Here is the best proof that Saddam does NOT have any weapon of mass destruction: Bush is ready to start-a war against him. North Korea does have such weapons, and look, what a difference in treatment. They threatened with sanctions. North Korea said that it would consider sanctions as an act of war, they backed off. Bush wanted to increase the number of US soldiers in South Korea, North Korea said again that it would attack first, US backed off. This is what Saddam could have done if he had such weapons.
Victims are always getting screwed up
Back in 1997, a gang of teenagers have beaten to death a 14-year-old Reena Virk. Only two of the murderers were convicted, and here is the latest news: B.C. Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction of the female murderess. The judges decided that she did not have a fair trial. The prosecutor asked her unfair questions, namely, she was asked why would so many witnesses lie about her. The judges decided that these questions have shifted the burden of proof to the accused.
Really? At my trial, numerous witnesses lied, and I would be happy to explain to the jury the reasons why did these witnesses lie, but I was not allowed to testify at my trial at all, and the Court of Appeal decided that I did have a fair trial. I was also swarmed by a gang of criminals who threatened my life. The gang was led by former Chief Justice Gold, who was also Concordia top officer - Chancellor. Unlike Reena, I defended myself with a deadly force and killed 4 of them. Now, imagine that Reena, instead of allowing to be killed, would take a gun and kill several of her murderers first. I assure you that she would have been convicted of first degree murder (which her murderers were not) and any kind of question would be fair. Victims are always screwed up, whether they kill first or are being killed.
Idiots at large
One idiot on TV said that US children have had life-time experience of horror and tragedy. Compare experience of about 1 hour during which several buildings were destroyed and about 3000 people lost their lives with, for example, my experience of 4 years plus of atrocious war which left the whole country in ruins and 20 MILLION dead. Compare US children experience with that of Bosnia, Sierra-Leone, Uganda and many other countries. What kind of brain substitute does this idiot have in his head?
Idiot in politics
I am talking about Bush. This idiot has managed single-handedly to mobilize millions of people around the world to march in defense of ... Saddam! Every normal person hates Saddam, and only an idiot of Bush's magnitude is capable to force so many people to overcome this hatred, because Bush is worse. If someone told you a year ago, that bus loads of people would come to Iraq to offer themselves as human shields for Saddam, you would think they were insane. Well, this is the power of Bush's idiocy.
My fellow Americans, send this idiot back to his farm where he really belongs. There is a saying that anyone can become a US President. Bush gives to this saying a clearly unintended meaning.
Just in Quebec alone, five people kill themselves every day. I call this “silent" slaughter, because we do not hear about them, unless they kill someone else too. I use the word "slaughter", because I do not believe for a second that they really wanted to die: someone made their life so terrible, that death looked to them as a better alternative.
Regretfully, the law does not consider these abusers as murderers, but they certainly are. In terms of a final result, there is no difference between someone taking a gun and shooting an individual to death or someone abusing another individual to such an extent, that his victim commits suicide. In both cases, the person is dead, and the second case seems to be much more cruel than the first one.
Of course, one may say that in some cases, a suicide is not a result of an abuse. For example, a year ago, a couple killed themselves and their disabled son, because the father lost his job and they did not have the money to care for their son. It looks like nobody explicitly abused them. Well, if you look attentively, there is an abuser here - it is the government, which does not hesitate to waste $15 million on Romanow or to squander $1 BILLION on gun registry. This amount would be enough to care for all disabled children in Canada and to prevent this and other suicides.
What astounds me most of all, these people just quietly kill themselves. Very few decide to go with a bang, like Flores did recently. Thanks to him, the number of scoundrels in Texas has decreased by 3. If every suicidal person in Quebec took with himself at least one scoundrel, the total number of scoundrels in Quebec would decrease each year by more than 1500. In several years, this province would become scoundrel-free, and people would stop committing suicide, because there would be nobody to abuse them.
The bullied children, who take guns and kill their abusers, are maligned in the media as worst villains, instead of telling public the truth. The boy, who killed his parents first and then killed several bullies at school was presented as devil. Imagine a child, who is being beaten, spit on, denigrated every day at school, and when he complains to his parents, they call him names, instead of protecting him. Such parents deserve to be shot, period. Even a hen is ready to attack a dog, if she feels her chicks are in danger. Should not we, humans, be at least as good parents as a hen?
When I first heard that someone tried to bully my son, I told my wife not to let him back to school until I would be able to settle the matter. I was then in Donnacona jail and I was well respected there. I went to see the top guy there and I told him about the situation. I asked him to send one of his guys to school to talk to the bully. I emphasized, that I did not want any physical harm to be done to the bully, just a serious talk. In the evening, the man informed me that he called my family, told them that everything was fixed and that my son can return back to school.
Schools claim that there is nothing they can do to stop bullying, at the same time, they declare zero tolerance of threats made by victims. Victims get arrested, bullies do not. Children get expelled and suspended for having scissors or pocket knives, children, who never threatened anyone. If this zero tolerance be applied against bullies, there would be no need for other "zero tolerances". Parents of bullied children should film what bullies are doing and show it to the public, then everybody would understand why desperate children take guns and start shooting.
Let them burn in hell!
In a movie, Samuel L. Jackson plays a father, whose daughter was viciously raped by 2 white guys. The rapists were arrested and were in custody waiting for the trial. Jackson for some reason decided that they would get away with rape, so he took justice in his own hands: he took a rifle and shot them dead in the courthouse. At the trial he was asked by his lawyer whether he was sorry for killing the two men, to which he shouted: "Let them burn in hell!" At the end of the movie he is acquitted, not for the reason of insanity, but fully acquitted, as if the killing was justified.
Now, compare his case with mine. His daughter was raped, but she was alive; his own life was not in any danger. The rapists were in jail, and there was no indication that they would get out any time soon. Of course, they would not get death penalty, and this is what Jackson wanted, so he took justice in his own hands and killed them. And the jury decided that the killing was justified.
In my case, my life was threatened by a gang of criminals, and I knew that these people would never go to jail, because the gang leader was Chief Justice Gold, who was also Concordia Chancellor. I did my best to convince the gangsters to leave me alone, and when this failed, I had no choice but to kill some of them. These people made my life living hell, they gave me a heart attack, almost murdering me, and then they explicitly threatened my life.
You decide, which killing was better justified, the one in the movie or what I have done.
Idiots in science
A "scientific" report claims that adults who, while children, watched a lot of violence on TV, are more likely to get violent that those who did not. This is a classical mistake that many so called scientists make. They do not seem to understand that if something happens AFTER something else, this does not mean that it happens BECAUSE of that "else".
In this particular case, it is natural to presume, that children who watched a lot of violence did it because they liked it, and if they liked it, they more likely to get violent, whether they watched it or not. The children, who did not watch a lot of violence, most probably did not like it, and TV as such has nothing to do with it. There is no reason to presume that children are born the same. They have different appearance and they have different inside as well.
Idiots at "Forbidden Places"
In the show at Discovery channel about new jail design, the voice proudly describes new technology: two cables under ground between 2 jail fences. The voice tells the audience that these cables allow to immediately alert jailers should a prisoner try to escape and get into that zone, and the prisoner has no idea he was discovered. I have a surprise for him: even if the prisoners really did not know that, now they do.
A little arithmetic
You might have seen charity commercials telling you that $1 per day provides all the daily needs of one child. The US military budget is over $400 BILLION. The world population is 6 billion, it would be correct to say that less than 2 billion are children, so it looks like US military budget can fully provide for almost all the children on the planet.
Good Luck Troops
It has become popular and fashionable: "I am against the war, but I support our troops. " These people should be asked: "Why are you against the war?" If there is no justification for war, then such a war is a crime. Who is committing the crime? The troops you support. Rumsfeld said that he would not accept from Iraqis the defense, that they just followed the orders. Well. this should be applicable to US troops as well.
Presume, that one would say: "I am against robbery, but I support robber John Doe". Another option: "I am against rape, but I support rapist Smith and I pray that he finish his rape as soon as possible and return back safe, so that the woman he raped would not be able to scratch his beautiful face with her nails." It sounds absurd. Well, supporting troops who wage an unjustified war is exactly the same as supporting a criminal action while declaring an opposition to crime.
Check your IQ
Here is how several networks title their Iraq shows: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "America at war", "War in Iraq", "War with Iraq", "Attack on Iraq". Guess, which one is the most yellow and which one is the least yellow.
Do you see what I see?
On several occasions, networks show us US officers who claim that several thousand civilians from Basra wanted to leave Basra, but were shot at by Saddam army. No reporter bothers to ask them, how do they know it? If they saw it with their own eyes, why didn't they film it? If somebody else told them so, show us that someone.
Some historical analogies
On June 22, 1941, Hitler has attacked USSR claiming that he wanted to liberate Soviet people from Stalin oppression. Hitler was sure to finish the war within 3 weeks. Stalin was much worse than Saddam: Saddam was killing his opponents, Stalin was killing people devoted to him, he was killing the best and the brightest. During 1937-1939, Stalin killed the top army officers, engineers, scientists, artists, writers and musicians. All were declared "enemies of people". Hitler was sure everybody will rise up against Stalin and welcome him as liberator.
After one week of war, Hitler had more than 50,000 prisoners (Americans have 4,000), Hitler was in charge of great part of Belorussia, including its capital Minsk (Americans claim control of one little town of 4,000 inhabitants), as well as Ukraine. A whole army of general Vlasov not only surrendered to Hitler, but also joined Hitler army and started fighting against Soviet Army.
Hitler started the siege of Leningrad, which lasted more than 3 years. As compared to Basra, inhabitants of Leningrad not only suffered from absence of food, water and electricity, they also were freezing to death during winters. In total, about 800,000 inhabitants perished of hunger or froze to death, but Hitler never captured the city. Hitler was also on the doorsteps of Moscow and Stalingrad, but never captured either. He was so sure of his swift victory, that he did not bother to provide his army with winter clothes (Napoleon made the same mistake). If Iraqis manage to hold for couple of months, the sun will fry American troops in the desert.
As evil as Stalin was, Hitler was making him look good and even respectable. Bush has managed to achieve the same: millions of people around the world are marching in defense of Iraq, and effectively Saddam. Many Russians, who fled Russia to escape Communists, volunteered into army to fight Hitler. We now see Iraqis, who escaped Saddam prosecution, going back to Baghdad to fight for Saddam. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
There is though one significant difference: the aggressor Germany was much smaller than the USSR, while the aggressor USA is much bigger that Iraq.
God loves you, part 2
Latest proof - SARS; if this is not convincing enough - AIDS.
One Iraqi suicide bomber killed himself and 4 American soldiers. Soon thereafter at the same place an Iraqi truck filled with women and children "failed to stop". American soldiers killed 7 women and children. They justified shooting, claiming to think that the truck was filled with explosives. Well, if you shoot into a truck full of explosives, it will explode for sure.
Several days later, an Iraqi woman blows herself up killing 3 American
soldiers. And, sure enough, soon thereafter at the same place a truck
full of women and children "failed to stop", American soldiers opened
fire killing many of them. Do you seriously believe that any driver would
fail to stop in front of armed soldiers ready to shoot?