Islam (and the war in Iraq)

Interesting dicussion the other day-thought I'd seek a few opinions on here. Working on the basis that more fanatics act and commit atrocities in the name of Islam than of any other faith what is responsible for this?
I've heard two theories that can be sumarized as:

a) Islam is a fanatical religion i.e. it provides the basis for fanaticism. Hindu or Christian teaching, for example could not, in the 21st century, be used in the same way as Islamic teaching to justify terrorist actions, opressions of rights, coups etc. Islamic scripture can be interpreted in a raidcal way and is interpreted as such by many Islamic clerics/leaders. Basically Islam is responsible for 'Islamic fundementalism'.

b) The dominance of Islam throughout the Middle East-a generally volitile region-has led to it inevitability in being drawn into politics e.g. 'Western Interference'/Israel/Pakistan vs India etc. Essentially politics is responsible for 'Islamic fundementalism' as Islam is used as a cover for both those on the side of and against the fundementalism.

EDIT: Just to clarify these are two positions that came up in discussion and are NOT MY OPINION. I am posting them up to see what other people thought of those two positions-do people generalyl agree with one or the other or do people diagree with both-and on what grounds? I have no feelings against Muslim's [see post 11] and am not intending to incite trouble-i'm literally posting up two views i've heard to find people's critique on what is an interesting discussion. I can see how these views can be applied but do not strictly agree with either (primarily because I don't know enough to). I am also fully aware that Islam is not one blanket religion and that views, practices and customs differ even within sects
Would you adhere to either of those theories or would you follow another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

a) Islam is a fanatical religion i.e. it provides the basis for fanaticism.

---

As does, and has, Catholicism.

The fundamentalists of right wing Christianity in the US are just as big a danger to world peace as their fundamentalist counterparts in Islam. These lunatics are convinced that we are in end times and actually want to bring on the Rapture hence their support for Israel.
The Iranian PM has a similar viewpoint - he's reckons an Islamic Messiah is just round the corner.

And it has an effect on us over here. They're censoring the word "ass" on Paramount Comedy for christ's sake.

This issue is far too complex to look for very simplte catch-all answers to it. It's dangerously easy/convenient to believe that there is something inherently wrong with Islam, when the reality is dramatically more complicated than that.

The bottom line is that ANY ideology or doctrine that maintains that it's view of the world is right - to the exclusion and detriment of all other views - inherently contains a basis for fanaticism. This is true not just of religion, but also of areas such as politics (communist v capitalist ; republican/royalist v parliamentarian ; fascism, nazism etc etc), science, animal rights etc.

There are plenty of political fanatics and fundamentalists in the world e.g. the anti-government ultra-right wing in the US, the numerous left-wing guerilla movements that pop up all over the world, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, fascists etc etc.

There are also plenty of religious extremists from faiths other than Islam. What about the anti-abortionist christians in the US who fire-bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors ? Or the Christian churches in parts of Africa who carry-out the most extreme cruelty against children in the belief that they are possessed (interesting programme on this last night on BBC2). Northern Ireland was a religious conflict (in so far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflcit could ever be labelled as such), with extremists on both sides.

And then there are fanatics of other movements outside of political and religious ideology - e.g. the animal rights activists who will attack the people and property of those who disagree with their own doctrine regarding the sanctity of animals.

So this notion that fanaticism is the exclusive preserve of Islam is both incorrect, and conveniently lazy thinking for those with a hidden agenda on the topic. There are plenty of Christian and Jewish fundamnetalists and extremists around as well. If I knew more about the oriental religions, I'm sure we'd be able to highlight some of them as well.

Secondly - to address your 2nd point above, people will conveniently take religion and twist it to provide moral and political justification for whatever their own fringe and unpopular views are. People in the west seem to think that Islam is all about arranged marriages to your cousin, women being made to wear head-to-toe veils, and having your hands chopped-off if you steal. That is simply not true of the religion. There are some narrow sects within Islam that follow such strict and absurd rules (e.g. Wahabbi'ism - which unfortunately is an incredibly well-funded sect by the Saudis). But there are likewise some Christians sects with absurd/extreme rules - such as never being alowed to eat in the presence of any one else (the 'Brethren' sect). A lot of the elements that we subscribe to islam are actually more cultural baggage from certain Islamic countries or regions, rather than religious rules from the faith itself. There are plenty of countries in the Islamic world - Turkey being a fine example - where arranged marriages, veils etc are considered as alien as they are to us. Meanwhile - Hindu India is just as keen on arranged marriages as Muslim Pakistan is. That is because arranged marriage is a cultural tradition in that part of the world - regardless of any specific religion.

The bottom line is that any ideology that claims that it is right and everyone else is worng will most likely generate fanatics at some point or another. To try to pretend that this is the exclusive preserve of Islam - or indeed even religion as a whole - is thoroughly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

And it has an effect on us over here. They're censoring the word "ass" on Paramount Comedy for christ's sake.

---

In Monday's Guardian media section, I read that the word "bullsh!t" is now "officially" banned from media use in the US - on stage, TV etc.:) . One can get fined for using it.

Hope that doesn't give you ideas Dahamsta.:D

Ok I think some people are missin my point here. Firstly these were not my arguments-two contrasting theories that came up in discussion.
Secondly i'm not naivve-I know that there are and always have been digusting fanatics all over the world for all manner of reason; from Bader Meinhof to above mentioned pro-life/pro-choice militants fanatics have caused all manner of atrocities around the globe I agree here; most beliefs lead to some fundemntalists.

The issue here is the scale. In a few hours on 9/11 Al Qaeda killed more people in the name of Islam than the IRA had in the name of Republicanism and pro-life militants had in the name of unobrn babies, put together over the last forty years. The susequent bombings in Bali, Madrid, London etc. have killed more than pretty much any IRA/ETA/Bader Meinhof bombings.

The abilty to carry out such attacks isn't jsut down to logistics (though Al Qaeda is organised better than msot multinationals) it is down to support-the IRA had Repbulicans in Ireland and US mainly, ETA had those in the Baque region Al Qaeda have sympathisers across the Muslim World and numerous associated groups. I can see here where the two theories fit in-the huge supprot for Al Qaeda is either political i.e. thousands linked by a common beleif (Islam) symapthise in each others political goals-Palestine, Iran, Chechnya etc. OR such support is down to a fundemental nature or Islamic teaching linking all the supporters.

re. Adam's reference to Catholicism-I don't know if this was a specific argument to me on the basis I am a devout Catholic (maybe the Sikh airline bombing would have been a better example) but I think's it's bizzare to say Catholicism has, in recent times bred the same extremisim as Islam. Obviously Crusades, South America conquest saw massive atrocities in the name of Catholicism but you much remember- the Pope-head of the Catholic church apologised andcondemed these. He also called for Republicans to end violence in Northern Ireland-you couldn't fight in the name of Catholicism in Northern Ireland without denying the Pope-the head of Roman Catholic church and thus contrevening Catholic teaching. So where exactly is this extremism you refer to Adam-please elaborate-maybe your going to bring up the old Pope/AIDS/Africa chesnut in which case i'll point to the Catholic teaching agaisnt sex before marriage.
It's the same as your reference to a word being banned on paramount-i'm not denying that there a fanatical/extreme (?) views in every religionor belief but planes being flown into buildings and suicide bombings seems a very different level of extremism to banning one word on one tv channel hence the debate is Islam more radical than other religions.

Guess you can sum it up: in the 21st Century more pople have been killed in the name of Islam than in the name of any other religion; why? Is it the politics or the theology of Islam?

Between 100,000 and 250,000 Iraqis civilians have been killed in Iraq by Bush and his cronies. If we're gonna play the numbers game remember that. A British medical body - can't recall the name just now - said several months ago that 100,000 civilian killed was a conservative number. ]
That's from a war initiated by a right wing so-called Christian President and his neo-con cronies who cherry picked dodgy (at best) data to create "proofs" for this illegal obscenity.

Nobody can verify the actual numbers. Why? Because the puppet Iraqi government forbids journalists getting them.

As General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts".:rolleyes:

Fundamentalists of any religion must be resisted with vigour and honesty. They are a cancer and corruption on any society.

Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition Liam. And it might not be a good idea to fix atrocities in the present either. The present is just pinpoint in history. I'd wager there were plenty of people making much the same comments as you in those times.

In all seriousness Liam, you do realise that posting about Islam in the manner you do, whether intentional or not, paints a picture of a closed-minded sectarian trying to paint a distorted picture of reality? That may sound offensive but it's not intended to, it's simply an image that has formed. Perhaps you should stick to studying your own religion, or try to frame your observations in a less biased way.

Speaking entirely personally, I don't like the way you post about many topics on Foot.ie. I find your comments and observations not so much offensive as inflammatory, probably intentionally so. And that, as the operator of this site, I do find offensive.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

Guess you can sum it up: in the 21st Century more pople have been killed in the name of Islam than in the name of any other religion; why? Is it the politics or the theology of Islam?

---

I'm not sure where you are going with that comment Liam. Was there no history prior to the 21st century or is that a convenient way to have a go at Islam?

Interesting points there Adam-I never meant to be inflamotary or offensive and you'll notice I abck most of my posts up with facts....I persume the other main topic your reffering to is our discussion on the Anti-War march?

re. Muslims I have nothing against them-that would be insane to judge people on their faith. I don't agree with the beliefs of their faith but i respect it-I actually campaign for the Rohingya people of Burma who are Muslim and argue strongly in defence of the Kurdish race. I feel uncomfertable using terms like "Muslims" as I discovered a long time back (being half Irish half Burmese and living in the UK) that tarring any group of people with the same brush is hurtful and dangerous.

I think if you re-read the thread you'll actually fail to find me posting my opinion on Islam. Basically I was involved in a discussion-two contrasting views about Islam came up; I put them up on a current affairs board to see people's critique of them-what's wrong with that?

Finally I'd happily argue in defence of the revisionist historiography of the Inquisition as personally I agree with Kamen's analysis-but maybe that's for another thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangeirish

I'm not sure where you are going with that comment Liam. Was there no history prior to the 21st century or is that a convenient way to have a go at Islam?

---

Sorry I've obviously phased all of this wrong as I'm being mis-interpreted. The theories I posted up (not my view) are regarding the place of Islam in the 21st century.
Beofre this there was terible fundemntalism of different kinds-Christian fundementalism during the crusade's, Facism in Europe in the 40', Communism in eastern Europe, apartheid in South Africa. The point was in the 21st century Islam has been used as the reason for the worst terrorist atrocities and in the discussion I had one person claimed this is down to ISlam theology whilst one claimed it was down the the politicising of Islam thanks to the political cliamte of the middle east. IT's jsut two opinions on an indisputable fact and not an attack on Islam in any way-sorry if it came across otherwise!

I appreciate the post edit above Liam, and would suggest that you frame your threads in that manner in future. I have to say, despite that, I still get a sense of bias from your posts and opinions. Perhaps I'm wrong about. Or perhaps you can't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

Sorry I've obviously phased all of this wrong as I'm being mis-interpreted. The theories I posted up (not my view) are regarding the place of Islam in the 21st century.
The point was in the 21st century Islam has been used as the reason for the worst terrorist atrocities and in the discussion I had one person claimed this is down to ISlam theology whilst one claimed it was down the the politicising of Islam thanks to the political cliamte of the middle east. IT's jsut two opinions on an indisputable fact and not an attack on Islam in any way-sorry if it came across otherwise!

---

That's fair enough and I would refer you to dcfcsteves post for an eloquent response.

Liam, I think the question you should be asking is not whether Islam is inherently "fanatical" (whatever that may be - and remember, your definition will be framed from a non-Islamic point of view). The real question is what drives people to commit the acts you talked about in the name of Islam?

Everyone's heard Karl Marx's quote "Religion is the opium of the people". Actually, that's not what he said at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

---

You take the situation of the poor of the Muslim world (which is pretty much the overwhelming majority). They're expolited, kept in poverty, oppressed, see no benefit from the natural resources around them (particularly oil), etc etc. Eventually they're gonna get cheesed off enough to kick back, so they look for a flag around which to gather.

Previously, they would've looked to the Soviet bloc, and if not out-and-out Communist (like the Iranian Communist Party at the time of the revolution against the Shah in 1979), then they would've adopted some kind of left-nationalist approach e.g. the various factions of the PLO - Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc.

The Iranian revolution was an eye-opener for many people at the time, in a similar sense to the electoral victory of Hamas being an eye-opener. If offered a different - and successful - approach to going down the traditional Communist road. Not long afterwards, the Soviet bloc disintegrated so that alternative model was no longer there to be followed anyway. Radical Islam filled that vacuum and gave people a channel for expressing their resistance to whatever it was they didn't want to have to put up with.

The important thing is that the poor and oppressed have flocked to radical Islam not because it lets them give vent to some previously-suppressed psychotic tendencies that racist western commentators like to suggest were always there, simmering below the surface - but because radical Islam is pretty much the only show in town when it comes to organising resistance.

Hamas didn't win the Palestinian election on account of having the best suicide bombers. They also have a massive welfare organisation, dispending aid to people who badly need it. Yes, doing so with a soup bowl in one hand and a Koran in the other, but they're the only ones willing and able to offer resistance to the Israeli authorities, so naturally they're gonna appear attractive to people driven to the point of desperation. If an Israeli tank flattens your shack in whatever refugee camp you've been ghettoised into, then you're gonna pay attention to the guy who offers you a tent afterwards. If he offers you a Kalashnikov as well, odds are you'll take that too.

The surprising thing is not the growth of radical Islam and the ferocity of the acts that some organisations engage in. The surprising thing is that more people aren't queueing up wherever they do their recruiting.

Terrific post Dr. Nightdub - you might find this interesting.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12480.htm
Full text.


Sample
"Add to this the rather mean spirited history of the church (the Spanish Inquisition, the rape of the Indian culture during the westward expansion, the brutalization of black slaves, the New England torture of witches, and the church’s longstanding support of America’s military-industrial complex) and you have a misguided church that apparently has very little to offer the world. As James Hillman wrote in his book, A Terrible Love of War: “Western Christianity’s god comes front and center when war is in the air. War brings its god to life.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

The point was in the 21st century Islam has been used as the reason for the worst terrorist atrocities and in the discussion I had one person claimed this is down to ISlam theology whilst one claimed it was down the the politicising of Islam thanks to the political cliamte of the middle east. IT's jsut two opinions on an indisputable fact and not an attack on Islam in any way-sorry if it came across otherwise!

---

There's a very simple answer to your question Liam, and I'm shocked you didnt ask it.

If you have a friend or colleague who is arguing that Islamic theology is breeding fundamentalist terrorists, ask him to provide evidence for this. This is easier in Islam than in pretty much any other faith, as their holy book is considered to be literally the word of God. Ask him where in the Koran does it say that it is ok to kill people ? If he's vaguely well read he may be able to refer to the odd section in isolation - but taken in its entirety, islam preaches non-violence.

I'm amazed you didn't just request this information back from your friend, rather than just absorb his view and come on here looking for other people to do the analysis for you.

As for the "indesputable fact" that the name of Islam has been used as justification for the worst terrorist atrocities in tghe 21st Century - that century is barely 6 years old, or 6% through. It would be like claiming early in the 20th Century that the Turks were the greatest genociders of the 20th Century, because of what they did in Armenia. the events of 40 years later in Germany show how ridiculous such a claim would have been.

A football match does not finish in the 7th minute. Nor does a century end in its 6th year.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I have to say, despite that, I still get a sense of bias from your posts and opinions. Perhaps I'm wrong about. Or perhaps you can't see it.

---

Not arguing in this debate but surely everyone has bias in their opinion? Isn't that the point really? Again not not trying to say that who's got "good" bias or "bad" bias in this paarticular argument

Throughout the Middle Ages, Islam was regarded as a peaceful and tolerant religion (Even though before that, there has been an attempt to impose islam in Europe and they got as far as Poitiers were they got stopped in 732 AD). Cities such as Granada and Cordoba are a reflection of this flamboyant period. They were places of prosperity and tolerance between catholics, jews and muslims. It was nevertheless the thirst for power and glory of the papacy and kings loyal to Rome that brought an end to all this. For many decades to come catholicism became responsible for oppression and persecution. The church also promised forgiveness to those willing to combat other religions or offering money to the clergy. All this subsequently led to great instability in Europe with the emersion of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin). It also led to a gap between christianity ass a whole and islam. The gap has never been filled since and both sides are responsible for this.
Nowadays radical muslims (individuals and nations included) behave the same way as christians did at that time.
To us westerners of the 21st century it all seems barbaric and horrible.
Another thing we should not forget is that islam got hijacked by an intellectual minority (exactly as catholicism was during the MA).
Scriptures are interpreted att will by clerics and most ordinary people believe them without any questioning of what really lies behind.
Of course there are many other problems linked to fundamentalism such as social issues, education, economy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

There's a very simple answer to your question Liam, and I'm shocked you didnt ask it.

If you have a friend or colleague who is arguing that Islamic theology is breeding fundamentalist terrorists, ask him to provide evidence for this. This is easier in Islam than in pretty much any other faith, as their holy book is considered to be literally the word of God. Ask him where in the Koran does it say that it is ok to kill people ? If he's vaguely well read he may be able to refer to the odd section in isolation - but taken in its entirety, islam preaches non-violence.

I'm amazed you didn't just request this information back from your friend, rather than just absorb his view and come on here looking for other people to do the analysis for you.

As for the "indesputable fact" that the name of Islam has been used as justification for the worst terrorist atrocities in tghe 21st Century - that century is barely 6 years old, or 6% through. It would be like claiming early in the 20th Century that the Turks were the greatest genociders of the 20th Century, because of what they did in Armenia. the events of 40 years later in Germany show how ridiculous such a claim would have been.

A football match does not finish in the 7th minute. Nor does a century end in its 6th year.....

---

I think that her basis for it was Shiah Law -the covering a women etc. I know that this isn't universal in Islam but her argument (not mine) appeared to be Islam is the only religion that has strict rules in how women dress etc. and is therefor relativly for fanatical than other religions (She's a bit of a feminist take note ;) ).
Adam fair play but I really am not bias-like I said I just don't know enough about Islam to be-hence posting this up here as I know there are a lot of people e.g. Steve, Dr. Nightdub etc. who are better read on the issue than me (and possibly the others involved in the discussion). I apoligise to everyone if I came across as secaterian becuase I'm not -as I said I would campaign for the Rohingya people or the Kurdish people if I was in any way 'anti-Muslim'.
Steve re. the century only being 6 years old I appreciate that point and in a way that's the essence of the discussion-"Islamic fundementalism" wasn't a big issue in the Middle Ages (As Londonirish said) and hoepfully won't be in 50 or 100 years; just like German right wing facism or left wing etorrism is no longer one of the biggest universal issues. That's the interesting thing-why has Islamic fundementalism emerged now? The tehology hasn't really changed has it so maybe it's the politics? I guess you could ask the question (again asking a question not stating an opinion) is Islam involved more in politics now than it has ever been in history (perhaps especially since the end of the British EMpire?) and is it the religion most involved in politics in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

I think that her basis for it was Shiah Law -the covering a women etc. I know that this isn't universal in Islam but her argument (not mine) appeared to be Islam is the only religion that has strict rules in how women dress etc. and is therefor relativly for fanatical than other religions (She's a bit of a feminist take note ;) ).

---

This is an example of how people take 'pop Islam' views that are floating around and use it to assert that they understand the religion as a whole.

Sharia law is merely one of the many codes of religious/spiritual laws within Islam. Just like the Wah'habi sect, it has the backing of the phenomenally wealthy Saudis, who fund and promote it heavily throughout the Islamic world. As a result, it is by-far the most prominent of the religious and spiritual codes in Islam.

There is a huge range of variance within the interpretation, implementation and adherence of Sharia law throughout the Muslim world. Only 2 countries in the world have religious law fully ensconced within their structures/constitution : Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some other Islamic countries have Sharia law running alongside traditional juduicial courts - with the Islamic ones only governing a few fringe areas of the law. the biggest Islamic nations in the world - indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey - have little or no sharia law in their constitutions/structures.

The fact that Sharia law is by no means universal in its application, or in its interpretation, shows that a lot of the elements ascribed to it are nothing more than local cultural baggage. Therefore - whilst Turkey actually has laws against the enforcement of a religious dress code in schools and work places, Saudi Arabia strictly enforces it, and has religious police to monitor adherence. This is not about Islam - it is about local cultural traditions that over time have got tied-up over-time within local religious traditions. Just because Irish Catholics walk Croagh Patrick bare-foot doesn't mean that all Christians worldwide must indulge in a similar activity.

Your friend is guilty of taking the few publically percieved elements of what Islam is all about, and using that as the basis for her arguement. She clearer lacks a genuine understanding of the religion, as if she did she wouldn't make such lazy generalisations. Meanwhile, there are other religions that have sects that place women at a lower position than men (in fact - most do. Including Catholicism), so why didn't she chose to mention those ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liam88

Steve re. the century only being 6 years old I appreciate that point and in a way that's the essence of the discussion-"Islamic fundementalism" wasn't a big issue in the Middle Ages (As Londonirish said) and hoepfully won't be in 50 or 100 years; just like German right wing facism or left wing etorrism is no longer one of the biggest universal issues. That's the interesting thing-why has Islamic fundementalism emerged now? The tehology hasn't really changed has it so maybe it's the politics? I guess you could ask the question (again asking a question not stating an opinion) is Islam involved more in politics now than it has ever been in history (perhaps especially since the end of the British EMpire?) and is it the religion most involved in politics in the world?

---

There's quite a few books and documentaries on why fundamentalist Islam has arisen at this stage in time. It appears to be the combination of a number of factors - but the single biggest catalyst is the foreign policy of outside governments. Prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, fundamentaluist Islam was a very fringe and unpopular activity. It had a couple of intellectual and spiritual leaders, and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood, but it was rejected by the overwhelming majority of Mulsim people and nations. The Afghan war created a cause celebre for people to politicise the religion into a battle between Islam and outside elements. The huge flow of US funding that the Mujahadeen - incl Osama Bin Laden - received from the US helped them in this.

After Afghanistan, the fundamentalists were able to take advantage of the heightened sensibilities in the Muslim world to then turn their target on the presence of foreign (i.e. US) soldiers in Saudi Arabia - Islams holiest soil - during and since the first Gulf War. In the years that followed, the fundamentalists festered more and more dissent in the Islamic world at what they said was anti-Islamic activity by Western nations (e.g. Palestine). They kept plugging away at the fringes of Islamic society, making in-roads particularly amongst young disaffected Muslim youth who believed their message that the West was anti-Islamic and that their religion needed to over-turn the evils of Western civilisation. When September 11th happened, the fundamentalists had a well of popular support. Everythign that has happened since then has merely magnified that. I'm convinced that histoiry will show that the Iraq War was one of the most stupid foreign policy errors since appeasing Hitler and invading Vietnam. I'd say it's miles bigger than Vietnam - which remained an isolated conflict.

[Hamish, don't quote entire posts please. Thanks. --adam]

On the US blogs, many Vietnam vets are now using the term "Iraqnam"

Sorry about that Adam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Between 100,000 and 250,000 Iraqis civilians have been killed in Iraq by Bush and his cronies. If we're gonna play the numbers game remember that.

---

:eek: :(

I know you despise the current American administration, (that's another topic entirely), but as you see here, your figures quoted are wide-ranging, and are also wildly inaccurate. :mad:

The figure is arguable, but that article is also 8 months old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

In Monday's Guardian media section, I read that the word "bullsh!t" is now "officially" banned from media use in the US - on stage, TV etc.:) . One can get fined for using it.

Hope that doesn't give you ideas Dahamsta.:D

---

Not banned but beeped out... just a few days ago I saw John Stewart on the Daily Show asking John McCain whether his "Straight Talk Express" has been rerouted through "Bulls*it Town."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

:eek: :(

I know you despise the current American administration, (that's another topic entirely), but as you see here, your figures quoted are wide-ranging, and are also wildly inaccurate. :mad:

---

Yours in just one source from July 2005 and no, my figures are not wildly inaccurace.
Even Bush the Fool said he guessed 40,000 were dead - he said that a couple of months ago. The Lancet gave a figure of 100, 000 dead civilians.
Stop floggin a dead horse mypost, the Iraqi obscenity is a lost cause. Even the remaining sane Republicans are saying it.

You're right on one thing - I do despise the current US regime.

Have a look at the anti-war march thread and listen to what CIA man Ray McGovern has to say. I posted it last night.

Every day, a new corruption is discovered and the poisonous Rethuglican cabal is coming apart at the seams. TG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Yours in just one source from July 2005 and no, my figures are not wildly inaccurace.
Even Bush the Fool said he guessed 40,000 were dead - he said that a couple of months ago. The Lancet gave a figure of 100, 000 dead civilians.
Stop floggin a dead horse mypost, the Iraqi obscenity is a lost cause. Even the remaining sane Republicans are saying it.

---

I gave you a source of figures released by Iraqi officials, i.e. people there on the ground, facing the situation every day.

Even if you're 40,000 figure is accurate, it's still a lot closer to my figures than yours. Of that, roughly 40% of that figure is directly from coalition action. The other victims have been, as my source indicates, from domestic combat between insurgents and criminals, and is technically, a separate issue.

My point is that, anyone claiming that there have been 250,000, (100,000 even), civilian casualties in Iraq "by Bush and his cronies", is wildly, wildly, way off the mark. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I gave you a source of figures released by Iraqi officials, i.e. people there on the ground, facing the situation every day.

Even if you're 40,000 figure is accurate, it's still a lot closer to my figures than yours. Of that, roughly 40% of that figure is directly from coalition action. The other victims have been, as my source indicates, from domestic combat between insurgents and criminals, and is technically, a separate issue.

My point is that, anyone claiming that there have been 250,000, (100,000 even), civilian casualties in Iraq "by Bush and his cronies", is wildly, wildly, way off the mark. :eek:

---

I think Hamish's point is that the over-whelming majority of those deaths wouldn't have happened at all had Iraq not been invaded. There was no insurgency under Saddam - nor was there such criminal activity.

Bush and Co unleashed a can of worms. Even if they're not directly responsible for pulling the trigger or planting the bomb on every death that has arisen from that, they surely share at least some of the blame. Particularly as anyone who had a clue about the country warned them in advance that this type of thing could happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I think Hamish's point is that the over-whelming majority of those deaths wouldn't have happened at all had Iraq not been invaded. There was no insurgency under Saddam - nor was there such criminal activity.

---

Hamish is using his personal hatred of George, to make hysterically false claims over the number of casualties, since the liberation was ordered. Are we going to continue to count all the victims of domestic atrocities in Iraq, when all the troops are gone? :confused:

There is no doubt that there was no criminal activity under Saddam, why would there be, when the punishment meted out by his regime ranged from chemical weapons (Halabja), food poisoning, and severed limbs, up to execution? Now in Iraq, all prisoners have to face is time in a detention camp. In the face of that, why have respect for law and order?

Quote:

---

Bush and Co unleashed a can of worms. Even if they're not directly responsible for pulling the trigger or planting the bomb on every death that has arisen from that, they surely share at least some of the blame.

---

And you're right, they're not directly responsible for every death that has arisen, in fact not even half of them are from coalition actions. The blame largely rests with the insurgents and domestic criminals who are delaying the withdrawal of troops. Saddam is gone, in prison, and on trial, the country is liberated, Iraqi police are trained up, a new constitution and administration is in place, there is nothing for the coalition to stay there for anymore. If it wasn't for the insurgent attacks, the Americans and her allies would be long home now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Hamish is using his personal hatred of George, to make hysterically false claims over the number of casualties, since the liberation was ordered. Are we going to continue to count all the victims of domestic atrocities in Iraq, when all the troops are gone? :confused:

There is no doubt that there was no criminal activity under Saddam, why would there be, when the punishment meted out by his regime ranged from chemical weapons (Halabja), food poisoning, and severed limbs, up to execution? Now in Iraq, all prisoners have to face is time in a detention camp. In the face of that, why have respect for law and order?



And you're right, they're not directly responsible for every death that has arisen, in fact not even half of them are from coalition actions. The blame largely rests with the insurgents and domestic criminals who are delaying the withdrawal of troops. Saddam is gone, in prison, and on trial, the country is liberated, Iraqi police are trained up, a new constitution and administration is in place, there is nothing for the coalition to stay there for anymore. If it wasn't for the insurgent attacks, the Americans and her allies would be long home now. :(

---

For once, just once, get your facts right. It was Bush who said 40,000. Read the bloody post I posted.
Big difference between despising Frat Boy and hating. Get real.
Your post, given the mess Iraq is in, is the hysterical one, competely out of la-la land.
What the fcuk "liberation" are you raving about??? Shi-ite death squads operating within the police force and army. Sunni death squads replying in kind. A "government" which has no power outside the Green Zone. Electricity levels, clean water, oil production, sanitation levels - all below pre-War levels. Ethnic cleansing, not only from Shi-ite to Sunni and vice versa but also non-Kurds from Kirdish areas.
Iraq is now IMPORTING OIL. FFS:eek:

Jesus Christ, mypost, the Republicans are even giving out hell about this mess - the ONE battalion "trained" in the puppet army ws revealed not to be ready - by US generals.

Where the hell are you getting your information from FFS.

Go "Information Clearing House" and read what Kevin Phillips (REPUBLICAN) wrote, check out what Francis Fukuyama (NEO-CON) recently wrote, check out what Colin Powell's sidekick, Colonel Larry Wilkerson (REPUBLICAN) wrote, check out the interview with CIA man
McGovern said in an in an interview, check out what Scott Ritter (REPUBLICAN) wrote.
Not a bloody liberal, lefty among that lot. Throw in the remarks of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Trent Lott, William Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly - all Republicans - and I don't even need to quote Democrat Hawk John Murtha - and it is painfully obvious that Iraq is a total, utter, bloody, shambles.

Check out Robert Fisk's lecture about the death tolls.

I honestly cannot understand how an intelligent man like yourself can use terms like "the country is liberated", "trained up" etc when facts clearly state otherwise.
The vast majority of the insurgency is Iraqi not Al Qaeda - everyone, from Rumsfeld to Rice to Perle have said that. Do you know better??

Since this thread is about Islam, the reason millions of Muslims are p!ssed off at the West is because for decades they have been mistreated, abused,
r!pped off by the West, particularly by the US and Britain. Check the history of "Iraq" and learn something. It's got nothing to do with "They hate our freedom or way of life" as Bush the Fool said.

Jesus Christ, even the Yanks are p!ssed off when they discovered secret torture chambers used by the government controlled militias.

All of this information is freely available on numerous sites - left, right and middle.

Before you start posting fantasy bullsh!t about Iraq, go learn something and I stick by at least 100,000 dead from this war or is The Lancet wrong too.
82% of Iraiqis want the US out, Zogby -a staggering 72 percent of US troops favoured immediate withdrawal or withdrawal within at most a year’s time.

When even the Republicans are disagreeing with you, then your points are simply rediculous and using "hysterical" bullsh!t at me only proves you're in utter denial of reality.

Even the Yanks are relying on the Madi army to control his patch - their admission and as for fcuking democracy - yeah if you believe that El Sadr and Sistani telling their followers whom to vote for is democracy. All of this has been on numerous BBC and Channel 4 programmes in recent months.

Civilian deaths from the war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

Ray McGovern interview
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12628.htm

Robert Fisk lecture
http://foot.ie/newreply.php?do=newre...ote=1&p=460662

Dr. Cesar Chelala
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12467.htm

Depleted Uranium for Dummies
Irving Wesley Hall
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12452.htm

Death Squad Democracy
Mike Whitney
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12438.htm

Col. Larry Wilkerson
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12433.htm

Kevin Phillips
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12430.htm

Iraqi Girl Blog - someone who is living there
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12405.htm

Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0301-24.htm
America continues to pretend that we are building something of value in Iraq. And yet, common sense dictates that when one seeks to build on a corrupt foundation, whatever it is that is being constructed is doomed eventually to collapse. Our nation's involvement in Iraq is based on as corrupt a foundation as imaginable. We didn't go to war for sound national-security reasons (i.e., a threat that manifested itself in a form solvable only through military intervention), but rather for domestic political reasons based on ideology that exploited the fear and ignorance of the American people in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

Pat Buchanan from The American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/buchanan.html

Richard Clarke
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6320.htm

All above, except for Fisk, Republicans/Conservaties

Sometimes I don't know why I bother.:rolleyes:

On a sidenote, I love the way sirhamish uses the internet. Most of us just use sports/hobby sites but he's constantly providiing me with good knowledge sites. Cheers sirhamish

Now back to the debate (or whats left of it...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Between 100,000 and 250,000 Iraqis civilians have been killed in Iraq by Bush and his cronies. If we're gonna play the numbers game remember that. A British medical body - can't recall the name just now - said several months ago that 100,000 civilian killed was a conservative number. ]
That's from a war initiated by a right wing so-called Christian President and his neo-con cronies who cherry picked dodgy (at best) data to create "proofs" for this illegal obscenity.

Fundamentalists of any religion must be resisted with vigour and honesty. They are a cancer and corruption on any society.

---

But to be fair Hamish he is a heretic :D
I do endorse your last sentence wholeheartedly.

one of the dangerous aspects of Islam is that it transcends national borders.
For example hardly any of the Taliban regime were Afghanis. Now I don't know about you but I would rather be governed by Irish people than a Catholic from overseas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

But to be fair Hamish he is a heretic :D
I do endorse your last sentence wholeheartedly.

one of the dangerous aspects of Islam is that it transcends national borders.
For example hardly any of the Taliban regime were Afghanis. Now I don't know about you but I would rather be governed by Irish people than a Catholic from overseas!

---

Bush is a fool. Doubt if he could spell heretic. Look at the way he says "nuke-yull -'r:D

I think your last sentence was in jest but I reckoned we've moved on from Papal orders - "orders which must be obeyed at all times". :D

BTW fundamentalist Christians are causing serious problems in the UK too. I see where quite a few schools are teaching Creationism. Reg Vardy (the Middlesboro sponsor) is building schools which are state schools really and I watched an interview with a headmaster of one of them last week who believes the bible literally. The kids are now quoting the bible in state science exams and failing as a result.
Look at all the UK channels on Sky which have these fundamentalist nuts. Saw one last night which proudly prclaimed that In Georgia, Florida and others that the Bible is now a core book for History and English classes - kids have no choice when enlisting - the Bible has to be included.
On the Revelation channel last night, the owner/Host was whinging about foreign "skivers" coming to the UK to get free houses. This channel also has frequent "scientists" debunking Darwinism and "prooving" Craetionism.
Much of this is Tony Blair's fault.
I occasionally watch these programmes - know your enemy and all that.
The Isam channel on Sky has the same kind of stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

On a sidenote, I love the way sirhamish uses the internet. Most of us just use sports/hobby sites but he's constantly providiing me with good knowledge sites. Cheers sirhamish

---

Thank you so much Dodge - I try my best and nobody is more trying than me:D Ask poor mypost, I'm always giving out to him but TBH I like the bloke.;) He gives it as good as he gets it which is fair and to be respected.

After Foot.ie, I now go to the Information Clearing House - it's a brilliant website with lots of good audio, video and text information on the world. TBF it's a left of centre website but it also includes many right wing viewpoints too like the ones I showed in the above post.

I see, today, on BBC text that an Iraqi politician has said that the country is in a state of undeclared civil war. After that horrors of (originally US backed) Saddam, that's some "liberation" eh?? From killings/maimings by Saddams thugs to killings/maimings from the new State's thugs. I'm sure the Iraqis are enjoying this new "liberation".
Tweedledee the Thug has been replaced by Tweedledum the Thug.

Israeli rockets kill Palestinian kids too.

Any wonder the Islamic world hates the West. Until the Israeli/Paletinian question is addressed and the US government puts more pressure on the Israeli government, the problem will never end. Of course, anyone who says that is imediately labelled anti-Semitic. Didin't Fisk say Arabs are also Semitic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

Sums up my thoughts on the subject pretty well.:cool:

Islam certainly doesn't have the monopoly in this respect, as history has proved.

---

I lved through some Catholic fundamentalism times back in the 50s and 60s Gonzo - maybe not violent but unpleasant nevertheless.

BTW where does the word Gonzo come from?? I've heard it used in various areas but not sure of it's origins.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Big difference between despising and hating.

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Your post, given the mess Iraq is in, is the hysterical one, competely out of la-la land.

---

I gave you one source to emphasise my post, I don't need to provide 20-odd one-sided bleeding heart viewpoints, found on a left-wing website I may add, to the contrary.

Quote:

---

What the fcuk "liberation" are you raving about???

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Shi-ite death squads operating within the police force and army.

---

Which apparantly, is GB's fault.

Quote:

---

Sunni death squads replying in kind.

---

Which apparantly, is GB's fault.

Quote:

---

Ethnic cleansing, not only from Shi-ite to Sunni and vice versa but also non-Kurds from Kirdish areas.

---

Which is also apparantly, GB's fault.

Quote:

---

A "government" which has no power outside the Green Zone.

---

It is a government, democratically elected by the Iraqi people, no matter what you think of it.

Quote:

---

Check out Robert Fisk's lecture about the death tolls.

---

:D

There's more chance of me using second-hand bogroll, than reading the Al-Qaeda recruiting material that he, and others like him, write. Ffs ,there's more balance in the anti-war Evening Herag!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I gave you one source to emphasise my post, I don't need to provide 20-odd one-sided bleeding heart viewpoints, found on a left-wing website I may add, to the contrary.

---

Mypost, ambassador of La-La land, the sources I posted above, yes, were from Information Clearing House, BUT were all, except, for Robert Fisk, REPUBLICAN and NEO-CONS and CIA people - so, cut out the the hypocricy about the website. You're jst attacking the messenger - read the posts.
As for Fisk, smearing him whilest producing absolutely ZERO evidence to counteract his opinions is really dumb. He has lived in the Middle East for years and knows in his little finger more about the events there than any smear merchants like you will ever know.
If you refuse to read the right wing viewpoints and use bland, shallow put downs then you are condemned to wallow in your own self imposed ignorance and not to be taken seriously.

People voted but they have no government - everyone sees that except you. Yet you persist in this shallow "democratically elected" - WTF does that mean? Why do you deny the real evidence on RTE, BBC and every goddamn media source that Iraq is in a mess, hasn't had a workable government since the election. What part of "Government controlled death squads" do you not understand?

Yes, you're right - the ponts you quoted are Bush the Fool (and his cronies) fault. The US was warned that Iraq would prove to be a mess before they attacked and they didn't listen. Cheney said they would be welcomed as liberators with flowers and he also said the insurgency is in its last throes.:rolleyes: Rumsfeld is held in contempt by the army he mismanaged and only Bubble Boy's support has kept him in position.

Now, when you refuse to even read what the Neo-cons and Republicans say then I can't take your fantasy soundbites seriously anymore.
Go educate yourself - outside Newsmax - read a few books, check out the web/media and then I'll debate you.
Otherwise I'm just wasting my time trying to have dialogue with a right wing parrott echoing shallow and meaningless right wing soundbites. - ie "bleeding heart liberal" - so old fashioned even the Tories are embarrassed by that term and do you really understand what it means anyway? I doubt it.
There's more to democracy than sticking a finger in dye - you have to have free, not theocracy-run parties with their own private armies and politicians who can run the country - y'know provide clean water, electricity etc.

As for the words you're confused about - get a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

Was thinking of Catholic (& Christian*) fundamentalism of many centuries past.......

*IMHO, 'Protestant' fundamentalism in the last 100 years or so(& to a lesser extent since its 'creation'), has equalled anything put out by their RC contemporaries.

---

Hi Gonzo - replying to three of your posts. I was really referring to my time in that 50s 60s period and the memories I have of those days. Yeah, the right wing evangelicals are unbelievable - if you have the Sky set up - check out the religion part and have a listen to some of the preachers - you get the usual ACLU bashing sh!te along with a load of other crap- along with numerous requests for donations.:D

Yeah, when the folks who try to argue their bland and stupid viewpoints won't even read/watch/listen to the Republicans, Neo-Cons and CIS people what can you do?? It's a waste of time really but sometimes you have to keep trying..........and learning..... which they refuse to do.
Typical of Bush supporters, they live in a black/white world, everything's either 100% evil or 100% good, people vote and that's democracy without any reference to all the other parts of what democracy entails, and on and on and on. Parrot...parrot...........parrot.............

As I said, you can't argue with parrots. They revel in their simplistic jargon with out having a notion what it means but, it's safe and probably brings them comfort of a sort in this complex world we live in.

Thanks also for the Gonzo bit - I had the idea that it was a term used for the beatnick artists and folks like Hunter Thompson and so on.I believe it also refers to a type of adult entertainment too.:eek: :D

From the BBC website today - an interesting article on Islam and Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4750320.stm

also from todays BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4885550.stm

"There is another concern - which has become even more pressing after the upsurge in sectarian strife in the past six weeks - that large parts of the new police force are in effect under the control of Shia militias.
An attractive salary means there is no shortage of volunteers
Reports of 'death squads' wearing police or other official uniforms have become more and more common, particularly in Baghdad."

From Salon.com

Since the Iraqi elections in January, U.S. Foreign Service officers at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad have been writing a steady stream of disturbing cables describing drastically worsening conditions, say State Department officials who have seen them. Violence from incipient communal civil war is rapidly rising. Last month, there were eight times as many assassinations committed by Shiite militias as terrorist murders by Sunni insurgents. The insurgency, according to the cables, also continues to mutate. Meanwhile, President Bush's strategy of training the Iraqi police and army to take over from coalition forces -- "When they stand up, we'll stand down" -- is perversely and portentously accelerating the strife. State Department officials in the field report that Shiite militias use training as cover to infiltrate key positions. Thus the strategy to create institutions of order and security is fueling civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

the sources I posted were from Information Clearing House, BUT were all, REPUBLICAN and NEO-CONS and CIA people.

---

So, a left-wing website puts anti-war views from right-wingers on their website by chance now, do they?? :rolleyes: There are those in the Republican party who do express reservations about the coalition's presence in Iraq, and indeed there is substance behind some of their views. But that is akin to the left here, running a compilation of Fianna Fail/PD TD's gaffes on their party websites. There are plenty of them to choose from too. It's a PR coup, and should be seen as such.

Quote:

---

As for Fisk, smearing him whilest producing absolutely ZERO evidence to counteract his opinions.

---

You really start to tear your hair out when you read quotes like this. :o Ffs, Fisk may as well have a neon "anti-war" sign emblazoned on his forehead. He doesn't write opinions or articles, everything from his pen is an anti-war/Bush/USA rant, delete as applicable.

Quote:

---

Why do you deny the real evidence on RTE, BBC and every goddamn media source that Iraq is in a mess.

---

They're neutral now, are they? The BBC who once described a terrorist attack in Iraq as being carried out by "rebels", and when American troops promptly carried out a raid on suspects the next day, they were described by the same network as "gunmen". Read between the lines.

Quote:

---

Yes, you're right - the ponts you quoted are Bush the Fool (and his cronies) fault.

---

No it's not. :rolleyes:

Latest rant over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhamish

BTW where does the word Gonzo come from?? I've heard it used in various areas but not sure of it's origins.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

So, a left-wing website puts anti-war views from right-wingers on their website by chance now, do they?? :rolleyes: There are those in the Republican party who do express reservations about the coalition's presence in Iraq, and indeed there is substance behind some of their views. But that is akin to the left here, running a compilation of Fianna Fail/PD TD's gaffes on their party websites. There are plenty of them to choose from too. It's a PR coup, and should be seen as such.


You really start to tear your hair out when you read quotes like this. :Ffs, Fisk may as well have a neon "anti-war" sign emblazoned on his forehead. He doesn't write opinions or articles, everything from his pen is an anti-war/Bush/USA rant, delete as applicable.


They're neutral now, are they? The BBC who once described a terrorist attack in Iraq as being carried out by "rebels", and when American troops promptly carried out a raid on suspects the next day, they were described by the same network as "gunmen". Read between the lines.


No it's not. :rolleyes:

Latest rant over.

---

1. Google Kevin Phillips, Larry Wilkerson and the others I mentioned and you won't have to go to that awful, awful so-called left website. You're argument is a cop-out. If one of the brains behind the neo-cons, Fukuyama, states that Iraq was a mistake and a mess, the you haven't a leg to stand on. Ditto the others I mentioned here. We're talking people who were involved in the theory and application of the whole shebang - not a few "out on a limb" Republicans here. If these crucial and central folks admit their mistakes, then why do you continue to parrot an already lost argument?? If you think this is just a PR coup, then that just illuminates how shallow your arguments are.

Once again, no substance to your argument against Fisk - just labelling. Check out his comparison between the original mess the Brits cause in the regions which became Iraq and the current situation - frightening similarities from an historical point of view. But if you just want to label and smear then go ahead, that's all you got. which is precisely nothing.

When I see the BBC and co labelled in such fashion the I despair. That argument is straight out of the Fox "News"/Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/Michale Savage and co. playbook. If the US army are calling the insurgents, well, "insurgents" and "rebels" and "gunmen" the what's your beef with the BBC and the other media? If the US is negotiating with some of these insurgents, as they are at the moment, then why are you shooting (no pun intended) the messenger. It's always the media's fault isn't it?? FFS:rolleyes:

You're right. Bush and co. didn't initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, didn't take note of several warnings as to the mess that was gonna happen. If you believe Bush the Fool and his cronies are not responsible for initiating the mess, then you're in the land of Oz.

As I said, I'll take your arguments seriously when you read what the CIA, Neo-Cons and Republicans have to say because I read the Media Research Centre, Brent Bozell, William Kristol and all the other right wing stuff every day along with their opponents. So, at least, I can balance my opinions with both sides of the story.

Even super neo-con William (Bill) Kristol - one of the original PNAC people - has expressed dismay over the Iraq mess. When your top guys are putting the boot in, then you're in trouble so it's no just the same as the FF etc scenario you mentioned. You don't need to go to a "left" website to learn the truth.

EVERY poll in the US has Bush in the mid-30s regarding Iraq - even the Fox "News" ones. He blew it when his "protector of the people" image was blasted over Katrina as well as Iraq. Republicans standing for the House and Senate are keeping him as far away as they can from fund raising events as they can because he's a damage factor to them getting re-elected.
Throw in the Tom Delay, Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Liddy scandals - among many, many others - and we have a party riddled with corruption.

Fact is, Bush the Fool was a failure in every business he was involved in, he left Texas 9 billions in debt when he ended his Governorship there, he has the US at near financial breaking point with trillions of dollars debt - everything he touches, like an anti-Midas - turns to sh!t.

When you read the other side of the argument (as I have), mypost, then I'll have dialogue with you - otherwise I can't have a debate with a parrot and label-mesiter.

You've brought nothing of substance to the table. Face it.

While I'm at it and since this thread is named "Islam", I've been checking out a few blogs from Baghdad over the last few months - blogs from Islamic men and women. There are more than the famous Salem Pax aka The Baghdad Blogger who's occasionally to be viewed on BBC2 Newsnight.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Some quotes from the above - think it's a girl that writes it.

وزارة الدفاع تدعو المواطنين الى عدم الانصياع لاوامر دوريات الجيش والشرطة الليلية اذا لم تكن برفقة قوات التحالف العاملة في تلك المنطقة
The translation:
“The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area.”
That’s how messed up the country is at this point.

But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can’t even trust its own personnel, unless they are “accompanied by American coalition forces”.

Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.

School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve

Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.

Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year)


The above from a girl living In Baghdad - no left, no right, no spin, just a person living there. Amazing how her points match Fisk's analysis exactly. Just shows how much he knows of the situation - but then he's been there many times - outside the Green Zone too, at the mortuaries and hispitals- unlike the bullsh!tters who knock him.

Some more blogs from Iraqis still living there - if one could call it living
Some comments and pictures contained in some of them may cause distress

http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/

http://usmistakes.blogspot.com/

http://americansoniraq.blogspot.com/

While I'm at it and since this thread is named "Islam", I've been checking out a few blogs from Baghdad over the last few months - blogs from Islamic men and women. There are more than the famous Salem Pax aka The Baghdad Blogger who's occasionally to be viewed on BBC2 Newsnight.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Some quotes from the above - think it's a girl that writes it.

وزارة الدفاع تدعو المواطنين الى عدم الانصياع لاوامر دوريات الجيش والشرطة الليلية اذا لم تكن برفقة قوات التحالف العاملة في تلك المنطقة
The translation:
“The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area.”
That’s how messed up the country is at this point.

But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can’t even trust its own personnel, unless they are “accompanied by American coalition forces”.

Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.

School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve

Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.

Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year)


The above from a girl living In Baghdad - no left, no right, no spin, just a person living there. Amazing how her points match Fisk's analysis exactly. Just shows how much he knows of the situation - but then he's been there many times - outside the Green Zone too, at the mortuaries and hispitals- unlike the bullsh!tters who knock him.

Some more blogs from Iraqis still living there - if one could call it living
Some comments and pictures contained in some of them may cause distress - or embarrassment for those who don't want to know the truth

http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/

http://usmistakes.blogspot.com/

http://americansoniraq.blogspot.com/
Interesting comment from a US soldier in this one

http://iraqdemo.blogspot.com/

A Kurdish blog with those cartoons
http://kardox.blogspot.com/

There are loads of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RDBloomfield

MP & Bush apologists, you've lost this thread, 'hook, line and sinker' to Sir H. He's come up with sites, Google didn't know about, FFS.
Bush & his cohorts are scum of the highest order and deserve all they get for invading other people's countries.:mad:

---

Thank you so much RDB for your kind thoughts - it gives me no pleasure, though, to berate anyone but, having read opinions from the left, right and centre, I have a dreadful fear that this crisis - or these crises - will magnify and engulf so many of us on this little orb and mostly because the people who have the power - however transient that power is - and those who mindlessly support them - refuse to use historical context and/or let reality intrude into their decisions.
From a selfish point of view, if the US goes down - militarily and economically (they're both intrinsically linked) WE go down to. Maybe not as much in the past 'cos we have a thin veneer of protection from the Euro but an imploding US will cause devastating consequences for much of this planet.
The US thumbs its nose at the (admittedly flawed) Kyoto agreement, International Court, Geneva convention (see also the UK's John Reid's comments last week?), the United Nations plus the US is also diluting freedom in its own media, internal spying on even groups like the Quakers and growing underclass poverty are other areas where the implosion is happening.

I reckon there might be one way the Mullahs of Iran and their puppet Prime Minister could score a huge diplomatic victory here - let them say, "OK, we'll give the IAEA complete and permanent access to our nuclear facilities, You can video and record everything, go anywhere at anytime, no restrictions of any kind".
What then could Bush and co. do about it?? The big problem the US has is The Iranian Burse with euros as its base - that's what's scares the US regime sh!tless because it starts to impact drastically on the dollar. Already Saudia Arabia, China, Russia and India have said that they are giving great consideration to The Iranian Burse. Remember, Saddam proposed the same course of action with regard to the Iraqi oil - trading in euros. With the dollar on life support now since Nixon's time and the decisions he made on the dollar, it wouldn't take a lot for devastating consequences to happen to the US economy if the euro gains even more strength.
So it's nothing to do, really, with an Iranian bomb, as Clinton (or someone connected to him) said, "It's the economy, stupid".
The Mullahs own hubris is equally as infuriating as the US hubris here. The Israelis are also making the situation worse too with their bellicose statements matching the Iranian PM ignorant uttering. I mean, what is the only Middle Eastern country with The Bomb?? Why, Israel, of course. And the US is hog-tied to them financially and militarily.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...237839,00.html

which links with..............

US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would "use military might" if necessary to defend Israel.
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace," the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.
"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.

God help us all and the Iranian civilians in particular, if the US and/or Israel launch uranium-coated "bunker busters" against Iranian targets. The worldwide consequences will be devastating.:(