Why Do You Oppose Promoting Liberty and Tolerance in Iraq? - Page 2  

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

That should stop when we leave. Our presence and misguidedness there has caused this, not the Iraqi people. In fact it started in the first days after we entered Baghdad and dismantled Saddam's Baath Party, removing all Baath Party members from positions of authority. The CIA station chief in Baghdad warned the administration that the action will drive up to 50,000 people underground. They ignored that and many other signals that without security in place, the whole country would implode. It did. The acts of violence has abated due to some elements of the Surge, but mainly because of Al Sadr's militia standing down from aggressions toward the US and toward other religious factions.

Though the government is corrupt, and the religious/domestic situation is still tenuous, I believe that if we leave (includes military bases) as soon as the Iraqi army and security forces are ready, the better for Iraq to rebuild themselves.

The longer we stay there, the longer the resentment and violence (which begets fear) that comes with it.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

That star chart makes it look like Gemini and Orion are playing volleyball with Mars!



God help GW Bush, because he needs serious help, and may God protect the world from this lunatic until he gets out of office.


"I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, 'This is what we're going to do.'" --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

I'm atheist so I can't really call on God or god or anything else, but ya'll get the point.

Have a nice holiday... only one more with Bush in the WH.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Broad, ambiguous statements are you're forte when you have no clue what you're talking about, eh?



"Intrigue"? You must mean the Mossad or the CIA's entanglements. The more the merrier. I recall our "occupation" in Beruit didn't fair out too well either.



We, unfortunately have planted those bad seeds into the Iraqi government. Therefore a tenuous lack of trust and support from the Iraqi people. But yes, hopefully the Iraqi people, with every next election will have the chance to vote out those bad seeds. As long as they don't use Diebold machines.

Awakening Councils by Region

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ALISSA J. RUBIN and STEPHEN FARRELL
Published: December 22, 2007

At the heart of the American militarys counterinsurgency campaign and a large part of its success has been the expansion of the Awakening Councils, groups of Sunnis, some of them former militants themselves, who have bonded together to fight the most violent of the Sunni insurgents.

These groups are known by many names including: Awakening Councils, Concerned Local Citizens and Iraqi Sunni Volunteers; in Arabic they are known as Sahwas.

As of Dec. 10, 2007, the Americans had signed up 73,397 men, according to the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Of those, about 65,000 are receiving monthly salaries from the American military of $300; a few who are leaders, receive slightly more. The remaining 9,000 men are being vetted or are not yet on active duty in their neighborhoods. Those numbers do not reflect an additional 23,000 who have already been added to the police force in the western province of Anbar.

The groups are active in eight provinces with more than half the total in Baghdad . The vast majority are Sunnis, but in mixed areas like the towns south of Baghdad and in areas of Diyala there are some Shiite members, who number 6,000 across the country.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

I look forward to seeing peace, law and order breaking out across Iraq, as I hope, we all do. Should such a scenario turn out to be a reality, it would be a result of Iraqis of all factions realizing that the only way forward is to quit attacking each other; the last 4 years has surely has proven to all sides (except the most stubborn and perhaps those making good money from militancy), that violence offers no short, medium or long term solution of any kind.

At that point, there will be no viable reason for US troops to stay in Iraq, and our mealy-mouthed politicians will finally be able to pull the plug on an operation which will have cost the US taxpayers in excess of $1 trillion, and will have achieved precisely nothing at the very best.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Wow a massive unprovoked attack on Iraq sure sounds like a bad thing, dunnit?

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Anybody who has followed the news over the past couple of years with an open mind would know that that did not happen.

Sorry, but GW screwed up big time and we will be paying for his errors for many years to come, not just financially.

The United States has not done an adequate job of explaining to the American people, to its allies overseas and, most important, to the people of Iraq and of the broader Islamic world what we are fighting for in Iraq and what we hope to achieve there. Nature abhors a vacuum, and insurgents love one; they have filled the airwaves and the Internet with their versions of the truth and have found willing listeners worldwide. In the words of the defense secretary, "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government, has not."

By Lt. Col. John A. Nagl

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/08/1931298

Originally Posted by jimmac

1. Psst! I hate to tell you but pretty conclusive evidence shows he was already disarmed.

2. That's not an absolute. It's just speculation on your part.

3. Oil that's not ours for the taking.

4. Yeah it's really keeping the price down isn't it?

5. Now we just have open violence.

6. We don't know that was happening or going to happen. Now we've heard reports that terrorists are more interested not less.

7. You know this was going to happen how?

8. All we are planting is distrust and uncooperation with the U. S.

9. Oh Please!

10. Same response as 9.

What a crock!

Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/The_Lit...ook_1_01.Islam

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Ayatollah Khomeini

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Unmentioned by ABC, how maybe the Bush administration believed there was a bin Laden-Saddam connection because they believed ABC News. In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. MacVicar trumpeted how ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.

The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right. In the book, Hayes recited numerous pieces of evidence of how Iraq and al-Qaeda had a mutually beneficial relationship. Heres an excerpt from the Weekly Standards book excerpt in which Hayes recounted how the media assumed such a relationship, based on information provided by Clinton administration officials:

There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

....NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

Originally Posted by tonton

As soon as she stopped disagreeing with him.

Just like Iraq. We'll stop bombing them and killing them as soon as they agree to our form of democracy, with close ties to our government which includes preferential petroleum trade arrangements. It's all the Iraqis' faults, don't you see?

Likewise. before she stopped arguing with him, his wife's bruises and that broken nose were her fault too. But after those three months in the hospital, she finally learned to stop opposing peace and cooperation within their marriage.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

I'm not disputing that the tensions in Iraq have waned. My reasons were stated (they made you laugh). Anyway, I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the term or action described as you stated above ("Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War") seriously. You're a neo-con ln.

Additionally...

FP: So what is new about the new ideological school?

Phares: In short, the ideological school that emerged under the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeini has been calling in modern times for the resuming of the "old Jihad." They seek the reestablishment of the Caliphate (Salafists) or establish an Imamate (Khomeinists). This means a relentless campaign to destroy 21 Arab and 51 Muslim Governments as we know today to replace them with an "empire" stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans.

So today's Jihad (as perceived by the Jihadists) is an unstoppable, non negotiable, and relentless campaign to achieve these goals. But while the Jihad of the 7th and 15th centuries was a conflict phenomenon in contemporary historical stages, and while religious wars were practiced by many other nations and civilizations from their own theological perspective, the Jihadists' "Jihad" of 20th and 21st centuries is in full contradiction with all aspects of international law and principles.

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

mojo,

you, sir, and with all due respect, are an idiot.

yours,

hardeeharhar

the nature of Islamic history tells the practical observer that the green swath of Islam isn't one region of one religious mind. but it takes a truly uniformed tool of the highest order to believe that any region of that size ANYWHERE would create a one-minded state bent on world domination. Hell, we can't even do that in the US.

I. 1
Islam as a Revolutionary Religion

1/1/0001

Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism.

Our one and only remedy is to bring down these corrupt and corrupting systems of government, and to overthrow the traitorous, repressive, and despotic gangs in charge. This is the duty of Muslims in all Islamic countries; this is the way to victory for all Islamic revolutions.

Muslims have no alternative, if they wish to correct the political balance of society, and force those in power to conform to the laws and principles of Islam, to an armed Jihad against profane governments.

Though you may not have the means to prevent heresy or fight corruption, nevertheless, you must not remain silent. If they hit you in the head, protest! Resigning yourself to oppression is more immoral than oppression itself. Argue, denounce, oppose, shout. Spread the truth that Islamic justice is not what they say it is.

Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories. Such a war may well be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of that name, at the direction of the Imam or under his orders. It will then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Quranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. But the whole world should understand that the universal supremacy of Islam is considerably different from the hegemony of other conquerors. It is therefore necessary for the Islamic government first to be created under the authority of the Imam in order that he may undertake this conquest, which will be distinguishable from all other wars of conquest, which are unjust and tyrannical and disregard the moral and civilizing principles of Islam.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Time to expand yours...

and...July 18, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Lesson over.

Issue 124 , July 2006
It's the Islamism, stupid
by Peter Nolan

Robert Pape suggests that nationalism explains suicide bombings better than Islamism. He should take fundamentalist ideology more seriously

Peter Nolan is a London-based investment analyst and director of the Freedom Institute, an Irish think-tank. Patrick Belton is a journalist completing a doctorate at Oxford

A year after 52 Londoners were killed by four suicide bombers, we are no closer to reaching a consensus on why the attacks happened. Were they simply the work of evil men, or were they the inevitable consequence of Britain’s involvement in Iraq? The latest attempt to explain the phenomenon of suicide bombing comes in “Dying to Win” by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

Pape’s contribution is twofold: to translate latter-day suicide terrorism into conventional territorial military struggle; and to claim that campaigns by different organisations may be subsumed for explanation under one colossal theory. Based on data taken from 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003, he argues that, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”

He contends that nationalism rather than Islamism should be understood as the driving motive behind suicide bombings. Religious differences may exacerbate mistrust between occupiers and occupied and provide mobilising symbols, but are not in themselves the main motivation. In addition to its well-known fundamentalist manifestation, suicide terrorism is used by secular Lebanese and Palestinian groups, as well as the Marxist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The flaw in Pape’s analysis, particularly in regard to al Qaeda, is that he never takes fundamentalist ideology and the effect it has on groups like al Qaeda's operational choice towards suicide bombings as seriously as the bombers do themselves.

“It is a battle of ideologies, a struggle for survival and a war with no truce,” al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, wrote in his book “Knights under the Prophet’s Banner.” Bin Laden’s statements show that his vision goes far beyond limited war, or a game of diplomatic chess of the sort realists find most familiar. Instead, he offers a view of an all-embracing conflict over the forms and legitimacy of the state, with him very much at odds with liberal democracy. The collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 showed the “myth of the great America and the myth of democracy.” “They claim,” he said, “[democracy] has improved things by letting people play the game of elections, as in Yemen, Jordan or Egypt… regardless of the fact that it is forbidden to abide by polytheistic laws."

Pape argues that al Qaeda, like Hamas and Hizbullah, operates with widespread public support. But does this not imply that a substantial portion of British and European Muslims have widely supported its atrocities? In reality, the London bombers and the leaders of the 9/11 plot operated without the knowledge or consent of their families or local communities. Instead of the call of the nation, in each case a sub-culture devoted to jihad was powerful enough to take the attackers away from their parents, wives and children, and this radicalisation inevitably happens in isolation from wider society. Funds, weapons and volunteers from abroad, from al Qaeda and Iran in particular, are often available to suicide terrorists, bypassing the need for local support.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

One argument from an investment analyst. Let me know when he's studied political science and international relations.

Oh, look at this!

Freedom Institute Liquidated

Even at the time, Mr. Pape's thesis which, I must say in all fairness, I am familiar with from the reviews of it, not from reading "Dying To Win" itself struck me as being highly dubious. For one thing, the argument that half of the 462 suicide bombers investigated were "secular" because they belonged to nonreligious organizations like Fatah or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as opposed to Hamas or Islamic Jihad, demonstrated an ignorance of Palestinian and Muslim society, in which the pertinent distinction is rarely between "religious" and "not religious," but rather between "more religious" and "less religious." A totally secular Muslim who professes disbelief in Islam the way secular Jews and Christians express disbelief in Judaism and Christianity would be almost as rare a bird in Fatah as in Hamas.

Secondly, Mr. Pape never really addressed the question of why, if you are just another freedom fighter, you would be so anxious to blow yourself up with your enemies rather than kill them while seeking to survive in order to kill more of them another day. The same "secular" Palestinian who commits suicide in an Israeli café or bus could just as well, after all, plant the bomb and leave before it explodes, or rake his targets with gunfire and try to escape, as a member of an ordinary resistance group would do. The whole point of a suicide bomber, on the other hand, is not to escape, but to die a martyr's death. In religious terms, this makes sense: The martyr goes to heaven and is blessed there. But what sense does it make in secular terms?

True, Iraq is currently occupied by American forces, which might at first glance appear to support his theory, yet few of the Iraqi suicide bombings have been aimed at American troops. Nearly all of them have been carried out by Sunnis against Shiites who, far from being foreign invaders, are 60% of Iraq's population, but who happen to be, from a Sunni point of view, religious heretics.

Can murdering Shiite pilgrims on their way to a religious shrine be construed, by any stretch of the imagination, as a form of resistance to the American occupation of Iraq? Or detonating a car bomb in a Shiite market in Baghdad with two children left inside the car to allay suspicion? Is there any possible "secular" explanation of such acts? Indeed, even in religious terms, there is only one way of understanding them: as predicated on the belief that God desires the death of heretics and that whoever kills them is doing God's will and will be rewarded, the sooner the better, with the bliss of paradise after his death.

And if this is true of suicide bombings in Iraq, there is good reason to reject Mr. Pape's theories about them elsewhere in the Muslim world.

It might be comforting to think that if only Israel and America and a few other countries left the poor Muslims alone, there would be no more suicide bombs to worry about.

"...the parents of the two children dispatched to heaven from the back seat of an Iraqi car last week will tell you."

Originally Posted by iPoster

I'm just curious if Mojo has seen this movie yet?

Probably not, since he's so busy giving G.W. a handjob...

Originally Posted by jimmac

Really quite delusional aren't you?

Or maybe just full of yourself?

Let's just take number 2 for example. It's their country and their oil. Don't they have the right to sell or not sell to anyone they choose? It seems to me that choice has been taken out of the equation.

As to the rest of your reasoning it also is entirely subjectve.

Psst.! I just couldn't resist so I thoght we should look at number 1. When we found out that we were wrong about Saddam's WMD we should have stopped right there. Moreover we shouldn't have invaded because there were many people pointing out beforehand that they didn't buy the WMD theory!

I say again what a crock!

Originally Posted by segovius

Just as an amusing note on the moronic stupidity of our wingnut brown-noses - basically they don't know anything about their subject and have to copy and paste from the 'thinkers' they suck up to.

Unfortunately, these 'thinkers' are, if anything, even more stupid and this can sometimes lead to hilarious results - the infamous Mojo 'Bhutto head of PKK' gaffe would be one classic of this type.

You would think someone so obsessed with a subject would actually learn about it - or at least know something but, alas, 'tis not so.

In the lunacy above re Khomeini we have more comedy gold - the 'Little Green Book' is not even a work of Khomeini...it is written by Qaddaffi.

The version referenced above has no known existence apart from the 'translator' Irving - who, as far as is known does not actually speak Farsi apparently (though Qaddafi wrote in Arabic) - and is not known to exist amongst Khomeni's sayings. All of which are collected and some of which are far, far worse than these.

Of course wingers - being generally uneducated - would not know this and that's probably why they need to make stuff up.

When you are weak
----------------------------

1. Remember that when you are weak that you should blend in and very, very few people need to be aware of the objectives and the methods. The mass of the population does not need to know and should not know that there is a plan. Remember yours is a religion of peace. At this point you want everyone to believe you are a peaceful and productive part of society, especially Muslims themselves.
The Reliance of the Traveller (section r-8.2) by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri an analysis of the permissibility / obligation of lying by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali wrote:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.




5. Build the proper mind set, in both Muslims and Non-Muslims, slowly and carefully. Very slowly assume control of sources of information and education (religious and secular).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...madrassas.html

Make sure the seed for Shariah is well implanted, as a long term solution for problems, so you have fertile ground to call for it once you do have the power to pursue it openly. Get your version of the truth out to the public. Tailor your presentation of Islam to the locals. Are they educated, impoverished, picked upon for their beliefs, or have common issues? New histories: always the attacked, never the unprovoked attacker. Become the spokes-people for the communities. Coordinate opposition to dissemination of information that runs counter to your goals.
http//www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/464ijlvz.asp

In "Islam's flawed spokesmen" the author investigates American Muslim groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Muslim Council (AMC). He notes that the news media and government are:
Quote:
learning it's not easy to find leaders who can authentically speak for Muslim Americans, who represent a wide variety of ethnicities and languages, sects and political views ranging from completely secular to Islamic fundamentalist.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ims/index.html

As a result of this confusion, active groups like CAIR and AMC, which are considered by some law enforcement groups as being part of the terrorism problem, are given too much credibility, money, and power.

6. Hiding in plain sight. Setup multi-function organizations. The public face can be for business, charity, education, or religion. The private faces can be used to advance your cause. Prepare your "their not real Muslims", plausible deniability, and "they were attacked" defence strategies. Note goodwill can be traded for changes in behavior.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ism000216.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...379270,00.html
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=965#965


As you get stronger
-----------------------------

1. Start raising issues regarding the difficulties the country places on practicing your religion. Work for increasing exemptions from various laws, protection from "hate speech", and tolerance of your "cultural /
religious" differences.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/hijabgermany.htm
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=2794#2794
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=3641#3641
http://www.dennisprager.com/articles...ow/fallaci.htm

2. Begin solidifying your control of the Muslim community. Use various forms of intimidation to ensure that people are moving in the desired direction and to silence dissent. Everyone, including Muslims, still believe that Muslims are peaceful, it's just a few fanatics who are misbehaving. Any push back should be highlighted in the media and community discussion as Muslims are being unfairly attacked, once again. Remember to play upon your "history" of being a persecuted people.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/m...6029-2,00.html

3. Study the opposition's resources, looking for opportunities to leverage them. Begin de-stabilizing the opposition. Start draining their resources and their belief in themselves. Encourage drug / prostitution activity, using their own people to promote it. They're only kafirs after all. As the opposition becomes unstable they are less able to help people in trouble. This provides opportunities for your charity organization to build support.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Wake up you f*cking idiot.

Proof that suicide attacks are nationalist in motivation has happened.

Wake up you fool. The elephant in the room has stirred.

You wanted "jihad"? Well you got it, where you least expected (or ignored it).

Fool. End of feeding you, troll.