How is the Iraq War Going? [Archive]

View Full Version : How is the Iraq War Going?

Capitalist Lawyer

15th June 2005, 02:15

Reflections from the Iraq War
Michael Fumento

June 9, 2005

I traveled to Iraq essentially for two reasons. First, I believed the mainstream media for whatever reason were missing many important stories. Second, I believed you had to see the war to truly understand it. I was fed up with the pompous pontificating pundits who can go to Iraq anytime but prefer the comfort and safety of home. I paid the price for my trip; a part of me will always remain in Iraq – literally. But I was right on both counts.

I observed that troop morale in even the most hostile areas was better than I would have believed. Unless I identified myself, nobody knew I was a reporter. Troops didn’t hold back antiwar feelings on my account. Yet I heard none. I also carefully fastidiously read the ubiquitous graffiti in the portable toilets and only once found a negative scrawling – a Bush bash. But three other scrawlings ambushed that first one.

The military has worked doggedly on morale. The food was delicious and varied. It was so hot outside you could barely eat; but don’t blame the chow. The vast majority of troops have hot showers. Toilet facilities were odor-free and fly-free. I was stunned to find living quarters are almost universally air-conditioned.

The ultimate stressor is something about which the military can do nothing; being 9,000 or more miles from home, family, and friends. I pitied the troops for this. But even this blow was softened with discount telephone cards in trailers filled with phones and with Internet cafes.

The only real complaints I’d heard were about “the kindler, gentler military.” Political sensitivity – enhanced by shenanigans such as Newsweek’s – are tying at least part of an arm behind our backs.

Opposite me in the Baghdad hospital recovery wound was an Iraqi with two gunshot wounds received a week apart. I was told he was shot running away from an improvised explosive device (IED) trigger but had nonetheless been treated and released, partly in hopes that American hospital hospitality might give him a change of heart. Tough luck. A week later he was again shot running away from a trigger. “Now he’s being released to Abu Ghraib prison,” I was told.

The professionalism of these men and women is almost indescribable. I spent one day with the Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit of the 8th Engineer Support Battalion at Camp Fallujah, men with as risky a job as there is. It’s not the bomb being defused that’s worrisome (they use robots); rather it’s the snipers and secondary IEDs meant to kill you while you’re disposing of the bomb. But I never felt the least anxiety while with these brave and skilled warriors.

I wish I had a chance to patrol with the Iraqi Security Forces to get a better idea of the mettle of the men whom will ultimately inherit the war. But I did see them everywhere and that each was equipped with full body armor and they held their weapons like professionals. They provided security for my EOD team and they manned a huge number of checkpoints. Several were ripped apart at one of those checkpoints days after I passed through it.

The Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country. We need vastly more of them and their training must continue to improve. Yet they are the key to ultimate victory.

Overall – and this is based both on observation and outside study – I’d say the war is ours to lose. But I don’t think we will. In a true guerrilla conflict, time favors the insurgency. But progressively this war has shifted to one waging non-Iraqi terrorists against primarily Iraqi civilians, secondarily Iraqi military and police, and last against Americans.

Indeed, on one IED mission I joined MPs nabbed two men in track suits and tennis shoes running away from the trigger. Both wore head scarves with non-Iraqi-colors and they had Jordanian features.

It’s perfectly understandable that Iraqis resent any foreign troops on their soil. But they know the suicide bombers randomly turning Iraqi civilians into shredded wheat are also foreigners. They’re skeptical about a U.S. withdrawal; but they see the American route appears to be leading to independence. And they know the Jihadist route is one too horrible to contemplate.

Michael Fumento (fumento at pobox.com) was embedded with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in the Anbar Province. He’s a syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute.

CrazyModerate

15th June 2005, 02:29

How can a war go good? If any war has started, you know the best solutions haven't occurred.

bed_of_nails

15th June 2005, 02:32

I've got to agree with the moderate.

Clarksist

15th June 2005, 03:49

As CrazyModerate said, and Bed of Nails agreed with... war is never good.

Especially because by saying its going "good" means that you'd have to pick a side. I am against both sides. So... how could it go good?

xnj

15th June 2005, 04:24

For reports from a US journalist who isn't in-bed with the occupation forces, like the neocon Hudson Institute hack above, check out Dahr Jamail: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 05:32

For reports from a US journalist who isn't in-bed with the occupation forces, like the neocon Hudson Institute hack above, check out Dahr Jamail: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/.

:lol: Yeah, the only trusted reporter by Pacifica radio. that cruddy little station I hear on my way to work, where mics hit the floor, cell phones go off, and they always lose your call. I remember I would hear this guy on Dennis Bernstein's Flashpoints, and after every question he would say, "bad, bad, its so bad, dont believe the conservative media, bad, bad, oh so bad here."

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 05:34

As CrazyModerate said, and Bed of Nails agreed with... war is never good.

Yeah you know, except for ending fascism, nazism, japanese imperialism and islamic fundamentalism war is never good. yup, lets just all have peace and sing songs around the campfire.

bed_of_nails

15th June 2005, 05:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:34 PM

As CrazyModerate said, and Bed of Nails agreed with... war is never good.

Yeah you know, except for ending fascism, nazism, japanese imperialism and islamic fundamentalism war is never good. yup, lets just all have peace and sing songs around the campfire.
Maybe the world will get luck and it will end you <_<

Wow, you are really smart to take someone else's sign and propaganda, and use it in an argument.

What about American imperialism? I hope I live to see the day a war ends that.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 05:59

Maybe the world will get luck and it will end you

Maybe you will get lucky and accept reality.

Wow, you are really smart to take someone else's sign and propaganda, and use it in an argument

:P I take it you've seen the sign at the hate fest you disguise as a peace rally.

What about American imperialism?

what american imperialism?

I hope I live to see the day a war ends that

You will be waiting a very very long time. perhaps when you're one of two of the last men on earth who kill each other after everyone else has been killed by war.

CrazyModerate

15th June 2005, 06:04

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 06:08

That war still wasn't "good". Fighting it was a neccessity of survival. One may kill someone in self defense, and although it is a neccessity to defend oneself, one shouldn't feel good about killing someone.

which is why I find it absurd that people would actually catagorize others as "pro-war". I am not "pro-war", I just find it essential that we fight islamic nationalism.

CrazyModerate

15th June 2005, 06:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:08 AM

That war still wasn't "good". Fighting it was a neccessity of survival. One may kill someone in self defense, and although it is a neccessity to defend oneself, one shouldn't feel good about killing someone.

which is why I find it absurd that people would actually catagorize others as "pro-war". I am not "pro-war", I just find it essential that we fight islamic nationalism.
Invading Iraq was definately not an act of self-preservation. The United States would have fucntioned just fine, possibly even better, had they never attacked Iraq.

If Islamic Nationalism is so bad, whats so great about American Nationalism?

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 06:34

If Islamic Nationalism is so bad, whats so great about American Nationalism?

Islamic Nationalism is a horribly fierce opponent. It's the mirror image of the Nazi Party in that the extremist parties advocate Islamic revivalism of the old Caliphate and Muslim unity. Although alot of them are rivals for the same power, thier message still bears the same hateful resentment towards Jews, international finance(globalization), non-muslims, and even communists(they call them the "atheists").

Thats why I dont understand why leftists would apologize for thier actions by squaring everything back on the US? I mean that would be like saying that I think that the Mussolini's blackshirts or Hitler's SS are the best weapon against US hegemony or globalization. Couldn't you guys even compromise to say that the best solution is to use US imperial power to combat these fascists?

I mean as a Christian, I am not going to try and deny that we are not an empire, but I will say that the whole "cultural" imperialism is a far fetched theory. I always saw the US as an empire that just protects its own interests rather than actually try to obtain new lands post-WWII. Also, I see the US as a global force to stop the spread of a bigger menace, i.e. Islamic Fascism.

cormacobear

15th June 2005, 07:06

According to your president the war ended more than a year ago. So maybe you should change the thread title to 'How is the occupation going?'.

15th June 2005, 07:17

An "embedded reporter" is just a propagandist who shown by the military what they want them to see, information is handled...which is especially easy since the American troops assassinate independent reporters and reporters from networks who are not "in bed" with the US soldiers.

Urban Rubble

15th June 2005, 07:54

Thats why I dont understand why leftists would apologize for thier actions by squaring everything back on the US? I mean that would be like saying that I think that the Mussolini's blackshirts or Hitler's SS are the best weapon against US hegemony or globalization.

That I can agree with. Islamic fundementalism should never be supported, not even as an alternative to international Capitalism. I think being a U.S. client state (or, "Liberal Democracy") is far preferable to an Islamic theocracy.

I guess the counter argument is that international Capitalism and U.S. imperialism is more powerful, thus it is our main enemy, thus we should support anyone who has a legititmate chance at resisting it. To me that argument makes no sense, for one, a blow against Imperialism counts for nothing if it is inflicted by reactionary Islam, and two, to say that we should allow a country to be put in the hands of fanatic Muslims in order to fight Imperialism seems very insensitive of the people who will be living under these madmen (I repeat, being a U.S. puppet state isn't pretty, but it beats Islamism).

I mean as a Christian, I am not going to try and deny that we are not an empire, but I will say that the whole "cultural" imperialism is a far fetched theory. I always saw the US as an empire that just protects its own interests rather than actually try to obtain new lands post-WWII. Also, I see the US as a global force to stop the spread of a bigger menace, i.e. Islamic Fascism.

Well, I don't see how one could say that cultural imperialism is far fetched, but that's another topic.

As far as the U.S. protecting it's own interests, well, have you considered that "obtaining new lands" is part of protecting those interests? I mean, if you're going to justify things on the basis that it protects U.S. interests, you can justify anything. I mean, governments don't usually take actions with the intent of harming their interests, so anything they do is going to be protecting their interests. Obtaining new lands is absolutely essential to U.S. interests.

And I would like to see some justification for your claim that Islamic Fascism is a bigger menace than U.S. global force. Islamic fundementalism just does not have the capacity to spread like international Capitalism does.

Clarksist

15th June 2005, 08:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:34 AM

As CrazyModerate said, and Bed of Nails agreed with... war is never good.

Yeah you know, except for ending fascism, nazism, japanese imperialism and islamic fundamentalism war is never good. yup, lets just all have peace and sing songs around the campfire.
Dropping bombs and eviscerating countless people isn't good.

Ending faschism with war may be good, but the ending of it through war is infinitely weaker than non-violent revolution.

As for war ending Islamic fundamentalism, do think that is really what we are doing? Do you think taking out countries in the area is really ending Islamic fundamentalism? Do I think Saddam was a good leader? Hell no. But I do know that when kids see their houses, their parents, and sometimes limbs of themselves being blown to bits, all under an American flag, that creates islamic fundamentalism.

Violence is a chain. The only way to destroy violence is by not participating. War can have good outcomes, but sending our poor and our young to fight their poor and young is not good.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th June 2005, 10:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:34 AM

As CrazyModerate said, and Bed of Nails agreed with... war is never good.

Yeah you know, except for ending fascism, nazism, japanese imperialism and islamic fundamentalism war is never good. yup, lets just all have peace and sing songs around the campfire.
This doesn't make sense. Japanese imperialism only got replaced with American imperialism and muslim fundamentalism is actually growing thanks to the war attrocities of the US and not to mention the massive support that the US gave in the Afghan war.

Professor Moneybags

15th June 2005, 14:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:29 AM
How can a war go good? If any war has started, you know the best solutions haven't occurred.
I don't think praying to god to remove Saddam would work. (I think Bush has already tried this.)

Andy Bowden

15th June 2005, 16:00

Iraq was a secular country, it was not, as some have claimed a supporter of Islamic extremists. Today however, Iraq is crawling with "Al Qaeda" type-units.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th June 2005, 16:37

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 15 2005, 02:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 15 2005, 02:45 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 01:29 AM
How can a war go good? If any war has started, you know the best solutions haven't occurred.
I don't think praying to god to remove Saddam would work. (I think Bush has already tried this.) [/b]
What did Bush ask him to do? Hand over his WMD's, he said I have none. The UN team didn't find anything. It's like asking you to hand over El Dorado and then attack you when you don't give it.

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 16:40

Funniest line on this board in 2005...

Originally posted by Michael Fumento
Both wore head scarves with non-Iraqi-colors and they had Jordanian features.

This semi-literate pissant goes to Iraq and all of a sudden he knows the "Iraqi colors" and can tell the difference between an Iraqi and a Jordanian???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And you wonder why Americans are the most ignorant dumbasses in the world about anything that happens outside the United States?

Start with the fact that the capitalist media here have an average I.Q. in double digits!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: how's your war going, you ask? You're losing.

As you deserve!

Professor Moneybags

15th June 2005, 16:52

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 15 2005, 03:37 PM
What did Bush ask him to do? Hand over his WMD's, he said I have none.
No, of course not. <_<

PS: how's your war going, you ask? You're losing.

As you deserve!

I've just realised Restar2000's true identity :

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/wirq13.jpeg

LSD

15th June 2005, 17:16

No, of course not. <_<

Are you denying that there were no WMD's found in Iraq? :blink:

slim

15th June 2005, 18:24

USA! USA!

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 19:44

One at a time people, one at a time.

Iraq was a secular country, it was not, as some have claimed a supporter of Islamic extremists. Today however, Iraq is crawling with "Al Qaeda" type-units.

Then why did Saddam have the words Allah Akbar written into his flag alongside the stars representing freedom,unity, and socialism? the guy was an opportunist who would jump on the jihadist bandwagon to further his mad cause. Im glad he was taken out.

This doesn't make sense. Japanese imperialism only got replaced with American imperialism and muslim fundamentalism is actually growing thanks to the war attrocities of the US and not to mention the massive support that the US gave in the Afghan war.

It never makes sense, does it? I know that it must be very complicated to relate everything back to american imperialism and you reject everything as being too simple. Most nationalist movements are a rejection to liberal democracy, and Muslim fundamentalism was always there, it just now has ambition to mobalize. The massive support that the US gave in the Afghan war was a huge mistake to try and take on a bigger foe. But the same thing happened when the progressive community and the USSR did the reverse by backing the Islamic students in Iran against the Shah.

What did Bush ask him to do? Hand over his WMD's, he said I have none. The UN team didn't find anything. It's like asking you to hand over El Dorado and then attack you when you don't give it.

Bush asked him to let the inspectors in. He set up his army so he would do just that. Saddam complied and offered a faux report on his weapons that even Hanz Blix said was not reliable. Bush again offered him to let inspectors back in and comply with UN resolutions. If Bush hadnt had done his job, international law would have been a joke.

Well, it is precisely that sort of attitude what is perpetrating Islamic nationalism
Really? I thought it was thier religion.

They feel their culture is being threatened by the increasing westernization (americanization) of the world, and this isn't a purely islamic concern. Even in Canada people seem to be worried about redefining the Canadian identity.
Oh you mean the people have more of a choice in life and the radicals are pissed off because they dont submit to Allah anymore. I see. So now the leftists are for the status quo in the middle east?
Anyone can keep thier identity and still live in a capitalist society. This isnt distinctly american. but hey if its someone desires to live in caves and worship Allah, then so be it, just dont push people into the same horrid existence.

But it is fingerpointing like yours that instigates further polarization between east and west. Whereas in Canada, the loss of national identity is just a worry, in Islamic nations it has become an obsession.

Declaring a Holy War on Islamic nationalism is only going to feed the fire.

The obsession is based in thier culture and religion. Its like oil and water. Islam cannot co-exist with liberal democracy. Either it has to be contained, reformed or destroyed. take your pick.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 20:24

Saudi Arabia is definitely the most fierce advocate of this message, but guess what? Saudis do not lead what could be considered a properly humble religious life style.

I have many Saudi friends, and they all live in extreme luxury, EXTREME "religious devotion," yet are not ashamed to dismiss their country's financial dealings with the "enemy" (the U.S.) by saying, "well, business is business."

Saudi Arabia is on the brink of civil strife. There are radicals on one end and reformists on the other. The US is using thier Cold War stradegy to keep the Royal Family in power so that guerillas wont take the Saudi Kingdom. And I would not say that Saudia Arabia is not even close to spreading its hate message against the likes of Pakistan(who is also on the brink), Indonesia, and Sudan.

I've never seen anyone on here being an apologist for terrorism. But in order to combat terrorism (or "Islamic Nationalism," if you will) we must track down the CAUSES of the former.

I hate this idea. The worse the attrocity the deeper the guilt, eh. It seems like you people believe that the world works in this rational plane of existence. Where everyone makes rational descisions based on thier enviroment. Where there are two kinds of people, the ones that yearn to be free and the ones that yearn to oppress. Get out of that mindset! Its dangerous, and you will wake up next to the Khmer Rouge if you keep feeling sorry for third world reactionary movments. Oh and about those that indirectly applaud Iraqi or Islamic resistence:
A.) Michael Moore
B.) Damien Hirst
C.) Arundahti Roy (I was so dissapointed in her, I really like her too)
D.) Norman Mailer
E.) A.N. Wilson
F.) Jose Saramago
G.) International Solidarity Movement
H.) Oliver Stone
I.) Ramsey Clark
and many many more....

How are you in any way surprised by such sentiments? Christian expansionism during the crusades was followed by centuries of colonial repression. And just when the Arabs were finally released from colonialism, we kick them out and install Israel. AND AFTER THAT, we continually ignore illegal land seizures and human rights abuses. No fucking wonder they hate us.

so then we deserve to die because one empire conquered another? Quit your whining! The Arabs had an unstoppable force in the Ottoman Empire. they pretty much were the cartels in the slave trade, conquered North Africa and Asia and converted everyone to Islam, the same way the Catholics did in Latin America. We release them from colonialism and they form reactionary ideas based on thier Mein Kampf of a book and wish to revive the old Muslim caliphate to turn the guns back on us! Oh yeah some progressive ideas right there! Do not be fooled young laddie, human history is a history full of colonialism, imperialism and war. And I do not excuse the US but seeing as though Im an American and I value the freedoms here, I will fight for this empire. Thier hate is due more to thier culture and religion than just our mistakes in foreign policy.

These "fascist" are a direct subproduct of our own fascism.

These Fascists are a by-product of several Muslim groups growing out of the influece of western movements and a rejection of liberalism. Sayid Qubt was one of those leaders who incorporated many of his ideas into the Muslim brotherhood and has been hailed as one of the founding fathers of Islamic extremism. He basically rejected Western tradition as a schitzophrenic society lving on the edge between church and state. he saw Sharia Law as the adoption of both ideas mixed together in a perfect combination. His book Social Justice and Islam explains it all, and wails for the revival of great caliphates and Muhammed's empire restored. These are reactionary guerilla movements that are similar in nature to utopian communist guerillas or fascist thugs.

Protecting their own interests how? By exploiting people in other countries and stealing their resources?
Yes, because Japan, Germany, S.Korea, Grenada and the Virgin Islands are living under such tyranny.

The U.S. et al and their policies are the reason WHY the Islamic Nationalism "menace" emerged.

Also, U.S repression and exploitation was the reason WHY the Socialist "menace" emerged in Latin America.

Think about it, who is the real menace after all?

Actually Islamic nationalism grew out pre and post WWII influece from Western movements. It was fed by the USSR as an enemy to western capitalism. Most of the anti-liberal crusade in Latin America were fueled by Soviet involvement. The US just crushed them to protect thier interests and the interests of the ruling class. Yet, why are you so quick to side with the Sandanistas, Tupac Amaru and Castro's guerillas but not with the Islamic resistence? They are almost mirror images of mobs trying to seize control of the state through popular struggle.
And the Latin American movements were also influenced by Catholic dogma in liberation theology. I would say the real menace are those anti-liberal guerilla movements that turn the shitehole country into a even bigger hellish shitehole country.

Forward Union

15th June 2005, 21:46

Replying to How is the Iraq War Going?

Not too bad? (http://www.bushflash.com/y2.html)

bed_of_nails

15th June 2005, 22:01

Oh and about those that indirectly applaud Iraqi or Islamic resistence:
A.) Michael Moore

:lol: :lol: :lol:

We have a Right-Winger here it seems.

"Grwar! I am an angry-right winger who thinks Michael Moore is a fat idiot who lieeeeeeessss!"

Who cares if they support the resistance? It just means that they dont support what America is doing to an extreme.

Last night the crazy texan nut, Ross Perot, decided to announce that anyone who said anything bad about the US troops and their actions was "Aiding the enemy. And we know what Aiding the enemy is concidered".

Now I have been told that telling a Soldier to fuck off is treason.

Really reasonable people right there :rolleyes:

Seneca

15th June 2005, 22:40

so then we deserve to die because one empire conquered another? Quit your whining! The Arabs had an unstoppable force in the Ottoman Empire. they pretty much were the cartels in the slave trade, conquered North Africa and Asia and converted everyone to Islam, the same way the Catholics did in Latin America.

The Ottomans weren't Arabs. In fact, the Turks were often quite oppressive Arabs in the territories they controlled. Also, North Africa was already majority Islamic long before the Ottoman Turks came on the scene.

xnj

15th June 2005, 22:45

Contrary to the neocon propaganda about "Islamic fascism," the Pentagon itself has acknowledged that resentment in the Arab world against the US is the result of US policies not culture. The policies are US support for Israel and its hypocritical backing of brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. As long as the policies continue, the resentment will continue.

The entire concept of "Islamic fascism," as if fascism is rooted in the Islamic religion, is ridiculous and insulting. Should we begin explaining the US policies, such as the genocidal killing of 1.5 million Iraqis through economic sanctions, in terms of "Christian fascism"? Or how about "Jewish fascism" to explain Israeli policies towards the Palestinians?

It seems that the war-planners and its gung-ho supporters are reading from different scripts. One has to be reality-based out of military necessity. The other is from faith-based Fox News fantasy-land.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 23:12

We have a Right-Winger here it seems.

"Grwar! I am an angry-right winger who thinks Michael Moore is a fat idiot who lieeeeeeessss!"

Who cares if they support the resistance? It just means that they dont support what America is doing to an extreme.

Last night the crazy texan nut, Ross Perot, decided to announce that anyone who said anything bad about the US troops and their actions was "Aiding the enemy. And we know what Aiding the enemy is concidered".

Now I have been told that telling a Soldier to fuck off is treason.

Really reasonable people right there

:huh:

The Ottomans weren't Arabs. In fact, the Turks were often quite oppressive Arabs in the territories they controlled. Also, North Africa was already majority Islamic long before the Ottoman Turks came on the scene.

I said Arabs? I should've said Muslims.

Contrary to the neocon propaganda about "Islamic fascism," the Pentagon itself has acknowledged that resentment in the Arab world against the US is the result of US policies not culture. The policies are US support for Israel and its hypocritical backing of brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. As long as the policies continue, the resentment will continue.

Right, which we support to keep that radical fringe of displaced Muslims from taking over. Its the same scenerio of the Cold War. Angry Sandanista rebels are angry over the Samoza family being in power so they stuggle for armed resistence against US backed regimes. But the US also backs up democratic elements in those same despotic regimes they back up at the same time. Kinda loopy huh? thats why I hate intervention.
the culture still plays a part because some of those despotic regimes are looked upon as pro-western dogs, so reactionary groups retreat to form anti-US/West guerilla movements based on Koranic law and external Jihad.

The entire concept of "Islamic fascism," as if fascism is rooted in the Islamic religion, is ridiculous and insulting. Should we begin explaining the US policies, such as the genocidal killing of 1.5 million Iraqis through economic sanctions, in terms of "Christian fascism"? Or how about "Jewish fascism" to explain Israeli policies towards the Palestinians?

Christainity had to be reformed away from the state backed catholic church back to its nomadic, individualistic, grace and faith based tenets. Any results or acts of violence commited in the name of christ were deviations from the Bible, while most acts of violence commited in the name of allah were in obidience to the Quran. Islam is a state building religion that bases its tenets on rule, for its Allah's will to subjegate the world. Christianity is a personal salvation to anyone in any situation regardless of thier place in the world. Its the most complacent, anti-revolutionaty, anti-humanist thing ever written. It desires to change nothing except the human heart, because it regards the world as doomed to history and man's aggression in his fallen state. there is no kingdom of God on Earth. every church or denomination that tried to use it for state power and control were not saved from the pages of history and just became part of it; dead to Christ.
Now the Muslim views things like you're stating, that one should regard things as US attrocities to Crusader aggression and Israel to Jewish Fascism. I think the radical Muslim view is much more insulting. Yet, Muslim expansionism is still a testimony to the religion of "peace".

It does seem, though, that the war-planners and its gung-ho supporters are reading from different scripts. One has to be reality-based out of military necessity. The other is from faith-based Fox News fantasy-land.
I am not a gung ho American jingoist. I just see America as the lesser of two evils and using it's contacts and kickbacks to suppress Islamic movements from taking power by backing tyrants and butchers. Plus, we are sacrificing american soldiers to form a democracy in Iraq while fighting guerilla terrorists.

EnragÃ©

15th June 2005, 23:26

the USSR did the reverse by backing the Islamic students in Iran against the Shah.

"Neither east nor west, Islam is best"
-Ayatullah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution

we are sacrificing american soldiers to form a democracy in Iraq while fighting guerilla terrorists.

The Iraqis DO NOT WANT YOU THERE. Those guerillas have the support of the people! (im not talking about the suicide bombers, but about the regular sunni AND shia resistance) Do you honestly believe the yanks are there to bring democracy and that the iraqis want them there? Well then please explain this to me:
-WHY has all the iraqi oil been handed over to western, and especially yanqui corporations instead of to the rightful owners, the iraqi people?
-If the iraqi people love the yanks, then how could a widespread insurgency continue after so long since the occupation began?

Also, there is no such thing as Islamic nationalism. Islamic fundamentalism does not want its followers divided in nationalities, it wants it to come together against the Infidels occupying their holy lands in Arabia.

Sabocat

15th June 2005, 23:34

Bush asked him to let the inspectors in. He set up his army so he would do just that. Saddam complied and offered a faux report on his weapons that even Hanz Blix said was not reliable.

The report was some 12,000 pages in scope. 800 pages were removed by the U.S. I guess it was such a faux report that they had to pull 800 pages just to make sure.

And guess what? Apparently the report was correct because there were no WMD's.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 23:47

"Neither east nor west, Islam is best"
-Ayatullah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=163

The progressive peace movements did more than enough to allow the anti western students to obtain power. Leftist Ramsey Clark saw it as a crowning achievement.

Do you honestly believe the yanks are there to bring democracy and that the iraqis want them there?
yes, how do you know they dont. They want them to leave but to also protect them from the radicals.

-
WHY has all the iraqi oil been handed over to western, and especially yanqui corporations instead of to the rightful owners, the iraqi people?

what are Iraqi people going to do with the oil? that oil will be put to better use in corporate hands than a nationalization like under Saddam and the other despots around.

bed_of_nails

15th June 2005, 23:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:47 PM

"Neither east nor west, Islam is best"
-Ayatullah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=163

The progressive peace movements did more than enough to allow the anti western students to obtain power. Leftist Ramsey Clark saw it as a crowning achievement.

Do you honestly believe the yanks are there to bring democracy and that the iraqis want them there?
yes, how do you know they dont. They want them to leave but to also protect them from the radicals.

-
WHY has all the iraqi oil been handed over to western, and especially yanqui corporations instead of to the rightful owners, the iraqi people?

what are Iraqi people going to do with the oil? that oil will be put to better use in corporate hands than a nationalization like under Saddam and the other despots around.
Its obvious the people want the US out of there.

THAT is why these "terrorists" in Iraq seem to be never-ending waves of civilians.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 23:51

The report was some 12,000 pages in scope. 800 pages were removed by the U.S. I guess it was such a faux report that they had to pull 800 pages just to make sure.

And guess what? Apparently the report was correct because there were no WMD's.

“When the deadline arrived, the Iraq regime provided a report that was generally conceded not to have met the terms of the ultimatum. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix summarized the Iraqi submission: ‘The chemical area of the text was an updated version of a declaration submitted in 1996. The missile part also had largely the same content as a declaration of 1996, with updates added. I reported to the Council that our preliminary examination of the declaration had not provided material or evidence that solved any of the unresolved disarmament issues.’ These included the fact that ‘8,500 liters of anthrax, 2,100 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 1.5 metric tons of VX nerve agent and 6,500 chemical bombs’ that the U.N. inspectors had ascertained were at one time in Saddam’s possession were unaccounted for.[2] Resolution 1441 had called on Saddam Hussein to document their destruction. Even the French ambassador noted that ‘there was no new information in the declaration,…’[2] Afterwards Blix wrote of the declaration, ‘My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it.’”

Blix, Disarming Iraq, pp. 106

And guess what? Apparently the report was correct because there were no WMD'sRead the Duelfer Report.

JudeObscure84

15th June 2005, 23:52

Its obvious the people want the US out of there.

THAT is why these "terrorists" in Iraq seem to be never-ending waves of civilians.

So they want them out by killing civilians? :blink:

Why are so many Iraqis lining up to join the armed forces then?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

16th June 2005, 00:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:06 AM
According to your president the war ended more than a year ago. So maybe you should change the thread title to 'How is the occupation going?'.
It's going great. We are killing forgein fighters who don't speak any native Iraqi languages in Iraq by a ratio of about 40:1 on good days.

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 03:21

More hilarious lines...

Originally posted by JudeObscure84
Christianity had to be reformed away from the state backed Catholic church back to its nomadic, individualistic, grace and faith based tenets. Any results or acts of violence committed in the name of Christ were deviations from the Bible, while most acts of violence committed in the name of Allah were in obedience to the Quran. Islam is a state building religion that bases its tenets on rule, for it's Allah's will to subjugate the world. Christianity is a personal salvation to anyone in any situation regardless of their place in the world. It's the most complacent, anti-revolutionary, anti-humanist thing ever written. It desires to change nothing except the human heart, because it regards the world as doomed to history and man's aggression in his fallen state. There is no kingdom of God on Earth. Every church or denomination that tried to use it for state power and control were not saved from the pages of history and just became part of it; dead to Christ.

The most amusing thing about Christians on this board is their gross ignorance of their own superstition.

And its actual history.

Christianity, Jude, is not a "nomadic" religion. It grew up in the cities of the Roman Empire.

(You should have guessed this from the name Christians applied to their enemies -- pagan. It comes from a word that means a dweller in the countryside -- a "shitkicker".)

Your post is packed with such elementary errors...and there's little point in correcting them in this thread.

But if you think that violence is "un-Christian", tell me then your explanation for the blood-soaked Book of Revelations in your "Bible".

Both "God" and "Jesus" go on a killing spree that makes Adolph Hitler look like a choir boy.

Oh...perhaps you might want to read it before responding. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: By your logic, the Christian fascists that surround your president must also be "dead to Christ", right?

Urban Rubble

16th June 2005, 04:10

It's going great. We are killing forgein fighters who don't speak any native Iraqi languages in Iraq by a ratio of about 40:1 on good days.

Replying to your posts makes me feel smart.

Do me a favor, open a new browser, head over to Google and look up the ratio of U.S. soldiers killed to Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war. I'll wait here....

(I think it's about 30:1)

O.K., see that, genius? Are you going to tell me that the Vietnamese war "went well"? Are you telling me that there is no other way to evaluate a war other than how many "bad guys" are getting shot every day?

You really are an unintelligent, ignorant bastard.

"You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it"--Ho Chi Minh

Urban Rubble

16th June 2005, 04:12

An article for the benefit of Mr. Middle Management, "ahhh money is comfort", the dullest knife in the drawer that is Opposing Ideologies.

"We Were Winning When I Left"
by James Glaser
September 3, 2003

I have heard that saying from hundreds of Vietnam Veterans and I have said it myself. We had to be winning when I left Vietnam in 1969, heck almost every day and night there were Arc Light bombing runs with B- 52s. I kid you not, the earth shook with the power of those bombs, the planes were dropping. We had to have been winning as we were killing thousands of Vietnamese every day.

By the time the last American troops left that country we had killed over a million civilians, hundreds of thousands of NVA, and almost all of the VC. Still we lost, but we should have won because we killed all of those people and isn't that what war is all about?

We were in Vietnam for over a decade and we have only been in Iraq about five and a half months, but we are getting our "kills" right up there. The best reports claim we have killed over ten thousand innocent civilians and about thirty thousand soldiers, many who were young conscripts.

What about the ratio? Forty thousand Iraqi deaths to about three hundred and fifty coalition deaths. In Vietnam we were killing about 30 people in that country for every American killed. I am saying 1,750,000 Vietnamese killed verses 58,000 Americans.

In Iraq it is forty thousand Iraqis dead to just 350 Americans and British. That ratio is 114 Iraqis to each one of our people killed. The question is, are we killing enough to win? What is the magic number?

Remember in Somalia it is thought those Rangers pinned down in Mogadishu killed over a thousand while losing only eighteen. That ratio is 55 deaths to one of ours and we lost there, so is 114 enough?

If you look at the War in Iraq, most of the Iraqi deaths happened during the drive to Baghdad and since President Bush claimed the major fighting over, our ratio has fallen way down. Many weeks now we might even be on the other side of this ratio game. Americans are being killed with bombs along the side of the road that are remotely detonated as an American convoy goes by. Americans are killed with no chance for retaliation. In the last couple of months we might be at a one for one ratio, which history tells is a losing ratio for any American Army.

What will it take to get our killing ratio back up? Can America win a guerilla war against people that believe they will go to heaven if they die in battle?

We have told our troops that they are fighting to liberate the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people fighting us are fighting for their God, they are fighting for their home land, they are fighting for their wives, and they are fighting for their children. It doesn't look good, reason wise.

I am sure when these troops come home they can say, just like the troops that have already come home, "we were winning when I left."

violencia.Proletariat

16th June 2005, 04:32

Paradox

16th June 2005, 05:48

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 05:53

The most amusing thing about Christians on this board is their gross ignorance of their own superstition.

And its actual history.

Christianity, Jude, is not a "nomadic" religion. It grew up in the cities of the Roman Empire.

(You should have guessed this from the name Christians applied to their enemies -- pagan. It comes from a word that means a dweller in the countryside -- a "shitkicker".)

Your post is packed with such elementary errors...and there's little point in correcting them in this thread.

But if you think that violence is "un-Christian", tell me then your explanation for the blood-soaked Book of Revelations in your "Bible".

Both "God" and "Jesus" go on a killing spree that makes Adolph Hitler look like a choir boy.

Oh...perhaps you might want to read it before responding.

PS: By your logic, the Christian fascists that surround your president must also be "dead to Christ", right?

Um Christianity grew in the streets of Jerusalem. I dont know where you got the idea that it "grew" in roman cities. The nomadic aspect is that Christians are not to hold full allegiance to one nation but be ready for God's call to witness to other nations. We werent meant to set up cities on a hill like the American Puritans thought.
And please explain why my post is packed with elementary errors, and Ill be glad to point out why you have a seriously flawed view of Christianity. So quit being an arrogant prick and actually start debating.
The Book of Revelations speaks of the judgement that was always going to come upon this world. And Im also thrilled to know that even you can see that its only God and the Son that actually commit the judgement. The Christian is the representation of the mercy God has upon his creation, keeping them away from wrath. In turn the Christain should always be humble towards his neighbor for he was once an object of wrath as well and he is not to boast upon the grace recieved towards him.

P.S. While you guys may find this hard to believe, I personally do not think that GWB is a Christian. He may profess it but I am not certain by some of the things he has shared with the American public. But yeah I can see why you guys think the American Christians are fascist. I mean I have to admit it myself most of American Christianity spawned from a religous mix of patriotism, self-glory and purtitanism that was brought about by the City on a Hill Puritans. I am not trying to say that they are all not Christians but that their theology is deeply mixed in with American ideals. Some Christians in America actually believe that the Constitution has Biblical phrases and meanings. It does not.
I also firmly reject the idea that the US is blessed because we defend Israel. Thats a horrible heresy that was spawned by Dispensationalists who are obssessed with end time prophecy. Just to be upfront I am a Calvinist Reform Christian.

Paradox

16th June 2005, 05:55

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.... It is the hope and desire of the British people and the nations in alliance with them that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown among the peoples of the earth."
- General F.S. Maude, Commander of British Forces, Baghdad, March 19, 1917

"Unlike many armies in the world, you came not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate, and the Iraqi people know this."
- Donald Rumsfeld, u$ Secretary of Defense, Baghdad, April 29, 2003

^ Yeah, right. <_<

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 05:55

who ever used the word jihad, do you know what the jihad is? no you dont because there is no real deffinition. it can be interpreted as two opposites of eachother, attack non believers, or live in peace and a bunch of other things.

I said external Jihad which is what the interpretation of Jihad that the radicals use. Most Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal battle with sin, while other believe that it is an external battle with non-muslism and just cause for defense and spreading Islam.

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 05:59

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 06:23

Both Iran and the Ottoman Empire (which included most eastern Arab countries til 1918) had constitutional revolutions in 1906 and 1908. They had political parties and free press. But the west has been hostile to such developments. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and others have suffered from foreign military occupation and puppet regimes at the hands of the British, French, and Americans. Iraq itself was created by the British out of three separate Ottoman provinces. And in Iran, the u$ staged a coup in which DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq was overthrown and the Shah was installed, whose rule sparked anti-american sentiments and later, the Iranian Revolution. And it was the u$ who supplied saddam with the means to create chemical weapons, and who also secretly sold them to Iran at the same time. They also trained osama. But hey, when it comes to their goals, the ends justify the means. It's a shame you criticize saddam for the weapons he supposedly had left in stock piles, yet say nothing of the toxic depleted uranium to which both Iraqis and u$ troops are exposed to.
Look at you defending the free press of the Ottoman Empire yet you straight up denounce the freedoms this empire(if you live in US) grants you to freely critique its every move. Tell the Armenians about all of the great freedoms of the Ottomans and how they commited genocide against them. Then gladly tell everyone how they joined the Central powers in WWI while you're at it. Or how they fought the western powers to keep thier slave trade going in Muslim African domains. Next tell them that the people were yearning for freedom while the ruling powers still vowed for nationalism. Look Im not trying to say that the Ottomans were Nazi Germany(still close) but thier policies were still ripe with nationalism, militarism and religious fanatasism. And this is what the radicals in today's Muslim world want to return to. So unless you agree that its a better option than liberal democracy, than you might as well grab your gun and your Koran because it is the new revolutionary struggle that is fighting empire now.

bed_of_nails

16th June 2005, 06:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:53 PM
Um Christianity grew in the streets of Jerusalem. I dont know where you got the idea that it "grew" in roman cities.
Do you realize that the Romans controlled most of the known world? They had cities reaching as far as Africa, conquests across Europe and Asia, and yes; they were in Jerusalem.

You really should read your bible better. Wasnt there some quote like "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto the lord what is the lord's"?

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 07:16

Do you realize that the Romans controlled most of the known world? They had cities reaching as far as Africa, conquests across Europe and Asia, and yes; they were in Jerusalem.

You really should read your bible better. Wasnt there some quote like "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto the lord what is the lord's"?

Christianity grew in Israeli towns, which I guess by default would make it Roman cities, if you insist. But I never meant the nomadic aspect to mean country side drifter. I dont know where he got that from. I meant it as more of a passer byer in this world. Not firmly planted in one spot.

That quote actually is a defense of seperation of church of state. Give unto Ceaser what is his, as in taxes and what he wishes, and give unto God what is God, i.e. your heart, your mind, your devotion.

Paradox

16th June 2005, 08:30

but thier policies were still ripe with nationalism, militarism and religious fanatasism.

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Look at you defending the free press of the Ottoman Empire yet you straight up denounce the freedoms this empire

I'm not defending the Ottoman Empire, I'm showing that constitutional systems were in the process of being created in the Middle East, albeit flawed. And even leaving out the Ottoman Empire, you still have numerous examples in the Middle East where nations were hampered from becoming democratic thanks to Western imperialism. Puppet regimes, military occupations which sparked popular revolts against the British in Egypt and Iraq, and so on. You're missing the point of how foreign occupation and intervention has stalled democracy from taking hold in the Middle East, and how it has led to a strong anti-american sentiment. America was seen in a good light until it took the same path as the European imperialists. And this imperialism is what has led to the fundamentalist resistance to america.

might as well grab your gun and your Koran because it is the new revolutionary struggle that is fighting empire now.

Koran? I'm not a Muslim. I do not believe in organized religion, whether it's Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, etc.. Religious resistance is reactionary, not revolutionary.

Paradox

16th June 2005, 08:54

Black Dagger

16th June 2005, 14:30

Just to be upfront I am a Calvinist Reform Christian

Are you South African? (family background?)

Professor Moneybags

16th June 2005, 16:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:13 PM
How are you in any way surprised by such sentiments? Christian expansionism during the crusades was followed by centuries of colonial repression.
Expansionism my ass. The crusaders had their butts kicked.

And just when the Arabs were finally released from colonialism, we kick them out and install Israel.

You've just skipped about 700 years of history, notably the part where Islam had it's own empire.

Protecting their own interests how? By exploiting people in other countries and stealing their resources?

Oh dear. "Their" resources, you say ? Why should those greedy arabs keep all the oil for themselves ? We need it more than they do.

You're displaying all the symptoms of bourgeiose thinking; I'm afraid you will have to be re-educated after the revolution.

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 16:47

I find it odd that you would say the Iraq Occupation is "going good," and yet say that Islam and democracy are "incompatible." The supposed aim of the occupation is to make Iraq a democracy (of course, that's bullshit), but if Islam is "incompatible" with democracy, what do you plan to do?

Heh, I never said that I agreed that it would actually work. But at the same time reformers are gaining in muslim lands. I find it quite odd that while you guys blame Bush for tearing down the wall of seperation of Church and State here,yet he is the leading fighter in the war for seperation of mosque and state over in the middle east. Why do you guys wish for the status quo to remain?

Funny thing is, this quote is bullshit. Any "socialist" that would support the likes of Osama is no socialist at all. You sneaky bastards might try to twist things to make it seem like this is the case, but it's just bullshit. We support people's liberation world-wide, which includes those people in the Middle East. Now you can try to make that seem like support for Islam or fundamentalism with stupid quotes like this, but it's just bullshit.

And seeing that a fatwa is an Islamic ruling, this is even more bullshit because Socialists are "non-believers," which of course, they are, for the most part. So this coming from a fundamentalist -who fought the "socialists" in Afghanistan- means absolutely nothing.

Woah thier Papi Chulo, I never said I took it seriously. I found quite interesting that he would say that though. I meant it as a joke. So no one is twisting anything. Its Usama who is twisting things by actually thinking that you guys are helping him. I just found that ironic.

Are you South African? (family background?)

Oh no, beautiful country, I hear.

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 16:54

I'm not defending the Ottoman Empire, I'm showing that constitutional systems were in the process of being created in the Middle East, albeit flawed. And even leaving out the Ottoman Empire, you still have numerous examples in the Middle East where nations were hampered from becoming democratic thanks to Western imperialism. Puppet regimes, military occupations which sparked popular revolts against the British in Egypt and Iraq, and so on. You're missing the point of how foreign occupation and intervention has stalled democracy from taking hold in the Middle East, and how it has led to a strong anti-american sentiment. America was seen in a good light until it took the same path as the European imperialists. And this imperialism is what has led to the fundamentalist resistance to america.

There are Persians that think that Bush is this 7th demi-God prophesised in local mythlore that will free them from oppression, I kidd you not. There are Lebanese Christians in Lebanon that waved signs of thank you to the US for thier involvement in pushing out Syria. The Kurds in Northen Iraq were wearing masks ofGeorge Bush Sr. back in the first world war and continue to wear American flag pins on thier shirts while thanking Bush. The majority of the Iraqi armed division are Southern Shia Muslims.
The Democratic movements in Egypt call out for US assistence in aid. There is a civil war in the Muslim world between the radicals and the secularists and I believe you guys are on the wrong side of history. But eh, who cares you guys will just revise it all anyways right? ^_^

Severian

16th June 2005, 18:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:54 AM
The Democratic movements in Egypt call out for US assistence in aid.
In reality:

Ibrahim hugged himself and shivered as he fielded questions. “How do you feel?” someone asked.

“Absolutely happy,” he said. “This is a victory for Egypt, a victory for human rights.” When he was asked how he was treated in prison, his victory speech turned dark. He said he was tortured by the security services, and a minute after calling the verdict a triumph, he pointed out that he had been jailed since April. “That sends a message that if you’re charged with lies and there’s no evidence, you can still sit in jail for a year.”

“The Egyptian people aren’t able to choose their own government,” he continued. “They’re unable to make their own decision, and we will continue resisting this corrupt government supported by the Americans.”

Yasser had managed to break through the crush and faced Ibrahim. “Wait a minute,” Yasser said. “You’re complaining about the Americans. But all those people in the back are Americans; they were here to support you.”

“They weren’t here for me,” he responded. “They were here for themselves.”

source (http://www.ymlp.com/pubarchive_show_message_iframe.php?MENAinfo+1380)

Probably not the only point in your post which is contrary to reality.

It is the working people in the Middle East who will establish establish secularism and democracy there, not the imperialist powers who set up the Saudi monarchy and backed the Afghan jihad.

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 20:21

source

Probably not the only point in your post which is contrary to reality.

It is the working people in the Middle East who will establish establish secularism and democracy there, not the imperialist powers who set up the Saudi monarchy and backed the Afghan jihad.

I am glad you gave me that source. Ashraf Ibrahim, is a member of a Socialist party in Egypt and is connected to the Egyptian People's Committee for Solidarity with the Palestinian Intifada. Oh yeah highly progressive. He pretty much is a declared enemy of the state. He pretty much wants to bring down the government.

Ashraf Ibrahim, an engineer, is also charged with possessing printed materials for distribution relating to the Revolutionary Socialists and with harming Egypt's reputation, specifically by providing information to international human rights organizations.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/middleea...0256DF30045F174 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/middleeast/document.do?id=80256DD400782B8480256DF30045F174)

Probably some of the same material the State Department releases on human rights abuses in Egypt.

http://www.metransparent.com/texts/human_r...rt_on_egypt.htm (http://www.metransparent.com/texts/human_rights_report_on_egypt.htm)

I was speaking about the Kefaya movement.

http://www.themilitaryzone.com/articles/Ke...ctious_Word.htm (http://www.themilitaryzone.com/articles/Kefaya_Epidemic_Democratic_Infectious_Word.htm)

In addition, the administration has -- at long last -- announced that it will provide funding to six independent Egyptian civil society groups, including one that hopes to monitor the upcoming elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar14.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35379-2005Mar14.html)

Although sadly....

Mr. Mubarak's foreign minister publicly ridiculed Mr. Bush's speech and rejected his prescriptions. That suggests something about the level of pressure Mr. Bush has so far exerted on a ruler who has received more than $50 billion in U.S. subsidies during his time in office: It's not enough.

The US still plays both cards. Politics is shady.

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 20:43

Oh and for the record I am not naive enough to really think that any US administration is really focused on mid east change. They are just focused on protecting American interests and if those interests co-incide with democratic change than so be it. I know Bush is a corporatist who protects the interests of American corporations, like most politicians, but his stance against guerilla movements like Al-Queda and Islamic Jihad is what makes me vote for him.
Each country has a different demographic of political movements. I mean do we chose to keep supporting the right wing authoritarian rule, or a democratic stradegy that may let the Muslim Brotherhood take over? Or aid smaller democratic movements that may or may not have a chance in elections?

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 21:55

Oh boy Farenheit really believes that more he posts the more information he gives.

Brink of civil strife? Oh, I'm sure they are not on "the brink" of civil strife . . . They HAVE civil strife already. . . Like virtually every single country in the world.
Right civil strife in that jihad has been declared on all fronts.

Sure, just like in Spain you have radical "terrorists" against Spanish "reformists." So what? What's your point? The existence of radicals does not indicate in any way that the Spanish regime is in danger of succumbing to civil war.

Was the vagueness of your "brink of civil strife" comment a way to suggest they are an unstable regime? In other words, can you please clarify whether you are really suggesting that the Saudi regime may collapse to "civil war"/"revolution"?

I just need to have this clarified, for I find it hard to believe that a nation that rules a population of roughly 20 million devoted Muslims with the Shariah, while providing them with free education and health care, is really at such "risk."

Yet this is what you seem to be suggesting?

I don't know about you, but 20 million burka-wearing Muslims that pray 5 times a day don't seem to be "revolutionary" material to me.

I think that its you who misses the point. There are plenty of reformists, but the radicals far outnumber the rest and the Kingdom is under attack. didnt you read about the Riyadah bombings?

Al-Dakhil: "Do you think then that those who generate an extremist atmosphere have deeply penetrated Saudi society?"

Khaled Al-Faisal: "There is no doubt that they have deeply penetrated [both] the official and civil realm… There are large civil organizations which allocate funds for charity programs and religious and Islamic programs. As I have said, it is easy to deceive a Saudi by means of religion… One can easily approach a rich man and say to him: give me such and such an amount to build a mosque in Africa, in Asia, or in any Muslim area. You happily give him the funds, certain that he won't deceive you since he is a Muslim, but in fact … it is possible that these funds are not going to a mosque or to an Islamic project, but to an extremist terrorist plot … I think this is clear. Anyone who is tuned in to what is going on, who monitors or follows what is going on, can easily see and discern this. These things aren't that clandestine and hidden. In many cases they are open for all to see, but many people in Saudi Arabia prefer to disregard them and don't even want to believe that they exist…"
- interview with Saudi Prince Khaled Al-Faisal, MEMRI.org

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=17376 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17376)

Well, you're wrong. What makes you say that? Do you say that because you only see people from Pakistan, Indonesia and Sudan protesting in barefeet while burning American flags on CNN?

On what grounds do you deem their flag-burning, pebble-throwing hatred as greater that the holier-than-thou institutionalized hatred of Saudi Arabia?

Do you really think that because in Saudia Arabia you find more BMWs, they are any more sympathetic to western liberalism?

My own friends witnessed public executions as if they were the most righteous thing.

If you're a wrongdoer in Saudia Arabia, they decapitate you in the street, in front of all people to see.

If you shoplift in Saudi Arabia, you don't get a fine -- you get your hands amputated.

If you get hammered in Saudi Arabia, they flogg you.

And guess what? Saudis think this is totally acceptable!

Oh yeah Jude, they're not thatbad.

what the hell, you freak?! You are horribly twisting up my words. What I was getting at is that Islamic extremist groups in some of these places far outnumber those in the Saudi Kingdom. I am not equating them as if the Saudis are no different, just that Indonesia has the biggest population of Muslims in the entire world next to Pakistan and then India. Saudi Arabia isnt even in the top 10.

http://www.aneki.com/muslim.html

It has nothing to do with guilt. I'm being simply practical. The establishment of the state of Israel, on the other hand, was accomplished out of guilt.
Yes, and rightfully so. The guilt should also be felt by Arabs as well.In World War II, the Arabs were very slow to enter the war against Hitler. Only Transjordan went along with the British in 1939. Iraq was taken over by pro-Nazis in 1941 and joined the Axis powers. and the rest sat on the fence, waiting until 1945 to see who would win. By then, Germany was doomed and, since it was necessary to join the war to qualify for membership in the nascent United Nations, the Arabs belatedly began to declare war against Germany in 1945.

You are right. It is dangerous. In 1948 they pushed for the establishment of Israel because the 'poor Jews' deserved a home, while they didn't even think of the consequences.

When I brought up the historical subjugation of the Arabs, I was not trying to make a case for our duty to solve past mistakes. Past mistakes cannot be solved. Arab subjugation cannot be remedied because it's in the past. Likewise, we can't 'fix' what Hitler did because those people are already dead.

Nonetheless, if back in 1948 the Zionists would have contemplated the years of subjugation that the Arabs endured, they would have probably foreseen the consequences that the establishment of Israel would have propelled. And if they had had this in mind, they could have saved millions of Jewish and Palestinian lives, which are still being claimed everyday.

Thats ridiculous, the Balfour Declaration gave Jews a home that was nearly uninhabited. For many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely populated, poorly cultivated and widely-neglected land of eroded hills, sandy deserts and malarial marshes. As late as 1880, the American consul in Jerusalem reported the area was continuing its historic decline. Also read the Peel Commission Report, page 233.

"The population and wealth of Palestine has not increased during the last forty years,"
Ben Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State, (MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 108.

Nobody is defending terror for the sake of terror. Of course I don't want them to spit on us, but why shouldn't I expect them to spit back if we're still supporting the continuous violation of their human rights in the occupied territories?
By supporting Israel who is defening its right to exist and defending brutal right wing kingdoms that keep extremists at bay? thier gripe is that one empire is ruling over the ones they are trying to re-build. Mostly I feel sorry for the real reform democratic movements that oppose both right wing rule and the extemists.

So what? So did Christianity, and in the name of God we were owners of the entire known world for centuries.
Thats just what I said in the post. So again, you're arguing in favor of one empire over the other?

Why is it so incomprehensible:
1. we oppress them for centuries.
2. we release them finally.
3. we changed our mind and we install a new country in the piece of land they've been waiting for for years.
4. They fight back.
5. the new country (israel) fights back and takes even MORE land than what it's entitled to.
6. Arabs keep fighting back, etc.

nice little list of misinterpreted items. I would say that they oppressed people for centuries, then one empire kicks their butt, then slices them up into little colonial nations, we release those into independent nations, install an independent democratic nation(Israel), the new country fights back in several defensive wars, and the extremists unite to restore the old caliphate and break the nations created by the colonialists.

We're not talking about being progressive, We're talking common sense.
fight empire to create empire. yeah I guess that would be common sense.

Yeah, American interests, right? So what happens when in order to protect "american interests" (i.e. explotaition of foreign resources and people)
you need to, let's say, overthrow a foreign democracy so that people cannot force American corporations to pay them more than two cents an hour?

We can get into the economic of empire in another thread, but pretty much most movements arent seeking for democratic change but independent Islamic rule. Yes, we basically install or back authoritarian govt. to keep the order. I dont support it, but then again money is always involved.

So why are you so shocked with the actions of the Islamic empire?
I'm not.

First, you're "mistakes" in foreign policy have been way to calculated to be considered as such. But anyway, of the Islamic culture is really the problem, how do you explain the case of Saudi Arabia? How do you explain the Islamic empire's tolerance of other religions, as well as its fruitfulness in the areas of philosophy (i.e. free thinming), astronomy, mathematics, poetry and the arts?

When Christianity owned the world, there was no room for other religions, and all intellectual advancements of the era were reactionary to the establishment.

Does this mean that Islam is *gasp* "better" than Christianity? And if you attribute these facts to the times' political circumstances, then why now do you blame the culture rather than the politics?

Double standards, anyone?

The Muslim empire required a jizya tax for people of the book in order for protection. But protection from whom? The Muslims ofcourse. There were rules for the POTB, and they were pretty harsh. Most of thier areas of achievements were stolen from the lands they conquered and they adapted the areas. Youre forgetting that those lands were Christian and Jewish before they were Islamic. Oh and the tolerance was even dead in the 20th century,

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed
-H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, 1909

"The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam
- Bernard Lewis

EnragÃ©

16th June 2005, 22:01

yes, how do you know they dont. They want them to leave but to also protect them from the radicals.

Alright let me explain:"
there are two sorts of islamic radicals in Iraq at the present day:
One sort (mostly shia) is on the side of the Iraqi government (with the exception of Muqtada Al Sadr, you know the guy who fought the yanks in the siege of Najaf, and still has great influence among the people, especially the urban poor) because they believe (a form of) Islamic law can be introduced by working with the government. The envision a Iranian type of government.
This movement is head by ayatullah Al-Sistani (look him up, use google) and the Surpreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI, look that up too). Sistani's militia, the Badr Militia (look it up ;) ) has been praised by the iraqi government. It has also been accused of the murder on sunni clerics around the country.

The second type is the Al-Zarqawi type. Yeah they blow up the yanks, yeah they are Usama lovers. But the only thing that differs them from the Badr militia is that they are against the Yanqui presence, while the Badr Militia thinks the yanks could serve them well.

Now, the bulk of the iraqi resistance are moderate Islamic and nationalist. They are the ones who keep shooting yanqui soldiers. And they are the ones who enjoy massive popular support. And they are the ones who get more and more recruits for every second the US robs Iraq of its freedom. These people have also issued a warning to Zarkawi's men, basicly telling them to fuck off and stop blowing up iraqis, or die.

what are Iraqi people going to do with the oil? that oil will be put to better use in corporate hands than a nationalization like under Saddam and the other despots around.

the only one who profits from corporate control are the corporations themselves. The iraqi people could use its riches to build their country to one of the most prosperous in the world. Outside influence prevents this.

Why are so many Iraqis lining up to join the armed forces then?

They arent, simple as that. And alot of the people who do, are actually part of the resistance. For example, a dude wearing an iraqi army uniform walked into a restaurant on an iraqi army base...he was a suicide bomber--> dozens killed. Also, morale is extremely low. The only troops the US can really rely on besides their own are Kurdish Peshmerga's, and they dont fight for the US, an independent Kurdistan. Kurdistan can never come to be in an alliance with the US, because the US is allied to Turkey, and a part of turkey is Kurdistan. So, when push comes to shove, the yanks are alone.

EnragÃ©

16th June 2005, 22:04

I am glad you gave me that source. Ashraf Ibrahim, is a member of a Socialist party in Egypt and is connected to the Egyptian People's Committee for Solidarity with the Palestinian Intifada. Oh yeah highly progressive. He pretty much is a declared enemy of the state. He pretty much wants to bring down the government.

seems like a nice guy ;)

JudeObscure84

16th June 2005, 23:09

http://www.e-prism.org/images/Impact_of_th...raq_-_paper.pdf (http://www.e-prism.org/images/Impact_of_the_war_in_Iraq_-_paper.pdf)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5060200534.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060200534.html)

now its your turn to back up your claims. Democratic societies tend to look at election results for accurate polling data.

"Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother; however, they will not allow you to make their homes a base for operations or a safe house. People who will allow you to do such things are...rarer than red sulfur."

- Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi

Commie Girl

17th June 2005, 01:41

:D Ya, the "war" is going great!! This fellow had the balls to do what others need to be doing en masse!

Story (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3229092)

A U.S. Army staff sergeant was charged with murder in connection with last week's deaths of two Army officers at a base outside Baghdad, the military said today.

Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez, 37, a supply specialist with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 42nd Infantry Division, New York Army National Guard, was charged Wednesday in connection with the June 7 deaths of the two officers at Forward Operating Base Danger, near Tikrit — Saddam Hussein's hometown 80 miles north of Baghdad.

Severian

17th June 2005, 11:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:21 PM
He pretty much is a declared enemy of the state. He pretty much wants to bring down the government.
Yes, exactly. When you said, the democratic movement in Egypt, I figured you meant, the democratic movement in Egypt. Can't read your mind.

EnragÃ©

17th June 2005, 15:22

on the badr militia:

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=...y&Country=WORLD (http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=212387&category=Militancy&Country=WORLD)

On SCIRI and Badr:

http://news.surfwax.com/politics/files/Sup...on_in_Iraq.html (http://news.surfwax.com/politics/files/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq .html)

On United Iraqi Alliance, backed bij Al Sistani, thus by Badr, thus by SCIRI (Badr is SCIRI's armed wing):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/

On SCIRI:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sciri.htm

Article on the various resistance groups in iraq, dated 19 september 2004, its a bit dated but still the most comprehensive you can find, written by IRAQI journalists.

An Inventory of Iraqi Resistance Groups
"Who Kills Hostages in Iraq?"
By Samir Haddad and Mazin Ghazi
Al Zawra (Baghdad)
September 19, 2004

(FBIS Translated Text)

US soldiers guard the wreckage of a military armored vehicle destroyed by the Iraqi resistance. In Iraq, the issues are even more confused now than they were before. This happened after an armed group abducted two French journalists, and threatened to kill them if France did not rescind the law banning religious symbols at schools, including the veil, and another group abducted two Italian women in Baghdad. The issues became even more confused when a third group killed 12 Nepalese workers, claiming that they were serving the US forces.

It is our duty now to clarify the picture with regard to who targets civilians and foreigners, who abducts hostages indiscriminately, and who makes the US occupation and its soldiers his main preoccupation.

After the fall of Baghdad into the hands of the Anglo-American occupation on 9 April 2003, as a natural reaction, several sectors of Iraqi society confronted the occupation. Resistance cells were formed, the majority of which were of Islamic Sunni and pan-Arab tendencies. These cells started in the shape of scattered groups, without a unifying bond to bind them together.

These groups and small cells started to grow gradually, until they matured to some extent and acquired a clear personality that had its own political and military weight. Then they stated to pursue combining themselves into larger groups.

The majority of these groups do not know their leadership, the sources of their financing, or who provides them with weapons. However, the huge amounts of weapons, which the Saddam Husayn regime left behind, are undoubtedly one of the main sources for arming these groups. These weapons include mortars, RPGs, hand grenades, Kalashnikovs, and light weapons.

Their intellectual tendencies are usually described as a mixture of Islamic and pan-Arab ideas that agree on the need to put an end to the US presence in Iraq.

These groups have common denominators, the most important of which perhaps are focusing on killing US soldiers, rejecting the abductions and the killing of hostages, rejecting the attacks on Iraqi policemen, and respecting the beliefs of other religions. There is no compulsion to convert to Islam, this stems from their Islamic creed, their reading of the jurisprudence texts and historical events, and their respect for the directives and appeals of the Islamic organizations and religious dignitaries.

These groups believe the Iraqis are divided into two categories. One category -- the majority - is against the occupation, and the other -- the minority -- is on the side of the occupation. The resistance considers those who reject the occupation, whatever their description might be, to be on its side. The resistance considers those who are on the side of the occupation to be as spies and traitors who do not deserve to remain on Iraqi territory, and hence they should be liquidated.

As for their view of the political parties, it depends on the stance of these parties toward the occupation. If these parties are dealing with the United States on the basis that it is an occupation force that should be evicted and that Iraq should be liberated from any military occupation or constrictions, and if these parties choose to deal with the United States and to engage in political action within this context, then these parties are free to continue with their efforts. Moreover, in general, these groups do not target the political powers that deal, but do not cooperate with the United States within the political framework established by the occupation.

The following is a review of the resistance groups and the armed groups in Iraq:

First, the main Sunni resistance groups that primarily target the US occupation:

1. The Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, "The 1920 Revolution Brigades:"

-- It emerged for the first time on 16 July 2003. Its declared aim is to liberate Iraqi territory from foreign military and political occupation and to establish a liberated and independent Iraqi state on Islamic bases. It launches armed attacks against the US forces. The attacks primarily are concentrated in the area west of Baghdad, in the regions of Abu-Ghurayb, Khan Dari, and Al-Fallujah. It has other activities in the governorates of Ninwi, Diyali, and Al-Anbar. The group usually takes into consideration the opinions of a number of Sunni authorities in Iraq.

-- The group's statements, in which it claims responsibility for its operations against the US occupation, are usually distributed at the gates of the mosques after the Friday prayers.

-- A recent statement issued by the group on 19 August 2004 explained that the group, during the period between 27 July and 7 August 2004, carried out an average of 10 operations every day, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of US soldiers and the destruction of dozens of US armored vehicles.

-- The most prominent operations of the group during that period were the shooting down of a helicopter in the Abu-Ghurayb region by the Al-Zubayr Bin-al-Awwam Brigade on 1 August 2004, and the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter in the Al-Nu'aymiyah region, near Al-Fallujah, by the Martyr Nur-al-Din Brigade on 9 August 2004.

2. The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq:

-- The front includes 10 resistance groups. It was formed days after the occupation of Iraq in April 2003. It consists of nationalists and Islamists. Its activities are concentrated in Arbil and Karkuk in northern Iraq; in Al-Fallujah, Samarra, and Tikrit in central Iraq, and in Basra and Babil Governorates in the south, in addition to Diyali Governorate in the east.

-- Generally speaking, its activities are considered smaller than those of the 1920 Revolution Brigades.

3. The Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front, 'JAMI':

The front is the newest Sunni resistance group to fight the US occupation. It includes a number of small resistance factions that formed a coalition. Its political and jihad program stems from a jurisprudence viewpoint that allows it to fight the occupiers. Its activities against the occupation forces are concentrated in the two governorates of Ninwi and Diyali. It announced its existence for the first time on 30 May 2004.

In its statements, JAMI warns against the Jewish conspiracies in Iraq.

According to statements issued by the front, JAMI's military wing, the Salah-al-Din and Sayf-Allah al-Maslul Brigades, has carried out dozens of operations against the US occupation forces. The most prominent of these operations were in Ninwi Governorate. These operations included the shelling of the occupation command headquarters and the semi-daily shelling of the Mosul airport. Further more, JAMI targets the members of US intelligence and kills them in the Al-Faysaliyah area in Mosul and also in the governorate of Diyali, where the front's Al-Rantisi Brigade sniped a US soldier and used mortars to shell Al-Faris Airport.

4. Other Small Factions:

There are other factions that claim responsibility for some limited military operations against the US forces. However, some of these factions have joined larger brigades that are more active and more experienced in fighting. These factions include:

Hamzah Faction: A Sunni group that appeared for the first time on 10 October 2003 in Al-Fallujah and called for the release of a local shaykh known as Shaykh Jamal Nidal, who was arrested by the US forces. There is no other information available about this group.

Iraqi Liberation Army: The first appearance of this group was on 15 July 2003. It warned the foreign countries against sending troops to Iraq and pledged to attack those troops if they were sent.

Awakening and Holy War: A group of Arab Sunni mujahidin. It is active in Al-Fallujah. It filmed an operation on videotape and sent the tape to Iranian television on 7 July 2003. On the tape, the group said that Saddam and the United States were two sides of the same coin. The group said that it carried out operations against the US occupation in Al-Fallujah and other cities.

The White Banners: A group of local Arab Sunni mujahidin that is active in the Sunni triangle and probably in other areas. Originally, they were opposed to Saddam Husayn, and in alliance with the Muslim Youths and Muhammad's Army. The group criticized the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. So far, there is no information about their operations.

Al-Haqq Army: There is not much information about this group, apart from that it consists of Arab Sunni Muslims, it has some nationalistic tendencies, and it is not loyal to Saddam.

5. Ba'thist Factions:

These factions are loyal to the Ba'th Party and the previous regime of Saddam Husayn. They do not constitute a proportion of the actual resistance in Iraq. Their activities are more or less restricted to financing of resistance operations. The factions that still exist secretly in the Iraqi arena include:

Al-Awdah (The Return): This faction is concentrated in northern Iraq -- Samarra, Tikrit, Al-Dur, and Mosul. It consists of members of the former intelligence apparatus.

Saddam's Fedayeen: The faction was formed by the Saddam regime before the US invasion. Now, it is rumored that many of its members have abandoned their loyalty to Saddam and have joined Islamic and national groups on the side of the 11 September Revolutionary Group and the Serpent's Head Movement.

Second, Shiite resistance against the occupation:

Al-Sadr group: The Al-Mahdi Army is considered the only militia experiment to emerge after the occupation. In July 2003, Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr announced the formation of the Al-Mahdi Army, but not as a force directed against the occupation. Within a short period, Al-Sadr gathered between 10,000 and 15,000 well-trained youths, the majority of whom were from the poor of the Al-Sadr City, Al-Shu'lah, and the southern cities.

Recent events -- starting with the closure of Al-Sadr's Al-Hawzah newspaper in March 2004; the arrest of Al-Sadr assistant Mustafa al-Ya'qubi against a background of suspicions about his involvement in the killing of Imam Abd-al-Majid al-Khu'i, and crowned with the writ to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr in April on charges of assassinating Al-Khu'i inside the Al-Haydari mosque in Al-Najaf on 10 April 2003 -- placed the Al-Mahdi Army in confrontation with the occupation forces in Baghdad and the southern governorates.

The greatest confrontation between this militia and the occupation forces erupted in Al-Najaf in August 2004. The confrontation continued for nearly three weeks, and it ended with the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the two sides. The observers believe that these confrontations bestowed upon the Al-Sadr tendency the mark of an armed resistance to the occupation.

Imam Ali Bin-Abi-Talib Jihadi Brigades: This Shiite group appeared for the first time on 12 October 2003. It vowed to kill the soldiers of any country sending its troops to support the coalition forces, and threatened to transfer the battleground to the territories of such countries if they were to send troops. The group also threatened to assassinate all the members of the Interim Governing Council and any Iraqi cooperating with the coalition forces. The group also announced that Al-Najaf and Karbala were the battlegrounds in which it would target the US forces.

Third: Factions that adopt abductions and killing:

In addition to the groups resisting occupation, other armed groups have emerged and resorted to operations of abducting and killing foreigners as a method, in their opinion, that would terrorize the enemy and as a political pressure card to achieve their specific demands. This was what happened when Philippine President Gloria Macapagol-Arroyo decided to withdraw the Philippine forces acting under US command in Iraq after the abduction of her compatriot Angelo del Cruz on 7 July 2004 and his release at a later time.

The most prominent of these groups are:

Assadullah Brigades: The brigades said in a statement, number 50, "The mujahid is entitled to capture any infidel that enters Iraq, whether he works for a construction company or in any other job, because he could be warrior, and the mujahid has the right to kill him or take him as a prisoner."

The activities of this group are concentrated in Baghdad and its suburbs. The group detained the third most senior diplomat at the Egyptian Embassy to Iraq, Muhammad Mamduh Hilmi Qutb, in July 2004 in response to statements by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif, who announced that Egypt was prepared to offer its security expertise to the interim Iraqi Government. The diplomat was released after nearly a week.

Islamic Retaliation Movement: One of the movements that adopt the course of abductions. It abducted the US Marine of Lebanese origin, Wasif Ali Hassun, on 19 July 2004, and then released him.

Islamic Anger Brigades: The group that abducted 15 Lebanese in June 2004 and then released them, with the exception of Husayn Ulayyan, an employee of a communications company, whom it killed.

Khalid-Bin-al-Walid Brigades and Iraq's Martyrs Brigades: They are believed to be the ones who abducted Italian journalist Enzo Bladoni in August 2004 and killed him.

The Black Banners Group: A battalion of the Secret Islamic Army. The group abducted three Indians, two Kenyans, and an Egyptian working for a Kuwaiti company operating in Iraq. The aim was to compel the company to stop its activities in Iraq. The hostages were later released.

The Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi Group.

The Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad Group.

The Islamic Army in Iraq: A secret organization that adopts the ideology of Al-Qa'ida. The organization abducted Iranian Consul Feredion Jahani and the two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot.

Ansar al-Sunnah Movement: The movement abducted 12 Nepalese on 23 August 2004 and killed them.

The last four groups are clearly intellectually close to the beliefs and thinking of Al-Qa'ida Organization and its leader, Usama Bin Ladin.

The first case of slaughter was that of US national Nicholas Berg in May 2004, and the Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi group claimed responsibility for it.

After that, the Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad Group killed South Korean Kim Il, who was working for a Korean company providing the US Army with military installations.

Following that, the operations of abducting hostages cascaded in Iraq. Some of the hostages were slaughtered, and others were released. And the phenomenon came to the surface.

The total number of hostages killed so far is: two Italians, two US nationals, two Pakistanis, one Egyptian, one Turk, one Lebanese, one Bulgarian, one South Korean, and 12 Nepalese.

(Description of Source: Baghdad Al-Zawra in Arabic--Weekly published by the Iraqi Journalists Association)

JudeObscure84

17th June 2005, 19:39

Can you please stop talking generalities? Anti-globalization movements, as well as Socialist and racist movements have also been declared "in all fronts."

You're not saying anything with this. There's civil strife in virtually every single country, so what do you want to say when you state "Saudi Arabia is on the brink of civil strife"? That Saudi Arabia is just like any other country that has problems?

That would be a rather redundant point.

What a minute. What is your point about saying that there are civil strifes everywhere? That doesnt make any sense, if I am talking about outlining Saudi Arabia as being one of those countries that is on the brink. This has been growing since the Mecca uprising by anti-Western radicals in 1979, the killing of King Faisal in 1974. The Wahabbis and some of the Royal Family on the inside oppose the pro-western government. If anything we should be worried because the Saudi Kingdom is the bulwark of world oil.

http://news.goldseek.com/OnlineInvestorsNews/1087403496.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0%2C...64617%2C00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0%2C11599%2C764617%2C00.html)

Wow, a singled out specific bombing. So What?

Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dec. 6, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 before being subdued by Saudi security who killed five of the militants.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Ofcourse these do represent the extremists, but the over all majority of folks disaprove of the Saudi Kingdom regardless. But when I meant that extremists outnumber the reformists, I meant in political organization and affiliation. The Wahaabi elements in Saudi Arabia have deeply penetrated the country and have a force. The bombings represent the extremist faction of my point, while the protests of thousands represent the voice. Im not saying that the country is a population of terrorists! Can you even debate? Im afraid to post anything because you will horribly take it to where it needs not to go.

The mere suggestion that Saudi Arabia is at such instability is nonsense of olympic proportions.

http://www.persecution.org/Countries/saudi_arabia.html

Yeah, and if go back before that, we have the fathers of western civilization (the greeks) battling and taken in slaves from all over the world. Do you really want to play this game?

We're talking history to understand current events, not to "tell on" different cultures. Grow up.

What does this have to do with anything? I dont care about our western fathers. I dont care about other empires, an empire is an empire. The Greeks were just as brutal as the Romans, The Catholics, and the Turks. If you want to understand history to understand current events, start with man first.

No. Stop the abuse of one empire to stop retaliation. That's common sense.
Thats not what the Jihadists think.

If so, then Turkey to me.

What about Saudi Arabia? They are already an independent, Islamic regime. Yet you say that the "Islamic radicals" want to bring it down? If so, how can their motives be primarily "independent Islamic rule"?

You're not making much sense here.

Yes I am. If you cant understand its not my problem. I meant that they want to get rid of the Kingdom in favor of an independent Islamic empire uniting muslim lands like the Caliphate of old. Most of the radicals think the Saudi Kingdom is dependent on western money, and its disrupted thier goal of spreading Islam.

Yeas, but... no. In Chile we had a Socialist democracy, and you installed a dictatorship that killed thousands because Nixon didn't like that we nationalized our copper, and demanded that Chilean peasants and miner were paid in more than "food exchangeable coupons."

So NO, money is not "always involved" as a secondary reason. The reason why you installed such dictatorships in Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc was exclusively because of money.

Do NOT get into Chile, that is a very personal issue with me considering my mother is Chilean. You know nothing of Chilean history if you think that Allende was really a Social Democrat. And if you want to get into Cold War history then we can in another thread.

Have you ever studied the history of Israel? The Israelites were always a nomadic group, and if you take a look at the Old Testament, you'll see that it is FULL of PROMISES of their own land, because of their historic inability to settle. Even Jewish scholars like Israel Finkelstein argue that the overstated biblical Kingdom of David was nothing more than "a little tribal Kigdom."

And since Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, wher do you think they got THEIR land from?

I hope you do not mean Norman Finklestein? Anyways, I meant that most of the lands were inhabited by Jews and Christians. They werent Christian nations nor kingdoms. You cannot argue at all. How old are you?

In some places more than others. More specifically, tolerance was more alive in the Islamic empire than in the Christian empire. And THAT is a historical fact
It seems as though you are trying to overly state what westerners and christians did to somehow make me see that, "oh look what they did." How childish, when it really has no relevance in my evaluation of what Muslims did or are doing. This whole topic started because someone was praising the Islamic caliphate and all I was trying to state was that nothing much has changed except time.

Great, now we're playing that "I'm right because a single person who's quotable agrees with me."

Do you really want to dig up quotations?
What kind do you want? Jewish scholars against zionism? Jewish scholars FOR Zionism? Islamic thinkers against Islamic nationalism? How about quotes by Islamic people who are for it?

I would be able to find all of those, because, you know what? People have different opinions. But your quotation-throwing party doesn't back any of your arguments up.

I hope that you would dig up serious historians and not revisionists who work for independent organizations that have a clear bias. And how do my quotations not back up my arguments?

JudeObscure84

17th June 2005, 21:11

on the badr militia:

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=...y&Country=WORLD

On SCIRI and Badr:

http://news.surfwax.com/politics/files/Sup...on_in_Iraq.html

On United Iraqi Alliance, backed bij Al Sistani, thus by Badr, thus by SCIRI (Badr is SCIRI's armed wing):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/

On SCIRI:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sciri.htm

Article on the various resistance groups in iraq, dated 19 september 2004, its a bit dated but still the most comprehensive you can find, written by IRAQI journalists.

How odd that we could see two different things in some of the same articles? I dont mean to be stubborn, but how exactly do these sources prove your point?

http://www.southasianmedia.net/cnn.cfm?id=...y&Country=WORLD

Ha, another Los Pepes. Arent they for the incoming Iraqi govt? I think you are confusing Sadr's militia with Sistani. Sistani is an asset to the US govt.

http://news.surfwax.com/politics/files/Sup...on_in_Iraq.html

The Iraqi election still proved otherwise.

Shiite Muslim Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistanti, the UIA's chief backer, supported the elections and is considered by many to be the most revered and most influential leader among Iraq's 15 million Shiite Muslims. (Full story)

http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/ar...militia_fo.html (http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/04/badr_militia_fo.html)

Badr is a foriegn militia that came in from Iran. Sadr is a group within Iraq that formed its own militia, and the UIA backed by Sistani is a different politial wing.

At a conference marking the second anniversary of the Badr brigade's claimed transformation to a political group, Talabani offered public praise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0800408_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060800408_pf.html)

The Badr Brigade is the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Tehran-based Shiite group headed by an exiled Iraqi cleric, Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Al Hakim.

not Sistani... now back by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Aziz_al-Hakim

"[He] is refused by the Shia people; they don't consider him their representative," says an Iraqi Shiite poet in the Kurdish-controlled city of Sulaymaniyah, who fled Baghdad in 1999. "During the Shiite uprising ... he didn't stand with his people, he obeyed instructions from Iran."

No one in northern Iraq is welcoming Hakim's men with any discernible warmth.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0306/p07s01-woiq.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._insurgency.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)

On 14 November 2003 General John Abizaid, the head of US Central Command, estimated the number of fighters operating against US and allied forces at no more than 5,000, and said the insurgency remained a loosely organized operation.

Ok so in review I would like to know how you connected the SCIRI's milita branch with Sistani and then connected them both to the Mehdi and the Badr brigades? The SCIRI is one faction of 22 Islamic organizations that joined the UIA after it vowed to accept political modertation and give up its arms. The insurgency is a totally different thing.

Severian

17th June 2005, 21:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:11 PM

Ok so in review I would like to know how you connected the SCIRI with Sistani and the UIA and then connected them both to the Mehdi and the Badr brigades?
This is not some big secret, nor are the facts disputed.

The Badr Brigade is, very simply, the armed wing of SCIRI.

SCIRI is one of the two large parties in the Sistani-sponsored UIA electoral coalition. The other is the Dawa Party, whose leader Jaafari is now prime minister.

Some supporters of Sadr and the Mehdi Army were also elected to parliament as part of the UIA slate. Others were elected on their own slate, and Sadr himself maintained a formal stance of non-participation....in other words the Mehdi Army hedged its bets on the election.

JudeObscure84

17th June 2005, 21:35

This is not some big secret, nor are the facts disputed.

The Badr Brigade is, very simply, the armed wing of SCIRI.

SCIRI is one of the two large parties in the Sistani-sponsored UIA electoral coalition. The other is the Dawa Party, whose leader Jaafari is now prime minister.

Some supporters of Sadr and the Mehdi Army were also elected to parliament as part of the UIA slate. Others were elected on their own slate, and Sadr himself maintained a formal stance of non-participation....in other words the Mehdi Army hedged its bets on the election.

right i understand this. but the Badr organization has put down its arms in favor of political participation. Sistani is the one who brokered the deal between the Mehdi and the coalition troops. What I am trying to get at is this is different from the actual insurgency that the troops fight daily.

Severian

17th June 2005, 22:04

Nobody said they were fighting the U.S. Rather, NKOS said that except for being pro-U.S. - and Shi'a rather than Sunni - they were no different from the "Islamic fundamentalists" who are fighting the U.S.

He's right. Well, little different. There may be some difference of degree in how medieval they are, but screw that.

JudeObscure84

17th June 2005, 22:15

EnragÃ©

18th June 2005, 00:24

indeed. The point i made was the people in favour of the US occupation are more or less the same (religious-wise) as those against it (with the exception of Al zarkawi etc, but thats a small group).

Badr is not Sadr's militia.
Mehdi is ((Muqtada Al) Sadr's militia.
Badr is Sistani's militia (well, SCIRI's to be exact but Sistani supports SCIRI).
Mehdi fought the US, and still is hostile towards it. Rumours are that they are supplying some of the sunni groups.
Badr supports the US, and actually shot some sunni clerics.
The only reason Badr, SCIRI and Sistani work with the US is to bring an Iranian style government closer. NOT because they like the yanks.

Most of the insurgents are nationalist and moderate (to Middle Eastern standards) islamic, they are not fundamentalist. As i said before, most of them have about the same beliefs (religious-wise) as those who support the occupation.

SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YA?

and thanks severian for trying to make him understand :P

ahhh_money_is_comfort

18th June 2005, 03:47

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 16 2005, 04:10 AM

It's going great. We are killing forgein fighters who don't speak any native Iraqi languages in Iraq by a ratio of about 40:1 on good days.

Replying to your posts makes me feel smart.

Do me a favor, open a new browser, head over to Google and look up the ratio of U.S. soldiers killed to Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war. I'll wait here....

(I think it's about 30:1)

O.K., see that, genius? Are you going to tell me that the Vietnamese war "went well"? Are you telling me that there is no other way to evaluate a war other than how many "bad guys" are getting shot every day?

You really are an unintelligent, ignorant bastard.

"You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it"--Ho Chi Minh
Geeeez. You should be thanking the US, they are killing bougouise religious fanatics. These are the fanatics soooooo fanatic that they will travel hundreds of miles into forgein countries to kill in the name of religion. Were doing the revolution a favor by getting rid of these people who will be obstacles in the future.

EnragÃ©

18th June 2005, 16:07

Geeeez. You should be thanking the US, they are killing bougouise religious fanatics. These are the fanatics soooooo fanatic that they will travel hundreds of miles into forgein countries to kill in the name of religion. Were doing the revolution a favor by getting rid of these people who will be obstacles in the future.

the people who do that belong to a small fringe group (Al Qaeda). The regular iraqi resistance isnt like that.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

18th June 2005, 16:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:07 PM

Geeeez. You should be thanking the US, they are killing bougouise religious fanatics. These are the fanatics soooooo fanatic that they will travel hundreds of miles into forgein countries to kill in the name of religion. Were doing the revolution a favor by getting rid of these people who will be obstacles in the future.

the people who do that belong to a small fringe group (Al Qaeda). The regular iraqi resistance isnt like that.
Are you sure? Do you have any idea of how many of the resistance don't even speak Iraqi?

greymatter

18th June 2005, 16:23

Are you sure? Do you have any idea of how many of the resistance don't even speak Iraqi?
Are you aware that Iraqi isn't a language? The official language of iraq is arabic, the same language spoken in egypt, palestine, saudi arabia, and virtually every other middle eastern country. You're deliberately fabricating things.

EnragÃ©

18th June 2005, 16:27

even the US military admits that most of the insurgents are in fact IRAQI. On top of that, "Iraqi" is not a language. Iraq's language is Arabic, and in a lot of countries in the Middle East people speak ARABIC.

Arabic is either an official language or is spoken by a significant portion of the population in the following countries.
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Chad
• Comoros
• Djibouti
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kuwait (borders with iraq)
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia (borders with Iraq)
• Somalia
• [/b] Syria [b] (borders with iraq, US claims lots of the "foreign fighters" come from there)
• Tunisia
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

And, seeing as Arabic is the language of the Quran, even a small fundamentalist fringe group such as Al Qaeda, would know ARAB.

JudeObscure84

18th June 2005, 17:26

the people who do that belong to a small fringe group (Al Qaeda). The regular iraqi resistance isnt like that.

What a great resistence movement that blows up it's own people. Im surprised that they get angry at allegations of a Quran being flushed down the toilet, but when a Shiite mosque gets blown up no one gets angry at the dozens of Qurans flying in the air.
You guys have to stop thinking that there is no such thing as irrational pathological movements.

EnragÃ©

18th June 2005, 17:27

Al zarkawi is the only group who does that READ THE DAMN ARTICLE I POSTED

JudeObscure84

18th June 2005, 18:32

The only reason Badr, SCIRI and Sistani work with the US is to bring an Iranian style government closer. NOT because they like the yanks.

Sistani is a moderate cleric who is opposed to the Kohmeni regime.

the people who do that belong to a small fringe group (Al Qaeda). The regular iraqi resistance isnt like that.

and thats who we are fighting. but if you also break down the Baath loyalists, the nationalists who were influenced by former regime officers, and foreign troops. That doesnt leave many legit resistence movements. The scope of the support for insurgency is highest among the Sunni population and the tribal elements of the Anbar region. Sadr's militia recieves some significant support among the Shiites but in the 2005 legislative election National Independent Cadres and Elites the party associated with Sadr's movement did poorly, bringing in only 0.8% of the votes.

The US occupation is unpopular there, but the insurgency does not have the highest support either.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

18th June 2005, 18:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:27 PM
even the US military admits that most of the insurgents are in fact IRAQI. On top of that, "Iraqi" is not a language. Iraq's language is Arabic, and in a lot of countries in the Middle East people speak ARABIC.

Arabic is either an official language or is spoken by a significant portion of the population in the following countries.
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Chad
• Comoros
• Djibouti
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kuwait (borders with iraq)
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia (borders with Iraq)
• Somalia
• Syria (borders with iraq, US claims lots of the "foreign fighters" come from there)
• Tunisia
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

And, seeing as Arabic is the language of the Quran, even a small fundamentalist fringe group such as Al Qaeda, would know ARAB.
Are these people fighting and crossing the border into Iraqi?

EnragÃ©

18th June 2005, 21:07

Sistani is a moderate cleric who is opposed to the Kohmeni regime.

no you moron he's an iraqi "moderate" cleric in league with the iraqi government, but with an ideology close to that of Iran. He's linked to SCIRI.

Are these people fighting and crossing the border into Iraqi?

No doubt some are. But in the american revolution against the brits, french fought alongside you, and the dutch gave you money and resources. So, who cares if there are foreigners. I'd call the occupying forces foreigners too (yanks, brits, japanese etc).

JudeObscure84

18th June 2005, 23:23

no you moron he's an iraqi "moderate" cleric in league with the iraqi government, but with an ideology close to that of Iran. He's linked to SCIRI.

http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB10Ak02.html

Sistani believed that government should be run by politicians, not clergymen, whose duty would be to maintain law and order and to run economic affairs, day-to-day politics and foreign relations. The clergy should not become politicians, he stressed, because this would corrupt them and distort their religious message. Instead, they should limit themselves to spiritual and religious matters in which the politicians cannot pass sound judgment.

Khomeinism, on the other hand, gave complete political control and responsibility to the clergymen.

...and how is he directly linked other than that he backs parlimentary democracy seats for the Muslim group and many others through the UIA?

If Sistani dies it might affect the political development of Iraq. It is not clear that the other three grand ayatollahs have Sistani's high opinion of parliamentary democracy rooted in popular sovereignty. He would probably be succeeded by Muhammad Said al-Hakim, an Iraqi and distant cousin of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI certainly does not have a long-term commitment to democracy, though Muhammad Said al-Hakim has never identified with that party himself.

http://www.tompaine.com/print/news_from_shia_world.php

even leftist Juan Cole disagrees with you.

Zangetsu

19th June 2005, 00:19

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 15 2005, 06:54 AM

Thats why I dont understand why leftists would apologize for thier actions by squaring everything back on the US? I mean that would be like saying that I think that the Mussolini's blackshirts or Hitler's SS are the best weapon against US hegemony or globalization.

That I can agree with. Islamic fundementalism should never be supported, not even as an alternative to international Capitalism. I think being a U.S. client state (or, "Liberal Democracy") is far preferable to an Islamic theocracy.

I guess the counter argument is that international Capitalism and U.S. imperialism is more powerful, thus it is our main enemy, thus we should support anyone who has a legititmate chance at resisting it. To me that argument makes no sense, for one, a blow against Imperialism counts for nothing if it is inflicted by reactionary Islam, and two, to say that we should allow a country to be put in the hands of fanatic Muslims in order to fight Imperialism seems very insensitive of the people who will be living under these madmen (I repeat, being a U.S. puppet state isn't pretty, but it beats Islamism).

I disagree.

Given enough time i believe Islamic countries would reform themselves, become more liberal, less autocratic ect. ect. Turkey is a perfect example of this. I think historicly the cause of some very specific Islamic countries stunted progressive movement has been US imperialism. There is a massive body of Islamic intelectuals who, by now would of been able to make considerable ground had it not been for the ultra-conservative reaction perpetuated by how some Western powers have historicly+continualy portrait themselves in these societies.

~USA is the aggresor, they have a tendancy to produce an opponent in what could be described as some neo-crusade. Al Queda fights back, and although through the premise of theology they justify their existence, they are just an opposing force created by imperialism, after they find some conclusion to how America likes to abuse the world for the survival of its free market system; internal progressive realization can commence.
Unless ofcourse the conclusion doesnt turn out to be; America decides its just not worth it to fuck with the world, and instead decides: We need to control the world, and just totaly crush the resistence to our unfair trade practices, and blatant imperialist excapades (ie Yemen+Iraq).

This leads me to thoughts of either some huge facist force comming to rule over the world, or everyone turning to some kind of socialism... But then its worth remembering, if everyone is supposed to work with a free trade system and rich countries enforce this notion on each other through the use of the WTO (eg. Boeing vs AirBus). And then this practice of instilling fairness is just ignored when it could come to the aid of Africa (ie. if farm subsidees were abolished in the west- Africa could start to build real economies off the back of the one industry they should be ontop of). Its so convienant for the west when this realization is just lost in the mists of Multi-lateral instititions, which America just loves to weaken and dissolve over time with grosteque foriegn policy (remember Yemen!)... we live a facist world already... makes u wanna bomb a tower.

Let them duke it out with Al Queda, hell, root for Al Queda... If Al Queda win, societies can be reformed from within, its the culture of imperlism which is the real scurge that appears is not going to end anytime soon. I believe how Imperialism is being used in the world today is the one thing that Marx did not anticipate, nor can any Marxist thinking resolve (the problems that Imperialism imposses)... If it doesnt stop, i think capitalism might not either.

Orz, why do i always write at 2am, ill fix this when i wake up :P i hope its not too disjointed>_<

EnragÃ©

19th June 2005, 01:52

http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB10Ak02.html

i never said sistani was exactly the same, but both do advocate an islamic state. And well, i misunderstood what you meant, i thought you meant he was running against Khomeini's followers in the current elections in Iran, which would be quite impossible.

and how is he directly linked other than that he backs parlimentary democracy seats for the Muslim group and many others through the UIA?

Because he has great influence over SCIRI's armed wing, Badr, and thus SCIRI itself. Badr, as well as sciri, would never go against the wishes of grand ayatullah al sistani.

Commie Girl

19th June 2005, 02:23

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 18 2005, 11:38 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 18 2005, 11:38 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 04:27 PM
even the US military admits that most of the insurgents are in fact IRAQI. On top of that, "Iraqi" is not a language. Iraq's language is Arabic, and in a lot of countries in the Middle East people speak ARABIC.

Arabic is either an official language or is spoken by a significant portion of the population in the following countries.
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Chad
• Comoros
• Djibouti
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kuwait (borders with iraq)
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia (borders with Iraq)
• Somalia
• Syria (borders with iraq, US claims lots of the "foreign fighters" come from there)
• Tunisia
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

And, seeing as Arabic is the language of the Quran, even a small fundamentalist fringe group such as Al Qaeda, would know ARAB.
Are these people fighting and crossing the border into Iraqi? [/b]
:angry: Why are you so hung up on "foreign fighters"? The U$ military are the foreign fighters, not the RESISTANCE!

Severian

19th June 2005, 05:08

Sistani favors implementing Islamic law and an essentially theocratic system...through the forms of parliamentary government. That's his much-hyped disagreement with Khomeini's doctrine. He is of course a "moderate" 'cause that's only a code word for someone willing to go along with U.S. domination.

All evidence, including numbers occasionally admitted by the U.S.,- indicates there is no large number of foreign fighters. They are disproportionately represented among suicide bombers and have a significant effect in that way.

How fighters from neighboring countries are inherently illegitimate, I don't know. (Even leaving aside the hypocrisy of foreign invaders saying so.) If there was a popular revolutionary movement in Iraq, it would certainly have an attractive pull on people from neighboring countries. They always do. There would be more "foreign fighters", not less.

Remember Lafayette, Kosciuszko, Pulaski, von Steuben? That's right, Washington's army was trained by a "foreign fighter". And how many soldiers - heck, whole units - in the American Civil War didn't speak English?

That's not to say anyone in the Iraqi resistance is comparable...but the mere fact someone is "foreign" means nothing.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

19th June 2005, 07:14

Originally posted by Commie Girl+Jun 19 2005, 02:23 AM--> (Commie Girl @ Jun 19 2005, 02:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:38 AM

[email protected] 18 2005, 04:27 PM
even the US military admits that most of the insurgents are in fact IRAQI. On top of that, "Iraqi" is not a language. Iraq's language is Arabic, and in a lot of countries in the Middle East people speak ARABIC.

Arabic is either an official language or is spoken by a significant portion of the population in the following countries.
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Chad
• Comoros
• Djibouti
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Kuwait (borders with iraq)
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Oman
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia (borders with Iraq)
• Somalia
• Syria (borders with iraq, US claims lots of the "foreign fighters" come from there)
• Tunisia
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

And, seeing as Arabic is the language of the Quran, even a small fundamentalist fringe group such as Al Qaeda, would know ARAB.
Are these people fighting and crossing the border into Iraqi?
:angry: Why are you so hung up on "foreign fighters"? The U$ military are the foreign fighters, not the RESISTANCE! [/b]
Because these forgein fighters are also not welcomed, which is something you don't seem to recoginize, but as long as they are killing US soldiers it seems to be OK. Is that about right?

RedStarMilitia

20th June 2005, 18:49

FUCK TROOP MORALE FUCK THE TROOPS FUCK BUSH.

The war is unjust "war on terrorism"? Bush is the terrorist, there is no link between Binladen and Iraq, never was it is a conspiracy for oil of which right wing Americans foolishly believe.
Anyone who supports the war is either sick or very ignorant - if they are combating terror then what about the fucking IRA? Zimbabwe?.
I have no sympathy for any soldier INVADING in Iraq, we cannot punish a man for defending his homeland.
where the fuck is the moral in the idea that Bin Laden attacks on Sept 11 then we invade Iraq?
Bush is a fucking idiot- i refuse to listen to a man that states that America could be a "more literate and HOPEFULLER country" and who things there's a language called Mexican - Anyone who follows him is too patriotic, ignorant and a savage fuck who enjoys inflicting pain.

EnragÃ©

20th June 2005, 18:59

hey! The IRA's ok

RedStarMilitia

20th June 2005, 23:20

Yeah but some regard them as terrorists - nvm ignore my comment on the IRA

ahhh_money_is_comfort

21st June 2005, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:49 PM
FUCK TROOP MORALE FUCK THE TROOPS FUCK BUSH.

The war is unjust "war on terrorism"? Bush is the terrorist, there is no link between Binladen and Iraq, never was it is a conspiracy for oil of which right wing Americans foolishly believe.
Anyone who supports the war is either sick or very ignorant - if they are combating terror then what about the fucking IRA? Zimbabwe?.
I have no sympathy for any soldier INVADING in Iraq, we cannot punish a man for defending his homeland.
where the fuck is the moral in the idea that Bin Laden attacks on Sept 11 then we invade Iraq?
Bush is a fucking idiot- i refuse to listen to a man that states that America could be a "more literate and HOPEFULLER country" and who things there's a language called Mexican - Anyone who follows him is too patriotic, ignorant and a savage fuck who enjoys inflicting pain.
Please stop spamming.