August 02, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0004
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. ... The burden is on the critics to explain where the weapons of mass destruction are." -- Ari Fleischer
Posted by Eddie Tews at August 2, 2003 05:32 PM
Comments
This is choice. Vintage Bush regime right here. You know, the more I read about the Bushies, the more they resemble drug addicts...everything in the world is everyone ELSE'S fault. Including their own actions. -- Posted by: drublood on August 3, 2003 12:54 PM
I was advised to read over as many of the articles on this site as I could stomach and have to say that I am disgusted with the author, this Eddie Tews primate, whoever he is.
Have a look at this, all you non-believers:
See men shredded, then say you don't back war Tuesday 1 April 2003
Labour MP Ann Clwyd tells of her experience of visiting Iraq in The Times
"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly.
Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food...on one occasion, I saw Qusay personally supervise these murders."
This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict -the organisation I chair -to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
This account was taken in the past two weeks.
Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: "Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped...women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation."
The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality.
All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.
For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians.
It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam's Iraq.
Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq -which some people still claim are illegal -the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.
For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987 88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century.
I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.
The author is Labour MP for Cynon Valley. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 3, 2003 05:12 PM
yes, I am disgusted with Eddie Tews. I would have a little more patience for his stupidity were he at least trying to do something about the situation, i.e. run for office. but he's not, he's just hiding behind his keyboard, whining about our capitalist society because he finds himself left behind in it, eating the dust of the people who are willing to have a go at life and see what they can make of themselves. what a fucking loser. maybe if you spent a little less time behind your keyboard and a little more time in school and at work, you might make something more of yourself besides the village idiot.
Eddie, I hope you realize how completely stupid whining about the US supporting Saddam back in the 1980s is (this is something you did in a previous post). yes we did, and it proved to be a mistake, but at the time doing so was working against our enemies. but let's look at that, Eddie. since you're all about helping the Iraqi people, and since our government was aiding Iraq back in the 80s, why wasn't this a GOOD thing? I mean, if attacking Iraq is bad, then surely helping Iraq must be good, right? Yet you complain about both of them. so, let's do a little logic exercise. I know it will be hard, but try to follow me here, Eddie. I will demonstate to you just how full of shit you are.
Helping Iraq back then: Good or Bad? Eddie says "bad" but is actually thankful that we did. Why? So he has something to cite when making his long-winded complaints on his website today. Knowing that assistance we provided Saddam's regime 20 YEARS AGO has zero relevance to today's world (sidenote: Eddie does not allow for the fact that the world changes over time, countries' allegiances to each other can fall apart when new "leaders" come to power, etc. because it doesn't help his argument. he likes a static world where actions taken 20 years ago are just as prevelent today as Operation Iraqi Freedom is)what is the point of citing those actions? none, other than the fact Eddie thinks it makes him look more right, which is his only goal: stroking his ego. Ironic though that Eddie complains when we help Saddam's regime AND when we attack Saddam's regime. Eddie claims that AIDING Saddam in the 80s was a BAD thing and perpetually shakes his finger at the US for it to this day; yet Eddie also condemns attacks on Saddam's regime, citing such things as "under Saddam's 'leadership', Iraq had the highest literacy rate in the middle east as well as a bunch of other positives". so what Eddie is tacitly stating here is that when it suits his own purposes, helping Saddam is bad, but at the same time, when it suits his purposes, attacking Saddam is also bad. what you're saying Eddie, whether you realize it or not, is that you're glad we helped Iraq back then because it gives you something to complain about now (even though the complaint is completely irrelevant and invalid). so which one is it, Eddie? I mean, you boast about Saddam's accomplishments, so clearly you think highly of the guy; I guess you're saying you think he deserved to stay in power so he could send more people through shredding machines.
complain, complain, complain, that's all you (can) do. you've always got the solution, which was the profound: tell them to fuck off. oooooooh! don't blow our minds completley Eddie. but really, complaining about something another president did 20 years ago is in no way relevant to what must be done today. you say that helping Iraq back then was a mistake, but because of that, we should just sit back and do nothing today? we should not strive to correct that mistake? listen to yourself, you bloody fool! of course you don't really think this, you're just glad it's a little factoid you have at your disposal because to the daily simpleton, it sounds like you have a point. you don't. you bringing that up is about as relevant as what Ronald Reagan had for dinner 20 years ago.
also, someone who complains about our country and way of life as much as you do, Eddie, can only do one thing when he reads of another American soldier killed in a guerrilla attack in Iraq: cheer. Why? So you can say, "Told you so!" You can do only one thing when the next 9/11 happens: cheer. Why? So you can say, "Told you so!" If you were serious about solutions to the problem, you would get from behind your keyboard and get involved with government. Instead, you offer your readers the ingenious advice: "tell them to fuck off." From this fact, any reasonable person can only deduce that you just want to complain about our country because you really hate it that much. you've already shown you don't care whether it's the democrats or republicans in the white house; you have equal disdain for them all. YOU, EDDIE, ARE THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO EITHER NEEDS TO LOVE THE COUNTRY OR LEAVE IT! Yes. You are the first person I've ever said that to, and here's why: you have unconditional hatred for our government, for our economic system, for the American way of life. You offer no solutions. All you do is complain. You accomplish nothing, nor do you attempt to. Your sole mission is to stroke your ego so you can think you're intelligent (by fighting the machine) and unique (by going against the established view). It doesn't matter what stance our government takes Eddie, because you just wait to see what it is and then take the opposite one. You're a fucking joke, a condition, a bumper sticker at best. Please Eddie, I am begging you, please tell me that this entire site is really a parody and that humans don't really come as stupid as you appear to be.
well, if I were a "bigger" person, or more forgiving and more moral, I might not say this, but I'm not so I will: I hope your entire family and everyone you love (but none of my own loved ones) is killed in the next terrorist attack against the United States. then we'll see what tune you're whistling about our country's preventive actions. you'll probably try to say your view hasn't changed, but for the sole reason that you don't want to appear like the hypocrite we all know you are, what with your ping-pong views about Saddam's regime. you might SAY you think he's a bad man, but the implicit statement in your pages of whining can only be that he really should still be in the driver's seat in Iraq.
as you're so fond of pointing out in our government's statements, "you feel it's worth it." go read the article I posted about seeing people getting shredded, and then say to anyone with a straight face you really think it's "worth it" for Saddam to stay in power, you piece of shit. he never would have left of his own accord.
oh, and lastly, let's end with this absolute gem: "We may, if we're permitted to recall events that took place more that ten months ago, here note that the Taliban offered on more than one occasion to extradite bin Laden should the United States offer up some evidence of his complicity." Right Eddie, we should all really put a fuck of a lot of stock into that statement because the Taliban is clearly a very noble, honorable, and trustworthy organization. Any evidence we could potentially offer would be refuted by them, shithead. And yet you assert this as though it is a POINT?? what a fucking joke you are!!!!
hoping everyone you love dies in a terrorist attack, Greg Taylor -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 3, 2003 06:59 PM
Damn Greg you sure you got it all out there?
Stop all the bickering. Eddie is unhappy with capitalism because he prefers socialism. Socialism, devoid of any political spin on the word, is defined as the government controlled distribution of production, goods, services, and employment. Capitalism instead relies on "market forces" to be at work to provide these goods, services, and employment. Those who believe that they can be a driving force in the marketplace - i.e., work hard and make a quality product or service better than their competitors and thereby achieve their desires, these people prefer capitalism. Those who do not desire to compete and would rather have everything handed to them, especially so no one is better off than them - these people prefer socialism. It's a lot like dating...attractive people prefer to meet others face to face because they are attractive; ugly fucks (and Eddie's pictures qualify him) prefer online dating and chat so the women aren't replused. As Greg pointed out earlier, thousands of people every day leave socialistic societies to come here. The opposite is rarely true, and those who leave thinking it is better are often the first to want to come back.
Anyway, it seems Eddie really likes NGOs. Well Eddie probably thinks it is the NGOs in Iraq right now who are the only ones doing anything. Please read the following article, if you dare Eddie, to gain firsthand experience of the true nature of your beloved NGOs. It was an article written by John Foreman for the New York Post. Since I do not believe you have the moral courage to read the entire thing open-mindedly, or even at all, let me copy a paragraph here that pretty much gets the point across. The background is a meeting between US Army officials and your beloved NGO leaders who are complaining about...just about everything.
"Then an armor major stands up, says that there's a young girl in his area with a brain tumor, and asks: "Are there any NGOs out there who can arrange specialized treatment for her?" The answer is silence."
The next paragraph explains how Iran is helping more than your NGOs. Read this article and understand it, you fuck.
May 11, 2003 -- BAGHDAD
THEY come from all over the world. Their supposed mission is to help the people of Iraq. Their concerned frowns and even their clothes all proclaim the message: "We're the good, caring people . . . and you're not."
But if actions speak louder than words, then many of the international charitable organizations called NGOs (non-governmental organizations) here are less interested in doing good works than in moral posturing and haranguing the army that won a war most of them opposed.
Ask any soldier who patrols this city, and you'll hear the same thing: The NGOs have been here for weeks, but they're not out in the streets. They cite "security concerns" - though journalists and soldiers alike move around the city, using common sense and taking precautions.
(This absence is also true of the United Nations, which has a fleet of $65,000 SUVs sitting uselessly in the sun outside its headquarters at the Canal Hotel. One U.N. program is active - the food program - but on its first day on the job, one of its workers was caught looting and arrested by the U.S. Army.)
TO catch the NGOs in "action," you must go to the daily meeting at 1700 hours at the palazzo occupied by CMCC - that's the Civilian Military Coordination Center. (It used to be CMOC - the civilian military operations center - but the NGOs complained that the name implied that they were operating together with the military!)
At the meeting are NGO representatives, officials from the U.S. Organization for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid (ORHA) and Army officers from headquarters around Baghdad.
At the head of a long table in the middle of the room sits an army "facilitator," Maj. Tony Coleman - a man with the patience of Job. On rows of gilt chairs on all sides of the table sit about 30 civilians and a sprinkling of soldiers.
A few of the civilians are Iraqis. The rest are international bureaucrats, most of them shiny with privilege, all of them bursting with self-righteousness.
Army officers stand all along the walls. Compared to the aid workers (with their new clothes and expensive haircuts), they look dirty and tired.
The soldiers must doff their rifles and sidearms before they enter the area because the NGO folk - who depend on these men and women for their protection - object to the presence of firearms.
Many other complaints follow the lines of: I was over there yesterday. You said it was safe but I heard a shot.
AFTER the official briefings on health, power, sewage, security and even subjects like animal welfare, you get to hear the long discussions of how the next meeting should be run: Certain topics must be highlighted; it's important that there be "break-out" sessions. It's there that you'll hear every shortage here blamed on the Americans and their war, even though there were severe problems here before March 20.
"All they do is complain," said a colonel who attends these meetings. "And you know what, I'm getting school supplies here with the help of my church at home quicker than all these NGO guys. A lot of units here are doing the same.
'ALL these guys do is talk, talk, talk. The only NGOs I've seen out here are the ICRC - and they're driving around, not working. These guys are more bureaucratic than the Army!" (They're also more secretive, excluding the media from their meetings and trying to keep them out of the CMCC sessions.)
Certainly almost every question is delivered in accusatory tones. Indeed, more often than not they aren't really questions but statements: "You should understand that the military should not occupy schools because that's an abuse of civilian structures," admonished one NGO leader on Sunday.
A little later, another informs the room that "we as an organization will adhere to humanitarian principles and not use any military aircraft. . . . It is unacceptable for humanitarian supplies to come in on military transport."
The issue of moral pollution by contact with U.S. forces sometimes seems to be the NGOs' main focus.
A Frenchwoman from Medecins Sans Frontieres embarks on a long rant: "We all know that this war has been planned for a long time. You cannot deny that. So why did you not plan medical assistance?" She said that MSF - whose Web site in any case says that there is no humanitarian crisis in Iraq - is pulling out.
LATER, a blond girl from a group called "Innocent Victims of War" asks a question basically accusing the armed forces of not caring or doing anything about cluster bomblets and the children they injure. A British engineer major then calmly explains that there are 10 unexploded-ordnance teams all over the city and that a special U.N. dog-team is coming into town next week. The task is huge because "this whole country is a vast ammunition dump, and a lot of the stuff is booby trapped."
She doesn't relent: Next week "is a little unacceptable to me." The major moves the subject on, assuring her that the children injured by munitions are "something that truly pains us all."
ONE of the many sulky Frenchmen demands that the Americans remove the roadblocks on the road from the airport into town, only to be told by a bullet-headed Maj. Watkins that this simply won't happen: The Army has to keep its main supply routes secure.
Then an armor major stands up, says that there's a young girl in his area with a brain tumor, and asks: "Are there any NGOs out there who can arrange specialized treatment for her?" The answer is silence.
The same thing happens when Capt. Cory Davis of the 2nd Armored Cavalry requests NGO help in resettling 400 families who've installed themselves in government buildings that will soon be taken back by the relevant ministries.
"Look at Saddam City," a senior officer liaising with ORHA said to The Post, referring to the city's biggest Shiite slum, "There's 2 million people living in that little spot. It's so poor it reminds me of Haiti. That's where the NGOs could make a huge difference. But you know who's the only people coming in to help? The Iranians."
THE NGOs do have some legitimate gripes. ORHA is slow and bureaucratic. As an institution, it sometimes seems primarily concerned with its own comfort and safety. And as these meetings make painfully clear, there are no military officials who keep track of the whole city in matters of security, health, transportation, etc.
And different parts of the Army here don't or can't communicate with each other. For instance, when the NGOs want to talk to someone who can arrange landing slots at the airport for humanitarian flights - no one at the meeting knows who they should talk to. (The number some have been told to call at Doha, Qatar rings unanswered forever.)
Moreover, some of the big problems, like the shortage of fuel for automobiles, generators, etc. can only be solved by the U.N. Security Council, which has been inexplicably, cruelly slow when it comes to lifting sanctions and ending the suspension of the Oil for Food program.
The NGO folk come in various types. There are the churchy-hippie guys, like the bearded, earringed representative from Christian Peacemaker Teams. There are the sullen Frenchmen in linen shirts. There are the pretty, privileged-looking girls in clothes that wouldn't look out of place in the streets of SoHo.
WHAT they all seem to have in common is opposition to "George Bush's war" - and a desire, conscious or not, to justify that stance retroactively by finding fault with the American regime here.
They are entitled to their opinion. But the Iraqi people need help, regardless of whether that help comes from people in camouflage uniforms riding in dusty Humvees, or from elegant men in ponytails driving gleaming SUVs.
It is fascinating to see how much more morally serious the people in the Humvees seem to be - and how much readier the people in the SUVs are to despise the Army than to effectively better the lot of the Iraqis. -- Posted by: Damn that's some shit I just read on August 3, 2003 08:33 PM
actually, it wasn't me that wrote the thing about all the immigrants coming to the US because of it's opportunities,, it was another poster, but I do agree with him.
to anyone who actually buys into Eddie's self-righteous bullshit: take a look at Eddie's pics, then read some of his articles. Eddie is about five foot two, judging from his pictures. as you can see by that first one, he's very stylish with his glasses that take up his entire face. how much did you pay for those, Eddie? tell you what, I'll give you a dollar for 'em, as I'd like to wear them to my next costume party. also, as one can plainly see by his big shiteating grin, he's very much a ladykiller.
it is painfully obvious to me that anything Eddie says stems from a deep dissatisfaction with his station in life. he looks like shit, he works as a dishwasher in a country club, or at best he's a cook, but we know he works in the kitchen. he gets paid what he's worth--i.e. jack shit--and as a result hates capitalism. he's all about the socialist handout because he knows he can't compete in a capitalist marketplace and is just hoping he can drag everyone else down with him. as the saying goes, misery loves company. also, another feature of capitalist societies is that males who demonstrate some ambition and intelligence (as well as a decent physical appearance) are the ones who attract the most (and best looking) females. yes Eddie, most girls aren't attracted to guys who work in the kitchen, make no money, and look like you do (i.e. shit. you look like you don't take care of yourself at all). that's why you get no pussy and are angry at the world and all the other capitalists who are doing better than you. bet you never realized that capitalism affects one's social/sex life in addition to their paycheck, did you? LOSER. I must admit it is one pretty hefty assumption I make that you even like the opposite sex. in fact, I bet you probably are gay. not that I have a problem with gays, but it would explain why you feel like such a minority.
so, if you take a physically harmless looking dweeb, put some huge glasses on him that make him look like an owl, give him a shitty haircut that accentuates his receding hairline, put him in the kitchen so he can barely afford his studio apartment, what do you get?: one burned out loser of a douchebag whose only means of getting attention and feeling special/important is to deride the country in which he lives by incessantly whining on a website he created. this is the same country that challenged him to make something of himself, and when he failed to do so, said, "your loss" and left him in the dust with all the other "niggers." the only thing this stereotype is missing is a name, but we find one in "Eddie Tews."
another thing Eddie, if you're so concerned about the plight of Iraqis, why are you nestled safely in your studio apartment, drinking beers, watching TV, and exchanging tapes as can be seen in your pics? why aren't you over there at least pretending to be doing some good like the NGOs in the article the last poster left? you sit around and bemoan the humanitarian crisis over there and sling insulting little quips at our government...and it obviously means so much to you because you do it all from the safety of your keyboard, never actually taking any action yourself. I can see you writing a nice long rant, posting it to your website, and then going, "well, that about does it. see everyone, I care about the Iraqis and what's right in the world. now let me see, what to do next...I know, let me go crack open a nice cold brew and go watch some TV." cold brews and TV that your much-maligned capitalist nation provide for you. they also provide government health standards and inspections at the brewery to make sure they're not putting rotting hops and the like in the beer you're drinking; it provides you with electricity to power your refrigerator that keeps the beer cold; they provide you with a police force to ensure that criminals don't smash your door down and beat the fuck out of you in your living room, stealing all your property and leaving you for dead; it also provides you with a criminal justice system to make them pay if they decide to do so. all of these positive externalities to the capitalist market system you enjoy every day, but don't think anyone out there is smart enough to realize just how full of shit a hypocrite like you really is. you sit around and take and take and take, but give constructive in return. in fact, you try to destroy all the good things this country has produced for its citizens. you are certainly one we could do without.
I guarantee you one thing, Eddie: just about any Iraqi still over there would gladly trade places with you if the limit of his self-perceived "responsibility" in the situation was ranting on the internet twice a week in exchange for nights in front of the air-conditioned TV while getting drunk. do us all a favor: go over to Iraq and lend a helping hand; in addition, please also never come back. see how much militant Iraqis care that you were a big peace advocate. once they find out you're American and have enjoyed the lifestyle to which you've been accustomed, they'd send you through the shredding machine just as quickly as they would me. the only difference is, I'd kick the living shit out of any fucking sandnigger who tried to lay his hands on me. they'd have to shoot me before I'd stop, whereas you would probably accept it and say, "sorry to have inconvenienced you."
you little fuckwad. again, take your own advice and "shut up, little man." or, try a taste of your own medicine on for size:
WHAT EDDIE CAN DO: Break all of his own fingers so he can't pollute the internet anymore with his senseless, self-righteous drivel. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 4, 2003 12:16 PM
khem, where are the niggaz??????????? -- Posted by: khem on March 9, 2005 03:22 AM