some comments on charges against Hussein
To all:
Those who fail to acknowledge the truth can come in two forms, those who refuse to admit what is right in front of them, and those who insist the existence of something that's not seen, and which even simple common sense denies could be. In the case of the "people shredder", especially as an extension of the apparently mandated hatred for Saddam Hussein and all associated with him - so necessary when "justifying" the theft of his country! - this becomes a tangible point of address, and not mere speculation on a subject. Toward this end, care has to be taken to go about establishing conclusions. Even in a case of stealing a nation's resources under the pretext of "toppling a madman", the truth has value, even above the petty mercenary gains that propaganda can provide.
For this reason, points brought up in this thread need examination.
For example, StellaBoulton gives an evidently uncritiqued airing of a Time magazine piece on Uday Hussein's tenure as "Iraq's sports czar". Apparently obligatorily, Aparisim Ghoshbaghdad, credited with the article, terms Uday "psychotic" - when you've slaughtered someone in a burning building, you're not going to toss around flowery aphorisms about them, afterwards! - and comments that "as head of Iraq's Olympics committee and also of its soccer foundation, he is known to have ordered the torture of athletes who performed below his expectations". For example, it is commented, a "bad day on the field" could result in players having "their feet scalded and toenails ripped off".
At some point, simple rational thinking has to come into play. Certainly, those interested in obstructing the truth will do what they can to doctor records, to keep you from realizing reality. It is up to you to recognize when the stories they give you are nothing more than a patent insult to your intelligence!
As someone supposedly devoted to ensuring prizes, why in the world would Uday destroy those very things that can bring those prizes? Scalding the feet of athletes makes it difficult for them to compete the next day, and certainly can get in the way of their maintaining an adequate training schedule! Thus imperiling their being able to compete well the next time! And toenails torn out can represent an even greater threat to competitive ability! And, with the evident threat of torture for failing to win games, how many new athletes will enter the ranks?
It's one thing if unscrupulous thugs toss around inane drivel to try to paint a murder victim in a bad light - desperately trying to make their assassination look "palatable"! - but just because they insult your intelligence by throwing pap at you doesn't mean you have to insult your own intelligence by eating it up!
Tellingly, the article goes on to admit that governing bodies for international sports investigated allegations of abuse by Hussein, "but these had failed to produce conclusive evidence". To try to put a believable blush on this, it is then commented that this is "hardly surprising, since no player would dare admit suffering such abuse, for fear of even worse".
But sports officials don't need admissions by athletes if all they have to do is look to see if their feet were scalded, or their toenails were ripped out! And these would be well-acknowledged events if, every time a team lost a match, the members of the team would disappear from the games and from training for the days or weeks needed for the "torture" to heal! If such absences did indeed take place on a regular basis, sports authorities would have investigated and found conclusive proof!
Which raises the issue of, if this behavior was supposedly suspected, why was it not a major topic in either Time or Sports Illustrated long before this?
It also brings up the point that Aparisim Ghoshbaghdad has their nerve claiming that Uday is "known" to have done these things, yet "no conclusive evidence" was ever obtained!
In the light of this, it comes as little surprise that Time magazine isn't viewed as much more than a rag! Add such things as that it hosts articles by Charles Krauthammer which, for example, praised maintaining tyrants and dictators, "as long as it's in the American interest", and an article about the Sierra Club actually had one member comment that they felt it was right to carve out wilderness for building!
It's, apparently, a truly weak mentality that would buy the stuff peddled against Iraq!
And that seems to go for the "people shredder"!
Why not just pull "Nayirah" and the "stolen incubators" out of retirement and just sell your soul and your right to learn the truth to them?
McAvennie takes a different tack, in addressing the situation. They refer to an article in this area as “pointless”. “So they haven’t uncovered any people-shredding machines”, McAvennie asserts diffidently, “I’m sure the troops out there have much more pressing concerns than scouring Iraq for machines of torture.”
There’s an old rule of thumb for defense attorneys. Even they readily depict themselves as having to promote points of view at variance with the prevailing information. The adage goes: “If the evidence is weak, pound the evidence; if the evidence is strong, pound the police; and, if the evidence is irrefutable, pound the table!” In many ways, this mirrors the prosecution of the Bush claims against Iraq and the Hussein regime.
When the military didn’t enter Iraq, and Bush and his cohorts could claim that what was coming out couldn’t be trusted, any assertions of the evident absolute deceit behind the idea of powerful weapons in the country were blasted as “irresponsible” and “unreliable”. Those with two brain cells to rub together knew, among other things, the immense requirements of becoming just a member of the “nuclear club”. A reliable supply of material is the least of it. And the idea of expensive constant testing. To say nothing of the fact, obvious from the dawn of the Nuclear Age that, in fact, as dangerous as they are, there’s nothing that makes their use worthwhile! Would you take the chance of polluting your own land for ages to come, just to win a few acres? A few acres of what would, then, become unusable property? The ruthlessly inane would posit the concept of an elaborate auto da fe immolation, in the event of impending conquest, Hussein planning to eliminate the entire country, if someone looked like they might conquer it. But, among other things, who would conquer a country possessing such huge stockpiles? A country with conventional weapons? If conventional weapons could conquer a country with such powerful weapons, why not just opt for stockpiling huge amounts of conventional weapons? And, for that matter, why destroy the country? Why not let it be overrun, then return another day and take it back?
In short, all the “arguments” for Iraq possessing huge weapons of massive power were unalterably inane and insipid!
The fact that no such stockpiles were found, after the country was invaded, only served to support the allegation that they were just lies launched by Bush to “justify” international piracy.
With the failure of the evidence to turn up, “pounding the police”, that is, condemning the interpretation of what was found, became necessary. Now, the matter of weaponry was summarily dismissed, and the “fate of the people of Iraq” was made paramount. Those who attacked Bush for his apparent defrauding of the public were now threatened with being accused of “condoning the abusive machinations by a vicious psychotic”! Counter-assertions would now be made of: “Are you saying you’re sorry the people of Iraq were freed from the brutalities of a madman?”
This, however, desperately needs proof of abuse by Hussein of his people.
And, no, Halabja - again, for those with two brain cells to rub together - does show signs of having been a gas attack by Iran, not Iraq!
No bid deals with Halliburton; indications that Bush was obsessed with invading Iraq, even to the point of painting unrelated occurrences as “proof” of Iraqi aggressions; and the failure to come up with evidence of patterns of torture now make that tack feeble to follow, at best.
Now comes the time to “pound the table”, that is, to invoke “principle” to the effect that even trying to assemble information is against decency and righteousness. Throwing out all the police evidence by asserting that higher ethics require addressing a different point altogether, and that the trial is nothing but a witch hunt.
And this is where McAvennie comes in. All of a sudden, failing to find any evidence of either mass weaponry or of brutality toward the people is “pointless”! It doesn’t matter that the very precepts on which the action was predicated are being demonstrated to have been lies, “there are much more pressing concerns”!
But the validity of an action is utterly dependent on the insurmountable legitimacy of its predicates! For those to fail is for the entire action to be disreputable! You can try to dismiss the importance of backing up those predicates all you want by trying to divert interest - “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” - but that doesn’t change the absolute utter need for the causes of an action to be valid, in order for the action itself to be valid!
There are those who have taken issue with my finding fault with those who engage in evident disreputable methods, apparently to obstruct the truth. I invite these, then, to tell me what righteous good is accomplished by recommending that the deceived try to uncover evidence that they have been deceived! I also ask that they supply the kind of mindset that can proceed from a putative sense of well-meaning for all mankind, and honorably end up at the recommendation that proof of lies and treachery doesn’t need to be uncovered! And, until they do, the fact will remain that McAvennie, by their “argument” does demonstrate a palpable wish to obfuscate the search for the truth!
How many decent reasons can you find for a search for truth being demeaned as “pointless”, for someone using “more pressing concerns” as an “excuse” for keeping the people from learning that the rights of an entire nation have been violated by an apparent petty dictator, who sold out his office to the highest CEO bribe?
In their presentation, McAvennie does seem to proceed from the premise that whatever serves the man with the biggest gun and the least scruples is best. Since such an individual would, evidently, inevitably commit the greatest crimes against humanity, covering up those crimes would be next in line in that “ethos”. And, since completely whitewashing the evidence of wholesale butchery and corruption seems something that God prevents from ever happening, “diminishing” the search for truth to the point of inconsequentiality seems the handy fall back point!
Can you find a decent motivation for recommending that the search for truth be indefinitely [read: “perpetually”] postponed? If you cannot, then it has to be acknowledged that McAvennie’s statements do smack of corruption! There is an unfortunate tendency to overlook signs of turpitude! That is what led to Bush being allowed to proceed unhindered in apparently one of the most egregious crimes against the international community in recent history! But glossing over malignant pronouncements because of “freedom of speech” or the right to one’s own opinion” only allows the malignance to fester!
It should be mentioned, though, that condemning corrupt statements is not denying someone “free speech” or “the right to their opinion”, it’s merely calling a spade a spade and denouncing contemptuous sentiments, wherever they are to be seen!
Maintaining “etiquette” and “hospitality” is another reason promoted for holding back on condemning malignant sentiments, but that, too, seems only a veneer for the greater inhospitality of allowing ethically unacceptable statements to go uncountered!
To address another “reason” used to condemn my pointing out when unjustifiable statements are made, I have not “called names”! I have stated that McAvennie used ethically unacceptable precepts, but, if you can ethically validate foregoing the search for an apparently embarrassing truth of international criminality, provide it. And, until you do, you have to acknowledge that there is no reason to say it is ethical! I have said that it is unethical, and I said McAvennie did it, but I did not call McAvennie unethical. I give them the benefit of the doubt of thinking they had some “ethical reason” to suggest suspending the search for a politically imperiling truth, but it would be nice if they could say what that “ethical” reason was!
It goes without saying that StellaBoulton’s buying into the apparently insipid accusations concerning Uday Hussein’s “treatment of athletes” is, certainly, a discredit to her reputation. Weighing in convincingly on why it should be believed, or openly disavowing any evident credibility behind it, would do her reputation good!
“Seems that it is a pretty pathetic line to follow and a pretty poor waste of time”, McAvennie continues, “by the journalist who has brought this up.”
In other words, apparently, only promote those points that further the big money interests! What good is truth? How big a house can truth buy you? How fast a car can you get with truth? How much heroin can truth buy you? Truth is just “a waste of time”!
“The attitude of some in attempting to go out of their way to discredit any allegation made against Hussain [sic] and his regime is in my eyes akin to those who deny the holocaust [sic]. Face facts, evil things happened to people who opposed Hussain’s [sic] regime, even those who were just in the wrong place. If you cannot accept that without trying to disprove it at every turn in order to score points in the whole pro-war/anti-war thing then I pity you.”
Is it wrong, then, to “discredit any allegation made against” Hussein if those allegations are lies? That is a truly foul and malignant thing to suggest! But that seems what McAvennie is saying! Again, McAvennie seems to be proceeding from the premise that blaming Hussein of brutalities serves the machinations of the rich and unprincipled, so don’t depart from that line, no matter what! Proving him innocent of claims made against him would significantly threaten the success of the evident theft of his country by The Carlyle Group, so don’t do it! Money is better than God, remember that!
What noble purpose do you say it serves to treat finding the truth as “a waste of time”?
Tellingly, however, McAvennie, in their attempt to dissuade people from seeking the facts, invokes the Holocaust. I have never known it to fail when someone wants to engineer the direction of a discussion, or manufacture a “conclusion” to an “argument”, that the Holocaust gets brought in! If you deny a palpably fraudulent premise, apparently intended only to “justify” an act of patent criminality, the attempted perpetrator accuses you of “denying that the Holocaust existed”. If you insist on a premise for which there is evidence, and your opponent wants to skirt reality, and just ram “the party line” down your throat, without proving its legitimacy, they accuse you of “refusing to believe that the Holocaust took place”. Conspiracy theorists are casually defined as “historical revisionists who want to say the Holocaust never occurred”. Say anything that threatens some unprincipled thug’s plan to rape the public and they’ll say you “don’t accept that the Holocaust ever was”.
It’s gotten to the point that, among other things, just to bring in the Holocaust is all but tantamount to the fact that the speaker admits they have no facts to reason legitimately with, and so is resorting to “strong arm tactics” to “prove” their point. “So you’re saying you think it’s right to murder six million people?” Nothing more than this, it seems, really, is sufficient to prove the invalidity of every point McAvennie tried to make.
More than this, though, it has gotten to the point, with the Holocaust being the reliable standby for the unscrupulous in their putrid simulacrum of “argument” that it truly does seem questionable that the event did indeed occur! Birds of a feather do indeed flock together, and it is rare that anything genuine has ever been so regularly utilized by the unethical in unethical ways! Certainly, at least, it does strongly suggest that whatever did happen in Germany at that time is not the way they tell us! Of course, those who wish to maintain whatever gains perpetuating the standard retelling of the Holocaust yields, as well as those who want to use it to bully their way through “arguments”, will take instant umbrage and, out of the fear of having to argue legitimately, they will launch into an all-out assault on my character. They will equate asking the genuine question of whether we were told the truth of the affair with justifying killing millions of people! It’s not unlikely that McAvennie might be tempted to characterize me in foul ways. Trying to find out the truth about a scam that yields the underhanded trillions of dollars in profits tends to bring out that kind of response in the profiteers, as well as their apologists.
And this seems to be guaranteed in any venture, where the unscrupulous seek to gain by tinkering with the truth. When the evidence of their lies comes full circle, they seek to establish believing what they say without question as a fundamental of the universe, and to denigrate anyone who asks a question as evil and benighted. “Facts are funny things”, Ronald Reagan said, when the truth about Iran-Contra apparently started to leak out; “Truth is a waste of time”, McAvennie seems more than ready to counsel, when it threatens one of the biggest thefts of all time!
But finding the truth is what the Fortean site is supposed to be about. If there are those who seek to reverse the human spiritual imperative in themselves, and act to conceal the truth, rather than reveal it, then they have to be exposed as working in that direction. And, as much as it may be described as “not keeping a happy house” on the site, it must not be wavered from. Do you want a blandly content forum, with everyone saying what the unprincipled used their brutality to order them to think, or do you prefer a site that can claim actually having done something, to foster truth?
Julian Penrod
.
