RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


"...Iraquis are sub-human"(58 posts)

"...Iraquis are sub-human"ClydeTri
Mar 23, 2003 4:48 PM
A quote from former POW Jeffery Zaun on tv today...

Iraq as shown on their own tv having executed POWs..with shots to the forehead. These are the people war protestors are fighting for over here and in other countries? Yes, as much as you anti-war types dont want to admit it, Hussein's regieme is a micro copy of Hitlers...go ahead..appease ...make excuses for them...people who will but a gun to the head of a prisoner and execute them....

And, dont give me this "innocent civilians" sh*t....if the vast majority of iraqis are not like this, they need to come out of hiding, go to Saddams bunker and kill him and end it. They cease to be innocent when they become facilitators. Just as the Germans who sat quietly there while six million Jews were exterminated....the citizens of a country determine the country's fate, they make their own fate and are responsible for the actions of their country. You liberals dont understand that is why the founding fathers of our country gave us the right to bear arms...not only to defend ourselves from outside invaders, but also, to defend ourselve from a federal government that becomes despotic. For people who sit idely by and dont put down evil, they are just as evil.
re: "...Iraquis are sub-human"Bill B
Mar 23, 2003 8:02 PM
Nobody will admit to it but the reason that the murdered G.I.'s had their pant's pulled down is because the Iraqi's were checking to see if they were circumcised.In the Arab eye if you are circumcised you are Jewish and that is why they were murdered. The Arabs don't say a word when Saddam gases 5000 Kurds but cry bloody murder when Israel kills a suicide bomber. We should move CenCom from Qatar to Tel-Aviv and say piss on you Arab world.
re: "...Iraquis are sub-human"russw19
Mar 23, 2003 8:51 PM
Hey Clyde Tri, one simple little note.... the reason I was against this war before it started was because I don't think any American service man or woman's life is worth Saddam's. I was against this war because I don't think any young man's mother needs to learn her son is dead and was executed with a shot in the forehead via CNN. I think Saddam needs to be removed from power and held to criminal charges for the human right's violations he has committed, but I think the people who need to do the removing are the Kurds and Shia that oppose him. Why don't we send in some CIA black op types to take him out? I was anti-this-war because I don't believe that a bunch of 19 year old kids should be the ones doing this job. And I will change my tune when one of Bush's daughters are sent over as a nurse or a clerk of some type.

Russ
re: "...Iraquis are sub-human"bic
Mar 23, 2003 10:35 PM
We waited 12 years for someone "over there" to take him out. Our policy had to change when they brought it "over here".

We can no longer wait for someone else to do what needs to be done. At every cross road in human history the rules of engagement have changed. From the first time man picked up a club, learned to sharpen a stone, forge metal, and on and on. Those who fight by the old rules either die, get conquered or become irreverent.
My experienceKeeponTrekkin
Mar 23, 2003 9:16 PM
in major transactions with Muslims was unfortunate and, I hope, untypical; the three counterparties all lied to me and did so remorselessly.

I worry that many more iraqis will do this kind of thing. I only hope these people are the minority.
Arabs do seem particularly comfortable lyingpurplepaul
Mar 23, 2003 9:32 PM
As evidenced by the really crazy things making the news from over there. Jews capture Arab children and drink their blood, POW's will be treated according to the Geneva convention, there are no chemical or biological weapons, all POW's from Iran have been released, yes that's the actual mileage on the odometer.

It's a different culture. Image means more than truth. As a Westerner, I think that really sucks and is a lower way of being. No doubt they laugh at those useful idiots for falling for their lies time and time again. When a lie is exposed, there seems to be no embarrassment, no apology. Just a more vehement, resentful assertion that the proof is false. I find that the arrogance of the stupid.
The stupidity of the arrogant.Jon Billheimer
Mar 24, 2003 9:23 AM
Your remarks and some of the others above reveal appalling ignorance and bigotry. You might reflect on how each enemy during our history has been dehumanized and demonized for political and propaganda purposes. Granted that the regime is evil, but that does not make the Iraqi people themselves evil.
Agree. PP's people in white bedsheets prove that. nmSpunout
Mar 24, 2003 9:44 AM
some truth, thoughDougSloan
Mar 24, 2003 9:47 AM
I had a middle eastern person (concerning a litigation matter) once directly tell me that their culture is a bit different there when it comes to "truth". Truth often is not considered absolute or objective. It's whatever I can make you believe. If you are fooled, it is because you are a weaker person. Being deceived is your fault, not mine for deceiving you.

It took considerable time to convince this person that we see things differently here, and that testimony needs to be objectively accurate and truthful, at least the best you can do. The fact that this concept was difficult for him to grasp told me something about the culture.

Now, I'm not in any way implying that this means they are "sub-human" or anything like that -- I try to view people in the most egalitarian way possible. But, it does show simply that the cultures are different, and we need to consider that appropriately.

Doug
Wow, Doug!OldEdScott
Mar 24, 2003 9:56 AM
That last graf blows me away. I never would have taken you for a mush-headed diversity multi-culuralist!
I'll preach tolerance for even your kind :-) nmDougSloan
Mar 24, 2003 10:31 AM
some truth, thoughJon Billheimer
Mar 24, 2003 9:56 AM
Doug,

Consider the elaborate psy-ops campaign that was launched months prior to this war, the disingenuous and changing justifications given for it, and the major propaganda campaign that is now being waged on a worldwide basis! We're simply more sophisticated and subtle in the way in which we try to colour peoples' perceptions and opinions. In many cases I believe it just boils down to the fact that we're cleverer liars.
Okay, I'm ignorant and bigoted. What's your excusepurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 9:59 AM
for having no evidence to support your accusations? I offered examples to back up my position. You simply make an assertion without anything to back it up. I also never stated that anyone in particular was evil. But I stand by my statement that their lack of respect for the truth sucks.
And Negroes are basically lazy and shiftless?OldEdScott
Mar 24, 2003 10:25 AM
Pretty broad generalization there, bud.
And Negroes are basically lazy and shiftless?purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 10:51 AM
Yes, I should have limited my comments to government leaders. Yet I do believe that in a society where lies by leaders are not necessarily looked at negatively, the common man probably shares the sentiment. Of course, in most of those countries, they have no choice.
Al Takiyyah- the stupidity of the ignorantSteveS
Mar 24, 2003 11:36 AM
Ignorance: most westerners are ignorant, obviously, of the Islamic practice of Al Takiyyah, sometimes translated as dissimulation.

Basically, in the Koran, Muhammad allowed Muslims to lie on certain occasions, ostensibly to promote peace. In real practice, the concept of Al Takiyyah allows and encourages a Muslim to lie to an Infidel (any non-Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) with no spiritual penalty as in the "Thou Shalt Not Lie" of the Ten Commandments. So, for instance, a Muslim could very easily say "Salaam (peace), we are your brothers!" while pretending to surrender to Allied troops, merely as a ploy to ambush. And it would be an approved practice in Islam.

Ignorance of Al Taqiyyah is a problem for many non-Muslims other than the wishful thinking crowd posting here.-
And <i>every</i> Christian follows the Ten Commandments? nmczardonic
Mar 24, 2003 11:50 AM
No, but when they don't we call them hypocrites.purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 12:53 PM
When an Arab doesn't, you claim we have no right to judge their ways.
Bull.czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 1:13 PM
First, where is your evidence that these are "their ways"? Their media? If so, its fairly obvious that you are not in a position to judge "their ways".
I'm in as good a position as youpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 2:18 PM
and since you feel so comfortable to ignore the evidence presented by the news to form your opinion, I feel particularly comfortable using the information presented to form mine.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Just realize that it's not based on anything in fact.
So <i>now</i> you take the "news" as unvarnished truth!?czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 2:36 PM
Just last week you were telling us how you viewed CNN and Fox News as biased. And that's two premire news networks hailing from a culture that you seem to believe is inherently honest but for a few short-lived and quickly unmasked abberations. Did you get a satellite dish over the weekend of something? Please tell us which news station we can tune in to find the definitive truth about the views of 1.2 billion Muslims.

Or consider this. If Arabs are indeed "particularly comfortable lying", wouldn't they know this of themselves and view their own media with a greater degree of skepticism?

I'm not saying that these sensational reports don't appear on Arab media. I am saying that their appearance says nothing about whether or not they are believed.
Thank you for presenting an argumentpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 3:38 PM
I believe that all news providers are biased, but I don't accuse them of just making up "facts." Al Jazeera and Abu Daby are two news stations you can try to get the flavor of what Arabs think (though some of the stuff on them can be highly questionable; most Arab journalists seem to espouse their government's views. Not surprisingly, "facts" are sometimes what they say they are. Who's to claim otherwise?).

Now, when Arafat says that he denounces terrorism and then is found to be funding it, I call that a blatant lie. I found out about it through the news. Yet he has enjoyed massive public support. When Saudi Arabia claims to support us, then spreads vitriolic hatred of our Western ways and funds Islamist schools, I call that a lie. Presumably, others have seen it too. Yet only in America and perhaps parts of Britain is it seen as anything terrible. In fact, I think some Arabs are more embarrassed about it than many Europeans (I've actually spent time with some of them) judging from the acknowledgement (finally) from within that Arafat's regime is so corrupt.

I don't claim to understand Arabs enough to say whether they are especially skeptical of their leaders and media. After all, their experience is so different from mine that it is hard for me to imagine what the accumulated effect would be. There are a few Arabs who make it to the national consciousness through media reports who are branded as traitors and whose lives are threatened because they dare to state that lies are being perpetrated in the name of Islam (The New Republic had some good articles on that). Facts are condemned as lies. How do we know they are facts? Sometimes there's video. Sometimes there are documents that aren't found to be forgeries.

So, if Arabs aren't more inclined to lie than, say, Americans, they certainly seem to be less outraged by it when it is exposed.

Actually, I was speaking to a European friend about the possible consequences if Lance Armstrong were ever found to be doping. He said that it would be a huge problem in America, but not so bad in Europe because the attitude is different there. He mentioned that Pantani is still a hero in Italy.

So, maybe I've just discredited my own argument. I should have said, "American's are more uncomfortable with lies than Arabs (at least when they're caught)."
One could list a similar litany of unpunished American falsehoodczardonic
Mar 24, 2003 4:01 PM
Clinton lied rather famously and still enjoyed wide popularity among the American public. The Bush Administration bore false witness before the UN and the American public while failing to make its case to the security council. Yet, the end seems to justify the means among his supporters. So, what is this crap about Americans being uncomfortable with dishonesty?
What are you talking aboutpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 4:14 PM
There was histrionic wailing about Clinton, not for what he did, but for lying about it. Had he admitted what, in my opinion, is nobody's business and not a big deal, there could never have been an impeachment.

What's this false witness you're talking about? And, now that I think about it, how is it you're so outraged about it? Could it be that the thought of your government lying is repugnant to you?
Wailing yes, political price, no.czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 4:22 PM
So unless you are further qualifying your thesis to state that Americans are more uncomfortable with lies but that discomfort has no practical consequence, I don't think you can support it.

False assertions about the findings of the IAEA, repetition of long discredited claims about aluminium tubes, accusations unsupported by evidence, and falsified evidence "mistakenly" released by the most advanced intelligence agencies in the world. If these aren't intentional lies, then you have to have serious concerns about the competency of this administration.

Yet, who says I am outraged? As I see it, this kind of disinformation is typical of the US Governemnt.
Wailing yes, political price, no.purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 4:47 PM
I'm not so sure. The public outrage over his lies has, I believe, affected other public servants who saw the embarrassment and loss of support that followed. Furthermore, some lies are worth a pound of flesh, others aren't. The message was, I think, that whatever it is you may have done, it is worse to lie about it. The public hates to be duped, yet the Muslim world routinely dupes itself, and I can see very little resistance being offered. At least in America, we have partisans who will try their damnest to hold the other side accountable. Sometimes that's really annoying. But I think we're better off for it.

I do have serious concerns about the competence of this administration. But I believe everything you have listed is contested with the exception of the forgeries. And none of us know the circumstances surrounding that mess.

So you're not outraged that your government (I'm assuming you're American) is lying to you? You're not an Arab, are you?
Are <i>you</i> one of these fabled Arabs. . .czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 5:05 PM
. . .who credulously absorbs state provided propaganda? How many more proven forgeries will it take to shake your faith in the Whitehouse?

Question: Why is it that people who think that we should remove oppresive Arab governments because they don't represent their people also believe that media sponsored by the same governments does represent the views of the people?

The only thing you have in America is the myth of objectivity and enough idiots to propagate it.
I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is whatpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 5:25 PM
makes me more of a selective human, than someone who doesn't believe anything.
David St. Hubbins

This is Spinal Tap

I wouldn't believe the Arab state controlled media if reports from Western reporters didn't so often confirm their unfortunate legitimacy.

Sorry, but I don't see all the forgeries you do. Some evidence has been discredited. Not all has. Not by a long shot. And if the latest discovery does indeed turn out to be a massive chemical weapons factory, and if there are more and more discovered before this is all over, are you still going to cite the select documents that turned out to be wrong?

No, thanks in large part to Fox News, there is no myth of objectivity. Just largely opposing viewpoints that filter out the blatantly false.
Legitimacy of what?czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 6:00 PM
All of your examples say nothing of that the average Muslim belieives or disbelieves. It simply proves that, as in the U.S. if you turn on Fox News, Arabs T.V. is chock full of manipulative garbage that may or may not represent the views of its audience in general.

I made no reference to some multitude of forgeries. Personally, I think that one is more than enough.
"Personally, I think that one is more than enough."purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 6:39 PM
And you call me a bigot.

So if, like in the US, Fox unquestionably represents the views of a huge number of people, the only inference that you could make is that Arab TV represents the views of huge numbers of Arabs.

I guess you really haven't been listening to the reports of Americans who live in the Gulf region. True, they're not Arabs. But does their experience count for nothing? Or just not as much as your touchy feely, based on nothing beliefs of the goodness of those who state they hate us.
Al Takiyyah- the stupidity of the ignorantSteveS
Mar 24, 2003 12:39 PM
Ignorance: most westerners are ignorant, obviously, of the Islamic practice of Al Takiyyah, sometimes translated as dissimulation.

Basically, in the Koran, Muhammad allowed Muslims to lie on certain occasions, ostensibly to promote peace. In real practice, the concept of Al Takiyyah allows and encourages a Muslim to lie to an Infidel (any non-Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) with no spiritual penalty as in the "Thou Shalt Not Lie" of the Ten Commandments. So, for instance, a Muslim could very easily say "Salaam (peace), we are your brothers!" while pretending to surrender to Allied troops, merely as a ploy to ambush. And it would be an approved practice in Islam.

Ignorance of Al Taqiyyah is a problem for many non-Muslims other than the wishful thinking crowd posting here.-
Al Takiyyah- the stupidity of the ignorantSteveS
Mar 24, 2003 1:10 PM
Ignorance: most westerners are ignorant, obviously, of the Islamic practice of Al Takiyyah, sometimes translated as dissimulation.

Basically, in the Koran, Muhammad allowed Muslims to lie on certain occasions, ostensibly to promote peace. In real practice, the concept of Al Takiyyah allows and encourages a Muslim to lie to an Infidel (any non-Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) with no spiritual penalty as in the "Thou Shalt Not Lie" of the Ten Commandments. So, for instance, a Muslim could very easily say "Salaam (peace), we are your brothers!" while pretending to surrender to Allied troops, merely as a ploy to ambush. And it would be an approved practice in Islam.

Ignorance of Al Taqiyyah is a problem for many non-Muslims other than the wishful thinking crowd posting here.-
You views are just as prejudiced as you claim theirs are. (nm)czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 11:31 AM
Evidence? nmpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 12:50 PM
Your baseless, pejorative generalizations. (nm)czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 1:14 PM
I gave examples, so they're clearly not baselsspurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 2:15 PM
As for being pejorative, what should one think of so many publicly exposed lies that have resulted in no consequences?

You don't like what I'm saying, but you're not presenting an argument.
Isolated examples, based on which you tar an entire culture. nmczardonic
Mar 24, 2003 2:24 PM
I merely drew conclusions based on my experiences.purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 3:40 PM
I may be wrong. But at least I have a reason for my beliefs. Do you?
The sorry history of prejudice is reason enough. (nm)czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 3:50 PM
Huh? nmpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 4:16 PM
'Nuff said. (nm)czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 4:22 PM
That's what I thought you meant. Another non-argument. nmpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 4:35 PM
Well, if you are unfamiliar with the dangers of prejudice. . .nmczardonic
Mar 24, 2003 4:52 PM
Well, if you are unfamiliar with the dangers of denial...nmpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 5:27 PM
I can recognize your denial of your own bigotry. (nm)czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 6:02 PM
Ha! If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. nmpurplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 6:31 PM
Err, its not.czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 6:37 PM
I call you a bigot because of the reductive generalizations that you make about Muslims.

How am I a bigot?
Err, it is.purplepaul
Mar 24, 2003 6:40 PM
Because of the reductive gerneralizations that you make about Americans.
Finally! nmSpunout
Mar 25, 2003 5:48 AM
If Iraqis are subhuman, how can they handle democracy?Me Dot Org
Mar 24, 2003 12:26 AM
You liberals dont understand that is why the founding fathers of our country gave us the right to bear arms...not only to defend ourselves from outside invaders, but also, to defend ourselve from a federal government that becomes despotic.

I would remind you that the streets of Baghdad have been a virtual arms bazaar in the past few weeks. I saw one bazaar where they were selling Smith & Wessons. Iraqis have had access to many firearms for a long time. No Brady bill - no waiting period. It doesn't seem to have made their government any less brutal. If the citizens have guns, then the military has RPGs, howitzers, tanks and helicopters.

You seem to extrapolate the American experience onto all other civilizations, and are puzzeled why those citizens don't behave you would expect Americans to behave.

And, dont give me this "innocent civilians" sh*t....if the vast majority of iraqis are not like this, they need to come out of hiding, go to Saddams bunker and kill him and end it. They cease to be innocent when they become facilitators. Just as the Germans who sat quietly there while six million Jews were exterminated....the citizens of a country determine the country's fate, they make their own fate and are responsible for the actions of their country.

The United States has been having some difficulty with the problem of killing Saddam with the most powerful army in the world, but you think a few Iraqis with stout hearts and guns should be able to storm his bunker and kill him? Saddam and both his sons have been the targets of assasination attempts, long before this week's cuise missile attack.If it were that easy, our special forces would have done the job a while ago.

If Iraqis are subhuman, why are we spending billions of dollars and expending American lives to liberate them and install democracy? If they are sub-human, it would be quixotic and foolhardy. If they are sub-human, obviously they are incapable of democratic rule.

I would remind you that, with some prodding from the United States, many Iraqis rose up against Hussein after the Gulf War. The U.S. did nothing to help them.

But "the citizens of a country determine the country's fate, they make their own fate and are responsible for the actions of their country"? I guess the U.S. should never help a country for humanitarian reasons, because its their own damn fault? We shouldn't have accepted Irish immigrants because they were responsible for the potato famine?

Iraq made a fundamental miscalculation in showing of American dead and mistreated prisoners. Like a limbic shark brain, Ba'athist leadership only knows fear as the weapon of survival. Pictures showing Iraqi troops firing automatic weapons into the water where they say Coalition aviators have been shot down show, in the dry words of a Centcom spokesman "that their search and rescue tactics leave much to be desired". Such actions will only steel American resolve, and elicit condemnation from all but the most partisan observers.

I was upset after seeing the pictures of the captured and killed Americans, but I don't think that this makes all Iraqis sub-human and guilty by complicity.
Are they PoWs, or 'Enemy Combatants'? Ask that Q. nmSpunout
Mar 24, 2003 5:56 AM
I'm not crazy about what's going on at Gitmo, but...Me Dot Org
Mar 24, 2003 11:08 AM
We are talking about uniformed soldiers in a clearly recognized army. Who do you think is treated better: an Iraqi prisoner of the Americans, or an American prisoner of the Iraqis?
no basic human rights for either of them..schimanski
Mar 25, 2003 2:06 AM
I honestly don't know who gets better treatment because the way your leaders refuse to comply with international laws regarding basic
human rights is not in any way better than the situation in Iraq just because your leaders try to sweep the whole subject under a carpet and keep it quiet.

Those ALLEGED (no proof presented to any international or American court) Al-Qaeda terrorists in one
of your naval bases are still being treated worse than animals, kept in cages with eyes blindfolded and nobody
gives a damn because it's kept out of the public eye and people choose to forget. Here's hypocrisy at best.

And please, don't give me any of that "Al-Qaeda are not PoW" crap because there's no proof of some of these people
even being part of the Al-Qaeda! Besides shouldn't basic human rights cover just about anybody on the planet,
or does the sub-human non-american humanoid really exist?
Speaking only to the issue of POWs.....sn69
Mar 24, 2003 6:56 AM
The fact that our POWs were shown on television is a two edged sword. The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit showing POWs as a function of propaganda, derision or abuse. In effect (per the GCs and International Law), an individual ceases to be a combatant the moment he/she makes it clear that they have surrendered. From that point on, the conventions apply and certain standards of treatment are expected to be adhered to.

And, yes, FWIW, we DO adhere to them, and then some. We don't torture, we provide first rate medical care, we provide three meals a day, we provide shelter, and we provide religious attention via Muslim chaplains.

That said, when facing an enemy with a history of ignoring the GCs (to which they are signateurs incidentally), there's a subtle benefit to seeing our people ONCE. Now we are certain who is alive, who is dead, and what type of physical condition the captives are in. It's a blanket life insurance policy of sorts since the Iraqis cannot come back later and say "they all died." Likewise, we know that they have their limbs, their digits, two sets of eyes and ears, etc.... That's an insurance of sorts against extreme torture.

Beyond that, however, I do not personally think that our people will be treated in accordance with the conventions. The Iraqis horridly tortured coalition captives in GW1 (actually, they tortured Western captives but sumarily executed Muslim captives), and most of the details of those stories are still classified for reasons that I cannot fathom. They have a detailed and indisputable history of horrific human rights violations, and the younger son is known as a rather gleeful, inquisition-esque torturer.

War sucks.
Maybe the most simplistic, ill-informed view I've ever read.cory
Mar 24, 2003 8:40 AM
I don't want to get into a long debate about this--well, actually I do, but I don't want to do it in this forum. But anybody who thinks atrocities and violations of the Geneva convention are restricted to one side of any war has never been in combat.
Clyde, your statements never cease to amaze me.Kristin
Mar 24, 2003 11:54 AM
"For people who sit idely by and dont put down evil, they are just as evil."

Go pick yourself up a copy of The Secret Room by Corrie Ten Boom. Do you have any idea what happened to Jewish sympathizers during WWII? They were either executed or sent to the camps. Now picture yourself a Germany citizen during WWII, as things slowly begin to unfold--ever so slowly. You have a wife and three children. You need to put bread on the table. What do you do? You may be audatious enough to claim that you'd have taken risks to save the Jews, but its doubtful. You see, the total number of non-Israeli's who risked their lives to help the Jews or to fight Hitler (from inside occupied territories) numbers less than 1%. Do you think you're strength of character and conviction places you in the top 1% of our society? I'd like to think that it does me, but I'm probably wrong. The Germans weren't all evil because they didn't sacrifice their lives for others. Some were cruel and heartless. Others were weak and afraid. Still others just plain lived in denial.

Beyond that Hitler did a real number on the German people. He launched a huge campaign to socialize hatred toward the Jews, and sadly that seemed to have worked. There was much more resistance from other occupied countries than there ever was inside of Germany. Now if we use that fact in an attempt to condemn the Arabs we miss the point of the lesson. We become at risk of the very thing the German's fell prey too...weak minds. We should rather be careful AT THIS VERY MOMENT to not allow ourselves to be socialized into hatred.
OopsKristin
Mar 24, 2003 12:24 PM
The title of her book about the war is called "The Hiding Place." The Secret Room is a sequal.
re: &quot;...Iraquis are sub-human&quot;chriscpa
Apr 28, 2003 8:05 PM
Most peoples were and are considered sub-human in this US of A. Irish, Italian, German, Chinese, Black, Women and etc. Can we just get along in the brotherhood of sub-human?

Chris