Monday, July 04, 2005

Searching

Yesterday at 8:00 PM, I was in my way home from my clinic, I met four strykers in the opposite direction, when the first one became behind me it cross over the curb in between the two streets and stopped behind me the last one did the same and stopped about 100 m in front of me. There were only about 10 cars in the street including mine. An American soldier shout from over one of the strykers in broken Arabic "get out of the cars" .
All the drivers and the passengers left their cars and stood on the side waiting for the next step. Many soldiers came out of the strykers, some of them stood in front of us with their guns pointed to our chest other started searching the cars. I was very close to the commander of the group who asked me to open the rear box, I answered him in English "It is opened", "you speak English" he asked me, "Yes" I answered him, he asked me several other general questions, maily about the life in Mosul, he looked very happy to find someone who speaks English. He was really very polite and so was his group. I returned home late telling the family what happened to me.

Early in the morning today we awoke on a far away sound of loud speakers, I get out to the street to hear what it was. The sound get closer and it was saying:"To all the people in the neighborhood, stay in your houses with their ID ready and open the doors for the collision troops for searching the houses. Don't panic it is a routine search. There were several accidents in this neighborhood, we look for the explosive devices."

I get back home awoke my daughters, to get ready to the inspection. I didn't go to the hospital, just call them by phone and told them that I can't come.

In front of our house there was a main hole for drainage system, this hole was closed by dirt and plastic bags, water started to accumulate in front of our house. I took some tools from the house and with the help of my next door neighbor we started to clean the dirt from the main hole. It took about 2 hours to finish our job as both of us are old and not expert in such work. When we finished the American also finished their job. They didn't search our houses. They left the neighborhood.

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Hitech Luddite said...

Sounds like yet another case where you had contact with the evil American soldiers but were treated with kindness and respect. I' sure it was scary the first few minuted when they made the move in the road to block the cars, but if you were faced with the problems they are you would make a strong first move too.

Hurria said...

So, to you such things merely being "polite", and having loudpeakers blaring at you to be prepared for a "routine" search of your house constitutes kindness and respect? I wonder how kind and respectful it would look to you if the shoe were on the other foot.

strykerdad said...

Truthteller, thank you for the honest account of your personal experience with our troops.

Hurria, all things considered I think I'd feel many things, but I'd feel fortunate that of the many possibilities, I would be grateful they were polite and respectful. And I'd hope they were successful in finding the people and material they sought so that the process by which those troops will ultimately go home can continue with the greatest speed and the least amount of violence possible.

waldschrat said...

I have a very hard time thinking of anybody who points a gun at me as "polite". Even so, I am glad this impression was conveyed.

I find the fact that the commander seemed glad to find somebody spoke english very interesting. The language barrier is important, I think.

I have to believe that someday peace will come to Mosul and things like what you have described in your post will be only memories. I hope that day comes soon. I know it is inconvenient and difficult and no fun at all, even if the soldiers trying to do these things make every effort to be polite.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

I can't stay long, as I am at work and our internet has been down since last Thursday and we are limping along on dial-up.

"..both of us are old.."

Truth Teller,

I am under the impression that you are in your 50's. That is NOT old.

I'm glad to hear that you had a decent experience with our troops. Unfortunately, because of the threat of IED's and car bombs such searches are necessary.

Take care.

Dean Esmay said...

As an American I have been pulled over and ordered out of my car through a loudspeaker by American police officers who were more rude to me than those soldiers were to you.

Do you think that if those had been Saddam's soldiers you would have been treated more kindly?

Hurria said...

Truth Teller merely said they were polite. All things considered, polite does not add up to either kind or respectful, let alone both, and the very actions to which Truth Teller and the others were subjected are inherently disrespectful and unkind no matter how politely the troops may have behaved toward anyone.

Hurria said...

"As an American I have been pulled over and ordered out of my car through a loudspeaker by American police officers who were more rude to me than those soldiers were to you."

As an American you have never had your country invaded, bombed to smithereens and taken over by a foreign power. As an American you have also not been pulled over by heavily armed, trigger happy soldiers with a track record of shooting first and asking questions later.

Maybe as an American you would benefit from having a taste of your own medicine. How about trading places with an Iraqi for a week, and see how you feel after that.

Hurria said...

"I find the fact that the commander seemed glad to find somebody spoke english very interesting."

I find it completely normal and expected behaviour.

"I have to believe that someday peace will come to Mosul and things like what you have described in your post will be only memories."

There WAS peace, and security, in Mosul until you came with your shock and awe death and destruction machines. There will be peace again when you leave.

"I know it is inconvenient and difficult and no fun at all"

Incovenient? Difficult? No fun at all? Waldschratt, I invite you to join Dean Esmay, and try it for a week, and see if after that you can still treat it so lightly.

strykerwife45 said...

Please explain to me Hurria how there was peace in Mosul when Saddam was in power.

Benoit Lapierre said...

hi from canada,
your blog is very interesting!

Dan said...

Hurriah:

Yes. Please explain how there was peace and security in Mosul under Saddam.

Explain how his mass murdering and torture and how his imprisonment of children was peace and security.

How was life under Saddam better than life now, Huriah?

---Dan

Dan said...

Also Hurriah:

Did you complain so loudly and boldly against Saddam Hussein and his henchmen BEFORE this 27-nation army came into your country?

---Dan

Bong said...

thanks for the blog man.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

What kind of government do you want for Iraq?
WHO should be in charge in Mosul and HOW should they rule?

---Dan

Truth teller said...

lynnette in minnisota

"I am under the impression that you are in your 50's. That is NOT old."

yes lynnette, I am 57 year old, my neighbor is in his 70. But I think the age is calculated in another way than simple counting years. We passed a very hard time in the past as well as in the present. I can say it was unbearable to ordinary people, but we are extra ordinary. Every year has the effect of a decade on us.

Hurria said...

Well, let's see now. Before March 19,2003 there were no foreign war planes dropping bombs on the city, no missiles landing on the city, no helicopters attacking, no tanks and humvees filled with heavily armed, trigger happy soldiers and marines rampaging up and down the streets, blowing away or running off the road anyone who could not get out of the way fast enough. There were no car bombings (except, of course, for the ones perpetrated in the '90's by CIA asset Iyad `Allawi), absolutely no suicide bombings, no roving bands of kidnappers and murderers for hire, rape was extremely rare, and there were no religious extremists beating, raping and killing women for not dressing right. Barbers were not being killed by religious extremists for offering shaves, or for giving the wrong kind of haircut, and stores selling liquor were not being firebombed.

Those are some of the way there was peace in Mosul when Saddam was in power.

Hurria said...

"What kind of government do you want for Iraq?"

An Iraqi one.

"WHO should be in charge in Mosul"

Iraqis.

"and HOW should they rule?"

Independently of any foreign power.

Hurria said...

"Explain how his mass murdering and torture and how his imprisonment of children was peace and security."

Explain how your bombs, and bullets and tanks and 3 AM home raids, and mass murdering and torture, and imprisonment of children is liberation.

"How was life under Saddam better than life now, Huriah?"

See my post above.

mark said...

hurria,

Your post shows a fairly selective reading of history, and includes a few falsifications.

Saddam and his thugs only needed to loose rampaging killers on parts of Iraq to murder some 300,000 innocent Iraqis, dump their corpses in mass graves, start pointless wars in which 1 million plus people died, set up prisons for rape and mass torture, pour chemical toxins on women and children, to maintain the conditions that you compare so favourably to present day Iraq.

Perhaps we should ask A Citizen of Mosul himself if he wishes for a return of Saddam in place of a democratically elected government, for the future of Iraq and its children.

We know which you would prefer, to your eternal shame.

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria-

The US Troops are not responsible for the men that shoot barbers for giving incorrect haircuts. Thats who are soliders are fighting againsts, yet you said before that that fighting is Iraqis fighting foreign occupation!

If our soliders leave do you think that those men that are trying to take so much control are going to just disappear?

If our troops are so hated there in Mosul and feared by the children then why are the soliders vehicles swarmed with children holding up their thumbs? Are these children being forced to look happy that these men and women are there?

If there is one thing I have learned in this life it is that you can't judge people just because they may belong to a certain group. Not every solider there is trigger-happy and not all Iraqis hate Americans and think that we are there to occupy them forever.

Why don't you stop contridicting yourself, Hurria? Are the men that are kidnapping and murdering and raping "Iraqi Freedom Fighters" against the occupation or terrorists that are there to do you harm?

Dan said...

Truth Teller:

I am sorry that yesterday was a bad day for you.

As you may know, July 4th is a national holiday in the United States.

Holidays are depressing times for me. I am a loner who has no spouse or children. As I come from a religious family and I am not religious, I have not spoken to or seen any of my living relatives since 1998 when they kicked me out of the family.

I sat here surfing the Internet and reading for most of the day and determined NOT to be the first to comment on your new blog entry.

I went downstairs and ate some of the food that the people in my building cooked for lunch. My next door neighbor, an American Indian, had barbequed the meat and cooked it too long so it was very dry. No one spoke to me.

I rode my bicycle downtown to watch the parade. It was very small with no marching bands and mostly children: Asians and Hispanics. That there were no bands puzzled me.

Later, around sunset, I rode across town to watch fireworks. I was almost arrested by a policeman for going down a blocked street while trying to find the best view. I had 45 cents to my name. This is not enough to buy a can of Coke.

I can offer that I have dug many holes in my life and could give you advice on this. The main thing is to lift the shovel by bending your knees and not to strain your back too much. Wear a hat and drink lots of water. Do not work too fast.

The search sounds like a necessity the way things are there. Yet, I wonder if it was necessary to point guns at you. This would offend me too. Perhaps you met one of Strykerdad’s sons. It might help to ease tensions if you did.

It is good that Hurriah is communicating some of his anger. Yes, the WORLD wants Iraq to be ruled by Iraqis. However, THIS will take some time.

I will have more to say later.

---Dan

Moron99 said...

Here is a good read.
A Day In Iraq

Now imagine that someone invaded America and forced us to give our maids, our window washers, our gardeners, and our migrant farm workers an equal vote and an equal say in how America was run?

What if the people in our dirty little shanty towns were going to be made equal to those of us who could afford laptop computers?

What if the common street beggar was to be given a share of our national treasure? What if the government threatened to give back any houses that bad mortgage companies had swindled people out of and "repossesed"? What if the government threatened to
spend its revenue improving the lives of our servants instead of us?

How would Americans react and how can you expect Hurria to react any differently than you?

Harkonnendog said...

Hurriah am I right in assuming you are a Sunni? If so I can understand why you would be so angry. If we asked Germans how they felt after we "liberated" them from Hitler in 1945 they would probably reply much the way you do.
The French, Russians, Poles, etc. etc. would probably feel differently.
As part of a formerly dominant minority in Iraq you obviously have not gained as much as the Shias and Kurds. However, I hope that you can agree that, for the MAJORITY of Iraqis, life under Saddam was no paradise.
And I hope that, in a few years, even you will be glad that the US liberated Iraq- because Iraq will be a peaceful democracy- a better country, a more respected country, than it could ever have been under any "Arab-strongman" type of leader.
Here's one Christian praying for God to bless your nation with democracy, peace, and civil rights.

Dan said...

Moron99:

I have lived on the streets and in homeless shelters as one of the people you speak for over 1/4 of a century. Though I have also taken some college courses, my education comes from "going to life" more than from "going to school." I speak with empirical knowledge when I say:

That IS the way America is.

What have you been smoking?

---Dan

Lisa Renee said...

I hestitate to comment since it seems this is the "Dan and Strykers and Lynnette" message board from the posts I've read here.

I find it especially amusing that Americans are telling someone who lives in Iraq that he doesn't know what he is experiencing. Maybe that's part of the problem. Some of us don't realize that the United States of America isn't always right and who are we to judge people who are not happy with good reason for what has been done to their country?

We promised the citizens of Iraq that life would be better, our government and military made some serious mistakes in estimating the insurgent response. Life in many parts of Iraq is not better than it was, it is worse than what it was and they as Iraqis have the right to be pissed off about it. This whole mentality of comparing life under Saddam to what they are going thru now and expecting them to be "grateful" because Saddam is gone makes no sense. If you take a bad situation and replace it with another bad situation there is nothing to cheer about. Will things get better? Probably at some point in the future but that doesn't change the fact that right now there are people who are tired of being lied to and frustrated.


So thank you Truth Teller for sharing your thoughts and your experiences.

Moron99 said...

Dan,
that was my point. But it always wasn't so. My part of the country and my ancestors were once invaded and conquered by the United States army. They pursued a strategy of scorched earth and burned a path of desctrution over 500 miles long right through the heartland. Even today, if you dig, there remains a layer of black charcoal. They set our servants free and gave them equality. Okay - with hindsight, they were right and my grandaddy was wrong. But that still didn't change the fact that they forced the south to accept equality for all of our servants and it still didn't stop some from joining the Klan and fighting to preserve what they thought was the true south. At the time they probably didn't realize that were evil either.

Dan said...

You lost me there Moron99. First you propose the implication that America is lopsided like that NOW. Then, in your rebuttal, you flash back 140+ years to Sherman's March through Georgia. Georgia was NOT part of the United States then and many of my ancestors were killed while fighting for the Army of Georgia. Where is your logic in the first post?

Even if I address only the second post, the KKK, which ran interference for The Knights of the Golden Circle, was just a bunch of cowardly religious fanatics who were afraid to show their faces and victimized the weakest members of our society. They were contra to any civilized society.

I don't get your point.
Personally, I think Lisa Renee is closer to the truth.

Whatever...

---Dan

Moron99 said...

Dan,

social equality is as appealing to some Iraqis now as it was to some of your ancestors 150 years ago - for the same basic socio-economic reasons. The KKK was a terrorist organization that strove to achieve the same goals as the insurgents and used similar methods. We had americans who thought the old south was an idylic utopia. We have Iraqis who think that old-Iraq was a similar bastion of funtional society. The old south was willing to overlook the slave labor that built their plantations. Some Iraqis overlook the ethnic clensing of Kurds and the control of oil fields that funded the lifestyles of their ruling class. So, the $20,000 question is .... "What would have happened to the KKK if the union had armed the blacks to the teeth (and sent a few hundred thousand of them to soldier training schools)?

"Amerikee go home" is almost identical in meaning today as "Yankee go home" was 140 years ago - for almost identical reasons.

Krusty Krab said...

Huria, I definitely understand your sentiment. Like most Americans, I count the days until we can withdrawal our troops. One question: If the foreign troops left today, do you really think that things would get better immediately?

Like it or not, the US has upset the apple cart, and the balance of power in Iraq---for good or for evil---has been permanently changed. The reality is that there is no way to reset the clock to March 20, 2003. If you are Sunni, Mosul would become an even less safe place, as it got incorporated into a greater Kurdistan. Would you not expect a general payback and bloody purge of any remaining Ba'athist members? Think immediate confiscation of your property without due process, possible internment for yourself and forced relocation for your family. Or worse, if things got really out of hand. In other words, how life was for the Kurds in Mosul under the Sunni-controlled Ba'athist government.

So... what is your solution? Do you really think that life would become more pleasant if the US left now???

Krusty Krab said...

Lisa Renee, I'll pose the same question to you. Even understanding Huria's anger and its origins, can you devise a better solution that having the American troops there as a "delaying action" until the Iraqis can get back on their own feet and run their own country again?

Just so as you know, I opposed the war, and like many I think, foresaw things falling out the way they did. (Although who could have anticipated the mess that Bush/Bremmer made with the reconstruction process...)

Dan said...

Moron99:

Close enough. Point well taken.

---Dan

Hurria said...

"The US Troops are not responsible for the men that shoot barbers for giving incorrect haircuts."

Oh, yes, they absolutely are responsible. As the occupying power the US is responsible for the safety and security of the civilians living under its occupation. It is responsible for maintaining civil order. US occupation forces have failed dismally in every single aspect of this responsibility. Every day the U.S. remains in Iraq things get worse and worse and worse. Between the violence of the U.S. forces - by far the most deadly and destructive violence in the country - and the violence of the various groups which have been falsely labeled "insurgents" there is no peace, no order, and no security for Iraqis.

"Thats who are soliders are fighting againsts"

But you just said your soldiers are not responsible for these men. You cannot have it both ways. Either they are not responsible or they are fighting against them. Pick one.

And by the way, these men who are killing barbers and licquor dealers and harrassing, raping and killing women for the way they dress were not doing these things until you bombed your way into our country and took it over.

Hurria said...

"Hurriah am I right in assuming you are a Sunni?"

I would strongly advise you against basing any conclusions about anyone or anything on assumptions.

And I would also advise you strongly to stay away from these attempts to define Iraqis and to explain Iraq using this odious notion that you can divide us neatly into pieces and categorize our attituded based on sect or ethnicity.

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria-

You misunderstand my meaning. I meant that the US soliders are not the men shooting at your barbers...

Also you contridicted yourself again. You have said previously that these men are fighting the occupation and yet they are hurting the Iraqi civilians. The US troops are responsible for your safety when your own people aren't taking your lives into consideration???

Our men and women are there, therefore your people resist or the so called "insurgency" whatever you want to call it Hurria, and yet our soliders are responsible for the "resistance"?

I think, my friend, that you can't have it both ways.

If a person that is against the occupation goes to a marketplace and blows himself up and kills Iraqi citizens the US troops are responsible? Just because they are there??????

They are responsible for your safety yet you don't want them there?

Yet I can hear your response "Mosul wasn't this way before the war" You know that is not true. You know that Saddam was an evil and ruthless dicator who cared nothing for the lives of his own people.

I believe in war but I do know that nothing changes overnight.

Besides supporting a "resistance" in your country what are you doing to make things better?

strykerwife45 said...

I meant to say that I don't always believe that war is right....before I get slammed.

strykerwife45 said...

One more thing Hurria,,,

You need to pick one:

Are these men Iraqi resistance to US occupation or are they an insurgency that care nothing for anyones safety including yours?

I know what my husband is fighting against and I have talked to him in great detail about what he is fighting for. Part of that includes your safety, Hurria. We are not perfect...they are not perfect. When a country faces regime change, revolution, whatever the case may be you are faced with many hardships.

I know that you must rise up and help if you want things to change. If you want the US soliders out get your neighboorhood together and hold a block party of how to bring about peace and start acting on it so that my husband can come home to his children.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Truth Teller,

I see your comments section is really heating up again. Alot of new posters too! Despite what Lisa Renee may believe, I think it's always good to hear new voices.

"Every year has the effect of a decade on us."

Yes, stress is an insidious thing. I cannot imagine anything more stressful than what you and yes, our soldiers, are going through in Iraq.

You are 57? You remember what Iraq was like before Saddam, then. What is your fondest memory from that time? If you would like to share it with me/us.

Moron99 said...

SW45,

I think that they are neither resistance nor uncaring. They simply want their old way of life back. Haven't you noticed that some commentors on this blog have a holier-than-thou attitude and assume that they are more informed, refined, and aristocratic by birthright? Haven't you noticed the underlying assumption that only a certain segment of Iraq is endowed with the ability to understand Iraq and speak on its behalf? What we are dealing with is an aristocracy that has been stripped of their birthrights. They are the Arab KKK. Perhaps the posters are not the cross-burners themselves. Perhaps they are not the ones throwing the Emmit Tills into the river. But they are in ideological agreement nonetheless and they realize that the "insurgents" wish to re-establish the old way of life that gave them such comforts and luxuries. Our Klan was born of slavery and cotton fields. Theirs was born of oppression and oil fields. There is no chance that this Klan will reclaim their old way of life for so long as
a) the MNF remains
b) the Shia hold dominant power through the mechanisms of democracy
c) the Kurds reclaim their lands

I think the US will soon find itself morphing into a referee who tries to keep the Iraqi socio-political revolution from becoming a civil war. In particular, I think that this war will continue until the Iraqi Klan calls it quits or the Iraqi slaves appoint their own Robespierre.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

When are you going to answer my question from the last post? What is the value of ME answering YOUR questions if you don't answer MINE?

I will tell you what the value in this is:

It just proves to the eyes of the Internet world that you want to use my honor against me so you can snipe and insult me and add nothing constructive to this discussion. So far, I have seen you do nothing but use non sequiturs to unleash hatred on everyone without offering any kind of solution at all; even less one that is rational and just.

---Dan

Dan said...

Moron99:

You just hit the nail on the head with a sledge hammer.

---Dan

strykerwife45 said...

Moran99--

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement.

I only fuel Hurria's fire by even acknowledging her hatred. There is some part of me that wants to show her we are not bad...but that probably only makes her hate us more.

I just hope our boys come home safe and that there will be peace...I hate fighting.

Hurria said...

"Also you contridicted yourself again."

I did not contradict myself this time, and have not contradicted myself before.

"You have said previously that these men are fighting the occupation and yet they are hurting the Iraqi civilians."

I have never said that these men are fighting the occupation, never.

"The US troops are responsible for your safety when your own people aren't taking your lives into consideration???"

As the occupying power the US is legally, logically, morally, and ethically responsible for maintaining civil order, and for the safety, security and well being of the civilian population. How certain members of the population behave does not absolve the occupying power of its obligations.

"Our men and women are there, therefore your people resist or the so called "insurgency" whatever you want to call it Hurria, and yet our soliders are responsible for the "resistance"?"

If your men and women had not forced their way into the country by means of extreme violence and brutality, and had not maintained their presence their by means of further extreme violence and brutality there would be no so-called "insurgency". There would be no resistance, religious extremists of all sorts would not be running rampant throughout the country, and there would not be thousands of criminals making their fortunes as kidnappers and murderers for hire. That is an obvious fact. So yes, your soldiers are responsible for the resistance, they are responsible for the fact that religious extremists and violent, murderous criminals are operating freely throughout the country. They are responsible for the existence of these problems, and they are responsible for their failure to contain them.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

I don't call killing barbers or burning liquor stores "resistance." I call it "cowardice" and "terrorism."

The people who kill innocent civillians are the ones who are responsible for killing innocent civillians.

Your twisted logic is the same as blaming the police for the actions of criminals.

---Dan

Hurria said...

'I don't call killing barbers or burning liquor stores "resistance." "

If you had actually bothered to read and attempted to comprehend anything I have written then you would understand that neither do I.

"I call it "cowardice" and "terrorism." "

You can call it anything you like, but what it actually is is criminal behaviour.

"The people who kill innocent civillians are the ones who are responsible for killing innocent civillians."

Does that include the American forces who have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

"Your twisted logic is the same as blaming the police for the actions of criminals."

When the police create conditions that encourage and facilitate the actions of criminals who were never free to operate before, and when they fail completely to prevent or control the actions of criminals, you had better believe they are responsible.

Truth teller said...

mitra

" Truth-Teller - it is time that you and the Baathists realize that US is your best friend."

How could any body realise that those who consider him their enemy and when ever met him, they point their weapons to his chest is his friend?
BTW If you want to talk to baathists, you should address your talk to some body else, I suppose you know very well whom I mean.

"You are fighting for a free Iraq where you can coexist and work with many other ethnicities and religious sects."

before what you call it a free Iraq, we did coexist and work with all other ethnic and religious sects.

"This can only happen under democracy with freedoms."

This happened under Saddam rule. Does it mean that that time was democracy and freedom?.

" IT is time that Sunnis realize their their best interest is to support a peaceful Iraq, and let the Americans go home."

Sunnis were always support a free peaceful Iraq, and their goal is to let the Americans go home

waldschrat said...

Hurria -

I find it fascinating that you never run out of venom. Such perpetual anger is not good for your health, I suspect.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

Thank you for parsing and responding to my comment.

“If you had actually bothered to read and attempted to comprehend anything I have written then you would understand that neither do I.”

I shall do exactly that. I shall take some time and reread your last few posts in an effort to achieve an accurate epistemological understanding of your position and to make sure that I do not misunderstand you. This will enhance our ability to communicate with each other more accurately.

Truth Teller:

I am sure that everyone is aware that, given the situation in Mosul, surprise searches are necessary. This is true even if Iraqi citizens are conducting security operations. However, as I mentioned earlier, I do agree that it is unnecessary and offensive for searchers to point guns in the face/chest of the people that they are searching on the street.

Also, Truth Teller, I thank you for having this blog as it provides a forum for various people from around the world to present and contrast their different opinions concerning the situation in Iraq. I wonder if there is a city council or similar discussion venue in Mosul which you and other people, especially elders, with opposing viewpoints take part in on a regular basis in an effort to bring peace and understanding to the area?

On a different note, as you are an oncologist, you might be interested in a process developed and announced yesterday by a company called Sangamo Biosciences. This is a process by which corrective surgery is done on strands of DNA. Yet no information was given regarding its ability to modify telomeres. I heard of this via the KurzweilAI Newsletter, which I subscribe to. As both my father and grandfather died of cancer, I am especially interested in this. (Google searching both will bring up the Websites.)

---Dan

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Dan,
I think you will find that Hurria never answers questions unless she can score a point. She also will fall back on the "you are not in Iraq" arguement if she cannot think of anything better.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

I just read Najma's latest post. I loved this line:

"Anyway, I was saying that when the police said they're going to search the houses, I cleaned my room in case they got in."

LOL! She wouldn't want them to think she was a messy housekeeper!

Lani said...

lynette in minnesota-
I can't laugh about Najma's post. She is like a little flower in a pile of manure, trying to retain her pride.

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria,

Maybe you should go back and look at your prior posts. You have contridicted yourself on many occassions in regards to insurgency or freedom fighters.

I am new to the blogging world and do not know how to put the quotes it like everyone else does to give you examples before you ask me to provide proof of this. All I know is that I started reading the Archived versions of past comments yesterday and you have stated that there is no insurgency on many occassions that there is only the fight against the occupation.

Also...I think I caught wind of something when I looked through those yesterday, Are you actually in Iraq? I thought I read something to the contrary yesterday.

Hurria-I am done responding to your comments as of right now. I agree with Lynette that you only answer questions that you think you can score a point and when other questions that you cannot answer are thrown at you you ignore them.

TT-

I guess that things were just wonderful under Saddam based on your last comment. I suppose that you would prefer to have him back.

If not, can you tell me how you would have handled the situation? Continue to have him in power? I can tell you that even if he was in power now and we had not gone to war someday you would have been ruled by one of his crazier sons. Is that what you would have wanted?

Hurria said...

"90% of the deaths in Iraq is due to the "resistance" and "Islamic freedom fighters (oxymoron)"."

And what is your source for this fascinating piece of information?

"Either give link or get lost and find a lake and jump in there."

I can give more than one link. How about you? Can you provide a source for your very interesting and very precise claims?

"US non-combatant casualties does not exceed 2 or 3 thousands."

Source, please?

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria

where are your sources? You always say you have many but you answered a question with a question and provided nothing.

Hurria said...

"You have contridicted yourself on many occassions in regards to insurgency or freedom fighters."

No, I have never contradicted myself in regard to the so-called "insurgency", or so-called "freedom fighters". My knowledge and understanding on this issue remain consistent as do my statements.

"I am new to the blogging world and do not know how to put the quotes it like everyone else does to give you examples"

Do you know how to copy and paste? Do you know how to type quotes? That is all you really need, after all.

"you have stated that there is no insurgency on many occassions that there is only the fight against the occupation."

No, I have never stated that. I have consistently stated that there is no such thing as "the insurgency" because that is a fact. I have consistently objected to the word "insurgency" because it is not the correct word for anything that is going on in Iraq, and because it does not remotely describe the groups and individuals it is used to refer to.

I have also stated consistently that there IS legitimate resistance against the occupation, which is a fact. In addition I have stated consistently that the groups that are falsely lumped together under the false term "insurgency" include legitimate resistance against the occupation, extremist groups who do attack the occupation, but who also conduct operations that are not legitimate resistance, other extremist groups (such as the thugs who attacked the college picnickers in Basra, who threaten and attack women, barbers, and licquor sellers) who do little or nothing in the way of resistance, and whose main goal is to force their agenda on the population wherever they can, and criminals who do nothing at all in the way of resistance, and who commit kidnappings, murders, robberies, and carjackings for profit.

"I am done responding to your comments as of right now."

As you like. It is entirely up to you whom and what you do and do not respond to, just as it is entirely up to me to whom and what I do and do not respond to.

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria,

I just want to know if you are truly in Iraq. I thought I read a statement saying that your not there.

Thank you, however, for the information on how to bring information in from other comments it was helpful. Yes I know how to put things in quotes.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Lani,

I think you misinterpret my amusement at Najma's statement. Because, despite her anti-American posts, I actually like her and would not laugh at her. I also like her sister HNK, who makes cream puffs to die for. It was simply the incongruity of her worry that seemed so amusing.

waldschrat said...

Lynette -

I have vivid recollections of my teenage step-daughter's housekeeping in years gone by. Telling her "The Strykers are coming!" was perhaps the only tactic my wife and I did not use to try to encourage her to straighten her room up a bit!

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan said...

Strykerdad:

Thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps Truth Teller will take note of your comment. I wonder if the 4-5 year old girl was one of the 72 virgins the exploding man (alledgedly) received for being a martyr to Allah. I also wonder if Truth Teller, while conversing in English with the American soldiers who were "really very polite,"
mentioned to them his disatisfaction with having a gun pointed at him.
---Dan

Moron99 said...

Speaking of daughters, I wonder ... do Iraqis have tooth fairies?
In America when a child looses their baby teeth they put the tooth under their pillow at night. In the morning there is a small gift or amount of money. It is the work of the "tooth fairy". Some say that she is building a castle made of teeth and she leaves the gifts because children's teeth are the most precious of all. Others say that it is really the parents who leave the gifts. Either way, nearly all the trauma of loosing a tooth is magically erased from the child's mind and children are overjoyed at the prospect of a personalized visit from the magical tooth fairy.

So I wonder ... does the tooth fairy visit Iraqi children? Perhaps her aunt? Or perhaps there are other childhood traditions that bring the small and priceless joys to an Iraqi family?

Dan said...

Moron99:

Here we go ag'in. 'Splain yerself better, please.

---Dan

Truth teller said...

strykerdad

"I know of one incident where a smiling man walked up to some American troops conducting a search, holding the hand of a 4-5 year old girl and motioning to the soldiers that she was injured in some way---the soldier motioned for them to come forward. Yes, the man and girl exploded killing a number of onlookers, one soldier and inflicted many injuries."

I am not defending this criminal act.
I doubt this story very much, but as you are mention it more than once, and your source is a first hand report. I will take it as a fact.
The man who exploded him self with the little girl. is a criminal and terrorist, while the American soldiers doing the search are representing the USA. If you agree in comparing a criminal with the USA, we will have no problem with that.

When an American soldier did some thing bad, you and I am sure you are right says that every where there is bad guys and good guys, we shouldn't take the good by the sin of the bad.

It is a general rule every where here in Mosul, that the US soldiers, the ING, the Iraqi police and the new Iraqi army soldiers point there weapon to the head and chest of the people when ever they met them. We still give them the right to do so for security porposes, but it happened several times , they started shooting at those people when they hear the sound of a round or an explosion. Several innocent people killed every day from such a simpe precaution procedures.

Truth teller said...

dan

"I wonder if the 4-5 year old girl was one of the 72 virgins the exploding man (alledgedly) received for being a martyr to Allah."

This story of a 72 virgins, I only heard it an read it here. May be it is an American fiction, but definitly it is not Islamic or Arabic. There is nothing like this in our religion.

Fighting against occupation is sacred thing to do in every religion including yours.

Hurria said...

Truth Teller,

The 72 virgin thing is an American nonsense based on the houris in paradise (I can write this in Arabic for you if it is not clear, but I do not have Arabic on this computer). Americans are obsessed with sex, and they think there is some promise of sex with 72 virgins. They do not understand that houris are not human virgins, and have nothing to do with having sex. I have no idea where they get the number 72.

Ann said...

The first time I read about the 72 virgins was from a book called "The Trouble with Islam" that is written by an Islamic who lives in Canada.

Here is her website:
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

To hurria:
Americans might be obsessed with sex, but not to the point where polygamy is allowed or where we have uncontrolled population growth. The data would suggest that there are other countries that are more obsessed with sex.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
richsanter said...

[SW45] “The US Troops are not responsible for the men that shoot barbers for giving incorrect haircuts. Thats who are soliders are fighting againsts, yet you said before that that fighting is Iraqis fighting foreign occupation!”

This is factually incorrect, you do realise? While I don’t dispute that Wahhabi type elements might be responsible for acts like this, the reality is that SCIRI and Dawa indulge in similar acts of violence – and Dawa and SCIRI are the people that your precious US troops are fighting *for*.

For example:

http://www.nytimes.com
07 July 2005

“BASRA, Iraq - The loudest sounds emanating from musicians' row these days come from explosions.

Ahmed Ali walked through a shop that sold musical instruments before it was gutted by a bombing a week earlier, the latest in a series of mysterious attacks in this narrow alley in the last half-year, he said. The men here, just a block from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, sell instruments by day and perform at weddings in the evening.

"They say it's forbidden by Islam," Mr. Ali, 18, said as he went back to his own shop, its shelves stocked with drums. "We're afraid of everything. I'm afraid of it all. I'm afraid even when I'm talking to you."

The once libertine oil port of Basra, 350 miles south of the capital and far from the insurgency raging in much of Iraq, is steadily being transformed into a mini-theocracy under Shiite rule. There is perhaps no better indication of the possible flash points in a Shiite-dominated Iraq, because the political parties that hold sway here also wield significant influence in the central government in Baghdad and are backed by the country's top clerics.”


So, Strykerwife45, perhaps you ought to wake up a little and realise that your soldiers, possibly your husband, are dying and will die so that this sort of attitude can flourish. Is this what YOU want? Would you say that it is worth it to YOU ?



[M99] “But they are in ideological agreement nonetheless and they realize that the "insurgents" wish to re-establish the old way of life that gave them such comforts and luxuries.”

You know, that’s really funny, because that’s the way much of the rest of the world sees the US – as a behemoth willing to crush any manner of independent-minded people as long as there is a profit to be made, in order to maintain the way of life that gives you such comforts and luxuries. Your tradition of business at the point of a gun is just far too well documented for denial.

Let’s see, the Iraqi coffers are empty, much of the money has gone to the US, and the Iraqi standard of living has improved exactly how? Oh, yes, infant malnutrition has DOUBLED since the days of bad old Saddam. I don’t dispute that he was a piece of shit, but by comparison you are a virtual hill of manure.

Gee, I wonder if they are fighting to re-establish their old way of life or if they are trying to drive out the armed robbers that have infested their country? Personally, I’m all for the shooting of armed robbers. How about you?



[Mitra] “Either give link or get lost and find a lake and jump in there. US non-combatant casualties does not exceed 2 or 3 thousands.”

Hm. The latest clueless idiot comes buzzing along straight into the candle flame.

You say US non-combatant casualties do not exceed 2-3000? Based on WHAT information, exactly, given that the US military has deemed Iraqis too worthless to count? Likewise, give us the link, or jump in the lake.

In any case, if one examines the Lancet study, the majority of the casualties were caused by US bombing action; it is, of course, against the Geneva conventions to bomb civilian areas, but that has not stopped you given your Administrations cavalier handling of the Conventions to date. I mean, gee, if you dump 2000lb bombs on civilian areas, who would imagine that civilians might get hurt? Nasty, BAD civilians. What were they doing there? Didn’t they have some other place to live?

[mitra] “Nobody rules now on others. Nobody can impose their will on others.”

Except for the US of course, because God anointed you as more equal than the rest of us annoying mortals that infest the planet. If irony could kill, you’d be a thin oozing paste by now.



Hurria “If your men and women had not forced their way into the country by means of extreme violence and brutality, and had not maintained their presence their by means of further extreme violence and brutality there would be no so-called "insurgency".”

Come now, ‘extreme violence and brutality’? Watch it, you might offend somebody. That wouldn’t be ‘nice’. Remember, we must always be ‘nice’ to the good Americans, or they will ‘get’ us, because we are “either with them or against them”.



[strykerdad] “I know of one incident where a smiling man walked up to some American troops conducting a search, holding the hand of a 4-5 year old girl and motioning to the soldiers that she was injured in some way---the soldier motioned for them to come forward. Yes, the man and girl exploded killing a number of onlookers, one soldier and inflicted many injuries. There have been several incidents such as that including women and infants. Now, if you were there and knew that, would you treat everyone as a possible threat? You would if you cared about the safety of your buddies, surrounding onlookers and yourself. Until a situation is secured, all are potential ticking bombs.”


An interesting point.

I on the other hand, know of one incident where some honest Iraqi lads taking ceramic goods from one city to another were stopped by a smiling patrol of American soldiers. They motioned them to come forward, and invited them to take a refreshing dip in the Tigris river by jumping off a bridge, despite the fact that one of them could not swim. He subsequently drowned, and they then searched the reed filled banks in order to find the other one, probably to finish him off. He did, however, escape.

Unfortunately for them, the drowned lad had an Iraqi blogger cousin who happened to speak excellent English, who raised a very big stink about the incident, until an investigation was launched.

Fortunately for the US soldiers, however, their repeated lying and twisting of the story did not adversely affect their case, and the case was dropped against them, despite the fact that they did in the end acknowledge that the Iraqi’s version was true. Lucky for them that an Iraqi court could not try them, huh?

Now, if you know about incidents like this, wouldn’t you treat every US soldier as a potential threat ? You would if you cared about the safety of your buddies, surrounding onlookers and yourself. Until a situation is secured, all are potential ticking bombs.

richsanter said...

Oh, and Strykerdad, yes, the Iraqis did not behave terribly well in Kuwait. They were rightly casitgated for this. You Americans, on the other hand, have acted the same as or worse. You deserve similar condemnation.

richsanter said...

Truthteller --

Thank you for your previous comments to me, it's appreciated.

waldschrat said...

Here is an interesting post from another forum (link):

Some interesting tidbits in reviews of Polk's "Understandung Iraq: the whole sweep of Iraqi history" in the Economist and elsewhere.

1) Not counting deliberate introduction of plague in medaeval times, the first use of WMDs in Iraq was the Brits using poison gas on civilians.

2) The use supplied or caused to be supplied poison gas technology, ingredients and chemicals to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.

3) The guy who did the arranging was Rumsfield

4) Saddam used them. Then when the war was over he used them in the his Arabization program for the big oil fields in the Kurdish part of Iraq.

5) The reason that the US was so sure that Saddam had WMDs was because they knew how much they had given him and they knew how much had been used on the Iranis and Kurds, and so he had to have what was still left over.

6) Apparently none of the brass-hats appreciated the rate of equipment-rot in a third world country where stuff is in heaps and not entered by serial number in computers.

7) (My comment) If Rumsfield had arranged for some IBM hardware and a few copies of Oracle then maybe there would have been WMDs still there when we invaded :-)

Ivan

Ann said...

The Rumsfeld rumor has no credibility. Iraq's biochem weapons program existed prior to his visiting Iraq and prior to Reagan being president. Rumsfeld was involved in opening relations with Iraq and the US and, I think he had something to do with Iraq being able to get loans from the world bank. There is a CIA report on the internet: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs October 2002 that explains a little about how the weapons threat was estimated. To Saddam's credit, Saddam authorized the use of WMD during the invasion, thus furthering beliefs about the existence of WMD in Iraq. One of the reasons people thought Saddam had WMD was because he said that he had WMD. He also specified conditions in which he would use WMD. And people believed him. As a threat, people were spending money to defend themselves against these threats. This happened in Kurdistan where people were investing in equipment and all.

To bruno and all,

I've often wondered if our involvement in Afghanistan during the late 1970s was worth it because in the end they were under Taliban control. Would being under Soviet control have been worse?

No it would not be worth it to have forces in Iraq if they were defending a government that prohibited music and killed hair stylists for giving bad haircuts. According to the Pilger reports, the Iraq music program had practically fallen out of existence during the sanctions period. This at the same time as other countries were outlawing music because they said it was against Islam. My thoughts are that people are musical, and that part of early childhood education should be study of music and learning to play a musical instrument.

I think if someone gets a "bad" haircut from a hair stylist, they should take photos and write a letter of complaint. If the stylist refuses to fix the problem, and they feel that a wrong doing occurred, they can take them to court. If you don't like a stylist, don't go to his shop. Find one that you do like. Blowing up a person and their store is not going to solve the problem in a free market economy. Actually, I think it doesn't solve the problems of correcting poor service or improving faulty products in any economy. What seems to work the best is letting businesses conduct their business with as little 'big government' intervention as possible; having independent organizations to provide consumer product and safety information; having professionals be part of peer reviewed organizations; and allowing consumers choice among vendors of products and services. 'Big government' interference can be detrimental, but local community development groups can be very effective for creating a neighborhood in which residents have ready access to the goods they need and the jobs they need, but there are divisions between these sectors. The best way to change a product is to not buy it and encourage other people to not buy it. At least, that's what I think.

Exadios said...

"Yes, the man and girl exploded...":

I see. So the soldiers are aiming their rifles in order to stop the man and child blowing themselves up. You haven't actually thought this one through, have you.

strykerdad said...

Bruno, you actually make some semi cogent points, but you throw it all away when you make statements about American troops being equivalant to the rapists, murderers and thieves that invaded Kuwait. Not limited to that particualr statement, but it is illustrative. If you believe that, you are beyond reason with your Anti American psychosis. Seek a cure.

Should Iraqi citizens be wary when encountering American troops conducting missions? Well, yes! Are you really that ignorant? They aren't there to play soccer when heading to an objective or when they arrive. It is a deadly dangerous business hunting an enemy with no scruples or limits of civilized behavior. But many Iraqis treat our men with genuine affection and welcome them in for meals and rest. And sometimes they end up playing soccer. But that is probably because they lack your sophistication, huh? Sort of like those troops who believe in the mission and believe progress is being made. What do they know compared to someone sitting in the warm glow of his monitor in his underwear (I hope that is not giving you too much credit) passing judgement on things and events you find on the source of all truth, Iraqi blogs, which feed the aforementioned psychological condition which afflicts you. But like many who share your state of mind, you can be entertaining, and for that I appreciate your efforts.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan said...

Truth Teller:

"This story of a 72 virgins, I only heard it an read it here. May be it is an American fiction, but definitely it is not Islamic or Arabic. There is nothing like this in our religion."

Google searching "72 virgins" brings up a number of entries, which cast the story into some doubt. However, a few paragraphs down into the first entry, one find's this little jewel:

“Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [i.e. Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas."

About the “martyr” part:

I am NOT religious. I do not believe in the Muslim myths any more than I believe in the Christian myths; or any others for that matter. According to all, I am condemned to eternal damnation after this life. Yet, unlike ALL OTHER RELIUGIONS, Islam rewards, REQUIRES, its adherents to kill non-believers. This is why all the wars going on in the world today involve Muslims. They have a constant hard-on.

The essence of the Muslim religion is to kill their neighbors. And then they get to get drunk and engage in sex after they die. When some poor pathetic goat herder from the stinking desert is convinced of this, he straps on explosives, walks downtown, and blows himself up.

Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.

---Dan

Hurria said...

"Americans might be obsessed with sex, but not to the point where polygamy is allowed or where we have uncontrolled population growth. The data would suggest that there are other countries that are more obsessed with sex."

This statement makes exactly zero sense. Being obsessed with sex has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy or with uncontrolled population growth.

Hurria said...

"The first time I read about the 72 virgins was from a book called "The Trouble with Islam" that is written by an Islamic (sic) who lives in Canada."

And of course you fully expect to receive a fair and accurate view of Islam from a book called The Trouble with Islam. You would not, of course, expect to receive a fair and accurate view of Christianity from a book titled The Trouble with Christianity, or of Judaism from a book called The Trouble with Judaism, or of the USA from a book called The Trouble with America. THAT is different, I am sure.

Hurria said...

Dan, would you care to share with us the location of the website where you got that "little jewel"?

Dan said...

Hurriah:

1)Go to www.google.com.

2)Type in "72 virgins" and make sure to include the quotation marks.

3)Click on the first link listed.

4)It is paragraph seven.

---Dan

PS.
The answer to your question is: YES.

---D.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

Here is another link on the 72 virgins: http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000079.html

I noticed that you did not address the part about martyrdom. That is important to me and speaks legions about you.

---Dan

Hurria said...

Dan,

You know which site you got that quote from. I am not going to do your googling for you. Kindly post the URL to the site so we can look at the quote in context.

Hurria said...

"Here is another link on the 72 virgins: http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000079.html"

LOL! Factsofisrael.conm! Now THERE's a good source of reliable, unbiased information about Islam!

"I noticed that you did not address the part about martyrdom. That is important to me and speaks legions about you."

Ummm - no, it doesn't speak anything at all about me except that I was focused on the topic under discussion, which was the 72 virgins nonsense.

Ann said...

The point of my comment was that the alleged myth of virgins is not something that I heard about in the USA but rather something I first heard about from a Canadian Muslim. It is not something that I ever heard of from an American that was a Christian or a Jew or a non-religious person or a Buddist or a ___ religion. Why would you want me not to believe a Muslim, when they are talking about Islam? Is there a list of Muslims that I can listen to as being an authority about Islam that is acceptable to you? Where is this list? What qualifications does a Muslim have to have to talk about Islam in a way that is to be believed? What gives you the right to say that she can't talk about Islam, or is necessarily wrong? Isn't she entitled to her own opinion having been raised Islamic, and having accepted it as her own religion as an adult? Doesn't she only need to submit to Allah - why do you insist that she also submit to you - in regards to seeing things the way you see them?

For the record, I was not suggesting that other religions are superior to Islam. I will say again that all religions evolve in time, and some are better at serving their communities than others. I will also say that broad definitions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism are almost meaningless for establishing a set of universal or cultural values. There are many sects among all and that make it impossible to generalize attitudes or thoughts of some superset onto one member.

I would love to read a book about the troubles with Christianity and/or the troubles with Judaism. It is always interesting to hear these perspectives. Christianity suffers from ambiguity. People can call themselves Christians simply on the basis of their belief in Christ, and some like Unitarians don't necessarily believe in Christ but still call themselves Christians. The Bible is full of myths that are obviously wrong, and in modern translation are ambiguous, misleading, and abused by some leaders. Judaism also suffers from ancient beliefs that don't work in today's world. So, a book about that would be nice to read, if you can provide a link I will add it to my must-read list. I would not suggest that other religions are fault free; clearly they aren't. I do think the book "The Trouble with Islam" is well-written and thoughtful.

As to your obsession with sex thing, get real. If someone has to have five wives to keep his Mr. Johnson happy he is obsessed or perhaps there is something culturally wrong. Iraq is a nation that is known for having issues with sex. Human rights organizations have documented the use of rape, and videotaping of rape of wives and daughters of high ranking officials to blackmail them. Human rights organizations have documented the fact that Iraqi prison guards hung women upside down during their menstral cycles and inserted rocks into their vaginas - all on political prisoners who were not doing anything criminal nature. Human rights organizations have documented that prostitutes (even women who had no other way to make money or people to watch out for them) were beheaded in the street of Iraq by Saddam's army men - and over 200 happened in days prior to the invasion, they say. Even Saddam's own daughter was married at the tender age of 14 - this would be statutory rape in our country.

Obsession with sex? Us? Get real.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

I worded my response that way just to trip you up. You have tipped your hand completely. All you are about is control.

Control is something you lost when Iraq was liberated. No longer does anyone have to listen to or respond to your spoiled and childish outbursts. Now you must use logic and reason to try to persuade people to your point of view. This is something that you have no skill at except for convincing very stupid people by trickery. No one serves or worships you, or your "man," out of fear like it used to be. Now YOU are afraid.

I toy with you for entertainment, girl.

---Dan

Dan said...

Moron99:

Nice post for July 5,2005 over on "The Mesopotamian!" I almost copied and pasted it here. When I saw your name, I said "Wow! This dude rocks!"

---Dan

Dan said...

Truth Teller:

Damn! I have sat here all afternoon jacking around on the Internet. I missed the speed boat races down on the river across town (speeds up to 240 miles per hour). Do Iraqis do anything like that on the Tigris?

---Dan

Exadios said...

"You seem to have spent more time thinking about it than they have...":

Plainly.

There used to be reports of the same sort of actions in Vietnam. I did not see anything like this myself. I considered that they were urban legend then and suspect that these stories are likewise. However there was one case which I was reasonably sure of where a kid blew himself up while playing with explosives.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan said...

As the title of this blog entry is "Searching," here is a link to 4 photographs of a successful search in Mosul:

http://armytimes.com/Photos/index.php?d=20050708

The first and fourth photographs show why American soldiers who are "really very polite" might have a tendancy to point guns at the people they are searching.

I wonder where this car was headed? To a city council meeting? To a mosque? To a weekend picnic with children in a park? Where ever they were headed, it looks like they found what they were looking for: DEATH.

If these soldiers had NOT stopped these terrorists, Hurriah would blame them for THAT. Now that these terrorists have been killed, Hurriah will blame them for THAT. Hurriah was only happy when HER murderous gang was running the country.

---Dan

Hurria said...

"The point of my comment was that the alleged myth of virgins is not something that I heard about in the USA but rather something I first heard about from a Canadian Muslim. "

The problem with your comment is that you are using as your reference not the statements of recognized Islamic scholars, but a widely discredited book written by a clearly disgruntled Canadian Muslim, whose Islamic education is questionable as to both quantity and quality.

Truth teller said...

I suppose that every one has noticed that I deleted the comments of the so called mitra.
That is because he insulted more than once our religion, a thing I will never accept to be done infront of me.

mitra
You are not welcomed here any more, Every single comment of yours will be deleted.

That is my rule here. If any body use offensive words or insult any religion I will delete his comment.

Ann said...

Hurria, Barnes and Noble has a section about Islam and that's one of the featured books. So is "the Koran for Dummies" and "Islam for Dummies". I'm not sure those were written by credible sources either. So, why don't you supply the title and author or ISBN of a book by an author that you respect, and I promise I will read it so that I can understand what Islam means from your point of view.

I read through some of the links Truth posted before, but some of them were just anti-Christian sounding, so I didn't want to hear about a conflict between religious ideologies, I just want to study what Islam means all by itself not by defining what it isn't in terms of what others are.

Truth teller said...

Hurria

The trouble of islam is written by a pakistani woman.
the introduction to her book include this
لنواجه حقيقة بسيطة: يُفتَرَض بي أن أكره إرشاد منجي. فإذا استمع المسلمون اليها سيكفون عن الاستماع الى الأئمة من أمثالي أنا الذي أمضيتُ سنوات في جامعة اسلامية تقليدية.
المؤلفة تهدد سلطتي الذكورية وتقول أشياء عن الإسلام أتمنى أنها ليست صحيحة. وهي لديها لسان سليط وحشد من الحقائق تؤكد بها تحليلها. انها لا تخاف من الموت ، باستثناء الموت الذي يأتي بغلق العقل. وهي سحاقية ، وما تعلَّمتُه في المدرسة الدينية غرَسَ في أعماقي ، حتى كاد يدخل في تركيب مادتي الوراثية ، أن الله يكره المثليين والسحاقيات. فالمفروض بي حقا أن اكره هذه المرأة

Hurria said...

"Why would you want me not to believe a Muslim, when they are talking about Islam?"

As always you make it so personal. Why this constant need to do that? This is not about me or you, this is about facts, realities, ideas, views, and opinions.

You are free to believe anyone you like about anything you like, but if you want to have reliable, accurate information that is reasonably untainted by personal prejudices I would recommend that you be more careful about your sources.

"Is there a list of Muslims that I can listen to as being an authority about Islam that is acceptable to you?"

Ann, why do you always feel compelled to make it so personal?

What I would recommend, Ann, is that if you want accurate information about anything you do not use as your sole or primary source someone who is not a recognized expert and who clearly feels negative about it.

"What gives you the right to say that she can't talk about Islam, or is necessarily wrong?"

Where did I say that? And once again, why do you need to always make it so personal?

"Isn't she entitled to her own opinion having been raised Islamic, and having accepted it as her own religion as an adult?"

She is entitled to her own opinion as everyone is, but opinions are only as valid as the facts and logic they are based on. In any case, being raised Islamic (sic) does not make someone an expert or even very knowledgeable about Islam. Just as lots of people who are raised Christian or Jewish are remarkably ignorant and sometimes just plain wrong about their religions, so someone who is raised Islamic (sic) can be appallingly ignorant and have some very wrong ideas about their own religion. It all depends on the quantity and quality of a person's formal and informal religious education.

In any case, something like the 72 virgins thing is not a matter of opinion for every Muslim to decide for her/himself. Either it is justified in the Qur'an or it is not. I am acquainted with the Qur'anic passage that is cited in connection with the claim of eternal sex with 72 virgins, and I see nothing there to justify it, but I am not a Qur'anic scholar. Therefore if I want to go deeper into the question I will consult with Islamic scholars who specialize in Qur'anic interpretation, and whose knowledge and rational thought processes I respect. I will not consult with a clearly disgruntled Canadian Muslim who feels compelled to tell the world what she thinks is wrong with Islam, and whose scholarly qualifications are questionable.

"Doesn't she only need to submit to Allah - why do you insist that she also submit to you - in regards to seeing things the way you see them?"

Again, you have to make it so personal always. Why? And where did I insist that she or anyone else submit to me or to anyone for that matter?

Dan said...

Truth Teller:

Well, thank you for not deleting MY comments. I have said some very pointed things here. However, this is how they appear to me.

To show that it is part of my culture, below, I include a quote from one of America's Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine. It is from a book he wrote called "The Age of Reason." However, he is more famous for the speech he wrote that begins "These are the times that try men's souls..."

"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

---Dan

Hurria said...

"As to your obsession with sex thing, get real."

Once again, Ann, this compulsion to make it all personal. Just for the record, I have no obsession with the "sex thing". Someone introduced the "eternal sex with 72 virgins" nonsense, and I have responded, that is all.

"If someone has to have five wives to keep his Mr. Johnson happy he is obsessed or perhaps there is something culturally wrong."

1. Muslim men are allowed according to the Qur'an to take no more than four wives, so five is not allowed. In addition, even though taking more than one wife is permitted, it is not recommended, and if they do take more than one wife they are required to treat them all equally.

2. I suppose this "Mr. Johnson" is some childish American slang for the male sex organ, for which the English word is penis. The use of such substitute terms reveals a discomfort with the use of the real term, which reveals a discomfort with the thing the term symbolizes. Why do so many Americans have so much difficulty saying the word penis that they have to childishly substitute slang words for it?

3. You appear to be operating on the belief that marriage, for men at least, is just about having sex, and that therefore marriage with more than one woman is just about having more sex.

4. For the record, polygamous marriages are and have been for a very long time quite rare in Iraq and in most of the rest of the Muslim world.

"Iraq is a nation that is known for having issues with sex."

Known by whom, and for having specifically what issues with sex?

"Human rights organizations have documented the use of rape, and videotaping of rape of wives and daughters of high ranking officials to blackmail them."

1. Exactly how does this indicate that Iraq as a society has "issues with sex"?

2. Do you think the iraqi regime is the only entity to use rape or threats of rape of loved ones as a form of torture and punishment?

3. Are you suggesting that Iraqi men are unique in being profoundly affected by the very idea of, let alone being forced to view and hear recordings of their wives and daughters being raped? Are you suggesting specifically that American men are not profoundly affected by even the knowledge that their female loved ones have been raped? Are you suggesting that Iraqi men being profoundly affected by such things is an indication that Iraq has "issues with sex"?

4. Are you not aware of the fact that rape is not about sex, but about power and dominance, and that this is particularly true when rape is used as an indirect weapon not against the rape victim, but against the victim's loved ones?

"Human rights organizations have documented the fact that Iraqi prison guards hung women upside down during their menstral cycles and inserted rocks into their vaginas - all on political prisoners who were not doing anything criminal nature."

1. And how, exactly does this indicate that Iraq as a society "has issues with sex"?

2. They also did terrible things to the penises, testicles and anuses of male political prisoners.

3. Do you think the Iraqi regime is the only entity to use these kinds of torture techniques? Do you think the Iraqi regime is the only entity to use sex and sexuality to abuse and torture prisoners?

4. Are you not aware that none of this is about sex, but about power and dominance?

"Human rights organizations have documented that prostitutes (even women who had no other way to make money or people to watch out for them) were beheaded in the street of Iraq by Saddam's army men - and over 200 happened in days prior to the invasion, they say."

And how, exactly, does this indicate that Iraq as a society has "issues with sex"?

"Even Saddam's own daughter was married at the tender age of 14 -
this would be statutory rape in our country.
"

Once again you reveal your belief that marriage is all about having sex since that appears to be the first, if not the only thing you think of when you learn a 14 year old girl has gotten married.

And before you make absurdly silly assertions like this one you ought to obtain some facts.

1. In no case can statutory rape ever apply in the case of concentual sex between two married people regardless of their ages.

2. Setting aside your fallacious notion that marriage is all about having sex, I strongly recommend that you check out at what age women are allowed to be married in many western countries including your own before using the early marriage of one of Saddam's daughters as evidence that Iraq "is known to have issues with sex". Here is a link for your convenience: marriage ages

"Obsession with sex? Us? Get real."

Try again. You have failed completely to make any kind of case on any level that Americans are not obsessed with sex. For starters you if you want to support a claim about U.S. society, you need to present facts about U.S. society. You do not make your case by focusing exclusively on a claim, valid or not, that "Iraq is known to have issues with sex". Second, you failed utterly to present a case for your claim that Iraqi is "known to have issues with sex". Third, you have clearly revealed your own belief that marriage is all about having sex. If that belief is shared by many Americans, that certainly tends to weaken your case that Americans are not obsessed with sex.

Hurria said...

Thanks, TT. Now I do remember that the author is a Pakistani who now lives in Canada.

te mana said...

in fraud we trust

FKM said...

TruthTeller, I haven't read through all the other comments, but wanted to say that I am sorry that the government of my country (which I voted against in a possibly fraudulent and at least error-riddled election) invaded your country (I am sorry for the situation in which that has placed American soldiers, too). Thanks for your blog.

Hurria said...

"Barnes and Noble has a section about Islam and that's one of the featured books."

That is not, of course, any indication whatsoever about the value of the information in the book. It is all about selling books and making a profit, not about helping people become well informed.

I agree that it is challenging and difficult to discern reliable from unreliable information about many things, and these days especially about Islam because of the popularity of the subject and the number of people who are willing to try to make money and/or a name for themselves writing what often amounts to prejudiced, ignorant nonsense about it. I would suggest, though, that the best basic introduction to any subject does not come from a book purporting to tell you what is wrong with it. Whatever you get out of such a book will be at best one sided and prejudiced in a negative way. The same can be said for a book that purports to tell you why whatever it is is the best, the greatest or the only valid thing.

"So is "the Koran for Dummies" and "Islam for Dummies". I'm not sure those were written by credible sources either."

I don't know either. They could be decent introductions, but they could be a waste of time too. They will, by their very nature, certainly be overly simplified.

"So, why don't you supply the title and author or ISBN of a book by an author that you respect, and I promise I will read it so that I can understand what Islam means from your point of view."

Well, what I would suggest to you is to start not with something that will help you understand Islam from any particular point of view, but with a very basic, relatively unbiased introduction to Islam for non-Muslims so that you understand the basic beliefs and practices of Islam and on what they are based. I have not read any such books all the way through, but I will try to give you a list of a few that I think will give you some good basic information.

I also strongly recommend that you learn a bit about the history of Islam, about which a lot of very biased, and very prejudiced things have been written, some of which are complete nonsense. I can recommend as a very good introduction Islam, a Short History by Karen Armstrong. The author is a recognized authority on religion who is not herself a Muslim, and who does not hold any great prejudices either for or against Islam. The book is not lengthy, but it gives you a good idea of the main events and their context, as well as the main actors in Islam's history.

"I read through some of the links Truth posted before, but some of them were just anti-Christian sounding...I just want to study what Islam means all by itself not by defining what it isn't in terms of what others are."

I do agree with you there. In any case, you really cannot separate Islam from Judaism and Christianity because they are historically and ideologically very closely related. The more I understand about the three Abrahamic religions the more I find that there are far, far more similarities than differences among them. In fact, there are some passages in the Qur'an on that very subject. I will locate them and post them here in English.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann said...

Hurria, thank you, I look forward to your links. I have the Qu'ran in English from what appears to be a reliable on-line resource.

I think the best authorities though are not the historical ones - that's a good way to understand history. But religion isn't static. It evolves and the meanings of things change. Perhaps it is part of the intelligent design? Manji's book is good because she IS accepted by so many Islamics as recognizing what the needs of today's Islamics are. A religious organization should be serving it's members, and each individual has their own unique understanding of religious beliefs. Manji is seeking ways to evolve or perhaps revolutionize Islam to better serve Islamics. Let me ask you, the way that things are now organized in the system or hierarchy of Islamic leaders, have they served you well? The ambiguity regarding beliefs presented to communities outside of Islam have had negative impact on the Islamic community. That is a fault of the leadership and of the system. I think Manji's book is better than some of the others on the shelf because it asks questions about how to make Islamic practice work for today's kids - like Najma!

----

Regarding Abraham - I find it odd that people who claim to be children of Abraham condone suicide/homicide bombers and those who encourage their children to commit these acts. To me the story of Abraham being told by God to not sacrifice his child, but take a sheep instead, was one in which God was telling us that such behavior was unacceptable in his name. Perhaps Islam does not include that aspect of Abraham's life, but I think it is an important one and one that is a repeated theme even there in the "sacrifice" of Christ. Christ, they say, sacrificed or martyred himself since he knew that he would be beaten and killed if he continued to deliver his messages and speeches - but he continued anyway because he valued giving his advice and words to the people around him more than he valued not being beaten and killed for doing it. In each case, it was to be the end of human sacrifice. Both are strong and central messages, foundation points really, of Judaism and Christianity. Ones that differentiated their followers from pagans who often used human sacrifice - like Incas or people who threw virgins into volcanos and such. But it seems that Islam came along and reopened the notion of human sacrifice, seeing it as being ok or even mandated by God whereas Judaism and Christianity put in stories that were to stop further human sacrifice. I'm sure that you'll have a way of saying that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding Islam, but the fact is that even there are Islamic leaders encouraging people to do these acts and in God's name.

Hurria said...

"Muslims who deny Islam is centered on death and sex seem so reluctant to condemn those who commit so many atrocities in Islam's name?"

1. Muslims are not responsible for the acts of a tiny minority of extremist criminals any more than Christians or Jews or Sikhs or Tamils, or Kurds or Basques or Irish are responsible for the crimes of those of their number who commit atrocities.

2. I don't know what world you live in, but Muslims all over the world do condemn the atrocities that are committed by those who commit their vile acts in the name of Islam. How have you missed all the reports - reports that have appeared even in the U.S. mainstream media - of the condemnations by Muslims worldwide? How have you missed all the reports of the fact that Imams all have condemned the attacks in London in Friday sermons all over the world? How have you managed to miss that the head of every Muslim country has publicly and officially condemned the attack in London?

"Islam is centered on death and sex"

Islam is centered on one thing, and one thing only, and that is the one God - the very same one God that commanded Abraham to kill his son, and the very same one God that Christians believe sent Jesus to save them.

"Or do they and I am just unaware?"

Yes, you are unaware of the fact that despite the fact that they are the only group required to take any responsibility for the acts of extremists they do. They do it privately and they do it publicly, they do it as individuals, they do it as officials.

Hurria said...

"I find it odd that people who claim to be children of Abraham condone suicide/homicide bombers and those who encourage their children to commit these acts."

1. I know of no instance in which anyone has encouraged his or her own children to commit a suicide bombing. Do you?

2. Why do you limit this sense of what is odd only to Muslims? What about the other Children of Abraham? Do extremists and criminals among them not do things that you find out of keeping with being children of Abraham?

Ann said...

1) Like I said, al Sadr was one mentioned by some Iraqis. To others, he may have seemed like he was provoking the coalition simply to martyr himself for God. To me, it sounded like even now, he is trying to please his father - the one who he didn't have a great relationship and the one who he lost prematurely because Saddam's men killed him.

2) Not in God's name or on his behalf.

Encouraging someone else's child to commit such acts in God's name or for their own political gain is also wrong, isn't it?

Ann said...

Hurria, Truth Teller has not condemned the acts of the suicide bombers, and has said that they are legitimate.

My thinking is this: until local communities set up a society in which these acts are condemned, shunned, taboo, humiliated, vilified, etc. they will continue. As long as the locals (glamorize, celebrate, commend, condone, encourage, appreciate, accept, expect) these acts, they will continue. It's that simple.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

"I don't know what world you live in, but Muslims all over the world do condemn the atrocities that are committed by those who commit their vile acts in the name of Islam. How have you missed all the reports - reports that have appeared even in the U.S. mainstream media - of the condemnations by Muslims worldwide?"

Now that you have decided to address the issue, will you please provide some links to support your position on this? I have missed them all. (And before you get sassy about ME providing links for YOU, I remind you that you have still NOT answered my question from TT's previous post where I did provide you with links.)
Since they are coming in from "Muslims worldwide," I would like to see ten. However, I will settle for just ONE.

---Dan

Hurria said...

"1) Like I said, al Sadr was one mentioned by some Iraqis."

And the fact that "some Iraqis" mention something is good enough for you, as long as it is something you want to believe?

"To others, he may have seemed like he was provoking the coalition simply to martyr himself for God."

"He may have seemed" to others? This is nothing but speculation on your part as to how it "may have seemed" to someone else. Are you actually expecting anyone to take this seriously as an argument?

And by the way, your thoughts appear to be rather garbled here. I thought we were talking about parents encouraging their children to become suicide bombers, not to provoke someone else to kill him. So, which is it.

"To me, it sounded like even now, he is trying to please his father..."

And now you are acting as armchair psychologist for Muqtada' Al Sadr. This is rich!

"2) Not in God's name or on his behalf."

To mention just two: What about all those good "Christians" who think they are doing God's work by blowing up women's clinics where abortions are performed, and by assassinating the people who work in them? What about the Jewish extremists who kill Palestinians and take their land in the name of God?

"Encouraging someone else's child to commit such acts in God's name or for their own political gain is also wrong, isn't it?"

Yes, it is wrong.

By the way, exactly how old are all these children you are talking about?

Hurria said...

"Hurria, Truth Teller has not condemned the acts of the suicide bombers, and has said that they are legitimate."

Then you must discuss that with Truth Teller, and ask him to explain his thinking to you. My guess is that you will find his thinking more nuanced than you expect.

"My thinking is this: until local communities set up a society in which these acts are condemned, shunned, taboo, humiliated, vilified, etc. they will continue. As long as the locals (glamorize, celebrate, commend, condone, encourage, appreciate, accept, expect) these acts, they will continue. It's that simple."

No, it is not that simple. Not at all, and not on any level. For one thing, you seem to be stuck on the fallacious notion that everything people do is about gaining prestige, approval, and admiration. Maybe that is true of you - or maybe not - but it is not by any means universal. Second, you are giving no consideration at all to what these people - the ones who commit the bombings, and the ones who approve of it - have been through, and how that experience will affect all human beings. It is, I am sure, difficult to impossible for you to comprehend given that neither you nor anyone you know has never suffered anything remotely like it, but the effect is profound.

Interesting how so many Americans can understand the profound effects of war on troops who are only there for a year or so, and then get to go home, but do not have the same understanding about the people who are trapped in an unrelenting horror for years or decades with absolutely no way out.

Hurria said...

Ann,

In the previous comment section I gave a more complete response to the ludicrous claim that Mohammad Sadiq Al Sadr asked his son to become a suicide bomber. You might want to read it.

Ann said...

fallacious notion that everything people do is about gaining prestige, approval, and admiration

wrong. when people take on such self-aggrandizing acts, though, this is the case. check previous section for references.

Ann said...

neither you nor anyone you know has never suffered anything remotely like it

very wrong.

Hurria said...

"Now that you have decided to address the issuea"

What the hell is THAT supposed to mean?

"will you please provide some links to support your position on this?

This is not a matter of "my position", it is a matter of fact. The fact is that Muslim and Arab leaders worldwide, as well as Muslim groups and individuals, have condemned the bombings in very strong terms in their own media, in their mosques, and to the international community.

"I have missed them all."

If you were really interested in seeing how widespread was the Muslim and Arab condemnation of the bombings in London you could have googled Muslims condemn London bombinga, and Arab leaders condemn London bombing as I just did. Had you done this you would have found that even Hamas and Hezbollah condemned the bombings:

"The bomb attacks in London were condemned by governments across the Arab world as well as by Hamas, the Palestinian organisation, and Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia movement; both considered terrorist groups by the US.

All of this been so widely reported that the only reason I can think of for anyone to completely avoid seeing it is that they did not want to see it.

Given that you are not interested enough to pursue the information for yourself, here are a few URL'S from Islamic, U.S., Canadian, British, and other sources. Excuse me for not making them links. I do not feel like taking the extra time:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/07/article07.shtml

http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot-ottmuslimldn20050708

http://author.voanews.com/english/2005-07-08-voa65.cfm

http://www.cair-net.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050707/pl_afp/britainattacksreaxus_050707192727

http://www.sbpost.ie/breakingnews/breaking_story.asp?j=63382473&p=6338z774&n=63382869&x=

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=923167

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L07397428.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050708/wl_mideast_afp/britainattacksreaxsaudiislam_050708131426

Hurria said...

Very wrong, Ann? Well, please tell me all about it.

strykerdad said...

Well Hurria, your view of Islam today is certainly different from what I see, read, and hear every day. You would have me believe that there is a nearly universal misperception of the faith by most of the Western world.

I don't say Islam the way you practice it, or the way TT may believe it is not in the mainstream of Muslims today--I won't pretend to know. But the faith has far too many people who claim to share the same faith as you who believe it is their sacred duty to kill all unbelievers and to make all submit to fundamentalist Islamic law. The kind of law that requires burkhas, honor killings, stonings, beheadings, and other 14th century fun and games while shouting 'allah is great!'. They quote what seem to be directly from the Koran to justify any violent acts on unbelievers, and including believers who are living among them.

Should we blame all Muslims for that? No. but I think we should expect all moderate Muslims to do all in their power to help repudiate the fanatics and see their ideology defeated. If these fanatics ever manage to inflict another 9-11 or worse, I don't think people like me, and I'm one of the more reasonable I know, are going to want to hear about all the excuses, and explanations and statements declaring it is our own ignorance that makes us look with disgust on the faith that seems to allow its members to coexist with such barbarity.

That may be unfair, but it is a fact of life. Osama and those who share his ideology have framed this as a war of Islam against Western civilization. Muslims like you had better realize that and clean up the mess from within. You may tell yourselves it is unfair and all due to the ignorance of unbelievers -- congratulate yourselves for bearing the burden of saving the world while you do it, if it makes you feel better.

You say many 'leaders' have condemned such acts, and I have read a few articles written by Muslims that are critical of the fanatics. But they are rare and make news becasue they are so rare and are what so many in the West are waiting to hear--Just what is the faith as a group doing to put an end to such insanity? Are moderate Muslims incapable or uniting and taking action to rid the world of these imams who preach hate and jihad and martyrdom? Can't you find some other prurpose behind which to unite and give your children some hope for a future?

An inexact analogy would be Germans in the late 30's who had no interest or affection for Nazism, yet let that ideology become Germany because they resented the condition Germany had fallen into. They paid a price for not speaking out and fighting against it out of nationalistic pride and a collective sense of victimhood. They may be bastards, but they are our bastards, and we have been wronged- way of thinking. This could easily become a war against Islam, another massive attack against Americans or Brits in the name of Allah could do it, and I honestly hope that does not happen for everyone's sake. But if that simplistic approach seems to be the only solution, then so be it. I and no American I know will ever submit to that tyranny.

Now I anticipate a statement equating america's desire for a democratic Middle east, with respect for basic human rights with nazi Germany, which is why such discussions are really pointless.

Ann said...

Very wrong, Ann? Well, please tell me all about it.

No thank you. This is an Iraqi's blog, and the focus should remain on Iraq and related subjects. Thank you for your interest, though.

Ann said...

Hurria - is ABCnews, yahoo news, and the council on American-Islamic relations acceptable resources by your standards. No, this isn't sarcasm - it is a legitimate question because these are the types of sources you typically reject and in order to have a meaningful conversation we need to understand what sources of information you accept as legitimate.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

Thank you for providing those links. It is I who have been a lazy fool on this point. You have gained much credibility in my eyes by providing me with this information.

While I am against religion and dogma per se, because of their reliance on faith rather than reason, I am satisfied with your position on this matter.

I am content now to focus on other issues that this discussion touches on:

1) Whether the United States was correct to liberate Iraq; which I believe it was.

2) What to do about the situation now.

More later.

---Dan

Hurria said...

"I have the Qu'ran in English from what appears to be a reliable on-line resource."

What is the source, if you don't mind telling me?

"I think the best authorities though are not the historical ones - that's a good way to understand history."

You cannot understand Islam if you do not know something about its history and the historical context in which it came into being. And you cannot even begin to interpret the Qur'an unless you know the historical context of what you are reading, and which historical events and circumstances it refers to.

"But religion isn't static. It evolves"

And you cannot understand how it has evolved without knowing at least the basics of its history.

"and the meanings of things change."

The meaning of the Qur'an has not changed.

"Perhaps it is part of the intelligent design?"

I have no idea what so-called "intelligent design" has to do with anything, but if you are talking about that business the anti-evolutionists are trying to push to replace evolution, you will not find a receptive ear here.

"Manji's book is good because she IS accepted by so many Islamics as recognizing what the needs of today's Islamics are."

How do you know it is accepted by "so many" Muslims? Where did you hear this? It has been widely discredited and rejected by even the most progressive Muslims, including a lot of intellectuals who have rejected religion altogether. (People who practice Islam are not Islamics, they are Muslims.)

"Manji is seeking ways to evolve or perhaps revolutionize Islam to better serve Islamics."

It looks more like she was seeking a way to take advantage of the recent anti-Islam hysteria and wrote a negative book about Islam in order to make some money while airing her personal grievances. If her true motive had been to somehow make Islam serve Muslims better she would not have gone about it by writing a book in English enumerating her own personal grievances and called it The Trouble with Islam. She would have gone about it in a constructive, and not a destructive way.

"Let me ask you, the way that things are now organized in the system or hierarchy of Islamic leaders, have they served you well?"

Islam is not a hierarchically organized religion as Christianity is. It is decentralized in much the same way Judaism is. There is no central authority that dictates to all of Islam, and I have no problem with that. As far as I can tell most Muslims find it works very well for them.

"The ambiguity regarding beliefs presented to communities outside of Islam have had negative impact on the Islamic community."

That is not how it looks to me.

"That is a fault of the leadership and of the system."

That is not how it looks to me. It looks to me like it is more the fault of those who have designated Islam as the current enemy, and who work overtime demonizing Islam and Muslims just as they did Communism and the Communists during the cold war.

"I think Manji's book is better than some of the others on the shelf because it asks questions about how to make Islamic practice work for today's kids - like Najma!"

That is absolutely inappropriate for you to say. Najma's religion is the business of Najma and her family, and none of yours and none of Manji's. Aside from the fact that no one else's religion is your business, at this point you do not know even the fundamentals of Islam, and you see it in a very twisted and incorrect way because you have chosen to use negatively biased sources for your information. I don't mean this to put you down, it is simply a fact.

Hurria said...

"I am satisfied with your position on this matter."

What matter are you referring to? Religion? If so, you have no idea what my position is on religion. If you are referring to the widespread Muslim and Arab condemnation of the London bombings, the term position is incorrect. This is not a question of positions, it is a question of facts, and it is a fact as you now have conceded, that there has been widespread internal and external condemnation in very strong terms by Muslims worldwide. Just as there was, by the way, widespread shock, condemnation and huge sympathy on the part of Muslims for the events of September 11. I am sure you knew nothing about that, of course.

Hurria said...

"is ABCnews, yahoo news, and the council on American-Islamic relations acceptable resources by your standards."

This is a very weird question. Resources for what? This is quite a strange mixed salad you have presented here containing items that have little or nothing in common - a broadcast media news source, a website that gathers and publishes news reports from a variety of sources, and an Islamic organization whose purpose is to serve the interests of American Muslims, and to build bridges between American Muslims and other American communities and has nothing to do with reporting news.

"No, this isn't sarcasm - it is a legitimate question because these are the types of sources you typically reject and in order to have a meaningful conversation we need to understand what sources of information you accept as legitimate."

That depends entirely on what they are being used as resources for. I can think of no better resource for whether CAIR has condemned the London bombings than CAIR itself, can you? Well, that is what I used it for here. I am very sure I have never rejected ABC news or any similar news source as illegitimate, and Yahoo news merely acts as an outlet for news from a variety of sources.

Hurria said...

"No thank you. This is an Iraqi's blog, and the focus should remain on Iraq and related subjects."

You stated that you or someone you know has been through something similar to what Iraqis and Palestinians are going through. I am sure that is very relevant to the topics here, and would be interesting to many of us, and would give a clearer idea of where you are coming from. Please share with us at least a brief description of the experience.

Hurria said...

"it seems that Islam came along and reopened the notion of human sacrifice, seeing it as being ok or even mandated by God"

And you base this on what, specifically?

"whereas Judaism and Christianity put in stories that were to stop further human sacrifice."

But they did not stop as witnessed by the great number of Christian martyrs since Jesus.

"I'm sure that you'll have a way of saying that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding Islam, but the fact is that even there are Islamic leaders encouraging people to do these acts and in God's name."

And that there are some Islamic "leaders" doing this proves what?

Moron99 said...

"There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return."

Hurria, that day is upon us. The warnings have been seen and those with open eyes know the truth of the prophet's words.

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope of that he will be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things."

And so we see that the Imams of death rally people towards hatred by building a web of smaller things in order to justify acting against the basic tennants of Islam itself.

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belogs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."

and we hear the prophet clearly tell us what the big things are. and we see clear evidence that the people of Islam have done exactly as he prophesized in exactly the ways that he foretold.

**************
And Hurria dear, when you wish to rebutt me - then do so with the big things. The prophet has already warned us against being led astray by the little ones.

Ann said...

That is absolutely inappropriate for you to say.

Not really. France recently deported Muslim imam Bouziane made comments in defense of domestic violence in a magazine interview. As you say, Islam has no central authority and no central guiding principles that are universally accepted among all sects. Each sect and each imam is allowed to interpret the Koran as he sees fit. External forces were necessary to protect the domestic environment for women in France. France clearly has a government which can uphold its laws that at least one imam said were in conflict with the teachings of Islam (as he saw them). External forces have also been needed to protect women in other domestic situations like divorce and child care, where the laws of Islam did not protect her. It is not inappropriate for me to suggest that religions that would have laws that prevented Najma from getting the medical treatments she might need, the nutrition she needs to grow, the education she needs for success in today's complex society, and the assurance that the norms of society will protect her from domestic harm. This has NOTHING to do with infringement on the freedom of choice for her and her family to worship as she sees fit. It has to do with not allowing her to be abused by others in the name of a religion or for any other reason.

In regards to your other question, it simply would not be appropriate. Some things you have to take on faith. I have never lied to you about anything.

Ann said...

Website with information about Domestic Violence.

Dan said...

Hurriah:

“If you are referring to the widespread Muslim and Arab condemnation of the London bombings, the term position is incorrect. This is not a question of positions, it is a question of facts…”

I am very well versed in the use of the English language. My use of the word “position” is correct as I was referring to you basing your statement on verifiable facts. This is in stark contrast to the position you took when you said:

“Dan, no one has liberated Iraq. All they have done is to change the identity of the oppressor.”

In this last mentioned statement, you did NOT base your position on verifiable facts but, rather, you based it on nebulous emotions floating around in your head.

---Dan

waldschrat said...

Information dribbles in from odd sources and sometimes it adds a new perspective on the situation. One tidbit is as follows:
Link to article about leaked British memo
"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said, although it made clear the U.S. military's tempo for troop cuts is not set in stone, with commanders still divided:

"There is, however, a debate between the
Pentagon/Centcom, who favor a relatively bold reduction in force numbers and the multinational force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious."


Who knows, maybe things will actually get better some day. As information goes, it's unreliable rumor at best. I can't help wondering if the garbled sentence structure originated with the British bureaucrat who wrote the memo or the Reuters correspondent who quoted it.

Dan said...

A verifiable fact:

“In the deadliest blast Sunday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at an Iraqi military recruiting center at Muthana airfield near central Baghdad, killing 25 people and wounding 47, according to the U.S. military and hospital officials.

The explosion occurred just before 9 a.m. as about
400 would-be recruits were crowded outside the gate of the center, which had been hit several times before by suicide attackers.”

Link: http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/iraq/story/2544299p-10941213c.html

---Dan

waldschrat said...

Another tidbit:

The oh so holy folks who blew up the bus and trains in London recently, and others considering similar acts, might want to consider the fact that the reaction produced among decent people may be anger, not fear. I had ample evidence of this the other day when my wife, watching TV in the other room as I typed at the computer, commented as follows:

"The more I learn about Muslim ideology, the more I think it might be reasonable to bomb them off the face of the planet!"

Clearly Islam in the world today has a serious, serious problem with it's public image. The picture conjured in the minds of many decent people when they think of Muslims is of a homicidal lunatic with a bomb strapped to his chest. I know better, I know there is a doctor in Mosul with urinary tract problems, educated at Johns Hopkins, who tries to do the best he can every day under very hard circumstances for his family and his patients. It is truly tragic that the other kind of so-called "Muslims", the ones with their bombs, give the world a bad picture of that man.

waldschrat said...

One more tidbit of information:

The progress of a small shipment of ostomy supplies on it's way to Mosul Oncology and Nuclear Medicine Hospital can be followed using tracking number 791129723852 at http://www.fedex.com/us/.

This is a first, experimental shipment. I expected and have encountered problems. So far, difficulties include:
1. THe shipment was delayd because the online pharmacy (see beloew) did not have all the materials ordered and had to wait for their delivery. Next time I will tell them to ship what is available immediately and ship back-ordered stuff separately.
2. Shipping weight is more than twice what was expected; part of this is good because the pharmacy said they were adding a contributon of their own, but part may be due to the weight of packing materials. Shipping via Fedex is costly so I am investigating other shipping channels.
3. The doctor in Mosul who truth teller referred me to has not yet responded to my two emails and relies on a computer at his office for email connectivity. Perhaps truth teller can contact him and ask if he recieved my messages.

For folks who want to help in this effort to send supplies for ostomy patients in Iraq, my contact at the online pharmacy I used to send the supplies is as follows:
"OstomyCareSupply.com", http://ostomycaresupply.safeshopper.com/index.htm
Contact: Cynthia Hacherl at OstomyCareSupply.com, (866)207-5909 (toll free in USA), cynthia@ostomycaresupply.com

What I am able to send myself is only a little compared to what is needed. I sincerely hope others will join in to make the total contribution larger.

Dan said...

Thanks Waldschrat. I wish I could help but I cannot as I am a poor man.

With upwards of 1,000,000,000 Muslims on this planet, if only one out of a thousand (1/10th of 1%) are the type who commit acts of terror, then this is still 1,000,000 lunatics. Quite a sizeable "army." Quite a problem; for everyone...

---Dan

Hurria said...

"any belief system which commands women to cover themselves head to toe, or at the very least, their hair, so as to not tempt the men among them has got some sexual issues behind it."

Orthodox Judaism requires women to cover their hair, too, and forbids unrelated men and women to touch at all, and forbids any woman from touching any man including her husband while she is menstruating, and even afterward before she has undergone a purifying ritual bath. This is much stricter than Islam as it is practiced by the mainstream.

Some Christian sects also have strict dress codes for women, and have very strict restrictions on contact between men and women. Do those Jews and Christians also have sexual issues?

There are a lot of misconceptions about the dress requirements in Islam. For your information, in Islam both men and women are required to dress modestly and not expose their bodies in a sexually provocative way. (This requirement led some years ago to the cancellation in Indonesia of, of all things, a Barry Manilow concert in Indonesia after the local promoters learned that he removed his shirt at a point in the concert.)

It is important to understand the historic origin of the dress requirements for women, which was not to oppress them, but to protect them and bring them more respect by removing the sexual element in everyday contact between men and women. In the society in which Mohammad lived very few women had any status or rights at all, and the rest were little more than slaves to be used, abused, or even killed at the will of men. Islam changed all that, and the requirement that women dress in a way that removed their image as sexual object was a part of that. The fact that in some places those protections have been transmogrified into something else should not be blamed on Islam.

The mode of dress and degree and strictness of covering for women is determined less by Islamic "commands" than by local custom. At one ridiculous and unislamic extreme women are punished for not covering every single inch of skin. In other places it is entirely up to the choice of the woman whether and if so how much she will cover. In Pakistan traditionally most women do not cover their heads all the time. They carry a long rectangular scarf which is usually draped over the shoulders, and is only pulled up over their heads and may even be drawn over the lower face when for any reason they feel they should cover themselves more. In most urban areas in the Muslim world you will see women wearing the latest western fashion with no covering at all intermingled with women in various degrees of covered dress.

"Or have I been misinformed? I know Islam has many different sects, and some do not take many of the most archaic commandments of the Koran very seriously"

That is not really accurate. The Qur'an does not contain any commandment about dress except that men and women must dress modestly and that women should cover their bosom and not expose themselves in a sexually provocative way. The historical reason for this, and for the specific reference to covering the bosom is that women with no status were often forced to go into public semi-clothed, and forced to expose their breasts in public. The point of the requirement for modest dress was not so women would not tempt men, but to protect these women, and to bring them a measure of respect.

There is a lot of variation of opinion on what constitutes modest dress, as well as regional variation, as you can easily see in the great variety of types and degree of covering.

"but why the silence"

What silence?

"I do know some Muslim Americans, have one who works for me and I have respect for what he says Islam has meant in his life. But I can't say that I have been very positively impressed with how it has affected mine."

Islam has not affected your life at all. But what has this to do with female dress codes as an indicator of sexual issues?

Hurria said...

"Well Hurria, your view of Islam today is certainly different from what I see, read, and hear every day."

Might that possibly be because I have direct knowledge and experience of Islam and all you know about it is the distorted, skewed and outright false nonsense you see, read and hear about it.?

"You would have me believe that there is a nearly universal misperception of the faith by most of the Western world."

You can believe what you want to believe. It is a fact that there is a nearly universal, and in some ways outrageous misperceptiona of Islam by most of the western world. This is nothing new. It has been the case for centuries, but today it has reached new lows. The reason for the nearly universal misperception now that is that since the end of the Cold War Islam has become the new politically convenient Great Evil Enemy thanks to those who chose it as such, and who work overtime to demonize it and present it in the blackest light possible (there are people who make a career out of that), and who are now ably assisted by the ugly, unislamic actions of wacked out nut cases like Osama bin Laden.

"I don't say Islam the way you practice it"

You are making assumptions. You have no idea how I practice Islam, or whether I practice it at all.

"or the way TT may believe it is not in the mainstream of Muslims today--I won't pretend to know."

"But the faith has far too many people who claim to share the same faith as you who believe it is their sacred duty to kill all unbelievers and to make all submit to fundamentalist Islamic law."

Every human group has far too many extremists who wish to force their will on the world. There is no evidence Islam has more than any other group. People like bin Laden are a miniscule minority. That their actions have had a significant impact on the world does not alter that.

Allow me to address the issue of what actually constitutes an "unbeliever". The term "unbeliever" does not refer to non-Muslims. Anyone who is a monotheist who believes in God is a believer. The Qur'an is very clear that Jews and Christians and a few other groups are believers. They are referred to as People of the Book, the Book being the Bible. The notion that Christians and Jews are "unbelievers" is plainly and simply false.

"The kind of law that requires burkhas, honor killings, stonings, beheadings, and other 14th century fun and games while shouting 'allah is great!'."

Could you try to be a little bit more restrained in your tone when you are repeating this kind of nonsense? You sound as if you are positively enjoying being able to demonize Islam, and it does not encourage one to try to have a serious discussion with you.

There is no law in Islam that requires "burkas". There is no law in Islam that requires "honour killings". On the contrary, this sort of behaviour is distinctly unislamic. Likewise there is no law in Islam that requires stonings or beheadings, with or without shoutings of "God is great".

"They quote what seem to be directly from the Koran to justify any violent acts on unbelievers, and including believers who are living among them."

Can you think of no "Christians", either historically or in the present day who quote directly from the Bible to justify their violent acts? No Jews who do the same? I certainly can.
Are Christianity and Christians in general or Judaism and Jews in general held responsible for those acts?

"I think we should expect all moderate Muslims to do all in their power to help repudiate the fanatics and see their ideology defeated."

Why are all moderate Muslims responsible for the actions and beliefs of a miniscule minority of freaks on the fringe? Why should moderate Muslims be held hostage for a few loonies? Is this required of Christians? Of Jews? Of Hindus? Of Tamils? Of Kurds? Of Basques? Of Irish? Of Buddhists? No, it is not. So why are Muslims uniquely subjected to this requirement?

Bin Laden has nothing to do with me, and it is not my responsibility to apologize for him.

"If these fanatics ever manage to inflict another 9-11 or worse, I don't think people like me, and I'm one of the more reasonable I know, are going to want to hear about all the excuses, and explanations and statements declaring it is our own ignorance that makes us look with disgust on the faith that seems to allow its members to coexist with such barbarity."

And Christianity and Judaism, and Hinduism, and Buddhism and Tamils, and Kurds, and Basques, and Irish, and Americans, and British do not allow themselves to coexists with barbarity in their midst, of course. What complete narrow minded, biggoted, self-centered nonsense!

"Osama and those who share his ideology have framed this as a war of Islam against Western civilization."

No they haven't. It is your politicians and self-proclaimed "experts" who have conveniently framed it that way with all that crap about "they hate our way of life", and "they hate our freedom". This "clash of civilizations" BS was not invented by bin Laden, it is purely a Western construct. It is very handy in that it allows you to avoid facing any responsibility you may have in the development of - and the solution to - the problem whose creation you have a great deal to do with.

"Muslims like you had better realize that and clean up the mess from within."

Americans like you had better wake up and smell the coffee and stop lecturing and pointing the finger at "Muslims like me". Take a look at your own responsibility and stop using bin Laden as an excuse to launch aggressive wars that are only making the problem worse for you and everyone else.

"You say many 'leaders' have condemned such acts, and I have read a few articles written by Muslims that are critical of the fanatics. But they are rare and make news becasue they are so rare and are what so many in the West are waiting to hear--Just what is the faith as a group doing to put an end to such insanity?"

What is YOUR faith as a group doing to put an end to the insanity perpetrated by your fringe lunatics? What are Americans as a group doing to put an end to the insanity of your governments that year after year make the same stupid, arrogant, short-sighted mistakes that encourage and give strength to wackos like bin Laden? What are Americans as a group doing to put an end to the actions of a government thinks the solution to every problem is to bomb another small, weak country into rubble, and call it promoting democracy?

Stop this arrogant, narrow minded, bigotted lecturing and look at your own problems for a minute. Look at your own part in creating and perpetuating your own problems, and do something about that. That will do more to solve the problems than all the paternalistic, self-important lecturing and finger wagging in the world.

Ann said...

Do those Jews and Christians also have sexual issues?

If the presumption is that the women must dress this way because otherwise she is soliciting men, then yes, they have sexual issues.

Dress codes, per se, are not an indicator of sexual issues. At first, I thought the women wore hajibs because historically near the marshes there might be flying insects, or they weren't always able to wash their hair, that they didn't want to spread lice, it kept their heads cooler, or that it prevented damage to their skin from direct sunlight. But it has always been explained to me in terms of packaging a woman so that only her husband touches her. I didn't assume that the dress code had any indication of sexuality or male-female relations, but that it is how Muslims have explained it (to me directly in college).

Ann said...

outrageous misperceptiona of Islam by most of the western world

Perhaps the Islamic community would benefit from better marketing. Their latest sell pitch of what their beliefs are isn't consistent with the way you portray them. Is there any scientific poll to say what the vast majority of Muslims believe? Perhaps, you are the one that most Muslims would be consider on the fringes or a "wack-o" - my guess is that Osama, who considers himself the true believer, would consider you to be an infidel. Who gets to say what Islam really stands for?

Hurria said...

I wrote: "no one has liberated Iraq. All they have done is to change the identity of the oppressor."

"In this last mentioned statement, you did NOT base your position on verifiable facts but, rather, you based it on nebulous emotions floating around in your head."

Not at all. Quite the contrary. I base it on an excellent understanding of what liberation means. I then contrast the meaning of liberation with the facts of what your government has done to Iraq and its people, its structures, its institutions, and I find that none of it fits with the meaning of liberation. I look at the facts of your government's actions in Iraq, and I see that they are antithetical to the meaning of liberation. I look at the documentary and other evidence of your government's intentions regarding Iraq, and I find that those intentions had and have nothing to do with liberation. And from comparing the meaning of liberation with all the facts and evidence I find that liberation has not taken place, nor was it your government's intention to liberate Iraq.

Moron99 said...

per Hurria 09:54
"Can you think of no "Christians", either historically or in the present day who quote directly from the Bible to justify their violent acts? No Jews who do the same? I certainly can.
Are Christianity and Christians in general or Judaism and Jews in general held responsible for those acts?"


Modern religion believes that the gravest sin of all is to kill in the name of God. It is worse than murder and worse than blasphemy because it is both within a single act. A religion that gives sanctuary and aproval to such actions can never wash itself clean just as Christianity can never wash itself clean of its transgressions. Islam has gone too far down the road and already has given itself the indelible stain of innocent blood. It remains to be seen if Islam can reform itself. There will be no external salvation. It is up to Muslims to eradicate their own cancer. I believe the prophets final speech was intended to warn you what threat Islam would face from the inside, how to identify it, and how to avoid it. If there is any shame in being Muslim it is not from the bombings and killings - it is from giving the bombers and killers santuary and support within your mosques. You make god dirty with the blood of innocents.

Hurria said...

"If the presumption is that the women must dress this way because otherwise she is soliciting men, then yes, they have sexual issues."

This implies an assumption on your part that this is the presumption in Islam. It is not. The requirement for modest dress has nothing whatsoever to do with women soliciting men.

"At first, I thought the women wore hajibs because historically near the marshes there might be flying insects, or they weren't always able to wash their hair, that they didn't want to spread lice, it kept their heads cooler, or that it prevented damage to their skin from direct sunlight."

You aren't serious! You thought all Muslim women live near marshes? You think Muslim women don't wash, and that they have lice?! Oh, my God, this is simply unbelievable, and outrageous!

"But it has always been explained to me in terms of packaging a woman so that only her husband touches her."

There is an aspect to all restrictions between unmarried men and women of keeping all aspects of sex exclusively within the bond of marriage. That is not unique to Islam by any means. However, it is not about "packaging" women, and it is not so that only her husband touches her at all, and I believe this "packaging" thing is not what anyone told you, but is your own construction based on a partial understanding and a prejudiced view.

When it comes to touching between an unmarried man and woman, there is a lot of variation in views and practices. Touching between family members such as fathers and mothers with their children, brothers and sisters, close aunts, uncles, nephews nieces, cousins is normal and certainly not prohibited. Non-sexual touching such as shaking hands is a matter of individual choice. Some religious Muslims do not shake hands ever with members of the opposite sex, but there is no prohibition against it at all. It is very common to see women in hijab shaking hands with men. It is a matter of individual decision for both men and women. So are other kinds of non-sexual touching between friends of the opposite sex. If an individual believes he or she can keep the touching non-sexual there is no prohibition against it, and it is her or his personal decision. I personally have a few male friends who are very, very religious, and yet who have no hesitation about greeting me with a hug, or a kiss on both cheeks, or walking arm in arm.

"I didn't assume that the dress code had any indication of sexuality or male-female relations..."

No, you assumed it was because Muslim women don't wash and have lice - how lovely!

Religiously mandated dress codes for women are ALWAYS about sexuality and male-female relations. That is such an obvious reality I cannot believe you stretched your mind to flying insects in marshes and head lice.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moron99 said...

Not at all. Quite the contrary. I base it on an excellent understanding of what liberation means. I then contrast the meaning of liberation with the facts of what your government has done to Iraq and its people, its structures, its institutions, and I find that none of it fits with the meaning of liberation. I look at the facts of your government's actions in Iraq, and I see that they are antithetical to the meaning of liberation. I look at the documentary and other evidence of your government's intentions regarding Iraq, and I find that those intentions had and have nothing to do with liberation. And from comparing the meaning of liberation with all the facts and evidence I find that liberation has not taken place, nor was it your government's intention to liberate Iraq.

It's quite possible that the MNF never intended to liberate the baathi or those who believe in Sunni superiority. Perhaps the intent was to liberate the Shia and the Kurd. Perhaps when any animal is freed after 30 years it will flex its muscles and run about. Perhaps that is why MNF is so tolerant of Sciri, Dawa, and KDP. Perhaps it is not so important exactly who the first government is. Perhaps the important thing is that they are willing to share power with their rivals. Perhaps the truly important thing is that they are willing to abdicate power if the majority of voters demand it. Perhaps you don't see it as liberation simply because it liberated the wrong people. That's the funny thing about the west. Liberation to the west means giving all people one vote each and creating a government that is held accountable for its actions. Another election is coming up and we shall soon know if the people of Iraq are satisfied with SCIRI. Will they abdicate power if they are defeated at the ballot? I think yes. I think they will step aside as Allawi did before them. I think that is what makes them better than any other government in the mideast.

waldschrat said...

Truth teller -
I again talked by phone today to the doctor you designated as a contact, and he confirmed he did in fact receive my emails OK, although there was some problem with disruption of internet service at the hospital and things were difficult (no surprise, it is Mosul). He was able to give me contact information for some very good organizations helping ostomy patients and I will contact them and ask for advice and assistance.

Truth teller said...

waldschrat

Thank you very much for your sincere effort.
The shipment is supose to arrive Mosul at 18 july, almost a weak later, which is a very suitable speed.
I talked to Director General of the Health services in Mosul, he also offer his help in receiving those assisstant.
I hope all the other who offer their help can do the same as you did. I am ready to send them the address of the designated doctor and his phone number.

Ann said...

No, you assumed it was because Muslim women don't wash and have lice - how lovely!

HISTORICALLY! You know, when the rule was first set forth by Mohammad. There were different hygiene levels back then and it was true for all races and religions. Lice was a big problem in Mohommad's day. Honestly, why do you twist the good intentions and words of others? Is that an Islamic teaching, or just a trait of your own?

Ann said...

Well, at least you were liberated from a government that interpreted the state religion of Islam in such a different fashion as your own. Saddam had murals painted to commemorate the 9/11 events of Osama Bin Laden, passed out matchbooks praising it, and issued formal statements declaring it in the name of Islam. Saddam aligned himself (and Iraq) with al Qaeda in the Islamic Jihad for Palestine by giving money, certificates, and cermonies to jihadists - as directed by the 1998 fatwah of Osama Bin Laden. Since you don't agree with Osama, it must come as a relief to you that the government that represents you no longer does either. I hope so, anyway.

Hurria said...

"Well, at least you were liberated from a government that interpreted the state religion of Islam in such a different fashion as your own."

Iraq was a secular state, not a religious one from the first day it was a state, and remained a secular, not a religious state. The Ba`th party was founded by two Christians as an inclusive secular, socialist party and remains a secular socialist party, not an Islamic party, to this day. Therefore, how Saddam Hussein interpreted Islam is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein is a secular person who drank alcohol, hunted and ate wild boar (i.e. pork), and did not even attempt to lead an Islamic way of life. Like many politicians, he hypocritically put on a show of being religious when it suited his political purpose.

"Saddam had murals painted to commemorate the 9/11 events of Osama Bin Laden, passed out matchbooks praising it, and issued formal statements declaring it in the name of Islam."

1. Do you have any actual evidence for this? I have heard about these things, but I have never seen a shred of evidence for them, and the sources they seem to come from do not inspire confidence.

2. Even if this were all true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and Saddam Hussein nor anyone associated with this regime did not share anything remotely like bin Laden's religious or political philosophy or goals.

"Saddam aligned himself (and Iraq) with al Qaeda in the Islamic Jihad for Palestine by giving money, certificates, and cermonies to jihadists - as directed by the 1998 fatwah of Osama Bin Laden."

What utter rubbish, and what an incoherent mixed salad this is, too. Where on EARTH do you get this stuff?

1. Saddam Hussein never aligned himself with Al Qaeda in any way. On the contrary, he knew very well that his was one of the regimes bin Laden most wanted to eliminate.

2. What on earth is this "Al Qaeda in the islamic Jihad for Palestine"? I know about the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, which has no connection at all to Al Qa`eda, but I have never heard of "Al Qaeda in the Islamic Jihad for Palestine", or for that matter the Islamic Jihad for Palestine.

3. Bin Laden does not have any standing whatsoever in Islam to issue fatwas, and no one outside of his followers, especially Saddam Hussein, ever pays any attention to his meaningless so-called "fatwas". They are not worth they air they float away on.

4. Saddam Hussein never gave money, certificates or ceremonies to jihadists. For a period of time Saddam Hussein gave stipends to the families of all Palestinians who were killed in the intifada. This action was a manifestation of his egotistical need to go down in history as one of the great heroes of the Arab world. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of bin Laden's so called "fatwas".

"Since you don't agree with Osama, it must come as a relief to you that the government that represents you no longer does either."

1. The so-called "government" does not represent me, and has so far proven to be as useless as a crutch made out of soft rubber.

2. Saddam Hussein's government never agreed with Osama bin Laden.

Hurria said...

"Lice was a big problem in Mohommad's day."

You have no way of knowing that. As a matter of fact, the value of bathing and cleanliness were well known in that part of the world centuries before Europeans discovered them.

"Honestly, why do you twist the good intentions and words of others?"

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but perhaps if you step back a few feet and look at what you said you can see how it could seem very offensive.

"Is that an Islamic teaching"

And I suppose this remark is not intended as a snotty jab at Islam.

"or just a trait of your own?"

Once again your need to make it personal.

Hurria said...

"Their latest sell pitch of what their beliefs are isn't consistent with the way you portray them."

And what would that "sell pitch" be?

"Is there any scientific poll to say what the vast majority of Muslims believe?"

Is there any scientific poll to say what the vast majority of Christians believe? What the vast majority of Jews believe? Hindus? Buddhists? Taoists? There are some 2 billion Muslims living spread across the world in many different countries with many different languages, cultures, and degrees of education. How do you propose such a poll be designed and conducted?

"Perhaps, you are the one that most Muslims would be consider on the fringes or a "wack-o" "

Whatever.

"- my guess is that Osama, who considers himself the true believer, would consider you to be an infidel."

And I could not possibly care any less than I already do what Osama considers me to be.

"Who gets to say what Islam really stands for?"

Who gets to say what Christianity really stands for? The Pope? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Presbyterians? The Mormons? The Lutherans? The Unitarians? The Amish? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Christian Scientists? The Quakers?

Who gets to say what Judaism really stands for? The Orthodox? The Naturei Karta? The Hassidics? The Conservatives? The Kabbalists? The Reforms? The Reconstructionists?

Who gets to say what Hinuism really stands for? Buddhism? Taoism? Zoroastrianism? Animism? Paganism? Wikka?

Why are Muslims uniquely expected to come up with a single unitary message about what Islam really stands for?

Superman said...

The reality is, unfortunately, that many world leaders, througout history, have used faith and religion to manipulate the masses to consolidate power and reach selfish political objectives. Saddam, in his later years of rule, effectively did this with Islam, although we all know he was not necessarily a "good muslim." With the growing influence of "islamists" (for lack of a better term) in the Arab world as a whole, Saddam, at the least, was smart enough to not present himself as an obstacle to the movement. I think most can agree that Saddam was more or less an Arab nationalist, rather than a radical islamist. Categorically, the enemies of both include the "great satans" of the US and Israel. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the two were/are aligned with regard to undermining those two states, through political propaganda and, of course, terrorist acts (although I imagine there are far fewer "suicide bombers" among the arab nationalists). Finally, while the two groups may be distinct, it is not unreasonable to assume that some individuals are both arab nationalist and radical islamist. In any event, as the US is the common enemy of both, it is further less likely that Americans will put effort into distinguishing the motivations of the two groups groups. They use each other and, apparently, eat away at each other.

strykerdad said...

Hurria-You are impressive in your ability to continue these circular arguments. I really wish and would appreciate it if you'd address my point and concern: do you acknowledge that regardless of what you may believe is the true nature of Islam and the ignorance demonstrated by Western civilisation towards it, perception is reality. Western civilization (the US in particular) will react very decisively should the fantics succeed in doing what they claim is their goal, which is to cripple Western civilization through terror. Do you think it is possible that persons now ambivelant about their view of Islam will see themselves as under attack by what they view as an Islamic ideology and will set out to defeat it? Does it seem a real possibility they may not feel the neccessity to consider nuance among those who seem willing to coexist with that ideology and even attempt to deflect its cause on its intended victims? Petulance, arrogance and a disputacious manner won't keep that from happening. What will? Again, I make no representations of any expert knowledge on the subject of Islam--you correctly pointed out that you know far more than I, so I ask again? Do you see any possibility of the greater community of Muslims contributing to ridding the world of the hateful ideology that many in the West associate with the faith? Matters not if that association is justified, it exists. No group stands a better chance to defeat the jihadist ideology with non violence than do other Muslims. Please don't go down the road of 'not our responsibility'. Look where that has gotten you so far.

Hurria said...

You should learn what a circular argument is. I am well trained in logic, and I do not make circular arguments.

"do you acknowledge that regardless of what you may believe is the true nature of Islam..."

It is not what I believe is the true nature of Islam, it is what Islam is about as understood and practiced by mainstream Muslims.

"...and the ignorance demonstrated by Western civilisation towards it"

"Western civilization"? How revealing that you use this term! It is not "Western civilization" that is the problem.

"...perception is reality."

Your preceptions are your responsibility, not mine. All I can do is offer information to help people see things more fully and accurately. The choice to accept or reject the information and how you apply it to your thinking is entirely yours.

"Western civilization (the US in particular) will react very decisively should the fantics succeed in doing what they claim is their goal..."

What is this "Western civilization" business again? No, "Western civilization" will do nothing of the sort. People will do whatever they do, and this has nothing at all to do with "Western civilization".

"which is to cripple Western civilization through terror."

Where on earth do you get that nonsense? Nevermind, I know, it's that old "clash of civilizations" orientalist rubbish again. "They hate our freedom", "they hate our way of life", "they hate that Britney Speers can expose her belly button". Who really believes that absurdity? Oh, yeah, your brilliant presidenta believes it.

"Do you think it is possible that persons now ambivelant about their view of Islam will see themselves as under attack by what they view as an Islamic ideology and will set out to defeat it?"

Yes, it is possible.

"Does it seem a real possibility they may not feel the neccessity to consider nuance among those who seem willing to coexist with that ideology and even attempt to deflect its cause on its intended victims?"

I cannot decipher that garbled sentence. Please restate it.

"Petulance, arrogance and a disputacious manner won't keep that from happening. What will?"

Nothing I can do will.

"Again, I make no representations of any expert knowledge on the subject of Islam--you correctly pointed out that you know far more than I, so I ask again? Do you see any possibility of the greater community of Muslims contributing to ridding the world of the hateful ideology that many in the West associate with the faith?"

Do you think Muslims are not doing that already, and have not been doing so for a very long time - even before it became an issue for you?

And how exactly do you think your actions have contributed to the solution? How do you think your unconditional support of Israelis unspeakable conduct in the occupied territories is helping solve the problem? How do you thing your rampaging around the world invading and bombing the crap out of Muslims in their own homes, freely violating human rights, showing no respect whatsoever for the international community, spitting on your allies, using torture methods every bit as vile as those of the dictator you overthrew is helping to solve the problem?

"Matters not if that association is justified, it exists."

And it is not my responsibility nor is it within my power to do anything more about it than I am already doing.

"No group stands a better chance to defeat the jihadist ideology with non violence than do other Muslims."

Then stop attacking us, if you don't mind.

"Please don't go down the road of 'not our responsibility'. Look where that has gotten you so far."

And look where your eagerness to pull out the bombs and tanks and helicopters and brutal torture methods has gotten YOU so far. Do you really believe it has made you any safer? Do you really believe that bulls*** about "fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" (and by the way, Iraqis thank you very much for bringing into our country those extremist elements that Saddam was extremely effective at keeping out)? Shouldn't what just happened in London serve as a wakeup call for you that perhaps there are some flaws in your thinking, and that maybe you need to rethink things just a bit?

Stop avoiding reality by pointing the finger at us and take a look at how YOUR actions have done nothing but exacerbate the problems. Stop making more and more and more enemies for yourselves in the Muslim world (not to mention the world in general), and then putting the onus on ordinary everyday Muslims to fix the problems while you keep bombing and destroying and torturing to your hearts' content.

Hurria said...

PS And stop with the "Western civilization" rubbish.

Ann said...

Well, GOogling there are over 14,000 sites
that discuss Iraq's commemorative 9/11 mural
Here are a few:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.djwebster.com/2004_06_01__archive.html
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/againstallenemies.htm

strykerdad said...

Hurria--oh, never mind. I may very well be unable to think at a high enough level to comprehend what I incorrectly perceive to be your circular arguments. But I've given them enough time that I could have written most of your last response for you. Doesn't mean it makes any real sense to me-----much of it could pass for satire from my point of view. I think one of us is living in Bizzarro world. I wish I thought it was me. But, to answer your question 'do I believe we are fighting the terrorist there so we won't have to deal with them here'? Yes, yes I do. But my view is more 'nuanced' than that answer may convey. Thing is, I am tiring of nuance and so are many I talk to and read who keep telling ourselves that Islam is a religion of peace and the majority of people of the faith are worthy of respect. That is what things like the London bombings by goups calling themselves followers of Islam will do for you. I hope all those efforts by moderate Muslims to defeat them bear some fruit soon. Each day is another opportunity for the Osamas out there to commit an act which is going to bring about a period of history devoid of nuance. We aren't all trained in the type of logic in which you proclaim yourself expert. Must make it tough to get up each day.

Ann said...

Who gets to say what Christianity really stands for?

This is clearly defined. Simply put, Christianity is a religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Some more clarification:

It doesn't necessarily mean that that religion (like Unitarian) view Jesus as a son of God any more than any other living or previously living soul is the child of God. Most Christian religions view Christ as providing salvation.

The Pope?

The Pope is selected by Cardinals through voting. They have the ability to remove the Pope if they don't agree with his behavior or decisions. The Cardinals and Pope work together to define the currents standards and beliefs for Catholics. The Church has changed significantly through the years. Though rumored to the contrary, the Catholic Church has historically been on the cutting edge of science with monks inventing combustion furnaces long before the industrial revolution, inventions of new materials and writing processes, and the Vatican has an astronomy department that publishes alongside university and professional groups. I think this is the official website of the vatican The Vatican governs itself and is not actually part of Italy. THis looks like a very credible site for saying what the Catholic church is all about. But basically, the Catholic Church can't be hijacked because the Pope would have instant access to the media to denounce anything done in the name of the Catholic Church that was not consistent with its beliefs and practices. You can't just say that you're a member, you have to obtain membership.

The Southern Baptist Convention?
Like all Baptist sects, the guiding principles include baptism, evangelism, pietism, and sectarianism. Similar to Congregationalism, Baptist churches maintain local independence. Their leadership is elected. It is a loose affiliation of Baptist churches that share common attitudes, beliefs, and interests - the values of the Southern Baptists are very "conservative" and very "fundamentalist" compared to other Baptist Churches. Churches can join or leave at will. Church members of individual churches decide how to govern or lead themselves (like Congregationalism) and there is no grand hierarchy.
They can't be hijacked, because they although they are not very clear and precise about their beliefs, they would kick out and very actively publicize their opposition to groups not following the standards of the Convention at that time.

The Presbyterians?
I don't know where there official organization exists, but I et you could find where it is here: Presbyterians Today Some of my great-grandparents were Presbyterians, but all I know about it is that they believe in the Triune God (monotheistic but Triune), and are Congregational in nature and from the 16th century Pretestant Reformation. They encourage active membership especially in leadership roles and have representational leadership.

The Mormons?
Here is The Official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They're basic beliefs are listed a this website. They can't be hijacked because they are clear and precise about what they believe and how they interpret the Bible.

The Lutherans?
Once very separate from Catholic Church, now the two are finding themselves merging. Luthern reformation was based on Catholic church but let the Bible be written in German instead of Latin, and let anyone read and interpret the Bible. Historically, that was not the practice in Catholic church though now it is. Lutherns reduced the number of sacraments from 7 to 2 (baptism and marriage) and still do Holy Communion; and made the songs easier to sing (requiring less knowledge of music) since singing is a big part of the worship - he also made them more boring, but that's another story - except Mendehlsson wrote some of them and they're ok. The Evangelical Luthern Church of America has an established hierarchical organization that determines the Luthern doctrine. Pastors are trained and follow prescribed (dogmatic) ways of giving sermons. My uncle is a Luthern pastor. It's a nice religion, but in my opinion encourages its members to feel guilty about everything. The Luthern Church is a lot like the Catholic Church and has official documentation on the beliefs, social positions, etc. of the day - and these are always changing.

The Unitarians?
Official organization at International Council of Unitarians and Universalists. I think branches in the USA were formed as an underground group to smuggle Jews and others oppressed out of Germany.

The Amish?
Amish groups evovled from European Anabaptist groups that sprang from the Reformation period - they believe that only adults who have confessed their sins can be baptised. Their community laws are strict and involve not using modern technology. In the USA, the Amish and the Mennonites were settlements in Pennsylvania as part of William Penn's experiment with religious tolerance. Penn (and his contemporaries) were experimenting with settlements and colonies trying to understand what social organizations work. Here's One Amish Information site that tells how to join and such. Mennonite Information Center
They can't be hijacked, because they are very clear and precise about their beliefs.

The Jehovah's Witnesses?
This is the legal organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses: "Watch Tower" "This is the authoritative web site about the beliefs, teachings, and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. is a legal organization in use by Jehovah's Witnesses." Jehovah's Witnesses are very family centered and their values are clear and precise with no ambiguity for understanding what position they take on any social or religious issue. They can't be hijacked, because they are very clear and precise about their beliefs.

The Christian Scientists?
Most other Christian groups do not regard this as a Christian religion, as it is founded on revlations of Mary Baker Eddy. Or at least, I think that was her name. I haven't read up on CS in a while, but my Grandmother was a CS. It is a strange religion that views God as Love and Truth. CS believes that true believers do not suffer from human conditions like medical needs - they have a different concept of the word "mind". The Christian Science headquarters are in Boston, where it was founded, and they maintain some official websites. The Christian Science Board of Directors is the official source for the values and practices of the day. I think they copyright most of their material and name so that other groups can not be formed and claim to be Christian Scientists but not hold to the practice that they have accepted.
They can't be hijacked, because they are very clear and precise about their beliefs.

The Quakers?
Quakers were a community in New England. It was a colonial era religion, but there are still Quakers today. Here you can find the definitive word on what a Quaker is: The Religious Society of Friends
They can't be hijacked, because they are very clear and precise about their beliefs.

You didn't mention Methodists...

Anyhow, unlike the Islam organizations, these Christian churches are very clear about what they believe, how to become a member, what is expected of members, how they govern themselves, and what their social positions are. If someone tried to commit some crime in the name of one of these churches, it could readily be shown that it is against their teachings and their membership is no longer recognized.

Ann said...

And what would that "sell pitch" be?

= Sales Pitch.

Sorry, I typed a bit too fast...

Ann said...

Why are Muslims uniquely expected to come up with a single unitary message about what Islam really stands for?

Muslims are not uniquely expected to come up with a definition of who they are.

dancewater said...

waldschrat said...


"The oh so holy folks who blew up the bus and trains in London recently,"

How do you know who they are???

"my wife, watching TV in the other room as I typed at the computer, commented as follows: "The more I learn about Muslim ideology, the more I think it might be reasonable to bomb them off the face of the planet!"

That is not anger, it is viciousness. She certainly is not a Christian.

"The picture conjured in the minds of many decent people when they think of Muslims is of a homicidal lunatic with a bomb strapped to his chest."

Unfortunately, the picture conjured in the minds of many decent people when they think of Christians is of a homicidal lunatic with a bomb in an airplane, ready to be dropped. That thanks to Bush/Blair, who certainly are not Christians although they claim such. Somebody should ask them "who would Jesus bomb?"

I know better, I know there is a doctor in Mosul with urinary tract problems, educated at Johns Hopkins, who tries to do the best he can every day under very hard circumstances for his family and his patients. It is truly tragic that the other kind of so-called "Muslims", the ones with their bombs, give the world a bad picture of that man.

Hurria said...

Ann, you seem to have missed my point completely, which was that there are dozens - perhaps hundreds - of Christian sects all of whom differ, sometimes in important ways, over many large and small details of what Christianity is all about. There are also several sects of Judaism which have major differences regarding what Judaism is all about. In other words, there is no single unitary message about what Christianity or Judaism is all about, and this doesn't trouble you in the least. Yet you demand of Islam that it convey an unambiguous, single unitary message. And yes, this is a demand uniquely made of Muslims.

dancewater said...

strykerdad said...

"But the faith has far too many people who claim to share the same faith as you who believe it is their sacred duty to kill all unbelievers and to make all submit to fundamentalist Islamic law."

Lots of so-called Christians feel the same way.... like Ann Coulter for example.

"They quote what seem to be directly from the Koran to justify any violent acts on unbelievers, and including believers who are living among them."

I remember all the bible reading and services before the third *liberation* of Fallujah by US troops.

"Should we blame all Muslims for that? No. but I think we should expect all moderate Muslims to do all in their power to help repudiate the fanatics and see their ideology defeated."

And what did you do exactly, about Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph?

"If these fanatics ever manage to inflict another 9-11 or worse, I don't think people like me, and I'm one of the more reasonable I know, are going to want to hear about all the excuses, and explanations and statements declaring it is our own ignorance that makes us look with disgust on the faith that seems to allow its members to coexist with such barbarity."

So, what do you think of the fact that the so-called "Christians" have managed to kill at least ten times the number of innocents in Iraq that were killed on 9/11? Talk about barbarity!

"That may be unfair, but it is a fact of life. Osama and those who share his ideology have framed this as a war of Islam against Western civilization."

No, he didn't. That is the tripe served up by the Bush administration and the corporate media here in the USA. That does not mean it is true. I guess "know thy enemy" is just a quaint idea with those folks, along with immaginary WMDs.

"Muslims like you had better realize that and clean up the mess from within."

Still wondering what you did about Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh? Did you help "clean that up" or are you as guilty as they are?


"You may tell yourselves it is unfair and all due to the ignorance of unbelievers -- congratulate yourselves for bearing the burden of saving the world while you do it, if it makes you feel better."

I do my best to get the "Christians" to recognize that Jesus was a pacifist in word and in deed and in life and in his death. No exceptions. They still insist on debasing the man and using him for their own violent ends. But then they make up imaginary WMDs too.

"You say many 'leaders' have condemned such acts, and I have read a few articles written by Muslims that are critical of the fanatics. But they are rare and make news becasue they are so rare and are what so many in the West are waiting to hear--Just what is the faith as a group doing to put an end to such insanity?"

I want you to know I am doing my best to stop the blood thirsty "Christians". I am limited to non-violent means however, like all follows of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to stop people who believe in imaginary WMDs and other nonsense and refuse to acknowledge how many innocents they have killed in cold blood. They are violent, sick people, no doubt.

"Are moderate Muslims incapable or uniting and taking action to rid the world of these imams who preach hate and jihad and martyrdom?"

It's the politicans and rich business people we need to stop. So far, we have had no success.

" Can't you find some other prurpose behind which to unite and give your children some hope for a future?"

US Military- poor man's step up!

"An inexact analogy would be Germans in the late 30's who had no interest or affection for Nazism, yet let that ideology become Germany because they resented the condition Germany had fallen into. They paid a price for not speaking out and fighting against it out of nationalistic pride and a collective sense of victimhood."

We (Americans) are going to pay a price too.

"They may be bastards, but they are our bastards, and we have been wronged- way of thinking. This could easily become a war against Islam, another massive attack against Americans or Brits in the name of Allah could do it, and I honestly hope that does not happen for everyone's sake."

You might want to put a little effort into reading and understanding what Bin Laden is about. He is using the name of Allah (just like American Generals and Presidents misuse the name of God and Jesus) but he is not interested in converting all of us, nor does he consider this a religious war.

"But if that simplistic approach seems to be the only solution, then so be it. I and no American I know will ever submit to that tyranny."

I certainly will not support your bombing innocent people off the face of the earth because of some terrorist attack. That is vicious, and stupid besides. That would be like blowing up all of North Carolina to get Eric Rudolph. Hey, WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU DO ABOUT THAT CHRISTIAN TERRORIST ANYWAY?

"Now I anticipate a statement equating america's desire for a democratic Middle east, with respect for basic human rights with nazi Germany, which is why such discussions are really pointless."

Maybe if Iraq had declared war on us, had fought us on a fairly equal footing for years, had invaded and occupied many countries in the recent past, had built up concentration camps and killed millions of people, maybe then we could compare the US invasion of Iraq with the US invasion of Germany.

The invasion of Germany had one thing that this invasion does not: legitimacy.

It makes a difference.

Hurria said...

"This is clearly defined. Simply put, Christianity is a religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus."

That's awfully minimalist.

At this level Islam is equally clearly defined. Simply put, Islam is a religion founded on the beliefs in the existence of one God and that Mohammad was his messenger.

I will go a bit farther than you did and add that the practice of Islam is based on five requirements, or pillars:

1. The Declaration of Faith (Shahadah): There is no god but God, and Mohammad is the Messenger of God

2. Prayer - five times daily

3. Fasting during the month of Ramadhan

4. Charity

5. The Pilgrimage to Mecca

Dan said...

After REFUSING to answer my earlier questions, Hurriah said:

“No one has liberated Iraq. All they have done is to change the identity of the oppressor."

In reference to this, I said:

"In this last mentioned statement, you did NOT base your position on verifiable facts but, rather, you based it on nebulous emotions floating around in your head."

Hurriah responded to this by saying:

”Not at all. Quite the contrary. I base it on an excellent understanding of what liberation means. I then contrast the meaning of liberation with the facts of what your government has done to Iraq and its people, its structures, its institutions, and I find that none of it fits with the meaning of liberation. I look at the facts of your government's actions in Iraq, and I see that they are antithetical to the meaning of liberation. I look at the documentary and other evidence of your government's intentions regarding Iraq, and I find that those intentions had and have nothing to do with liberation. And from comparing the meaning of liberation with all the facts and evidence I find that liberation has not taken place, nor was it your government's intention to liberate Iraq.”

Here are the definitions of liberty, liberate, and liberation from Webster’s Dictionary:

Liberty: 1: the quality or state of being free a) the power to do as one pleases b) freedom from physical restraint c) freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d) the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

Liberate: to set at liberty: free; specifically: to free

Liberation: 1: the act of liberating: the state of being liberated 2: a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group

There are thousands of Iraqi experiences and eyewitness accounts of painful physical torture, political imprisonment, sexual torture, and death under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

These include things like tying people up and feeding them feet-first through plastic shredders. This was done so that they could scream and the others waiting could hear them. These include hanging people upside-down, beating them and twisting them until their spine broke. These include killing a bridegroom on his wedding day and raping the bride. These were the standard practices of the ruling government of Iraq prior to its liberation by a multi-national forces led by the United States.

Saddam and his ilk, of which it appears that Hurriah is one, video-taped thousands of hours of these torturous acts which are now in the hands of the people who put an end to this sickly and evil chapter in the history of the Earth.

Any incidents since then conducted by liberating personnel were NOT the policy of the liberating militaries. Such documented incidents pale into insignificance when compared to the brutality and horror inflicted on Iraqis by the government in power before the liberation. Such liberating individuals who took part in these incidents were punished.

Now, Saddam and his minions await punishment. They will be allowed hearings and trials and live in relative captive comfort. They, as justly held prisoners, will receive just treatment which they never allowed any of their victims. Hopefully, they will all be killed and this Earth will be rid of them once and for all.

There are also thousands of available references to reconstruction efforts conducted by liberating personnel. To cite JUST ONE:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2005 -- Security and reconstruction go hand in hand and are equally critical to Iraq's future, the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division told reporters in Baghdad, Iraq, today.
"You need a secure environment to do reconstruction," said Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Bostick. "But you also need reconstruction to have a secure environment."
Multinational Force Iraq, the U.S. government and the interim Iraqi government are working together to ensure success on both fronts.
While progress continues in training Iraq's security forces, 1,550 construction projects are under way throughout the country -- compared to just 200 projects under way in June. "It's an enormous achievement, and it's the work of many, many people throughout this country," Bostick said.
These reconstruction projects include large, long-term capital projects that address water and sewage treatment facilities, power plants and the oil- distribution infrastructure. They also include smaller community projects that are more visible to the Iraqi people and have an immediate impact on their lives, he said. The focus of these projects is schools, clinics, hospitals, rail stations and police stations, many being rebuilt with funds from Commander's Emergency Response Program funds.
Bostick said both large-scale and smaller reconstruction projects are critical to what he calls "the reconstruction fight." It's a fight in which he said "winning, for us, is delivering on projects each and every day, now and into the future."
Ensuring that delivery "is truly a team effort" that includes not only the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Project and Contracting Office, and the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, but also the U.S. Agency for International Development and nongovernmental organizations, he said.
Other key players are the U.S. military, which serves an active role in many of the smaller-scale reconstruction efforts and funds many of them directly through commanders' emergency-relief funds, and the Iraqi people themselves, Bostick said.
Bostick credited the Iraqi people with being "the ones on the front line" of the reconstruction, often in the face of violence, threats and intimidation. "It is Iraqis who are out on the ground, working in harm's way often, to make this a better country and a better life for their children and future generations," he said.
He estimated that some 130,000 Iraqis are working on the wide range of projects under way throughout the country. The true number is actually larger, he said, when factoring in the behind-the-scenes workers who manufacture the products used on the construction sites.
Driving their participation is far more than dollars, Bostick said. "It's not about the money at all," he said. "It's about freedom and democracy … and because they want to help this country move forward."
One of the biggest focuses of the reconstruction is electricity, a major sticking point among Iraqis. Bostick blamed shortages on "years of neglect" and "a band-aid approach" to maintenance under the Saddam Hussein regime and said the reconstruction effort has already boosted output by about 2,000 megawatts a day.
However, he acknowledged, the typical Iraqi citizen doesn't recognize this increase because much of the new capacity is cut during both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. Bostick said short-term inconveniences while this maintenance takes place will pay off in the long term, when Iraq has a steady, dependable power supply.
The Iraq reconstruction effort -- from restoring electricity to rebuilding schools to repairing the oil-delivery system -- bodes for a better future for Iraq, he said.
"This is about the future of Iraq," Bostick said. "It's about the men and women of today and the children of tomorrow and making sure that they have the conditions (for) the freedom and the democracy that all of them want."
That future "is bright," he said, "because we are doing the right thing."

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2005/n01122005_2005011204.html

It is plain to me that Hurriah IGNORES facts that make her uncomfortable. She is of the opinion that her consciousness is the creator of existence. If she does not want something to be so, then it simply is not so. All she has to do is ignore it and it will not be true and it will go away.
What she so dearly wants to be true is that her people were not the genocidal maniacs that they were, and their present representatives, the terrorists, are today. She desperately needs to believe that her pre-liberation acceptance of her unearned aristocratic social position was the morally correct thing to do and that this unjust status was taken from her unfairly.

Now that she has experienced the shock and awe of a freedom-loving superpower, one which was very careful in its conduct and had the fewest number of civillian casualties in the history of warfare, she is having great difficulty coming to grips with her new position in the world.

What really puts sand in MY craw, is that she is out of touch enough to think that she can get on the Internet with this blind mentality and no one will see her for what she is: delusional. I DO NOT feel sorry for her.

I am PROUD to be an American and I am PROUD of what we are doing in Iraq to wrest that nation from the likes of her.

I HOPE that Iraq will, someday soon, be a freed and democratic nation. However, this will NOT happen if they mix religion and government in their new constitution.

Hurria said...

Dan,

The reality is that Iraqis are less free now than they were before your government "liberated" them.

Among other things, it is quite ironic that you included remarks about the torture under Saddam Hussein's regime given that it did not stop with the "liberation", and is going on even now.

Hurria said...

Ann,

I promised to suggest some basic books about Islam. I took a look at one, and though I did not read it all the way through it appears to be factual and unbiased either for or against. It was written by a Christian who is a professor of Religious Studies. The book is A Muslim Primer: A Beginner's Guide to Islam" by Ira G. Zepp Jr., published 1992 by Wakefield Editions. I don't know whether it is still in print, but you can probably find a used copy easily online. A good search engine for books is Addall.com.

Moron99 said...

Hurria - Dancewater -

Why don't we cut to the quick of the matter. Religion is the basis of society. It provides the morality, architecture, and tolerances that allow large groups of people to function as one society. Religion can, will, and does evolve to suit the society underneath it. The Arab bedouin social architecture has reached the point where it can not grow any further without reform. As Iraqi sanctions proved, the gulf nations can not adequately provide for their people without participating in the global economy. On the one hand, the people in power oppose political and social refrom. On the other hand, the current mideast social architecture is incompatible with the larger and more powerful globalized economy (NAFTA, EU, China, India, Pacific RIM, AUS, etc). At present, the Arab Muslim society is struggling to answer the following question: "Why does the miseast have such great oil wealth but fails to achieve any of the economic or social benefits?"

The despots and fundamentalists say it is because the west conspires against the Muslim culture. The west says that it is because mideast dictators and intolerances are incompatible with the global economy. And thus you have terrorists and the war on terror. Iraq will provide that answer and lead the Arabs to either a revolution or a renaisance. There are many people in the mideast who do not want the answer to be known.

Meanwhile, the global perception of Islam continues to be defined by radicals. Whether Muslims like yourself agree or disagree is rather moot. The terrorists find sanctuary within your society. I had a beautiful banyan tree that I loved dearly. But the termites and cockraches found sanctuary within it. As long as the pests stayed outside of my home, this was acceptable. When the cockroaches and termites tried to invade my home I took measures. I started with barriers and followed with a cleaning and pruning of the tree. Eventually, I had to cut the tree down entirely. Some here have tried to make the same point with terrorists. The nations who participate in the global economy will eventually cut down the tree of Islam if the terrorist cockroaches keep coming into their homes.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann said...

hurria,

my point is exactly that you're not thinking about this...

Yes, we can have a minimalist definition of Islam in terms of Monotheism and acceptance of Mohommad's writings as the word of God - but that could well include the Unitarians, couldn't it?

But for anyone commiting a crime in the name of any of these religions (be it Catholic, Methodist, Amish, etc.) it would be very straightforward for them to show that this crime is in opposition with their teachings and that the group committing the crime is not a member of their group.

Islamic sects can not do that, as I see it - except perhaps for Sufis? When Marines find pictures of celebration of 9/11 in Iraq with state sponsorship, it is reasonable to assume that the state religion of Iraq (their own brand of Islam) approves of these acts. Clearly, Saddam did. That defines some of the beliefs of the former government of Iraq.

Are those beliefs consistent with your own? You said that you thought OBL was "on the fringes" and that such things were in opposition with Islam. Let's say that OBL is accurately representing Wahabbis, but you might say - well, I'm Islamic but I'm not a Wahabbi. Well, the former state religion of Iraq appears to have also been Wahabbi or at least to have many similarities in regards to interpretation of jihad, martyrdom, suicide bombing, and such.

No doubt different sects of the same superset religious groups will have opposing views but still have the same superset. Both your version of Islam and the former Iraq state version of Islam are Islam. But the one representing you by your government was not the one you yourself believe in, is it?

If a person were a Protestant, they wouldn't want the state religion to be Methodist. That's what I'm saying.

So, I will read the book that you posted. But if nothing in it suggests that the interpretation presented to us by OBL is wrong, what am I supposed to believe about the Islamic view of OBL? There are Islamic groups in the US that register their beliefs and openly denounce those actions like the London bombings - which some group has taken credit for in the name of Islam.

Hurria said...

Keep on drinking the kool aid, Dan, if that's your choice. Unfortunately, for Iraqis, who are right there in the middle of the mess your government has created, self deception is not an option.

Fortunately, those of you Americans who insist on continuing to drink the kool aid appear to be part of a shrinking minority, so maybe there is hope for your country after all.

Hurria said...

"Religion is the basis of society."

Rubbish!

Dan said...

Responding to my previous comment where, per her requests, I provided verifiable facts and Internet links, Hurriah said:
Dan,

"The reality is that Iraqis are less free now than they were before your government "liberated" them.

Among other things, it is quite ironic that you included remarks about the torture under Saddam Hussein's regime given that it did not stop with the "liberation", and is going on even now.


Hurriah just makes it up as she goes. It is good that her evil husbandry are no longer in power in Iraq. Yes, Hurriah will turn her head the other way while terrorists commit atrocities in the name of God.

Hurriah longs for the days of her protector, Saddam Hussein, when she could watch people tortured to death who disagreed with her. Now, all she can do is play keyboard games on the Internet.

I sit here now and listen to my great President Bush's speech on the radio. I am so glad that his army has liberated 50,000,000 people from the tyranny of the Hurriahs in the middle east.

It is only a matter of time until they are ALL free.

---Dan

Dan said...

Hurriah:

And speaking of "drinking Kool Aid," what have YOU been drinking/smoking?

Once again, we come to where your only proof for what you say are the fantasies in your own mind. THESE are in stark contrast to and in denial of the sensory input entering your brain from your optic nerves as you read this blog.

---Dan

Dan said...

Hurriah:

Surely if there were such tortures and abuses as you say still going on, there would be many Internet news references available. How about providing a few like you did when you were defending your religion?

The reality of the situation is that I am NOT in a shrinking minority in America yet you ARE in a shrinking minority in Iraq.

---Dan

Dan said...

Dancewater:

I believe that Timothy McVeigh was an idiot and a fool. It is worth mentioning that McVeigh was a dupe of an Iraqi member of Saddam's Republican Guards named Ali Husan Al Hussani.

Yes, Saddam's Iraq struck MY TOWN with its cowardly terroristic actions.

I do not mean to inject profanity into this blog but the only phrase I know that accurately describes justice meted out in this matter is a profane one: "The payback is a motherfucker isn't it?"

---Dan

Hurria said...

"Surely if there were such tortures and abuses as you say still going on, there would be many Internet news references available."

Just as the strong condemnations by Muslims worldwide were reported in mainstream news sources, so has the use of torture in "liberated" Iraq. It is really quite difficult to miss, unless you are trying pretty hard to miss it.

"How about providing a few like you did when you were defending your religion?"

I have never defended Islam. Islam needs no defense from anyone.

"The reality of the situation is that I am NOT in a shrinking minority in America yet you ARE in a shrinking minority in Iraq."

Surely you cannot be so out of touch with reality that you are not aware of the fact that among Americans support for the war on Iraq has fallen well below 50% while negative views on the war are in excess of 50%. THAT is the reality, Dan. Face it.

And no, I am not in a minority in Iraq by any means. Iraqis are increasingly fed up with the occupation of their country, and are disillusioned with their so-called "government", which is viewed more and more as a useless body.

Hurria said...

"I believe that Timothy McVeigh was an idiot and a fool."

I see. So, when a Christian American commits a terrorist act that kills hundreds of people he is merely an idiot and a fool.

"It is worth mentioning that McVeigh was a dupe of an Iraqi member of Saddam's Republican Guards named Ali Husan Al Hussani."

LOOOOOOL! Oh, this IS rich! Even the Bushies have not tried to make this ridiculous claim.

"Yes, Saddam's Iraq struck MY TOWN with its cowardly terroristic actions."

Utter rubbish.

Say, what is your favourite flavour of kool aid, Dan?

Dan said...

Hurriah:

You lost the war. You lost your mind. Face it. I suggest facing it by looking in a mirror.

Syria will fall. Iran will fall. Saudi Arabia will fall. It is only a matter of time.

Your "civilization" would be nothing and would still be living in the 8th century if it were not for the geological accident that it exists on top of oil rich land and received a massive infusion of Western technology and capital by those who could recognize the value of such a natural resource.

Hopefully kooler Western aid heads will prevail. Otherwise the entire region will be turned into glass.

---Dan

Dan said...

Hurriah:

PS
Regarding Timothy McVeigh being a "Christian American," I made it clear earlier that I think all religion is bunk. Out of respect for Truth Teller's stated views, I have chosen NOT to bash religion, Islam in particular, as I believe the value of this discussion is in contrasting views concerning the american liberation of Iraq.

I will not contrast Christianity versus Islam other than to say that Christianity went through a reformation, something Islam has yet to do.

---Dan

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"And it is not my responsibility nor is it within my power to do anything more about it than I am already doing."

After slogging through this comment section and seeing so many things I would like to comment on, I will limit myself to this one for the sake of brevity.


Hurria,

Just exactly what IS your responsibility?

Hurria said...

Lynette,

My own actions are my responsibility. The way I live my life is my responsibility. The way I treat my fellow human beings is my responsibility. The things I teach my children and grand children and great grandchildren should I be blessed to live long enough are my responsibility.

Bin Laden and the other murderous kooks who profess to be Muslims are not my responsibility, nor do I have any obligation whatsoever to apologize for them any more than Christians have a responsibility to apologize for the murderous kooks in their midst, or the Jews or the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Kurds or the Basques or the Irish or the Tamil have a responsibility to apologize for the murderous kooks in their midst.

Dan said...

Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Not speaking out against Saddam Hussein.
Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Speaking out against the duly elected government of Iraq.

Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Not speaking out against the terrorists.
Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Speaking out against the United States.

Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Not answering any question she does not want to.
Hurriah is NOT responsible for: Expecting any question she asks to be answered.

I could go on and on but you get the picture. Hurriah is just NOT a responsible person.

---Dan

Ann said...

Not sure why McVeigh is being compared to UBL; I can't find parallels of behevior between UBL and McVeigh:

Timothy McVeigh is believed to have bombed the Alfred P. Murray Federal Building because he thought people who worked there were involved in the demise of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas. McVeigh seemed to be acting out of revenge and anger because of actions by Reno and the FBI which he thought were un-American and un-Constitutional. He doesn't seem to have been basing his actions on religious beliefs or a desire for others to follow a certain religion. He was raised Catholic and received the sacrament of communion, but appears to have not remained a practicing Catholic, though he said in interviews that he maintained his core religious beliefs. As far as I can tell, McVeigh did not declare war or fatwah or jihad against the US. As far as I can tell, McVeigh did not finance, recruit or train others to commit crimes against people who didn't follow his religious beliefs. As far as I can tell, while it is difficult to believe that McVeigh and Nichols were acting alone, there are no reports of a widespread group with which they were affiliated. For McVeigh, it appears he was upset with the government prior to Waco (for example, his February 11, 1992 letter published in the Union-Sun & Journal) but when he witnessed Waco he seems to have made a decision to express his displeasures in a violent way without warning.

Ann said...

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." If he lived in Iraq, what parties would he think were the "occupier", the "freedom fighter", the "insurgent", or the "rightful government"? I think if he lived there, he would say that the government that represented him was the one that afforded him liberty. I think he would have thought oppressive government was the one that, regardless of how long it had been there was the occupier. His definitions of liberty included concepts of representational constitutional government.

So what is the oppressor in a democracy? In representational government where the elected leaders are chosen by the people they represent and a constitution limits their actions, the oppressor is the people themselves. Sometimes I wonder why people say that in Iraq the oppressor was replaced by a worse oppressor - because that would just be the citizens of Iraq oppressing themselves. Is it because they are a self-flaggelating self-loathing bunch of people? I don't think that way of the citizens of Iraq, so I don't know why people view them as oppressors. But that's what they say even now that they are their government.

Who do you think Franklin would have regarded as his country, had he been born in Iraq: would it be the new elected government, Saddam's regime, or the government promised by the jihadists?

Lynnette in Minnesota said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Moron99 said...

ann, I think it's tough to say. Did you know that for the first 12 years our presidents were federalists? To our founding fathers, each state was to have the maximum possible autonomy and the central government was to have barely enough power to hold them together. IMO, projecting our founding fathers onto Iraq seems rather meaningless to me. Neither modern america nor Iraq is anything like the problems they faced or the solutions they sought. However, I often wonder which Iraqis are going to etch their places in history. To be the founding fathers of democracy in the mideast is a chance for historic greatness that rivals Washington, Locke, Saladin, Rembrandt, and Martin Luther.

Ann said...

Did you know that for the first 12 years our presidents were federalists?

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the people supporting or ratifying were labeled "Federalists" and the people opposing the new Constitution were labeled "anti-Federalists".

The word quickly changed meaning during Washington's term when the First Bank of the United States was formed. Hamilton headed the "Federalists" (strong central government), while Jefferson was the leader of the "Jeffersonian-Republicans", (a diffusion of power).

Thus Jefferson, the third president, was a Federalist in 1790, but not regarded as a Federalist when he was elected.

The reason I mentioned Franklin is because I was thinking about what someone told me "jihad" really meant. To him, it was an inward struggle (man-against-himself) and the external conflicts (man-against-man and man-against-nature) were lesser jihad considerations. Jihad had something to do with resolving for yourself, who you were and what your values were, at least, in his opinion. I think Franklin did that. He broke barriers and revolutionizes above and beyone most of the revolutionists. For example, he left his apprenticeship early, which was not allowed back then. He invented a lot of things, and ran a printing press, he studied electricity and mapped the gulf stream. I think he did a lot of introspection and self-reflection and that is why he was so successful. He didn't hurt others, but said "the pen is mightier than the sword" and other sayings, some even were original to him. Franklin is a person who overcame his inner struggles by contemplation - not necessarily religious - but he was at peace with himself, IMO. The statement "where liberty exists that is my country" is an important thought that he had. He was a loyal person, but his loyalty was to himself being truthful, and to other people, to provide them liberty. I think he had a really nice idea with that. But in other sayings he framed security as being at odds with liberty, and perhaps it would be ok to frame a statement as wanting both security and liberty - that they aren't mutually exclusive as his saying suggested.

strykerdad said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Hurria,

All those things you listed, that you are responsible for, are commendable.

But to take it a step further, are you moraly responsible for intervening if you see something wrong?

For example:
Do you try and intervene in a domestic abuse situtation?

A mugging?

A situation where someone is being discriminated against?

A terrorist attack?

Do you want to live in a "Kitty Genovese" type of world where no one takes responsibility for trying to stop the actions of others? Do you want your children to live in such a world?

Actually, Hurria, I don't really want you to apologize for bin Laden. I simply want you to come up with a better way of dealing with the bin Laden's of the world, since you don't approve of our ideas. You are good at critiquing us, so let us know your ideas.

BTW, do you commonly surf the internet at 2:51 a.m.? That must raise havoc with sleep patterns.

Hurria said...

Ann,

I hope Franklin would have been smart enough that he would recognize who is the occupier and who is the occupied in a case in which a powerful country uses massively violent force and brutality to enter, overthrow the government of, and take over control of another.

Hurria said...

Ann,

I hope Franklin would have been smart enough that he would recognize who is the occupier and who is the occupied in a case in which a powerful country uses massively violent force and brutality to enter, overthrow the government of, and take over control of another.

Hurria said...

Lynette,

I have learned a long time ago to take responsibility only for those things I have some power and skill to affect, and to intervene only when on balance it is more likely that my intervention will make things better than worse. Not acting is very often preferable to taking the wrong action.

I have no knowledge or skill in fire fighting. I am however, intelligent enough, and have the judgment to understand that pouring gasoline on a fire will not put the fire out, but will make it worse.

I never "surf the internet". It is a waste of time. I use it when it is avaiable, and I am awake and have the time.

strykerwife45 said...

Hurria,

I think what Lynette is asking is...if you were to see someone planting a bomb would you contact the American/Iraqi troops in order to have it defused?

I have heard of many instances of Iraqi's taking things into their own hands and informing troops of suspicious activity. Is this something that you would partake in? Would you be willing to report someone that you know is committing a wrong against your society even though you don't trust the American Troops/Iraqi Troops/Iraqi Government?

Moron99 said...

Hurria,

Franklin would have been smart enough to survey the field and pick the allies that led him towards freedom. At the same time, he was selfless enough to pursue freedom for the masses rather than just for himself. His diplomacy with the Europeans, his alliance with France, and his actions in forming the constitution all bear witness to his tendency to place the future of a nation above his personal gains. Wheras he may have been revolted by the occupation, he would have been even more revolted by the insurgents. Actions speak louder than words. Franklin was in possession of enough wisdom to realize that insurgent actions are only consistent if their true goal is to deny Iraqis a democratic government.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"I am however, intelligent enough, and have the judgment to understand that pouring gasoline on a fire will not put the fire out, but will make it worse."

Actually, sometimes you have to start a fire to put one out. In fighting forest fires it's called backburning.


"..and to intervene only when on balance it is more likely that my intervention will make things better than worse."

Sometimes, Hurria, you have to go with the long odds to achieve something good.

As with TT's picture of the spider bite, things left too long will only be more difficult to fix.

Laura said...

Isn't there a hackey sack sitting idly by an unlit joint while some of these posts are being written?


Ignoring the bully doesn't make him go away, and asking him to be nice doesn't work either.

Naivety.

Hurria said...

Dear impatient girl,

You are quite right. Ignoring the US is pointless, and being nice to it is an even bigger mistake. The diplomatic approach does not seem to work, so what do you recommend? Should the US be nuked?

Moron99 said...

hurria, you got bigger problems to worry about than the US. Your arrogance prohibits you from seeing that the oppressed are capable of becoming the new oppressors. Your beloved insurgents are not driving you towards freedom. Your blindness about who is true Iraqi and who has birthright to rule prevents you from seeing that for every one of you, there are four of them. I predict that if you and your kind do not change your ways then the wolf brigade is only the first drop of an approaching storm. When the storm arrives, you will plead for international intervention and MNF protection. Do you think they will listen?

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"..and being nice to it is an even bigger mistake."

Hurria,
Since when have you tried being NICE to us?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»