skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Take a walk
My little daughter Najma wrote a post today, I found it very interesting and deserve reading, As I have no new post, I just published a copy of it here.
"It was meant to be a joke, but it makes sense:
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
"Try and put yourself in their shoes".. I've been told to do so with American soldiers, over and over, and I did. It didn't give me a justification for what they did, do or have done.
You might have noticed that many incidents are caused by American soldiers, on this blog, for that, many people have turned against them in Iraq.. Latest: Mom is crossing the street in front of the university, the police start shooting too close, mom gets scared and screams.. After calming down, she looks around to see if one of her students is there and saw her.. None was there, she is relieved, she goes on..
Now, try to put yourself in her shoes! Hard? Try this:
A cousin, her children and her husband are in the car, they hear some shots and so the American soldiers go crazy and start shooting randomly.. A bullet then got really close and tore her hijab but didn't injure her..
Easy? No..
I'm sure it isn't easy.. It isn't easy for dad to come up and check if I'm alive, it's not easy for mom to call my sister every while to check if she's Okay.. Everytime a name is mentioned, the first things that comes to mind is : Is he/she shot?
For that I tell you, no one at all has the right to tell me how my country is now, unless that someone is IN Iraq, and knows how it is.. Otherwise, the most idea you have of the situation, is way less than what really is going on.
Just walk a mile in my shoes, if you finish that alive, then and only then, come and tell me what you think..
"Could you devote a post to civilian Iraqis who have been killed by insurgents, if any. And do these insurgents offer help in the same manner of the Americans who send wounded Iraqis to base hospitals and to hospitals in other countries. Do these insurgents offer help in the way of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure like schools, hospitals, oil refineries, etc. We don't hear of this because of the Bush controlled media."
For God's sake, I have a brain.. Insurgents are not helping. But who are the insurgents? Killing Iraqis, destroying homes, kidnapping people.. Their only aim is to terrorize.
But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid.. And if you have a problem with it, well, imagine your country being torn the way mine is, and see if you allow that.
And I invite you to come and see how hospitals in Iraq are now.. An open invitation, not recommended for weak-hearted people though! See the reconstruction in Iraq, I doubt you'll find what will interest you!
"I have read your blogs for over a year and you have changed quite drastically and I am sorry for that. Our American Soldiers are getting themselves killed trying to bring you and your country a freedom similar to what we know. If you do not want or appreciate it I hope our military decides to hand it over to your military and walk away. It seems you and your fellow countryman would instead turn on your own people that are trying to deny you {especially females} these basic freedoms."
Another American trying to show me the "right" way.. Does anyone have statistics of how many Americans and Iraqis got killed in this war..? When you do, tell me who lost their lives because of this war!! Your soldiers lost their lives because war is death, and war is a hobby of your president.
Dare you say anything more about female rights, we're strong enough to claim them.. For me, I'm totally satisfied with what I had before, as a female. The freedom I want is the one I lost thanks to your country..
"President Bush or any other leader of a country must do what is best for his or her country. That's why they are elected, if it is democracy or how they stay in power if they have assumed power in any other manner."
Even if what is good for your country is having two other countries occupied and many many people killed..? In every country in the world, there is good and bad.. Look at your own faults, maybe then, you'll be too busy to look at other country's faults..!!
Just so you wouldn't get me wrong, I listen when you tell me what you think.. But you do not have the right to tell me how I should feel, who I should love and who I should hate.. You have no right to tell me that the situation is this and that, cuz I'm here, in the war-zone, and I'm pretty sure that regarding the situation, I know better.
I am surrounded by Iraqis 24/7, all kinds.. I know how they feel, and no person can tell me that I don't. Some Iraqis are good, some are bad, all have different opinions, and mine represents most of the ones' I speak for, Moslawis'..
Anyone has the urge to kill me right now? The door is wide enough for a camel as we say, you do not have to come across this blog again..
Open-minds are welcomed.. Being American doesn't mean having an opened-mind by the way.. Closed-minds?? There are blogs that are devoted to cursing Iraqi bloggers, go join.."
75 comments:
well, I think one big problem with some Americans that read Najma's blog is that they are so defensive they are unable to see her point of view, they are just too busy justifying and rationalizing. I have been reading Najma's blog for over a year too and she has a right to say what she says and thinks. I'm sorry she's hassled by people who are unable to set the defenses down long enough to try and feel what she feels.
"she of course assumes the bullets fired are random and American, and then praises those who likely chose to cause the firefight in her cousins presence to begin with? That is openmindedness for you."
and you assume that they are not, also based on second hand information..... guess you are not openminded either.
Strykerdad, wtf do you mean stay out of the way of Military Convoys??!! If Iraqis can't drive down the street safely in their own country,then...I'm speechless.Those convoys shouldn't be there. End of story.
When a car accident happened with someone we can say it is an accident, but when it repeated almost daily, this is definitly not an accident, it is done on porpose.
Last thursday a son of one of the famous ENT specialist doctors, was in his car when an american convoy pass near by and shooted him, abullet penetrate his mandible taking off most of his face with it, it takes about 5 hours in the operation theater to clean the wound, but he lost his nose and one eye. He is still alife.
On Friday, a christian man with his wife were in their car drivind home near the fifth bridge in Mosul, at the time of the "Fotoor" when the Muslims break their fasting, at this time the streets are almost emty. American shoot him dead, then smashed his car with their stryker, no eye witness. Furtunatly his wife still alife to tell the story.
Every day there is stories like these, and you want the people to admire the murderers for their crimes.
If you feel unsafe even inside your strykers!, how come you claimed that majority of people want you to stay?
BTW Strykerdad, contrary to you I never wish any body dead, even the American soldiers, I wish them all return home safely NOW, but if they don't, your government bear the responsibility of their death.
John
"I am a little confused by some of the previous information you have provided. Strykerdad seems convinced that you were a privilged person under Saddam's regime."
This is one of the thing that strykerdad knows better than I do!!
Any one Offend the american, he is either a privilged person under Saddam's regime, or Terrorist.
"Are you Sunni or Shia?"
I am Iraqi.
"Are you very religious, only moderately, or relatively secular?"
I am moderatly religious.
"Were you a member of the Baath party?"
No on the contrary, On the opposite side always, and had suffer from this attitude.
strykerdad
"TT no doubt thinks me a fool"
Not at all, i guess you are intelligent man full of emotion, but unfortunately your emotion is in different direction than mine.
"but how many Iraqis get to worry about their vacations, shopping trips, internet access, government stipends for their children, choices of universties, sharing the laptop and picture phones and claim Saddam's Iraq was the epitomy of unity and togetherness"
All the real Iraqis except those who were at the side of the Iraq's enemy at time of war, and there fore Saddam revenge from them. Not because they are Sheei or Kurds, but because they are traitors.
I am not defending Saddam, but it is the truth. Yes his response was very violent, but I guess yours is not differ from him.
"See if TT will acknowledge their claim that anyone who claimed Kurdish ancestry were banned from owning property in Mosul during Saddam's reign and still were up until at least a year ago. Or that Sunni professionals like engineers and doctors were given their property and stipends in return for relocating to Mosul and surrounding areas after the attempted genocide of Kurds following the first Gulf War."
Forgive for this,. IT IS A LIE, any body told you that is a lier, any body spread this is a lier. This is a propaganda spread by the American to justify their unfair double standard behaviour.
BTW if you are not spreading the lies of the occupation, why you used to delete your comments after a while? is there are any things you don't want others to check it?
TT -
I read the piece and it is well written, persuasive and informative. Much unlike Hurria, Najma reveals herself in her writing and this is a gift to the world and the cause of peace. To the extent that people in the world understand each others feelings they can know what the consequences of impersonal policies and plans truly are at the human level.
However, I find one small part of what Najma has written disturbing. She says "But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid."
I am no great philosopher but I personally try to adhere to the standards of pacifism in my philosophy and deeds and have devoted a fair amount of thought to doing so over the years. I believe determined adherance to nonviolence can serve an educational function which in many cases can be more productive than violence.
The problem of any pacifist is contolling emotion in the face of provocation. It is quite a difficult thing to refrain from violence when one is attacked if one has the power to strike back. It is not even clear that it is the correct response in every situation, particularly if refraining from violence would allow harm to people other than one's self or when it would allow a great injustice which violent action could prevent.
I can understand the emotions of people who strike at people who have invaded their country, but I can not condone or approve of these "Mujahid" Najma approves of. They fight and kill not to defend the innocent but prove a political point or, at best, to injure people who they believe are evil. Nonviolent action, a war of words rather than a war of bullets, could make the political point as well or better, and a person who judges, condemns and kills another human on his own authority without benefit of hearing or appeal is careless and unjust if ANY alternative course of faction is available.
When people wage war, the explanation "we wage war on them because they wage war on us" is not good enough and does not lead to peace.
Tell your daughter this is the kind of thing pacifists think about, TT. Ask her for me if she can walk in those shoes.
"On top of that, homosexuality is widely seen as a disease spread by the United States and Israel to corrupt Arabs and undermine their religious faith."
MyWay
Strykerdad, everything is our fault or a conspiracy on our part.
Hurria,re Saddam opposing people as to their political views,not what religious/ethnic group the belonged to, exactly right.
I think Najma's comment is admirable!
I am an Iraqi woman and I am fed up with U.S people telling me what to feel and say. I am fed up with U.S people and other pro-people talking to me as if I am a terrorist for wanting the occupation to end. The occupation troops have committed terrible crimes in Iraq, they have turned the country into a chaos, so YES I want a clear date for the occupations troops withdrawal, and until that day these occupation troops are ALL under Iraqi law and are put in an Iraqi court for the crimes they commit as any other person in Iraq should be too if they commit any sort of crime.
I think Najma's comment is admirable!
I am an Iraqi woman and I am fed up with U.S people telling me what to feel and say. I am fed up with U.S people and other prowar people talking to me as if I am a terrorist for wanting the occupation to end. The occupation troops have committed terrible crimes in Iraq, they have turned the country into a chaos, so YES I want a clear date for the occupations troops withdrawal, and until that day these occupation troops are ALL under Iraqi law and are put in an Iraqi court for the crimes they commit as any other person in Iraq should be too if they commit any sort of crime.
"But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid."
Najma
This is not the first time your daughter has made such statement. She closed her comments over the row that she caused making statement like those. The thing is that when she started talking like that I assumed that she was just repeating what she heard at home. The sad part is that her heroes the Muji are not really targeting Americans, they mostly target fellow Iraqis like the ING, I think they are killing Iraqis at like a 3:1 ratio, and Iraqi civilians at an even greater level. Many of these people are not intrested in Iraq, or Iraqs future, but in their own dominace of minorities at home. They will gladly spill Iraqi blood to futher their own agenda, and will burn Iraq to the ground if you give them the chance.
But again I think she just repeats what she hears at home. I have read a few comments out there were I thought that it was someone else writing in her name, the voice changed and it had a sort of adult sound of anger to it that did not appear to be coming from a young girl.
As a father you should be careful of who your children talk to online and you should be aware that there are plenty of people out there that would try to harm a young mind. I for one allow that a parent has every right to teach their own children whatever they want.
Strykerdad
"are you talking about Mosul the city or Mosul the province?"
My father used to tell me "Don't believe all what you heard unless you see it." I added to his quotes "don't believe all what you see.
Your problem is, you think that know every thing about Mosul, even more than what the citizens of Mosul are.
The term "Mosul" is applied only to the city of Mosul. The province where the city of Mosul is located is called Nineveh, and pronounced in Arabic Nenawah.
"I have read that such a policy of revoking property ownership rights for those unwilling to declare themselves Arab, but I haven't seen any English translations of Iraqi Modern History to confirm that which might be an acceptable source to you"
You haven't seen any thing to confirm this LIE because it is a LIE.
"do you deny there was an Arabisation campaign? "
Yes I denied it clearly and laudly, no Arabisation campain in mosul. On the contrary Kurds were moved to live in Mosul fleeing from the struggle between the central government and the Kurdish insurgents.
"The stories I've read and had told to me sound in line with what UN reports and Human Rights Watch reports say. Is it all rubbish?"
If you are correct in conveying the stories, Yea It is all rubbish.
REAL IRAQI: This term needs explaination! as I see you didn't understand it properly.
Every body born in Iraq is Iraqi, but the real Iraqi is the one who feel he belong to Iraq, and give his loyality only to Iraq, no matter what the surrounding circumstances are. The Iraqi who stand with the invader, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who looted his cities when he got the chance to do so, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who recieved weapons and money from foriegn countries to attack his own people is not real Iraqi. You notice there is no ethnic, sectarian or religious differentiation in this definition.
" I have no reason to think he didn't do honorable, commendable things in return for the pay he received"
That is what I called it "Delusion", This is a psychological illness need doctor consultation.
" though desiring nothing more personally than an opportunity to live a life approaching that enjoyed by TT and his family"
The life TT and his family enjoid, is nothing compared to the life he supposed to have, if he lived in other country as US.
madtom
It the differences between cultures and believes, who made the definition of Mujahid so widely differs from one person to another.What we believe in Mujahid is the person who put his life and wealth in the service of his religion as first priority and then his country and his family. Defending the country against invasion is a sacred duty.
The thing you don't understand is, the mujahid NEVER killed innocent people, NEVER killed his countrymen, NEVER killed a Muslim. you get it now, the terrorist are not Mujahids, those who put bomb in the mosque or schools ara not Mujahid, those who expolde thier selfs in a crowd are not Mujahid.
The term Jihad and Mujahid are often used by those who want to paint the picture of religion over thier acts to be acceptable by the people.
Any way thank you for your concern, and hope you get the meaning of Mujahid when she or me mention it in our blogs.
"TT-it sounds like your approved brand of Mujahadin could all meet in a phone booth. Your description would better fit the best of the Iraqi army and police force, but we are different. "
Strykerdad beat me too it, I was going to say something similar, so I will ask TT a different question. Can you point to an operation in Iraq that was Muji?
Or if you can not will you in the future point out to us here when you see an operation that would fit into your definition of the Muj?
Are there any local or national leaders or organizations
that fit into your definition of Mujahadin?
And if I can ask a stupid question, why did the Muji never come to Iraq to get saddam?
strykerdad
"Is there something I missed? Did you not do honorable, commendable things and were you not payed for those things by the Baathist government? How is that delusion on my part?"
You know very well my Job, it is the only thing I have been paid for, and did you know how much, the sum of my salaries for the period from 1991 till 2003 is less than the sum of my salaries of 3 months I recieved now. BTW my salary now is = $400. It was range from $3 to $8 a month.
In spite of that the real Iraqi didn't sold his country to the forienger for money.
"Real Iraqis are those who went along to get along? My analogy to Germans during Hitler's experiment stands."
I don't think you get the point, go and read it again.
"THE GREAT TERROR
In northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda.
by JEFFREY GOLDBERG"
I read this article very carefully and don't find any possible tie to al Qaeda.
In addition there is nothing in it about Mosul. In spite of that I can confedently say it is more than 80% Lies.
It happened once, during the Iraq-Iran war, because the central government was unsure about the loyality of the Kurds, it excluded the kurds from the military service, at that time a tribe settled near by Mosul have from the time of Persian invasion to Iraq, they called themselfes as "Shabak", They are Persian in origin not Kurds, some of them claimed thier selfes as Kurds to get rid of the military service. those who did so are forced to move to the NORTH to kurdistan (The Kurd's land).
I don't heard any thing from any of my close friend Kurds, about what this article said.
BTW I have many Kurdish friends especially fron Duhook, Zokho and Aqra, most of them heads of their tribes we used to exchange ideas about the situation in the area, but no one said any thing about the genocide this article described.
All what had been said is about the destruction of Kurdish villages when the insurgent are take it as their besa (exactly like what the American did in Falluja, Haditha, Al qaim. Tal Afar and so and so). The only difference is Saddam's operations were against villages while the American's were against towns.
" Then I read your daughter's(?) statements"
What a (?) mean here ?, Are my doaghters not mine? or else? may be you meant that those "statements" were not my doaghter's ones?
It’s all very well for Americans like Strykerdad to excuse the violence committed by their troops, and to try to justify the harsh measures taken by soldiers. From a soldiers point of view it makes perfect sense to ride over uncooperative cars and to open fire at people who get too close, since they risk attack and death from guerrillas at any time.
However, the logic and justifications become somewhat warped when one takes into consideration that the US is AN INVADER. The deaths of Iraqis resulting from firefights between patriotic Iraqis and US soldiers can only be laid directly at the door OF THE UNITED STATES, since IT instigated the wars and the moral right to fight lies with the person defending.
Hence these repeated calls for the Resistance to give up its weapons and cease fighting, in order for US troops to leave are laughable. Laughable because they try and lay the blame for continued violence at the feet of Iraqi patriots, using a twisted kind of logic.
In reality, the US has no intention of ever leaving at all.
Let’s recap here folks.
America has often stated its claim to primacy in the Middle East, a region which it has no historical basis to be in. For example:
Carter Doctrine:
US president Carter announced in 1980 : “"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."”
PNAC:
Rebuilding America’s Defences P.26
“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
Rebuilding America’s Defences P. 29
“From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”
(PNAC – Project for a New American Century is endorsed by virtually all the potentates of the Bush Administration, as well as several policy developers.)
Combine these openly stated goals with the goal of the US Neocons to shape the world to their liking, and to assure US dominance for at least the next century … combine all this with the megabases being constructed in Iraq which are not at all temporary structures, and one can only come to the conclusion that the US does not intend on leaving even if the violence ceases.
Folks, that statement is an outright lie, and is being used as a convenient double-action smokescreen in order to justify for the time being US troops in Iraq and to vilify resistance to their presence.
The other argument is that because the US got rid of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis “owe” Americans something. BULLSHIT. Nobody asked you to intervene, and to destroy the country in the process. You intervened for your own selfish reasons, not for altruistic purposes. Indeed, there was even rejoicing in some (US) quarters that Saddam was so bad, because that would mean that Iraqis would comply with whatever the Americans wanted.
Uh, excuse me? Can we reverse this situation for a second and consider for a moment American material and informational support of Hussein? Such as lists of Communists to be exterminated with the rise of the Ba’ath to power?
SO, you help Saddam to inflict damage and suffering on Iraqis, and then expect later to be thanked when the source of that suffering is removed? How does that work?
This is reminiscent of the torture techniques that the US uses on Iraqis, such as stripping them naked and denying them basic rights that prisoners have. As a ‘reward’ the rights that they ought to have in the first place are gradually restored to them in return for information. But there is no reward. There is only cessation of punishment.
This whole situation is so sick.
And people wonder why there is Resistance.
Truth teller,
Hi, I'm Evelyn from Free Iraq. Thank you very much for your comment. I've responded just below Dr. Khadduri. Am so pleased to know you. Stay well.
"What we believe in Mujahid is the person who put his life and wealth in the service of his religion as first priority and then his country and his family."
I think the kind of person you are describing is what we would call a patriot.
But who is to determine what actions are patriotic? In our country we have people who are supporters of the war in Iraq and those who are not. Is one more patriotic than the other? They all care about their country and believe that they are doing the best they can for it.
The people you say are "collaberating with the invaders" may believe they are working to establish the institutions that are necessary for a stable and functioning Iraq. In other words "in the service of" their country. That to my way of thinking is the act of a patriot. They are doing the best they can for their country to improve the situation.
Where we differ, I think, is in WHAT would improve the situation. You seem to think that the immediate withdrawal of Coalition troops will be just the thing to do so. We, on the other hand, are not sure that the institutions that are currently in place are strong enough to withstand the actions of the terrorists and others who wish to dabble in Iraq's internal affairs.
You want us gone, TT? Than show us that you CAN fight the terrorists, and win. Show us that you can govern in a fair and equitable manner. If you don't like the constitution as written go out and vote against it. If you do support it then go out and vote for it. Make us feel superfluous in our minds.
You can't go back, TT. You can only go foreward.
"How we govern is none of your damned business."
Sure it is, your last government made it our business by getting in our face, so now it's our turn.
But no worry it's almost over, we may be out of your hair before you know it. Be ready, because ready or not things are moving, and things are changing, they may be paving our road home.
Sure it is, your last government made it our business by getting in our face, so now it's our turn.-madtom
Seems to me it was the other way around.
"Seems to me it was the other way around."
How so?
Ah yes, Madtom, it seems that Dancewater has forgotten about the Iraqi bombing of Washington. She was also very silly to have overlooked the Iraqi invasion of Texas which resulted in so much death and destruction. Not to mention the Iraqis evil attempts to take over Wall street.
Have you nothing better to do with your time than post nonsense?
Moron99 –
[M99} “There is a reason that insurgent leaders never make their political demands known and refuse to discuss any future vision of governence.”
Damn, you have me on the ropes! (If I were as blinkered as you that is.)
If you seek, so you shall find:
Iraq: Statement of Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces
Iraq, February 15, 2005 Um al-Qura Mosque
In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate
[...]
The participant forces proclaim that they deal with the national reconciliation, which they were the first to call for since the beginning of the occupation, and with the writing of the constitution, on the basis of what follows:
1) A clear, precise, public, and binding under international guarantees, timetable for the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq in all their aspects and forms.
2) Abolition of the principle of repartition according to sectarian, racial or ethnic lines, and adoption of the principle of citizenship and equality in rights and duties in front of the law.
3) Acknowledgement of the principle of the right of the Iraqi people to reject occupation; recognition of the Iraqi resistance and its legitimate right to defend its country and its resources; rejection of terrorism which takes aim at innocent Iraqis, facilities and institutions of public utility, and places of worship -- mosques, husseiniyyat Shia religious centers, churches and all holy places.
[...]
5) Adoption of democracy and election as the only option for the transfer of power, and the preparation of conditions and laws allowing the political process to take place in honest and transparent conditions, under neutral international supervision.
6) Affirmation of the patriotic, Arab and Islamic identity of Iraq, and firm opposition to all positions that might lead to the loss of this identity.
[...]
(28) Signatories
Johninnz –
“Strykerdad of course would say that "you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs," that it is worthwhile in the cause of freedom. But at what point do you end up saying "you can’t make an omelette without strangling the chicken?"”
Bravo! Well said.
Salaam TT
Najma, as always, has written a really good article. Many Americans/War-lovers like StrykerDad are just plain angry with such reports. There may be several opinions but only one truth. You know what? The truth always hurts and that's why they cannot bare it.
I would like to know if say China managed to invade America because they think it is the only way for a stable world - in their interest. And let's say (to you fellows who love soldiers) some soldiers hear some shots and the chinese soldiers started shooting like mad. A woman who was just going to the shop and her son got killed. This woman happened to be your wife or maybe your sister. The little boy, obviously, would have been your son or nephew. What would you do? Through your comments I think you'll just lay back and say that these soldiers were just doing their job and there must be a valid reason behind that. I think not, you'll be the first ones to show your 'independence day' or 'rambo' skills.
The Iraqis are the ones who really knows what's happening to them on the ground - not us foreigners.
BTW China was jusst an example and I do NOT have anything against them.
johninnz -- Aha! Snark. I like it.
This is a link I've spammed everywhere else, because it really is an EXCELLENT article and analysis of the effect of the so-called “El Salvador Option” being implemented by the US on Iraq.
It covers the formation of the death squads, as well as disinformation used to redirect interpretation and blame for various mass killings. This is reminiscent of the Phoenix Programme in Vietnam.
Check this out:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FUL506A.html
Jen is right, TT. A true Mujahid, by your definition, would fight the terrorists who are trying to destabilize Iraq.
"Aside from pointing out the patronizing, arrogant nature of this rant - we are not obligated to show you anything at all -"
Did I say you were obligated? No. My "rant" as you call it was simply a suggestion as to how to get rid of us. One that may work better than trying to kill each other.
As for the terrorists not being in Iraq before we came, the point is moot. They are in Iraq now and do not seem to have any intentions of leaving anytime soon. To think they will simply pack their bags and leave when we do is overly optimistic. Therefore YOU must be prepared to deal with them when we do.
"All those places have gone their own ways, sometimes disastrously."
So true. It would be nice to avoid the disastrous part, though.
"So, whether they will pack up and leave when you do (and the evidence indicates that to a large extent they will)"
And what evidence is that, Hurria?
"Jen and Lynette both seem to subscribe to the propaganda oversimplification of attributing all violent acts in Iraq to "terrorists.""
I don't know about Jen, but when I talk about terrorists I am talking about the people who committed the acts written about in the article below. I have no idea if they are foreign or born in Iraq.
here
try that link again
" it seems that Dancewater has forgotten about"
Apparently many things, not to mention the attack on Kuwait, and ten years of targeting our planes, the funding of terrorism in Israel, to name a few. I bet you won't do any those openly again. You or your friends. It's amazing the collective amnesia you see round here, maybe you should all check into TT hospital, you might have a brain tumor.
"On the contrary, the point is anything but moot. You opened the way for them in the first place, you have facilitated their ability to operate, by your unspeakable brutality you have acted as the best recruiting tool they could possibly hope for, and the only effect your efforts have had is to increase the number and severity of their attacks."
And you do not see the fallacy of your argument? The fact that they kill Iraqis?? If as you say it's our "unspeakable brutality" they would be attacking us, not you. They are obviously there because of your unspeakable blindness to their actions. Once we leave you their favorite target will still be there. They will have it made. The killing fields will have anew meaning.
"Jen is right, TT. A true Mujahid, by your definition, would fight the terrorists who are trying to destabilize Iraq."
They were never bothered by saddam either, so that should tell you something about their motives and intentions.
"they've got 2000 of you so far
Your not serious right?
Your presence might even be a little bit justifiable if you were actually achieving anything significant for the Iraqi people,
You don't count what's going on, and what's not going on in Kurdistan, and the fact that 90% of the country is relatively calm
If it's actually trying to handle a few hundred thousand resistants, which seems to be more probably the real situation, then it might as well go home, too.
We are not sheep, we don't run from a challenge. We work to implement a solution. A political solution that has in fact been accepted by a very large majority of Iraqi's that would like to try something different. Don't they count for you?
But of course the dictator crowd is not in for solutions they want chaos, as it will lead to easy domination of the masses.
John why do you think that the regular Iraqi is incapable of living within a democratic society? Do you think it's beyond them?
Oh, dear. I just clicked on my link and realized they changed the article. I was referring to an article regarding the bombing in Tal Afar.
John,
I am not lumping anyone anywhere. I think that M99 has explained what we mean by a terrorist. As TT has said a true Mujahid does not target civilians.
Civilians killed by ANYONE are always a tragedy.
there's not a lot of proof that the genuine "foreign fighters" or worst extremists enjoy widespread support among ordinary Iraqis who still oppose the occupation.
We are not occupying Iraq. We are also against occupation, that why we try to implement a political solution. Something that has worked everywhere it's been tried. Even for you in NZ, or would you like to return to the days of King Gorge
"back to the lab, Frankenstein, let's try that a different way."
Were're all ears. You can look around the world, there are plenty of places to try anything you want, we have been trying other methods, I think we created something called the UN as a means to bring people closer together, and our policy in China is completely different. But all solution can not be applied to every situation. Iraq got what saddam made for it.
Have a nice day at work, I just got off of work!
Occupations are normally understood as military invasions which impose themselves on a country through military superiority and intimidation. The population are under threat of reprisal should they not acquiesce to the will of the invader!
By your own definition, we are not occupiers.
The lefties
Not all of us Strykerdad, don't make the same mistake Albatroz does.
Thank you for the clarification, but being Cuban I do not accept the second definition of "population" and never will. From where I come from those are fighting words which would earn you a fat lip.
"Sometimes I wonder what will happen to the ex-ruling class."
They can always move to San Francisco. :)
Did you see the post from poor Khalid, lost in the halls of a vast new school, getting "looks" from everyone. My, my how the mighty have fallen
Madtom --
[madtom] “They were never bothered by saddam either, so that should tell you something about their motives and intentions.”
Uh, do you KNOW how many assassination plots Hussein survived? It wasn’t through lack of trying that Iraqis were unable to get rid of him
[bruno] " it seems that Dancewater has forgotten about […] "
[madtom] “Apparently many things, not to mention the attack on Kuwait, and ten years of targeting our planes, the funding of terrorism in Israel, to name a few.”
Madtom, if you ingested more vitamins, fish and other brain food, you might remember.
Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991. Iraq is STILL paying reparations to the filthy-rich Kuwaitis.
You might also remember that we have already discussed the No Fly Zones, and the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft.
Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated. We can debate as to who the real terrorists of the Israel – Palestinian saga are. We can debate as to whether being friends of Palestinians is a just casus belli for the invasion of Iraq by a third party. We can debate as to whether Iraqi money paid as compensation to the families of Palestinians who had their houses demolished in retaliation by Israelis is really direct material support for ‘terrorism’.
Most of all, however, we can debate your cluelessness of the subject matter and your short memory.
Moron99 --
[m99] “a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets innocent civillians with violence as a means to achieve political goals.”
Thank you for admitting that the US is a terrorist state. It comes as a shock, I know. If you read the link I provided earlier, you would also have read about the US wanting to make Sunnis ‘pay’ for providing support to the Resistance. Gee, I wonder what that means? Gee, I wonder where the corpses found in desert areas are coming from?
Strykerdad --
I rather like your prognosis.
My outlook is rather bleaker, where the US remains for as long as it can to ‘protect’ its ‘interests’ from ‘terrorists’ (ie – anybody opposed to the wholesale subsuming of Iraq into the US sphere of influence) and sponsors bloody massacres either directly or indirectly. I see death squads. False flag operations. Search and destroy a la Fallujah, while an impotent and divided Iraqi parliament squabble over the crumbs. I also see the costs for the war mount up continuously, and the oil revenues insufficient to cover even a fraction of the cost. The tit for tat casualties and bloodletting will continue unabated, and more and more of the limbless results of your policies will be seen around your posh malls. Eventually some catalysing incident – maybe a US base gets overrun, or a two ton carbomb makes it into the Green Zone, or another Shia rebellion – will cause public support in the US to collapse, at which point you will turn tail and run. Iraq, of course, will be absolutely shattered, but given another season of “Survivor” Americans will have forgotten all about it.
That’s MY prognosis.
"They can always move to San Francisco. :)"
No doubt Raed will have an extra bedroom ready!
Homeland Security: We are surrounded by idots.
"Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Dillemas
I was asked a question the other day by a person interested in Iraqi politics. He asked me what benefits are there for the Sunni Arabs of Iraq in the new constitution. I couldn’t really answer. It made me think, unlike others I try to look at things from all sides and I am using my mindset as an Arab Sunni writing this article.
From the creation of the modern day Iraq, the ruling powers have almost always been from the Arab Sunni minority. They have helped balance the complicated demographics of the Western created borders of what is Iraq. The differing ethnic and religious groups in Iraq made it hard to control the country so an iron fist was needed. I can speak for the last 30 years, Arab Sunnis look at the 60’s and 70’s as good times in Iraq and other Iraqis do the same. Racism did exist but it was more anti-Kurdish than sectarian, but that’s a separate issue entirely. In schools and universities they were taught that there is no region called Kurdistan and instead it’s Northern Iraq. This is in essence the denial of the existence of a nation separate from the Arab nation. These ideas stick in one’s head, that’s why until today you will never hear Ibrahim Ja’afari utter the word Kurdistan. He was the first Iraqi politician to proudly have the Ba’athist flag behind him. Those who may personally know him know that prior to returning to Iraq he was in London, working in religious activities that really didn’t have much to do with politics. If you understand Arabic you would realise that he spends and hour answering a question without actually answering it. Good knowledge of the Arabic vocabulary does not make one a good decision maker and leader.
Back to the topic at hand, the Kurds and Shi’ites were oppressed but still there were people from both groups that preferred money and stood with the Ba’ath. It was Iraqis of all types that committed atrocities against Iraqis, and today it’s the same story. Nothing much has really changed sadly and the leaders worry about elections and constitutions and religion when the important issues are neglected. I mean how is it that in Lebanon a whole UN team was sent to try and find out the killer of Hariri yet it’s not possible to do that in Iraq? I mean just how many people are out there killing daily? The numbers are not decreasing.
If I was a Sunni Arab and saw today’s events in Iraq I would definitely be heart broken and I probably would wish the return of Saddam. This is due to the lack of Sunni Arab participation in the current government and municipalities, a mistake made during the past elections not necessarily by choice since the dangerous areas they reside in had low voter turnout cause of terrorist threats in addition to the boycott. The concept of power sharing is new and takes a lot of time to adjust to after years of being in control of everything. The worries are purely economical and rightly so since the middle parts of Iraq are not where the oil fields are located and that is no secret. Therefore even those that don’t engage in violent acts help the terrorists by being so anti-government in everything, from appearing on TV to discussions with friends. I am not saying all Arab Sunnis think this way, but the majority do. Ask an Iraqi Arab Sunni about changing the flag, ask him about reversing ethnic cleansing, and ask him about the Shiite rituals. If he were honest you would see that the mindset is still there and that is why it’s hard.
When you lose everything you had and have to start from scratch living with people that you know suffered at the hands of Saddam, you have fears and suspicions, it’s the whole process a sector of Sunni Arabs are against, because they realise that for them Iraq will never be the way it was in the past. The worry is that the Kurds and Shiites refrain from revenge. As Lebanon learnt that won’t solve anything. It’s a shame that the leaders of Iraq today didn’t stand united, after all those terrible years where people lost their life under Saddam and his cronies.
P.S. Saddam used to be proud of Salaheedine Al Ayoobee the famour KURDISH warrior that fought for Islam, and took pride in the fact he hailed from Tikrit generations ago. Tell me how is that he was Kurdish and from Tikrit? Then these animals accuse the Kurds of trying to grab land. Pathetic indeed when people preach without any background or history on the topics they discuss."
Sami
Any comment on Sami's post?
Lynette I'm sure Saddam knew Saladin was a Kurd. He had Kurdish Ministers. Some Kurds collaborated with the US as did some Shia. Some did not. The resistance is not targetting people because of the ethnic/religious background. The Resistance is targetting the Coalition
Strykerdad,
You're welcome. He says he is Iraqi.
Janice and Hurria,
The words I quoted were Sami's, not mine.
As for who I hate? I hate no one. Hurria, if you choose to believe I hate someone because I disagree with them, so be it.
P.S. A little touchy about Saladdin aren't you?
"Lynette, you are the kind of racist bigot that anyone can see coming a mile away."
That is the kind of argument made by someone who cannot think of anything of intelligence to say.
"And why on earth would I or anyone else be "touchy" about Saladdin?"
Good question.
Out of all the things that Sami had to say you choose to respond to something he tacked on at the end of his post.
"Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991. Iraq is STILL paying reparations to the filthy-rich Kuwaitis."
Wrapped up? I would say that today that issue is behind us now. We will not hold the Iraqi people responsible for the acts of a dictator. But that flight of fancy of it being all wrapped up in 91 is your fantasy that we are not bound by.
"You might also remember that we have already discussed the No Fly Zones, and the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft."
Your memory is falling you, we are not bound by the UN, we do not depend on the UN for our security, nor is the UN capable of providing us that. It would in no way "justify" targeting out war plane, which is an act of war, and a violation of the surrender document. And something that kept our allies on edge, thinking that saddam was rearming and getting ready to strike AGAIN.
"Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated...."
The time for that debate is past. Saddam got in our face once too many times and now he's history, like your "debates".
"As always, Tom, you are in serious need of a reality check. Here's a news flash for you: The overwhelming majority of attacks by the so-called "insurgents" are against occupation forces, not against civilians."
Reminds me of Baghdad Bob's "there are no tanks in Baghdad", sure Hurria you can believe anything you want to believe, just don't look in the morgue.
Then again maybe it's just a little problem with their aim, and they are actually targeting the coalition, but the fact is they are killing civilians, unarmed civilians. Somehow unlike you I find it hard to believe that they mistook a vegetable market for a military installation. Maybe they have seen too many movies "Get Smart" where the vegetables are really allied rocket launchers.
"Lynette I'm sure Saddam knew Saladin was a Kurd. He had Kurdish Ministers. Some Kurds collaborated with the US as did some Shia. Some did not. The resistance is not targetting people because of the ethnic/religious background. The Resistance is targetting the Coalition"
I think this is an important revelation from the other side. It's the first time I hear one of them admit openly that Iraq and Iraqi's are part of the coalition. Kind of makes you wonder how they use the word "occupiers", how can Iraqi's be occupiers? But maybe I now understand their retoric about "The overwhelming majority of attacks by the so-called "insurgents" are against occupation forces".
"MadTom, you've just got to respect a man who's totally assimilated within a country that treated his anscestors with such regard. Some might call it posturing, others a denial of faith or heritage. "
You know nothing about my heritage, apparently.
Right now there is a big pot of arroz con pollo simmering on the stove, it's never been illegal. But if I want I can have a Big Mack, no one will question my heritage.
Well- this just goes to show that people do read these blogs, whether they read it for its content or the useless arguments to prove who can ego-wank harder I don't know.
Don't F**king fight on the comments section of Iraqi' blogs. This is about them and their country- not about you and your desire to appear intelligent or macho.
Show compassion, Show you care, write something usefull- or like I said on my blog...
Fuck Off.
(p.s) tell najma to reply to my e-mails!
TT, I always enjoy Najma's posts because she has a sharp mind and a good writing style. She probably wants to go into another field but I do think she could have a career a commentator for newspapers. And I don't blame her for how she feels. She (and you) are living in Mosul, in the middle of a war zone between Americans and the IDF on one hand and terrorists on the other and civilians pay the price. For months now I've been hoping things would get better in your city but they don't seem to, even if things ARE better in other places in Iraq.
But I have to agree with Waldschrat when he takes exception to Najma saying she is with the mujideen. I know you said (and I believe you are correct) that the American vision of the mujadi (terrorists) are not what you think of when you say the word. But it still bothers me. It seems to me that there are very few people who would meet your definition of the word. The people who are killing American soldiers are not usually "Islamic patriots" but Islamic fanatics (mostly from outside Iraq) from Al-Queda and ex-Saddamites. None of them would meet your definition of the mujadeen. So who would? Would the Iraqi Police? Or how about the IDF?
I must also say if you don't mind that I miss the Najma who used to write about Aya and who was excited with life even if she was afraid of what was to come. This is also the case with dear HNK who sounded so happy coming back from Syria and no writes in such a depressed way. I know there's not a lot to be happy about but I would feel terrible if such smart girls as your daughters who will be needed in the educated professional class that will bring Iraq to the future have lost hope. Hope is the greatest thing Iraqis have and what the terrorists fear most (that why they bomb so much near elections).
[johninnz] “The majority of them are therefore presumably Iranian, and they’re meant to be the rabidly anti-American arch-enemy, aren’t they? Cheerleading for democracy is all very well, but this fervent pro-Shia bias seems kinda counterproductive. If Southern Iraq does secede, won’t they (and their oil) probably become part of a Shia Greater Iranian Alliance, or something?”
This is precisely the thing that worries me. Under a ‘democracy’ the Shia win big time. Or, more specifically, the Iranian created exile groups like SCIRI and Dawa win big time. That means, unless Iran is removed from the equation, a realpolitik view means that the US has just spent a fortune handing the Iranians their greatest victory yet, without moderating the Iranian stance one iota.
Is this really an outcome acceptable to the ideologues in Wasgington at the moment? The ideologues who have already stated that Iraq is but a stepping stone to Iran?
The neocons are hardly people who are shy in spending other people’s blood to achieve their objectives. My fear is that sooner or later the conflict will be expanded to Iran, in a bid to knock over the last skittle. Iran, of course is a much bigger bite than poor ol’ sanctions-impoverished Iraq, which the US can already hardly swallow. If that happens, look to seeing the blood run for many years to come.
[New Iraq] “If you are losing on principle and facts, then pound the table.”
Now that you mention it, I notice that you didn’t provide much in the way of either facts or principles yourself. I guess you are also one of the cheap table pounders…?
[madtom]
[bruno] “Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991”
[madtom] “But that flight of fancy of it being all wrapped up in 91 is your fantasy that we are not bound by.”
Facts? No? OK, that’s what I thought. Another vapid statement by Madtom.
[bruno] “the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft.”
[madtom] “we are not bound by the UN […] It would in no way "justify" targeting out war plane, which is an act of war, and a violation of the surrender document. ”
Now this is the reason that you get on my nerves. You are a BIG IGNORAMUS who spouts off as though he actually knew something. But you don’t.
FYI, the US * is * bound to the UN Charters and the 1991 Ceasefire. It is bound by the strength of the word of honour of the United States, since YOUR country endorsed those documents UNDER the auspices of the UN. Now, I agree with you that the word of honour of the US is more and more worthless every day, and that yes, if you want to reject the UN, you can. Of course, that makes your country a liar and an oathbreaker, but hey, what’s a few more spots on a butcher’s apron anyway?
You are correct in ONE aspect of your statement, in that Iraq was supposed to cease hostile actions against the US and the other Kuwaiti allies. Of course, the Ceasefire ALSO stipulated that all parties should withdraw their troops and hardware from Iraqi territory, and that the sovereignty of Iraq was affirmed. Now, given that the US planes WERE OVER IRAQ when they were targeted, it means that America WAS in fact the breaker of the Ceasefire in the first place. And under UN law (A51), a sovereign country has the right to self defence. Yes, that means Iraq.
[bruno] "Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated...."
[madtom] “The time for that debate is past. Saddam got in our face once too many times and now he's history, like your "debates".”
Ah, I see. Might is right. Screw justice, right and wrong. If you have the power, you make the law, in Madtomlandia. You wouldn’t be a big fan of Castro by any chance? Sounds like it. The rest of the world left caveman logic like that behind a long time ago.
[strykerdad] “Support world peace or I'll kill you! ...”
Heh heh. Something amusing from the dour Strykerdad is a nice change of pace …
Jack Bennett –
[jb] “The people who are killing American soldiers are not usually "Islamic patriots" but Islamic fanatics (mostly from outside Iraq) from Al-Queda and ex-Saddamites. None of them would meet your definition of the mujadeen. So who would? Would the Iraqi Police? Or how about the IDF?”
Jack, the fact of the matter is, a hodge podge of Iraqis are fighting the Americans. Are there Ba’athists and Salafists amongst them? Certainly. But there are also Shia, secular patriots and so forth who are doing the same.
The numbers of ‘foreign fighters’ are around 5% of the Resistance. Some reports give a maximum of 10%. I really don’t see the problem, though. The US employs mercenaries through companies such as Blackwater etc. – and they are well known for their callous disregard of Iraqi lives. Yet, nobody seems to complain about these mercenaries, some of which are ‘foreign’ in the sense of ‘not American’. Americans, in case you never realised, are ‘foreign’ to Iraq.
In any case, railing about Ba’athists is hardly any good when the US has hired a whole bunch of Ba’athists in the form of Adnan Thavit and his bunch of goons. They are bona fide thugs whose exploits have apparently been broadcast on US sponsored Iraqi TV channels in a bid to (a) intimidate patriotic Iraqis and (b) distort the image of the resistance. Railing about Ba’athists is also hardly any good when the US has made a big fuss about the dangers of ‘de-Ba’athification’ of the various ministries, having rehired those Ba’athists who would work for them.
I’ll tell you what. Judge by intent and actions, not labels.
Strykerdad,
The tribes that run the Casino's here in Minnesota have done VERY well. As far as I am concerned "more power to them".
johninnz "probably become part of a Shia Greater Iranian Alliance, or something?”"
(bruno) "Under a ‘democracy’ the Shia win big time"
You people could not have a more racist tone to your writing. Those stupid Shi'a they don't know there Iraqi and a soon as they get the chance there going to run to Iran. Something needs to be done to keep those stupid good for nothing shi'a in line.
TT you really should read carefully the tings your allies write about your countrymen, read carefully. with allies like that you don't need enemies.
"Facts? No? OK, that’s what I thought"
The facts are all "wrapped up" bruno there's no facts were your concerned, what facts did you offer, the war as all "wrapped up" in 91. Yet you want me to offer, I don't now what. How about the fly zones, the Shi'a uprising an saddams brutal response "Today there are no more Shi'a" yea sounds really "wrapped up", the ten years of cat an mouse, saddam placing anti aircraft batteries in shi'a cities and population centers, near schools, mosque, and anyplace else were he could leverage the damage to his advantage, but lets call that all wrapped up and forget all about it. Not to mention saddam hording the staples of everyday life, while millions starved and went without, he built palaces. But no there are no facts there are no lessons there is just your flights of fantasy.
"the US * is * bound to the UN Charters and the 1991 Ceasefire"
Yes and apparently we are the only ones that were bound to any agreement. A little one sided aren't we, there are usually two parts to an agreement, why is it that in your mind we were the only ones bound by it? And try and remember that saddam was the aggressor and the loser, and so it was up to him to try to placate the winning side, not the other way around.
"Screw justice, right and wrong"
Try and try as you might you can not spin this can you?
Time ran out on saddam, and you pout, pout.
Should we have allowed him to through more gas and an already raging fire, pout, pout. Try and look at the world without your anti-American colored glasses just for an hour bruno, it will do wonders for your ulcers.
Strykerdad, do you know what happened to the native people of Cuba when the spanish got there, they killed every one, wiped them all out. The island just wasn't big enough for them both. Not exactly our finest moment.
So long, 'mad' Tom, you just got smoked. You are unable to address the facts. You are unaware of the contents of the 1991 Ceasefire.
I mean, this line "And try and remember that saddam was the aggressor and the loser, and so it was up to him to try to placate the winning side, not the other way around." shows that you have NO CLUE about the actual provisions of the 1991 CF. Cheers.
madtom
"Those stupid Shi'a they don't know there Iraqi and a soon as they get the chance there going to run to Iran. Something needs to be done to keep those stupid good for nothing shi'a in line."
You have to know that you can't judge the degree of loyality to one homeland from his sect or ethnicity. There are as many patriots Sheis as Sunnis especially the Arab Sheis (they are real Iraqis according to my classification).
Yes there are Sheis from Iranian roots who have loyality only to Iran, but those are the exceptions not the rules.
"TT you really should read carefully the tings your allies write about your countrymen, read carefully. with allies like that you don't need enemies."
Pardon my ignorance! who are those allies you are talking about? please explain.
"You have to know that you can't judge the degree of loyality to one homeland from his sect or ethnicity. There are as many patriots Sheis as Sunnis especially the Arab Sheis (they are real Iraqis according to my classification).
Yes there are Sheis from Iranian roots who have loyality only to Iran, but those are the exceptions not the rules.
sorry my rant was a sarcastic translation of what bruno and johninnz are really saying, even if they do not use those words exactly, It is not a notion of Iraqis that I hold but the one that they express, and they are the allies I was referring too.
"For me, I'm totally satisfied with what I had before, as a female. The freedom I want is the one I lost thanks to your country.."
So it didn't bother you that Saddam killed 300,000 of your fellow citizens. It doesn't bother you when they dig up his mass graves all over the country. You think, "I am a Sunni, and Saddam didn't try to exterminate us. His sons didn't try to rape me as they did other women. I was doing fine, so fuck everybody else." Frankly, I find you disgusting.
"Can you immagine how many children could be helped if the US used only a tiny part of the billions the war in Iraq is costing, towards that end? "
We have sent billions to Egypt and Palestine, but they are still corrupt and oppressive regimes. They are still filled with Islamic hate mongers.
Think about Mugabe. He had a nation that was capable of feeding itself, but he screwed it up and now his country must be fed by the international community. How long can we compensate with money for despotic regimes. Liberals like to talk about the "root of the problem". If your only solution is to throw money at the problem, then you will never fix it at its root. The problems will only grow larger and require more charity every year.
"Perhaps his best answer might be "I am Iraqi."
I find the way many US blog commenters have come to demonize all Sunni rather interesting.
It seems to indicate a sort of compulsive desire to have someone to hate."
Now there is an idiotic assertion if I ever heard one. The brothers at Iraq the Model are all Sunni and the only people who hate them are liberals like yourself. Liberals simply cannot stomach anyone with a positive outlook for Iraq. The bottom line is that they are desperately hoping for our failure.
"Unfortunately, Strykerdad, if you were successful only the survivors might benefit. And there are less of them with every passing day... But were you to leave immediately, there would be thousands fewer children who would need to benefit from your amazing generosity, just because they would not be (accidently, of course) shot and wounded by your brave troopers... "
You live in a fantasy land. People are dying because the insugents cannot bear to have democracy in Iraq. Democracy will be the death of radical Islam. If the US leaves it will do absolutely nothing to curb the appetite of the insurgents to impose Sharia on Iraq and turn it into an Islamic prison. And majority of Iraqis will not stand by and allow the insane Islamists to take over their country. So the fight will continue regardless of our prescense. And the death toll may well be even worse. Look at Palestine. The Israelis pulled out and the followers of the religion of death are continuing to murder each other there.
Hurria said:
"And how do you know what the "terrorists" fear and why they do what they do? You talk to them? "
Don't have to. They have their web sites and we have their correspondence. They have clearly stated that Islam and democracy are incompatible. They know only too well that if people are well eduacted and free to choose, that most will leave Islam behind. They know only too well that the entire ME depends on forcing Islam upon the population and on brainwashing them with Islamic dogma each and every day.
tilo i think that you live in a different world. Why is it that more and more individuals in the west are embracing islam?
Faisal said
"tilo i think that you live in a different world. Why is it that more and more individuals in the west are embracing islam? "
When you look at the number of people embracing Islam as a percentage of the whole, the number is tiny. And when you look at who those people are, you find out that most of them are women who have married a muslim.
What the Muslims never count is the number of people who quitely leave Islam in the west. And there are a lot of those.
I will ask you also faisal, do you think that Islam and democracy are compatible?
Thilo
I think that you are really delusional. Neither should affect the other - It is irrelevant. Put it this way, they are two things running in parallel (unless you are delusional just like some terrorists or members of the bnp). It's like saying whether a house and a cat are compatible.
The other thing thilo is that i see more man converted to islam than women. were they married to muslim women?? no. Infact the figures I know is that the number of people who convert to islam due to marital relations is very low
Thilo - I am not saying that you are a member of the bnp. If you thought so, please accept my apology
Okay Faisal, let's deal with my illusions. Let's say that the government of Iraq decides to pass a law that says all domestic violence is illegal. No family member is permitted to hit any other family member, and if they do they will be placed in jail.
Omar and his wife get into an argument. Omar gets exasperated and smacks his wife in the mouth. Omars wife calls the police and has him arrested. Omar gets taken in front of a judge and he quotes verse 4,34 of the Quran to the judge.
"[4:34] Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."
Then Omar tells the judge that he is exercising the rights God has given him in the Quran and that no law made by man can deny him of those rights.
So what does the judge do Faisal?
"The other thing thilo is that i see more man converted to islam than women. were they married to muslim women?? no. Infact the figures I know is that the number of people who convert to islam due to marital relations is very low"
Could you please provide me with those figures and with their source.
白蟻防治
扭力板手
防爆工具
扭力校正器
柴犬
瑪爾濟斯
白蟻
除白蟻
白蟻防治
保健食品
樟芝
納豆
大陸新娘
外籍新娘
瑜珈
瑜珈教室
瑜珈補習班
高雄瑜珈
法拍
法拍屋
MOTEL
汽車旅館
高雄MOTEL
高雄汽車旅館
3M隔熱紙
大樓隔熱紙
汽車隔熱紙
隔熱紙
瑜珈教學
瑜珈教室
高雄瑜珈
法拍屋
地板拋光
居家清潔
清潔公司
旅行社
機票
會計事務所
法拍
法拍屋
墾丁一日遊
墾丁旅遊
墾丁旅遊網
高雄一日遊
高雄旅遊
高雄縣旅遊
阿里山旅遊
服飾批發
流行服飾
韓國服飾
日系服飾
看護
居家看護
看護中心
台中motel
台中住宿
台中汽車旅館
蛋糕
彌月蛋糕
乳酪蛋糕
巧克力
chocolate
塑膠棧板
棧板
白蟻
除蟲
跳蚤
除白蟻
雙眼皮,台中雙眼皮,新彩雙眼皮,割雙眼皮,縫雙眼皮,韓式雙眼皮,雙眼皮整形,雙眼皮手術,雙眼皮診所,台中新彩雙眼皮,眼袋,台中眼袋,新彩眼袋,眼袋整形,眼袋手術,眼袋診所,眼袋醫師,狐臭,台中狐臭,新彩狐臭,狐臭整形,狐臭手術,狐臭診所,削骨,台中削骨,削骨整形,削骨醫師,削骨診所,新彩,台中新彩,新彩整形,新彩診所,新彩整形外科
Post a Comment