupying Iraq is going to fix that?... Damn straight it will, when the ordinary people get a chance to live a life from the terror of saddam," And live the secure life of a country at civil war, which we unleashed? So, how's that workin's out? Oh,not so well? Ah, gee, well it ain't the fault of some boneheads in charge, it was just an unavoidable accident .. As usual, rbrooku posits a really cogent and eloquent retort, without addressing the issues he raises. Now its time for ME to unleash: Shame, Shame, Shame Many of you just don’t care about this war. We should have let sanctions work longer. We should have given inspections another try. The WMDs weren't there so we shouldn't have gone to war. It's a mistake. A grand diversion. The wrong war, the wrong place, at the wrong time. Shame on all you people. Bunch of friggin' appeasers. I don't mean those of you who opposed the war at the time and I don't mean those of you who think Bush bungled the job after the fact. I mean you and you and you — and most especially John Kerry and John Edwards. Shame on you both. You voted for this war but you voted against the peace you say is so important to win merely because you decided that toppling the tyranny of Howard Dean's high poll numbers was worth paying any price, bearing any burden. But forget all that. I just watched John Kerry preen in front of the cameras about how "good diplomacy" would have prevented the mistake he voted for. "Good diplomacy" in John Kerry's world would have let French and Russian politicians continue to line their pockets in the name of keeping Saddam in power so he could rape and murder and torture until "good diplomacy" welcomed him back into the "international community" and gave him the weapons he sought. I suppose in John Kerry's world good diplomacy lets the boys in the back of the bar finish raping the girl for fear of causing a fuss. Okay, that was unfair. It just seems everything old is new again. Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores. Oh, one more thing no one asks. How could Bush think he could pull this thing off? I mean, knowing as he did that there were no WMDs in Iraq, how could he invade the country and think no one would notice? And if he's capable of lying to send Americans to their deaths for some nebulous petro-oedipal conspiracy no intelligent person has bothered to make even credible, why on earth didn't he just plant some WMDs on the victim after the fact? If you're willing to kill Americans for a lie, surely you'd be willing to plant some anthrax to keep your job. And speaking of the victim, if it's in fact true that Bush offered no rationale for the war other than WMDs, why shouldn't we simply let Saddam out of his cage and put him back in office? We can even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons. Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him. I'm serious. If this whole war was such a mistake, such a colossal blunder, based on a lie and all that, not only should John Kerry show the courage to ask once again "How do you tell the last man to die for a mistake?" but he should also promise to rectify the error. And what better, or more logically consistent, way to solve the problem Bush created? Kerry insists it was wrong to topple Saddam. Well, let's make him a Weeble instead. Bush and Saddam can walk out to the podiums and explain that his good friend merely wobbled, he didn't fall down. That would end the chaos John Kerry considers so much worse than the status quo ante. And if the murderer needs help getting back in the game, maybe the Marines can cut off a few tongues and slaughter a couple thousand Shia and Kurds until Saddam's ready for the big league again. That will calm the chaos; that will erase the crime. Yes, yes, these are all cheap shots, low blows, unfair criticisms. I know. Good and nice liberals don't want Saddam back in power. Sweet and decent Democrats shed no tears for Uday and Qusay. These folks just care about the troops who were sent to die based on a lie. I care about the troops too. But despite John Kerry's insistence that he speaks for the American Fighting Man, some of you might consider that a siz

From Jonah G - http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200410080930.asp swhitebull

Eastwind and rbrooku think NOT. Too bad they havent asked many Iraqis though: From The Mesopotamian: http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109724131309997501 Friday, October 08, 2004 LISTEN AMERICA Hi, I have been listening to the report about the WMD’s by Mr. David Kay. Now, all of you in the West must know that as far as we, the Iraqis, are concerned, we care very little that stocks of WMD’s existed or not at the time of liberation. For us Saddam and his regime were in themselves, the most lethal WMD that cost our people hundreds of thousands of victims not to mention the destruction of the economy and the very fabric of society in our afflicted country. That regime was a dead end for our people and with its continuation there was no hope whatsoever for the future. Mr. David Kay did mention something about this, and he should know, since he spent so much time in Iraq and has intimate knowledge of the situation. Saddamism is a cancer that we have yet to recover from. Western intervention lead by the U.S.A. was a God send to us, despite all the pain and misery that accompanied the operation and the repercussions that continue to rock the process of recuperation and rebirth of the nation. The U.S. soldiers are bravely standing in the thick of the turmoil and contributing with their blood and sweat not to mention the treasure of their land, towards curing us from the remaining ulcers of the disease after having performed the main surgery which no one else even dared even to think of. Perhaps, the interests of our people were not the main consideration that led to that action; nevertheless, that does not change anything about the importance and implications for the people of Iraq of this tremendous historical act. Yes there is pain, chaos and loss; yet on the other hand, there is possibility of hope, and a clearly discernible “light at the end of tunnel”, to use this worn out phrase. Were we better off during Saddam’s time? - A question to which many outsiders are very keen to know our answer. Well, in many respects the streets are much more insecure, yet the security that existed in Saddam’s days was like someone quietly waiting for certain death; like a cancer stricken individual carrying the disease in his guts with no hope or attempt at cure. Yes, the pain and torture may be much more terrible when the surgeon has operated and the disease is tackled; but at least there is hope of recovery and healing, and the prospect of life saving. And this is not allegory, nor a parable; this is coming from someone whose house has been standing in the midst of bombs and explosions for so long now, protected by none but the mercy and grace of the Lord; from someone who has suffered robbery, kidnapping and constant daily danger. And here we are, trying to organize elections, trying to control the security situation, trying to restart the reconstruction, able to talk, able to think, able to watch satellite T.V., use the internet, the mobile etc. – in short everything that we have been forbidden to do before. And without the slightest hesitation, we hail with Love and Gratitude our giant U.S. friend and his allies, standing with us shoulder to shoulder, braving the elements, braving death, calumny and hatred, shedding blood; to help us heal, to help us reach the shores of safety. And make no mistake, the campaign is winning and will achieve its objectives. Make no mistake; you have already created an allied nation in the very heart of the M.E. despite all appearances, which will produce all the long term benefits and consequences so many times reiterated by President Bush, to the ridicule and insults of the profoundly mistaken, of the profoundly hating. America, stay the course - God, Decency, Honor, Hope and everything that is virtuous and right is on your side, beside the majority of the Iraqi people. America do not waiver, for you have never waged a more noble and just campaign in your entire history. America, we are winning, God’s willing, and Victory is coming sooner than many might think. Salaam swhitebull

Words of Wisdom from John Kerry: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200410071005.asp October 07, 2004, 10:05 a.m. Dems, Then & Now Iraq terror-tie facts changed with the campaign season for Kerry and co. To hear Iraq-war critics claim that Saddam Hussein lacked terror ties is to stand on a beach and listen to people deny the existence of sand. Now, comes John Kerry, strolling in his flip-flops, chanting the no-such-thing-as-sand mantra. "Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," Kerry told Philadelphia voters September 24. "Iraq is now what it was not before the war: a haven for terrorists." "The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror," Kerry said during the September 30 presidential debate. "Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it." Kerry's current position contradicts at least 15 key Democrats, Democratic-led federal agencies, and Establishment-Left media organizations that — at least until this election year — believed the inescapable truth: Saddam Hussein did have ties to terrorists, including al Qaeda. If Kerry wishes to correct his recent, erroneous remarks, he should study the words of a Massachusetts senator named...John Kerry. Kerry discussed "terrorist organizations" at an August 1, 1996, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. He said, "These entities survive with country support, the support of the country of Syria, or country of Libya, or country of Iran, Iraq, and so forth." "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons [of mass death] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so," Kerry told reporters on February 23, 1998. "That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." "The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of synch with the times." Kerry said December 11, 2001 On Fox News's O'Reilly Factor. "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." "I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up," O'Reilly replied. Kerry continued: "The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly." "What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places?" Larry King asked Kerry. The senator replied: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination," he said December 14, 2001 on CNN. "Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." Just before authorizing the Iraq war on October 9, 2002, Kerry referred to Saddam Hussein on the Senate floor: "He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel." If the new John Kerry finds the old John Kerry's words unpersuasive, the former should consult Stephen Hayes's indispensable best seller, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, a guided tour of the terrorism factory that was Baathist Iraq. Among overwhelming evidence of Saddam Hussein's terrorist activities, Kerry will find numerous statements by liberal journalists, leading Democrats, and even a Clinton-appointed federal judge tying Saddam Hussein to Islamist terror. During the fall 1992 campaign, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Al Gore chided Poppa Bush's administration for treading too lightly on Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator, Gore said, "had already launched poison-gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way." President Clinton addressed the nation on June 24, 1993. He said: "[T]here is compelling evidence that there was, in fact, a plot to assassinate former President Bush; and that this plot, which included the use of a powerful bomb made in Iraq, was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service." Clinton then lobbed 23 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles on IIS headquarters. "Therefore, we directed our action against the facility associated with Iraq's support of terrorism, while making every effort to minimize the loss of innocent life." The Kuwaiti trial of two Iraqi civilians, Wali al Ghazali and Raad Assadi, revealed that the IIS recruited them to position a Toyota Land Cruiser packed with 200 pounds of explosives near Poppa Bush during his April 1993 visit to Kuwait. Had that failed, the IIS also supplied a bomb-laced "suicide belt." The lat

Sorkhoi had asked for a detailed explanation of what is meant: Here's an article detailing The Muslim Brotherhoods NAZI ties: A bit of History on the Muslim Brotherhood et al. : http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15344 swhitebull - Vanna Nazi? Time for a Google search here.

thank you for your posts, they are most informative.

Timon-Phocas; ...thank you for your posts, they are most informative. ... Thanks, I try to post links that are informative and worthwhile, or that underscore a point. NOW for a different perspective. Most people on the left question whether the cost of gong to war with Saddam Hussein has been worth it. I would LOVE for President Bush in tonight's debate to ask - rhetorically, of course - the following of Le Kerry. Senator Kerry, you have supported the war, then decried its costs. You voted for authorizing the President to use force, then refused to fund the very body armor you say the troops aren't getting. You introduced a bill AFTER the first World Trade Center bombing to SLASH Intelligence Budgets - that even The MOST senior (though not liberal - that's YOUR ranking) Senator from your state - Ted Kennedy - publicly said was ludicrous - and now you bitterly complain and hypocritically have the nerve to say that we need more intelligence since we - and YOU - got it wrong on Iraq. You say that the Iraq war was the Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Wrong Wrong, yet as little as a month ago, you said that knowing EVERYTHING you know today, you STILL would have voted authorizing the use of force to ensure Saddam's compliance. You said when you placed that vote that it would be unconscionable for ANY senator NOT to fund the troops, but that is exactly what you did by voting first for the 87 billion, then against it, when you were losing to Howard Dean's anti-war insurgency. You claim that the $200 billion in costs - which Vice President Cheney has shown conclusively to be a bogus claim - would have been better spent domestically, yet decry the lack of funding for the troops and the diversion of resources. So I ask you this, Senator, if the costs of this war are so high to you - and without a nuanced response - what will be the costs to this country and the world for NOT having invaded Iraq; what would be the costs to the war on islamic terror for not removing Saddam Hussein (there, I finally said the word - Islamic), what would be the cost to the residents of the region, our security, our way of life for our children for not removing this state-run terror-haven? What are the gains for continuing to pursue this war, this TOTAL war? Answer this for the American people, Senator Kerry. I dare you. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15422 swhitebull

There was play called Ghetto (I think) based perhaps a number of acutal incidents- in which the SS established a camp of Jewish tailors who were kept alive so they could make uniforms for the German army- there is debate in the play between two groups- those who argue that is important to produce uniforms and keep the community alive and those who argue its important to raise up and risk certain annhilation but perserve the memory of the community... Toni Morrison's Beloved has similar case a mother killing her own children rather allowing them to be enslaved...difficult choices.

Alas SWB. If this your source. 1. Matter of historical record the Hadjar 'division' was made of Bosoniaks not Arabs/but like many on this list the author article probalby is unable to make difffernce between Muslims and Ay-arbs. The Muslim Brotherhood was an Islamist not a nationalist movement - it was anti-colonial. Its ideology has little in common with Nazism. Or put it another it has much in common with fascism and Nazism as Wisnton Churchill and FDR (both admirer of Mussloni) - WInston also gased the Kurds, and believed in eugenics... Egypt was occuppied by the British and the Germans were enemies of the British... thus following our earlier discussion is sitution not that differnt from Israel, Iran, Ollie North all being on side during the Iran-Iraq- but I do not think that makes the Israelis Islamists or Iranians Zionists... US and Soviet Union were allied- does that make FDR a communist? (I suppose if Mcatrthy could accuse General Marshal- who knows if FDR lived he might have been hauled be committe of UnAmerican activities). On the hand you complain about rbrooku and then you provide such polemical writings as 'proof' of what I am not sure. If you want use the word fascist in analytical sense then define it.If you really believe there is fascist hatred and conservative hatred etc tell me the difference- analytical. Please don't pass on 'dodgy dossiers' to cover up the lack of argument.