Thursday, October 13, 2005

We and the Constitution

Two days left before the vote for the constitution, but till now no body in Mosul have seen a copy of it which supposed to be distributed to the population before the referendum.
In addition till now we and our neighbors don't know yet the place where to vote which is necessory to be known in advance since there is a curfew for all vehicles started from wednesday Oct 12 at 10 pm till monday Oct 17 at 5 am. That mean no body can use a car for trnsportation from place to place inside the city, the schools, the University and all the governmental offices are closed for 4 days.

"Saleh al-Mutlaq, head of the National Dialogue Council, stated that the decision of the Sunni Arabs is based on pure scientific grounds. This is the outcome of several meetings between prominent Sunni figures and other political blocs opposed to the constitution. As the constitution translates into the division of the country and the elimination of Iraq’s Arab identity, Al-Mutlaq says, the Sunni Arabs should combat this constitution by all possible peaceful means. In his eyes, only if the issue of federalism, for example, is postponed for future negotiations can this position be altered. This is a clear shift in the Sunnis’ stand: from boycotting the referendum to participating with a clear “No” vote."


Yesterday night there was a news from the Iraqi Islamic party, who declared that he will share in the vote on condition to reconsider the unsettled items after the election of the new government.

"The Shiites and Kurds have agreed that the newly elected parliament after December 15 will reopen negotiations with the Sunni Arabs on the constitution. This step was enough to convince the Iraqi Islamic Party to drop its call for a Sunni Arab rejection fo the constitution in the October 15 referendum."



145 comments:

strykerdad said...

I thought the document was being amended to suit a number of the Sunni parties just yesterday? How could they have distributed copies already? I read where the UN delivered 200,000 copies to Mosul nearly a week ago, but I suppose they will have to be amended? Are there newpapers readily available and have they printed the text of the document? It may take some individual effort to get an updated copy or the Stryker instuments of war may be used to deliver them as they delivered the ballots last election.

As I recall, in the last election the polling places were not made known in the areas subject to a lot of insurgent activity until the day before the election, and even then voters sometimes found they were redirected to another nearby location being protected by the Stryker instruments of war as the announced site was a decoy to avoid targeting by the insurgents (or resistance, if you prefer).

I read where 4 Sunnis posting get out the vote posters next to a Sunni mosque came to a sudden, violent end a day or two ago--who were the patriots, or muj, in that incident?

Historic times, TT. Sounds like you plan to participate this time? Congratulations, if you do, however you decide to vote.

Moron99 said...

as the day draws near, it would be interesting to see a straw poll from the people who read this blog. It is a microcosm of all the various opinions. The only opinion excluded is, unfortunately, the majority. That of the average Iraqi who struggles for food, water, and survival while we type away on our expensive computers. Let us not forget that it is his opinion that really counts.

Would you vote "yes" or "no"?
why? (keep it brief please)

I would vote "no". A constitution should be intended to last for many generations and it should equally enshrine and protect the children of all citizens. Even the perfect constitution is flawed if it is not created with full cooperation and accepted by willing consent. So "no". Queue it up and get a fresh start where every voice has an equal chance to be heard.

Truth teller said...

Moron99

I would vote NO

Moron99 said...

Truth,
if it is not too intrusive, may I ask "why would you vote NO?"

An Italian. said...

@ Stukasdad, 10/13/2005 07:21:03 PM.

"I thought the document was being amended to suit a number of the Sunni parties just yesterday? How could they have distributed copies already? I read where the UN delivered 200,000 copies to Mosul nearly a week ago, but I suppose they will have to be amended? Are there newpapers readily available and have they printed the text of the document? It may take some individual effort to get an updated copy or the Stryker instruments of war may be used to deliver them as they delivered the ballots last election."

Oh my, these Stukas or Panzer or Catapults or other "instruments of war" do truly seem to obsess you... nice way of spreading 'freedom & democracy' US-style among the unwilling!

As for what you think, you seem to give the lie to the same 'freedom & democracy', even US-style.
Were you to vote on a new US Constitution, would you accept the idea of not having read it before voting on it?
Of course, it should have been distributed one month and a half ago, according to TAL and to the UN endorsement.
It did not happen.
At long last, the UN were given the 'final' text to be distributed. Well, not even your wondrous Strykers will be able to deliver it in time for the referendum.

As for the last amendements, they are quite simply ILLEGAL and NULL & VOID (the text the Iraqi citizens are supposed to vote on is the one already printed by the UN, but not yet distributed throughout all Iraq).
So, no, they won't "have to be amended": they are NOT part of the 'Constitution' the Iraqis are called to vote on.
They were pushed through, far beyond the last of the last even vaguely legal dateline, and with NO legality at all, by the US Ambassador, Mr. Khalizaid, just in order to have some 'Sunni' voices (the opportunists of the 'Iraqi Islamic Party') asking the people to vote 'YES' to this Mickey Mouse Constitution.

An Italian. said...

Dear Truth Teller, 10/13/2005 10:33:26 PM.

"I would vote NO".

I do truly hope that you'll be able to ditch and dump for ever the Iraq-destroying so-called 'Constitution', and so kick away all puppets of the present 'Interim Government' and 'Interim Opposition', both the pro-US ones & the pro-Iran ones; and that at the following immediate elections a patriotic united Iraqi front, asking for the immediate withdrawal of the invaders, will be able to stand.

But, sincerely, I'm quite afraid that the US and various puppets (in this case, especially, the PUK & KDP, which have shown themselves to be very good at it, in January) have already taken measures to completely rig the results (with the help of this 'Iraqi Islamic Party').

It is obvious that all those Iraqis who are against the US occupation and the destruction of Iraq will vote 'NO' on Saturday; and in the aftermath of the referendum I imagine that you, Truth Teller, will be immediately able to tell us if there was complete fraud and rigging of the results (apart from the obvious fraud, that already happened, of not making available in time the text of the 'Constitution' you are supposed to vote for or reject).

I do hope that, in this case of the referendum, I am a very mistaken prophet.

strykerdad said...

ITA--the reference to 'instruments of war' came from others in the comments on the previous thread-I shoulda dropped it there.-I know you see yourself as an international court of one, so that is pointless to argue. If the document is approved and those individuals elected at years end to implement its precepts choose to treat the amendments as valid, then it won't really matter what you or I think about the legalities. If Sunnis give a reasonably high affirmation, then I will bet that the agreement to consider amending at the first meeting of the new Assembly will be honored in the interests of something resembling unification--some might call that extortion, but it has worked for them to some degree already. It seems clear that some Sunnis are going to continue to demand more influence than their participation at the ballot would warrant regardless of the outcome, and will use violence and the threat of same to get it.

Moron99--put me down as YES, believing that the individuals comprising the Assembly voted in at the end of the year will implement this document from a decidedly less sectarian and more secular viewpoint. I have some hope they will be less interested in divisiveness than have been its framers, as I think that is true of the majority of Iraqis. But I honestly don't know and will take satisfaction that the election will take place at all, regardless of the outcome. It's still progress of sorts and remarkable. If it fails, then they will get a mulligan and take another swing and still opt for more secular parties to serve as their caddies this time. Or so I hope, but it is up to them.

John said...

In the best of all possible worlds the acquiescence to the occupiers political agenda renders everyone in a feel good mode and we all go home with a belief that Iraq is a better place. Voting under occupation is irrelevant and transparent. The occupier will realize whatever their imposed sense of improvement is for Iraq and the accomplishments are propgandized and the war ultimately justified. A yes vote lends a sense of stability to America's agenda and improves the chance that they might ultimately truely imagine they've realized their goal of mission accomplished. As much as I would be inclined not to lend any credibility to the exercise, an abstention would likely be the most palatible choice, yet a yes vote is clearly inevitable.

A plebiscite on the continuation of Americas occupation will most likely be a useful add on to whatever vote the occupier deems necessary in future attempts to reinforce credibility. south Vietnam voted overwhelmingly in favour of america's puppet government led by Nguyen Van Thieu (85% support comes to mind), but the majority of fighting age citenzry were otherwise preoccupied in actively pursuing goals which led to America's ultimate defeat and ignomious retreat!

america has already proven again their ineptness at spewing democracy, the real crusade will be the homelands cry for troops to come home!

Seems like they succeeded in spite of the hollow cries of democracy and "free" elections! If I were you Truth, I'd hunker down and disregard the scripting of America's blueprint for Iraq. Its as thought provoking as george engaging the American troops (along with a token Iraqi) in a "look what we've accomplished so far" interaction! And a "we'll defeat world terrorism and the Iraqi menace" sort of pathological fantasy as if he ever knew or understands what either meant!

Moron99 said...

John,

Whether you like it or not the institutions are being built. They will be filled with people and offices and paperwork and the machinations of government. There is no better way to protect yourself against a government than by assumming the chairs within it. Your idiotic boycott of the last election has caused great sufferring amoung the sunni. Now you call for them to repeat the mistake at an even more citical juncture. Just how stupid do you think they are?

Pat in NC said...

None of us commenting have a vote. I hope to see Iraq unite and regain peace. I commend you TT for the obvious caring you have for your patients and for your family.
I have read Najma for a long time and am sorry to see the effects of the upheaval in your nation both in the tragedies which have effected innocent Iraqis and the way in which the sweet, open mind of Najma has been hardened by her experience. I am not criticizing her, I merely am commenting on the changes I have read about. There are many honorable Iraqis who will vote no and many who will vote yes and that is as it should be. If this constitution is not accepted, I hope that with the December elections a more balanced group will be elected and a better document written. I pray for the good Iraqi people as well as for the coalition troops. While we may never agree, I respect you and wish only the best for you, your patients and your family.

John said...

Yeah well Moron, nice to see you and let me add, whatever institutions that are being built are entirely unsupportable without the prescence of the occupier. Whatever people support them are already branded and surely defined as traitors to their country! I would never engage in any "democratic" process under the barrel of a gun, and the credibility you assign to this process is really no different than Sadaams regime which you have already defined your abhorrence for!

As much as your perscription for Iraqi political regimes tends to satiate your self indulgence for wanting to appear to be like a true spokesperson for political and military oppression, I sometimes am left wondering if you wouldn't be better off imagining yourself as the willing recipient of bondage and sado-masochism! it might be better for everyone if you came to terms with your desire for self humiliation and abuse! rather than imposing it on an undeserving population...can you say Sunni...or shia...ohhhh yesssss says Moron...sunni me once again...i love to be sunnieeeedddd!!!

johninnz said...

I think I would vote no, but not for the usual reasons, just because I agree with Abu Kahleel that what Iraq probably needs at this stage is more a Westminister type system, where all candidates for Parliament stand in local electorates, not on party lists. (I think Abu said there’s already 275 effective electoral districts.) I’m a bit disenchanted with the proportional representation system we’re trying out here in NZ - it doesn’t seem to be working as intended - and I’ve always thought, given the divided nature of Iraqi society, that the "one huge electorate" system would become, as many have said, just a sectarian census.
I’d like to see half a dozen people of integrity standing in Truthteller’s district of Mosul, meeting the locals and listening to them, putting forward their party platforms. (And it wouldn’t just be two platforms, as in the USA.) And then he could vote for the best candidate, without regard to his sect or ethnicity. Building democracy from the grassroots. Proportionality could come later, if the people wanted it, but the first thing is to get some honest hardworking people into Parliament who are answerable to their local community. That’s what it’s all about.
But that’s not going to happen. So maybe it would be best to vote yes, just on the chance that it will give George Bush the face-saving excuse to leave that he obviously wants.
On the other hand (the third hand?) if it’s all up for changes after the December elections anyway, maybe the best thing would be just to have a family picnic in the back garden on election day. Should be nice and quiet.
Nope, can’t do that. It’s Ramadan.
Can I vote yes, no and maybe?

Moron99 said...

john, if you were a smart man then you would encourage people to hedge their bets and play both sides. By occupying the chairs in governemnt buildings they can not lose either way. If it topples in spring, then it is no different. If it does not, then you still have your chairs. Only fools put all their eggs into one basket.

madtom said...

I would vote "no", I think everyone already knew that, as I have said it before.

I would love to read a detailed reason from Truth Teller as to why exactly he would vote no. He seems way to smart for it just to be because "sunni groups" said no.

madtom said...

Johninnz, I find your comments puzzling, I would have to guess that you have not read the document, or you did not understand it?

superman said...

Listen, John. If you really believe that the insurgents are right, then go JOIN them. I'll even send you a plane ticket to Jordan. What's your address? We ALL know however, that you are a spineless, faceless hobgoblin.

jcz said...

Another meaningless election. The outcome is already decided, there is no way Bush will let it fail. The resistance has discredited 3 puppet governments, Bremer's, Allawi's and Jaafari's, and they can go on forever like that. People in the US are tiring of this nonsense, the average American doesn't give a shit about an Iraqi and since our own country is falling apart it looks like a waste of resources to most people. When America leaves then the real Constitution will be written. Oh yeah, and Sadr's a coward for backing down from his opposition.

johninnz said...

Madtom
What do I appear to have misunderstood?

B Will Derd said...

johninnz--Article (118):I’d like to see half a dozen people of integrity standing in Truthteller’s district of Mosul, meeting the locals and listening to them, putting forward their party platforms. (And it wouldn’t just be two platforms, as in the USA.) And then he could vote for the best candidate, without regard to his sect or ethnicity. Building democracy from the grassroots.

Article 118 of the proposed constitution: Members of the National Council for the Region are elected by residents of the region through universal direct secret ballot

The consttiution also states that the elected leaders are bound only by thier own conscience in deciding any issue.

You also don't understand the US system if you think there are only two party platforms. You can be a party of one if you like, there is nothing to prevent it except pragmatism. There is a wide range of hundreds of 'third parties' including Nazis, Communists, Christian Falngists------a big country with many assorted nuts who like to affiliate themselves with similar nuts--freedom is interesting.

B Will Derd said...

I should say not all third party members are nuts, which is pretty much a subjective judgement anyway.

johninnz said...

b will derd
(a)Only two effective parties in the US? When was the last time an independent or third party member was elected to Congress? Many countries these days have multi-party assemblies.
(b)Regional or Provincial Councils are not part of central government.
(c)Most countries allow for conscience voting on some isues - but generally representatives follow their party line.

Truth teller said...

This comment is directed to Arabic readers only.

قبل ثمانين عاما، ثار العراقيون على الاحتلال الانجليزي في ثورة العشرين الشهيرة، وكادت هذه الثورة أن تطرد المحتل الى الأبد لولا خدعة (الانتخابات) و (الدستور) التي ابتكرها (أبو ناجي)، لكن الخدعة لم تنطل على شاعر العراق معروف الرصافي، والذي أنشد قائلا:

علـم ودستور ومجلس أمة ...................... كل عن المعـنى الصحيح محرّفُ

أسماءُ ليس لنا سوى ألفاظُها ...................... أمّـا معانيهـا فليست تُعرفُ

من يقرأ الدستـورَ يعلم أنه ....................... وفقـاً لصكّ الاحتلال مصنّفُ

من ينظرُ العلمَ المرفرفَ يلقهُ ..................... في عزّ غيرِ بني البـلادِ يرفرفُ

من يأتِ مجلسنـا يصدّق أنه ...................... لـمُرادِ غير الناخبين مؤلّـفُ

أفهكذا تبقى الحكومة عندنا ....................... كلَماً تمـوَّهُ للورى وتُزخرَفُ

كثُرت دوائرُهـا وقلّ فعالها ....................... كالطبلِ يكبرُ وهو خالٍ أجوفُ

كـم ساءَ منها ومن وزرائها ....................... عمـلٌ بمنفعةِ المواطنِ مُجحِفُ

تشكو البلادُ سـياسةً ماليةً ......................... تجتـاحُ أمـوالَ البلادِ وتُتلِفُ

تُجبي ضرائبها الثقالُ وإنما ........................ في غير منفعـةِ الرعية تُصرفُ

حَكَمَت مشددةً علينا حكمها .......................... أمّا على الدُخلاءِ فهي تُخففُ

وإذا دعا داعي البلادِ إلى الوغى ..................... أنظنُّ أن هناك مـن يتخلفُ ؟

أيُذلُّ قومٌ ناهضون وعندهم .......................... شرفٌ يُعزّزُ جانبيه المُرهفُ ؟

كم من نواصي للعــــدا ........................ ولحىً بأيدي الثائـرين ستُنتَفُ

إن لم نُجالد بالسيوف خصومنا ...................... فالمجــدُ باكٍ والعُلـى تتأففُ



وسبحان الله ما اشبه اليوم بالبارحة.. فهل ستمر مؤامرة (الدستور) الأمريكي على الشعب العراقي ؟

madtom said...

"On the other hand (the third hand?) if it’s all up for changes after the December elections anyway"

What did you mean here?

johninnz said...

Madtom
According to the news I read, they're now saying that the new Assembly to be elected in December (if it happens) will have the power to make constitutional changes anyway. By a simple majority vote, according to one source.

Nadia said...

truth teller thanks for that poem!

DagneyT said...

What a load of crap! I'm sorry, I'm not usually disrespectful, but if no one in Mosul has seen the Constitution, it is due to their desire NOT TO see it! It's available online, so you could read it anytime you want! Give me a break! You don't have TV? Newspapers on Wednesday all published it.

As always, there are two sides of every story...often many more sides, but in reading your posts, and reading http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com I have a much clearer view of Mosul.

Claude Dorsel said...

Very human, pleasant and informative blog.

What have we western people done to the Iraqis ! What can we do to atone ?

madtom said...

"By a simple majority vote, according to one source."

Get better sources! I can help if you wish.

strykerdad said...

MOSUL, Iraq — In the upcoming constitutional referendum, Nineveh province has been considered the Ohio of Iraq, the swing state where the success of the founding document hangs in the balance.

But as some Sunni Arab leaders in Baghdad announced a last-minute endorsement of the constitution this week, local politicians from the Iraqi Islamic Party scrapped their "no" posters and began organizing "yes" rallies on the streets of the provincial capital.


Although they have yet to hold a copy of the draft constitution in their hands, many voters in Nineveh say they have been swayed by the political turnaround, making it seem increasingly unlikely that the charter will be rejected, even in this predominantly Sunni Arab province.

The constitution requires the approval of a majority of Iraqis in Saturday's referendum, but it can be defeated if at least two-thirds of the electorate in three of Iraq's 18 provinces votes no. Sunnis have led the opposition to the constitution, and voters in the provinces of Al Anbar and Salahuddin are most likely to reject it, making Nineveh's vote crucial.

On Wednesday, Iraqi leaders amended the constitution to make it more palatable to Sunnis, and the Iraqi Islamic Party endorsed it.

Though some of the drama of Saturday's vote is gone, tension remains.

A series of suicide attacks has claimed the lives of at least 60 people this week. The province has become a battleground between U.S.-led forces intent on securing high voter participation and insurgents fighting the referendum with violence.

About 20,000 Iraqi and U.S. troops are trying to maintain control of the province, but it is proving difficult.

Intimidation, assassinations and a history of voting fraud have polluted political life in Mosul. Election workers, high-level politicians and journalists have been slain. Last week, the Kurdish-dominated provincial government voted to oust the Sunni Arab police chief, accusing him of heavy-handed tactics and corruption.

Officials in both Baghdad and Washington fear that threats and ballot-box stuffing might jeopardize the credibility of the vote in Iraq's third-largest city. In nine months, three people have been brought from Baghdad to Mosul to oversee the election commission here.

"If they can't get along here," said Maj. Jeff Houston of the 401st Civil Affairs Battalion, "it creates serious problems for the rest of the country."

About 1.8 million of Nineveh's 2.5 million inhabitants live in Mosul. Sunni Arabs dominate on the west bank of the Tigris River and Kurds on the east. In addition, other groups such as Shabaks, Assyrians and Christians contribute to the mosaic of the city.

"Some Kurdish leaders want to include Mosul in the northern region, and the Arabs are refusing," said Arif Saleem, head of the Development and Dialogue Assn., an independent political research organization.

However, Kosha Goran, a Kurd who is the deputy governor, said that Kurds in the city have received death threats and that thousands have already fled north.

"It's an important place, not just because of its size but because of its ethnic diversity," said a U.S. official in Mosul, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The complexity of the city's ethnic and sectarian allegiances still makes the vote hard to call.

"It is not a foregone conclusion," said the U.S. official, adding that "if the Sunni Arabs are less antagonistic as a result of the developments in Baghdad, it makes it all the less likely that the constitution will fail."

A staff member at the Development and Dialogue Assn. predicted that the Iraqi Islamic Party endorsement of the constitution would have a substantial effect on the vote of Sunni Arabs in the city. News of it was "a political bomb," he said. His predecessor was killed recently, he said, so he preferred not to be identified.

As the news filtered through Mosul on Thursday, several people said they had been persuaded to vote for the charter.

"I made my final decision based on the amendments made lately that made the constitution more objective," said Yossef Mossab, a college professor. "The position of the Islamic Party gave us more courage to say yes to the constitution."

strykerdad said...

Sorry, from LA Times online

johninnz said...

Madtom
from Juan Cole, who generally knows what he is talking about:
"(Among the changes in the constitution was an article that held former Baath Party members harmless for merely having joined the party. They will have full rights under the law as long as they did not commit any crime. There will also be parliamentary monitoring of the de-baathification commission. That this sort of change was persuasive for the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has special roots in Mosul, may suggest that it has the support of ex-Baathists in that city and that this constitutency might be in part mollified by this rule.)"
That’s just for interest. But here:
"The amendments also provide for parliament to be able to amend the constitution by a simple majority, though the amendment would have to be approved in a popular referendum.
It is very bad for a simple majority to be able to amend the constitution. I hate to think what bonehead laws we would have in this country if such a law existed.
These "amendments" were not formally voted in by the parliament, so it is hard to see who authorized these last-minute changes to the constitution."
These last-minute manouverings don't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in me.

Truth teller said...

Hot News

Now in Mosul, it is 9:50 AM Saturday 10/15/2005.
I just received a call from a neighbor telling me not to go to th proposed place for voting because some of the neighbor went there and found NOTHING. There was no place for voting. They called the telephone no. provided for more informations. The answer was "Wait an hour and call again, we will supply the boxes and the personale in Al-Salam hospital to make it the place of voting for your neighborhood.
Al-Salam hospital is too far from our neighborhood to be reached on feets, since no vehicles are allowed to move in the city strted from wedensday night till Monday 10/17/05 morning. in addition the biggest hospital in the city is occupied by the ING who changed it to a semi military base.

I smell a strange odor!!

johninnz said...

Truthteller:
What you can smell is the odour of "freedom and democracy."
American-style.
Don't worry about it, it will blow away eventually.

johninnz said...

Juan Cole having it both ways on the Constitution:
"Certainly it's much better that it pass than it not pass, but it is an extremely troubling document, and it should be remembered that the failure of the United States framers of the Constitution to deal with the slavery issue did hold within it ultimately the seeds of the civil war in this country, and putting off difficult issues, having open-ended compromises that don't come to a decisive end can cause future trouble. It's much better if things are settled. '
Bit late now, isn't it?

Truth teller said...

An update

The people who went to vote, and found the center closed are directed to another near by center, it was opened, but the people their refuse to allow them to vote, they said they can vote only in the first center.
Later on a news come that the other center is also closed!!! why???? they said that the Peshmerga come and close those center!!!

There were a crowd of people waiting to vote when about 10 police cars with the cheif of police paeesd and stopped to see what is the problem. The police cheif told the people that the peshmerga closed those center and they (the police) is going to open them later in the day.

At 12pm a police car with loud speaker announced that those centers are opened for votting.

I will go now to check and to vote if possible.
It is 12:43 pm now in Mosul

johninnz said...

Truthteller:
You must have it wrong!
The Stryker Brigade is in Mosul, isn't it?
How could anything possibly go wrong with them around?
Just be careful they don't drive over you on your way to voting, if you ever find out where to do it.

Truth teller said...

Another update

We (me and my wife) went to the votting center and vote. There were over crowd there, at least two strykers, two other American vehicles, and many Police cars there.
But we found our way in, and vote "NO".

My impresson is that most of the people I met there, were goining to vote NO.

strykerdad said...

Congratulations to you and your wife TT for seeing it through despite the problems! You referred to the 'peshmerga'--were they wearing Iaqi Army uniforms? Info I have read from there is that the Iraqi police could not provide enough manpower to guard all polling places (a lot of no shows), especially in those in areas most prone to violence, so that other arrangements had to be worked out resulting in late openings for a number of polling places--like bringing in American troops who were originally not supposed to be located near polling places, but were instead to provide perimeter security for the Iraqi forces. Sounds like some of the police decided discretion was the better part of valor. Again, congratualations on your an your wife's own determination and demonstrated valor, as well as that shown by so many other Iraqis today. I'm nearly amazed to see it gives some outsiders so much discomfort. I prefer to be inspired by it. Now let's hope the vote is decided by a sufficiently large margin tha cries of fraud will not matter, regardless of the which way the decision falls.

Moron99 said...

Glad to hear that you are safe. Glad to hear that (apparently) no one tried to stop you from voting because of what you do or do not believe. 1-1/2 hours to vote is not bad. The polling station must have been nearby. Again, glad that you are safe, best wishes for your nation, and I hope that you have a peaceful, happy day.

no128s said...

I am glad you were able to vote. It is no small thing to have a voice, even small though it may seem. I am sorry that you had issues early in the day. As a soldier in Mosul I can say that there were issues to begin with but we (American Soldiers... the ones actually on the ground) worked hard to help ensure that everyone had the opportunity to vote. I know that as I drove my Stryker around this afternoon it seemed that everyone that wanted to vote was already done, or getting there.

strykerdad said...

Well done, no128s.

Eric Wilner said...

Under the circumstances, I too probably would have voted NO. I have a general policy of voting against anything on the ballot (here in California, USA) that I can't decipher; being presented with a rather over-sized, over-complicated proposed constitution, with hasty last-minute amendments making it difficult to know what exactly I was voting on, would certainly motivate me to vote against it.
I'm glad the opposition is taking the vote seriously. Being able to vote against the government (and having that vote mean something) is what democracy is all about.

atypical-academic said...

Dear TT:

Thanks to you and your family for voting.

best regards
cb

waldschrat said...

Hurrah for your decision to vote!

Voting is a first step. I know that when I vote I often find that the majority voted against my choice. Acceptance of the will of the majority in such cases is the second step.

I heard an interesting analysis on the radio yesterday of the strategic effectiveness of the voting patterns of black people in America. The speaker said 95% of blacks vote for the Democratic party's candidates, and suggested that this defeats them and deprives them of power for the following reasons: the Republican party has no reason to serve their interests because their support will never be won, and the Democratic party has no reason to serve them because their loyalty is assured regardless. I guess the lesson is that one must consider one's vote seriously and make the best decision possible.

All I can say is that voting is better than not voting and elections are a better way of settling disputes than violence. I wish nothing but the best for Iraq and the people of Mosul.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

I'm glad to hear you and your wife voted, TT.

Claude Dorsel said...

A poster at another forum has pointed out that the way the election went is described quite differently in the USUK media and in the Italian press (La Reppublica for instance, which still has non-embedded, non-holed up in the Green Zone reporters). Or in al-Jazeera. And I just checked on Paris' Le Monde, it does report violence and voting "incidents".

Oh well, it is a propaganda war.

johninnz said...

Well I don't understand Iraq, but my impression is:
If the Sunni NO vote succeeds, i.e. if the constitution is rejected, then the insurgents will be elated, and fight harder than ever.
If the Sunni NO vote fails, i.e. if the constitution is accepted, then the insurgents will be enraged, and fight harder than ever.
What's been achieved, exactly?
Our newspaper today had a Guardian article featuring six residents of Baghdad. for all of them, the main concern (besides power and water) was simply law and order, safety on the streets, and security. Kidnapping for ransom was the most common fear.
How bad does it have to get before the US will admit, "OK, this one was too hard for us?"

strykerdad said...

AP.....Rejection seemed much less likely after Ninevah, one of the three crucial northern provinces that Sunni Arab opponents pushed hard to swing their way, appeared to have gone strongly for a "yes" vote.

According to a count from 260 of the province's 300 polling stations, about 300,000 in Ninevah voted "yes" for the constitution, and only 80,000 voted "no," according to Samira Mohammed, a local elections commission spokeswoman in the provincial capital Mosul, and Kurdish official Abdul-Ghani Boutani.

Though ballots from seven polling stations in the province still had to be counted, it would be impossible to turn the vote around to a two-thirds "no" that Sunni opponents would need.

To defeat the constitution, Sunnis have to muster the two-thirds rejection vote in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces. They were likely to reach that threshold in the vast Sunni heartland of Anbar province in the west. Salahuddin province also looked possible, but with Nivevah out of the running, they would need to get the province of Diyala, which will also be difficult.....

strykerdad said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9688308/site/newsweek/

An American media report from Mosul describing efforts before, during and after the election.

Moron99 said...

Johninnz,

regardless of outcome, i think the achievement towards long-term peace was huge. To set the stage, think of it this way. If the sunni one their own presented such a powerful political force against the constitution, then how powerful would an alliance be between the sunni and secular shia? I think they would be the most powerful group in Iraq. By a very wide margin. I also think that many politicians inside Iraq have come to realize this. So anyway, here is my take on last weeks events -

The brotherhood and islamic party struck a deal that is a precursor to 2006. The net result of their deal was that the next parliment has significantly greater power than outlined in TAL and a significant chance at gaining a four year term in the next election. One thing about Iraqi, they are not stupid or ignorant people. They can manipulate words and split hairs as good as any other politicians in the world. In fact, better. They are quite excellent at it. Anyway, the vote was not for the constitutional document, it was for the constitutional process. I think this will come to be very important in light of the deal made last week by the islamic party.

It is my belief that the Islamic party intends to run in the next election and take control of the "sunni" seats left empty by last years boycott. Equally important, the deal they struck last week shows that both they and the secular shia are willing to form an alliance. I think the big loser last week was sadr and badr. I think the moderate sunni intend to form an alliance (with the moderate shia and moderate kurd) and take control of the government in the next election. I believe that is why all three groups came together last week and gave the next parliment sweeping powers to revise the constitution and a legitimate shot at a four year term. The insurgency will continue because there are baathi with blood on their hands who have no other option ... but I think the badrs and sadrs just got marginalized.

- yes, it's all speculation. But it seems to be the most direct and simple explanation that is consistent with recorded events.

Salvador said...

Strykerdad, you`re such a pathetic stuipido man, it`s unbelievable. Just think a moment... Ninavah province has a mayority of sunni arabs and strong sunni- turkmen and christian minorities... in the article you quoted it is said that 300.000 people voted "yes" and only 80.000 "no". Another Ap article states this:

But competition was more intense in the three most crucial Sunni-dominated provinces — Diyala, Ninevah, Salahuddin, where more than 66 percent of voters turned out.

Now tell me, with a mayority of people in Ninavah who object the constitution and with a turnout of 66% or more, could it be possible that less than 30% of the voters said "no"?!

This data, given by a "independent" women from the voting commission and a kurdish (read: pro constitution) official are BOGUS, they are a clear sign that TT informations about Peschmergas manipulating the vote are right and that the ballot boxes were stuffed to the limit. This is voting fraud on its best, but no "democracy". But these actions by the kurdish officials will fullfill your standards, if we just look to Florida 1999.

strykerdad said...

Now tell me, with a mayority of people in Ninavah who object the constitution

Your sources to confirm this assumption, maesto? Your facts to confirm your claims of fraud are pretty slim. I may indeed be stupido, but I'm not that stupido. Your 'facts' are that TT heard that peshmerga had shut down some voting sites--but were they in fact ING (many of whom are Kurdish) and did they shut down the site temporarily because the Iraqi police failed to secure it as I am told happended in several sites? Regardless, were a significant number of voters unable to cast their votes even though sites were available throughout the day, as in TT's case, and do you have some way of knowing how those persons would have voted had they not been inconvenienced? Is your certainty that the majority in Nenevah were "NO" voters based upon TT's impressions of those around him at the place he voted and do you know they were representative of the population at large, or do you have something a little more substantive than that? That reminds me of the story of the New York socialite who was incredulous that Nixon won against McGovern (in a huge landslide) because she didn't know anyone who voted for him!

The mayority of the people isn't the point--it is the mayority of those who bothered to vote that determines the outcome, and a fraudulent margin (assuming everything you seem to think is correct) would be pretty hard to hide from the many independent observes from the international community.

I personally don't care which way the vote goes, by the way. I was glad to see it take place without massive bloodshed. Such things as voting can become hard habits to give up for some people, and they might even come to think of it as their right.

Moron99 said...

salvador,

before you got hog wild with wild speculation about ballot stuffing, why not wait and see what the UN monitors have to say.

Salvador said...

@strykerdad

Indeed you are a stupido if you don`t recognise that Ninavah has a mayority sunni population, that those sunnis are AGAINST the constitution and that they came out in large numbers to vote, as was not only reported by TT, but also by the MSM media. It`s impossible that only 80.000 people voted against the constitution and 300.000 voted for it. That is just impossible given the population numbers in Ninavah.

@moron99

Are you dreaming? WHERE are those "UN monitors"?! Do I really have to remember you that iraq is insecure as hell and that the "monitors" of the january election weren`t in the country itself but in Jordan?

strykerdad said...

Ok, Salvadore, I'm mucho stupido! I haven't said I know there was no fraud (I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least some fraud by all sides involved) or know that the report I cut and pasted was even accurate--I was only passing along the latest information available at the time, without any comment (unusual for me, but I did it). I will agree that the prelimnary results as reported are very surprising if accurate and hold true after all have been reported and counted, but I lack your prescience of mind to say that it will be de facto evidence of what will have to be massive fraud if we accept your assumptions as fact. I prefer to wait and see, recognizing my status as a stupido as seems to be the consensus view of numerous international commentators on this blog in particular. But I am still interested in seeing the process as it unfolds over the next few hours and days. lo que sera, sera -- With that I have used almost all of my knowledge of the Spanish language, but 'stupido' I get!

I'm not sure how it makes a great deal of difference either way--pro or con there will be another election in Dec to select an assembly which will revisit or begin anew the entire document early next year. I'm sure there are others visiting here that have a much better understanding than I, and I would apprecaite hearing their opinions on the subject.

billybob said...

The America-hating has gotten so out of control on this board. People are so emotionally driven by hatred that they fail to see the beauty of what is taking place in Iraq at the moment. There will, undoubtedly be some people unhappy with the constitution. And most likely, there was some fraud - even the most stable countries have these problems. But Iraq is taking the steps to form a modern government where many have a voice, and where the population is not under the grip of a cult of personality dictator. Even if the Sunnis did like this constitution, which many in fact do, the America haters would still yell "fraud" and "puppets" over and over until Saddam Hussein was back in power. It will never end, and pro-Iraq democracy people have to accept this. In any event, I think if, for example, 20% or 30% of the population reject the constitution, and 70 - 80% accept, that is overwhelmingly a good sign that it is acceptable. Most likely, the 20 to 30% were the ones who benefitted from Saddam's rule, and of course they aren't going to be happy with the changes. Given that, the way things are resolved in certain circles of the middle east, when you are unhappy with something, you blow your fellow countrymen up, i'm sure terrorism will continue for a little while. So, basically, things are moving ahead in a reasonable fashion, considering the many complicating factors involved. And, as stated, the constitution can be amended. Its another starting point to bring Iraq into normalcy.

Claude Dorsel said...

People are so emotionally driven by hatred that they fail to see the beauty of what is taking place in Iraq at the moment.

Well, yes, I admit I fail to see that beauty, can you help me see where it is ?

Moron99 said...

claude, it is a seedling. some look at it and see a great tree. others look at it and see cracked sidewalks and berry stains. still others say that it will only die in the desert. Nobody really knows what will happen. beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The beauty I see is that the sunni will vote in the next election and gain their fair share of power in government. I see an existing government that was willing to leave all doors open until their arrival. These things did not have to happen but they did. That is a beautiful thing. Iraq will never right itself until all the brothers are willing to become one family. Win, lose, or draw ... the referendum gave them something to build upon.

strykerdad said...

Here you go Claude:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501373_2.html

....In Mosul's lower-middle-class neighborhood of Jazayer, voters expressed their joy over the referendum with a Kurdish debka , swirling and tapping their feet as Kurdish songs came uncontrollably from their mouths.

The debka, a celebratory dance, started at the exit of the polling station in Jazayer and slowly mushroomed. Three uniformed policemen in this northern city were joined by four youths, two wearing traditional Kurdish costumes, and before long the group was a spreading throng.

"When I came out of the polling center, I saw the group dancing. I was feeling great, having voted 'yes,' so I joined in," said Ribwar Ali Murad, 25, a Kurdish student at Mosul University. "I am totally overjoyed with this day."

The dance reached its peak when three police cars passed by, blaring patriotic songs from their loudspeakers, exalting Baghdad and the new constitution.

"I found myself turning and twisting naturally when I heard the police cars playing those songs," said policeman Khjalil Salem Mohammad, 30. "I couldn't control myself.".....

Truth teller said...

strykerdad

"Rejection seemed much less likely after Ninevah, one of the three crucial northern provinces that Sunni Arab opponents pushed hard to swing their way, appeared to have gone strongly for a "yes" vote."

Sorry to disappoint you, but all the available indexes indicate the opposits.

"According to a count from 260 of the province's 300 polling stations, about 300,000 in Ninevah voted "yes" for the constitution, and only 80,000 voted "no," according to Samira Mohammed, a local elections commission spokeswoman in the provincial capital Mosul, and Kurdish official Abdul-Ghani Boutani."

your figures and your sources are very suspicious, by a matter of fact those figures are impossible.
Any way, it is only hours, and we all will see the results.

"Your 'facts' are that TT heard that peshmerga had shut down some voting sites--but were they in fact ING (many of whom are Kurdish) and did they shut down the site temporarily because the Iraqi police failed to secure it as I am told happended in several sites?"

No SD what you told is wrong, the center was closed at 5:00 AM, two hours before the due time. The other center closed about 10:30 AM, The police cheif told the people in my neighborhood that the peshmerga not the ING closed the centers and the police is going to open them, and that is what happened.

Let me tell you some thing, when I read your figures a rush to the phone and called some of my relatives in different areas of Mosul, all assure me that the majority of the people voted NO.
If your figures are correct that's mean there were a huge fraud going on! which I hope not.

"In Mosul's lower-middle-class neighborhood of Jazayer, voters expressed their joy over the referendum with a Kurdish debka , swirling and tapping their feet as Kurdish songs came uncontrollably from their mouths."

Hay al jazayer is a small neighborhood with majority of Kurds, they probably celebrated the defeat of the constitution.

BTW why not wait and see what the end result will be. No need to embarrass your self.

Claude Dorsel said...

Thank you, sd and moron. This may interest you:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2005/October/opinion_October39.xml§ion=opinion&col=

Very strange that Condoleeza Rice et al already know the results of the referendum before the counting is over.

strykerdad said...

TT--if you read more closely you may see that I was only passing along what the Associated Press had posted and they quoted the election officials--I thought you and some others might be interested, I know I always want the latest info following an election, even though it is sometimes wrong. It makes no real difference to me which way the vote goes and I have no reason to be embarassed. If it gives you some joy to think I am, please enjoy yourself. Glad to help.

By the way, did it occur to you that the Iraqi police officer told you that the peshmerga closed down the polling center instead of admitting that a number of his officers failed to report to work? That is what was observed by reporters that were there, before and during the election. Again, what he told you may very well be a fact, but why do you assume there could be no other possibility which is all I was suggesting? I was only asking to see if you had some first hand observations of what occurred. I appreciate your first hand observations. If the police were securing the site, how did the peshmerga close it down? The fact that Strykers were securing the site when you got there is supporting evidence that the police were unable to do what the plan originally had them doing--securing polling sites in Mosul without direct US involvememt. I read today that less than a third of the polling places were opened on time, if at all, in Mosul. But I won't be surprised to learn that militias and others commited fraud or interfered.

Again, congrats on participating. Hope you will again in December when you will be electing an Assembly to write a new constitution or amend this one. The lack of Sunni participation in the first round helped no one who had anything positive to offer.

Moron99 said...

CD -
rice & company are just puppetting what they have been told by the existing iraqi leaders. some birthday wishes come true and some don't. it is clear that the simple majority is "yes". it is unclear if it slipped in under the 2/3 veto hurdle. Rice's words are the wishful thinking of a politician trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. take what of it that you wish and leave the rest for those who like such things.

by the way, I agree with the RAMZY BAROUD editorial that you linked. Propaganda is rampant when it comes to Iraq. However, he fails to extend his thoughts to their logical conclusion. Which is a dangerous thing in such a propaganda filled environment. It leaves people free to infer that any propaganda not specifically mentioned must be true.

Claude Dorsel said...

It leaves people free to infer that any propaganda not specifically mentioned must be true.

Surely no one would be that naive ? I try to separate the wheat from the chaff, not easy I agree. Luckily, my country lived under foreign occupation too in my parents' time, I was a devoted reader of George Orwell and John Le Carre, it all helps.

Moron99 said...

Surely no one would be that naive?

Surely you jest.

Everyone believes them in one way or another. No matter what point of view you have in life, there is constant pressure by others to take the truth you know and twist into supporting the lies that they wish you to believe. Any political group who says they never lie is most assuredly the biggest liar of them all.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Excerpt from an article on the CCN website.

"Most Shiite and Kurdish-dominated provinces were running heavily in favor of the constitution. Anbar province around Ramadi was expected to strongly reject it, as was Salahaddin province, which contains Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

The contest was closer in the northern province of Niniveh around the city of Mosul, which is split between Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

A senior Iraqi official said on Monday that while 424,00 of the province's 778,000 voters said "No" to the charter, this fell short of the two thirds necessary to reject it.

Kurdish leaders, who originally inserted the three-province veto clause to protect their own interests, have denied Arab accusations of packing Mosul with Kurdish voters."


here is the full article. Assuming they don't move it.

johninnz said...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’m reading it appears there’s been a clear NO vote in two Sunni-majority provinces, and it all hinges on Truthteller’s Ninevah outcome. And the acceptability of that outcome is going to depend very heavily on the "transparency" of the process there, i.e. how much trust people have in the fairness of the voting and counting procedures.
I find it impossible to imagine conditions in Iraq. I mean, here in peaceful NZ no one would doubt the integrity of electoral officials anyway, there’s never been a serious allegation of malpractice; but even so, you see election night shots of the counting with "scrutineers" from all parties watching like hawks and double-checking every last vote. How can you do that or the equivalent in a war-torn, lawless and dangerous state, divided by competing loyalties that are so much fiercer than simple inter-party rivalry?
The final results aren’t in yet, but how much faith do you and your neighbours have in a fair count, Truthteller? Basically a lot, a bit suspicious, very doubtful, no faith at all?
A side issue: the key three-provinces rule seems to have obscured the fact that it is a nation-wide referendum. Anyone seen anything on what the overall national vote is likely to be? Could be interesting.

Truth teller said...

john

"how much faith do you and your neighbours have in a fair count, Truthteller? Basically a lot, a bit suspicious, very doubtful, no faith at all?"

Just before the votting we have no faith at all, but when the circumstances I described previously occured with the troubles associated with it, which made the cheif of police to come in person and promise to solve the problems, in addition to the large number of people who come just to vote NO, merely as a response to the closure of the votting centers. All these together make it very difficult to deceive the count's result although it is not impossible.
So I am very doubtful of the honesty of the officers worked their as most of them are either Kurds or puppet Arabs.

madtom said...

"So I am very doubtful of the honesty of the officers worked their as most of them are either Kurds or puppet Arabs."

This from someone that said that in the past there was no sectarian division within Iraq, that Arab and Kurd lived together in peace. For a peace loving Iraqi you don't seem to have much trust in your neighbors

John said...

I wouldn't say its so much about trusting neighbours, seems like a well substantiated suspicion that America's constitution vote and required results is being realized by their selected cast of "officials" who are certainly motivated to bring about the results of their directors!!

"Puppets" seems entirely fair when you're living under occupation, how else would you define their motives?

strykerdad said...

So I am very doubtful of the honesty of the officers worked their as most of them are either Kurds or puppet Arabs.


Like these?

Must have been a very entertaining experience.

Sorry.....

madtom said...

You know there is a simple solution to this problem of pesky Kurds and puppets running everything. Go to the polls in the next election and elect representative that you like and that you trust. That way there will be less doubt in your mind and you can sleep easy that your interest are being looked after.

IRAQ said...

in my opinion

the Iraqis lost an once in a life opportunity to solve their current problems, that's could had happened if the Sunni defeated this constitution by voting.

if they did this they (the Sunni) would have believed that the political process is a better way to achieve their goal in getting rid of the occupation (the goal of 95% of insurgent groups).

but now they will loss all their confidence that the political process will achieve what they want.

defeating the Constitution could have lead to a more balanced new Parliament and much more agreed upon Constitution and dramatic decrease in the insurgency, but now what will happen is the opposite.

Moron99 said...

Information that seems lost in the shuffle ... they are examining votes not only in Ninevah but in neighboring provinces as well. Although they do not say what they are looking for, it is pretty clear. They are looking for evidence that people who do not live in Ninevah went and voted in Ninevah. If the number of voters in Kurd province is under the average and the number of Kurdish ballots in Ninevah is disproportionately high, then they have reason to suspect election fraud.

Mad Canuck said...

There is some disagreement in the news media as to the vote count in Nineveh: the Associated Press (which many news organizations picked up this morning) cited a 78% "yes" vote in Nineveh, while CNN quoted a senior election official as giving a 54% "no" vote in Nineveh. I wrote a post on this topic earlier today myself, here is a link.

An Iraqi election official also cautioned earlier today that none of the early results being reported by the news media today were officially released by their office. Thus, all this discussion we are having today may be based on completely bogus and erroneous results.

The key, once the official results come out, will not be whether the majority in Nineveh vote yes or no, it will be whether the "no" vote is 67% or greater (two thirds), since a two-thirds "no" vote is needed in three provinces to veto the constitution.

strykerdad said...

This from someone that said that in the past there was no sectarian division within Iraq, that Arab and Kurd lived together in peace. For a peace loving Iraqi you don't seem to have much trust in your neighbors

Apparently TT has been reading some interesting sources lately. If you've seen his posts on his family blog and follow up on some of the 'go-to' sources he is using to exonerate Uncle Saddam and report how Americans are setting car bombs in neighborhoods, you might have a better understanding of the 'puppet' remark ( a very common term used on the 'Resistance' sites to describe the 'bad Iraqis' killed by the 'resistance') You may come to the same conclusions that I have: 'REAL Iraqis' today, as he has referred to them, are the Baathist insurgents. 'Bad Iraqis' are those who work in the government, the police, or the National Guard. Unless he succeeds in his defense of Saddam, I don't think his first choice for securing order will be available in the next election.

Claude Dorsel said...

A fun little video:

http://www.tian.cc/2005/10/cnnn-on-streets-of-america.html

I suppose these are the people who thought it a good idea to invade Iraq.

johninnz said...

"This from someone that said that in the past there was no sectarian division within Iraq, that Arab and Kurd lived together in peace. For a peace loving Iraqi you don't seem to have much trust in your neighbor." (Madtom)
This is interesting. I think if you look back Tom you will find TT was referring to how things used to be, not how they are now. I don’t get the purpose of such posts.
There seemed to be a reasonably civil international discussion going on here. It has been established that TT is a cancer doctor, which can’t be a job you’d take on for fun. He claims to be an Iraqi first, sectarian second, and I’ve seen no suggestion that he saves the best colostomy bags for Sunni patients, and gives the used ones to Kurds and Shia. He is clearly a devoted family man. He states that he was not privileged under the former regime, that he was not a Baathist and indeed suffered because of his opposition to them. He says he is only moderately religious, therefore he’s presumably not a supporter of fanatical suicide bombers who target civilians.
In general, he sounds like an OK guy. His only crime seems to be that he objects to alien soldiers driving around his country, 30 months after "liberation," still acting as if they own the place, and that he sympathises with those of his countrymen who want to get rid of them.
That sounds quite reasonable to me. But if you wanted to change his attitude, wouldn’t it be better to use reason rather than snide sarcastic put-downs like that above?
Like I say, what is the purpose of this sort of nastiness? Are you displaying just a personal tendency, or are you trying to be typical of your countrymen? You seem determined to ensure that TT does not look up to you, respect you, like you. Or your nation. Same goes for me.
And I doubt that you’re going to get either of us to fear you.
Time was, when the Gestapo or the KGB appeared in the movie, we went "Uh oh, here come the bad guys."
Now it’s like, "Uh oh, Honey, get the kids to safety and hide the oil well. Here come Madtom and Strykerdad."

Truth teller said...

moron99

"They are looking for evidence that people who do not live in Ninevah went and voted in Ninevah. If the number of voters in Kurd province is under the average and the number of Kurdish ballots in Ninevah is disproportionately high, then they have reason to suspect election fraud."

That is exactly what happened!! In addition, they (just for the porposes of the ballot) considered both Agra and Al-Sheikhan as part of Nenevah province. Those two districts were regarded as part of Kurdistan since 1991.

Truth teller said...

madtom
"This from someone that said that in the past there was no sectarian division within Iraq, that Arab and Kurd lived together in peace."

This is just to proven what American freedom and democracy bring to us. We used to live as brothers and now after you liberated us, we live as potential enemies.

strykerdad said...

But if you wanted to change his attitude, wouldn’t it be better to use reason rather than snide sarcastic put-downs like that above?
Like I say, what is the purpose of this sort of nastiness? Are you displaying just a personal tendency, or are you trying to be typical of your countrymen? ...
And I doubt that you’re going to get either of us to fear you.
Time was, when the Gestapo or the KGB appeared in the movie, we went "Uh oh, here come the bad guys."
Now it’s like, "Uh oh, Honey, get the kids to safety and hide the oil well. Here come Madtom and Strykerdad."



NZ--you are too funny. I have to assume you are oblivious to the hypocrisy you display with nearly every post, otherwise it might not be so funny.

For my part, I am merely trying to help TT generate some views of his pro-Saddam and Baathist Resistance posts on his family site. I assume he wanted them to be seen. How anyone else lets those posts inform their views of what he writes elsewhere is entirely up to them. He may even persuade some that Saddam is a victim. You sound like one who could be persuaded of that very easily.

I find the REAL Iraqi, mujahadin, Bad Iraqi, puppet Arab, KURDISH, JEWISH Mossad references very illuminating and relevant to the discussion, others may not. Those were his words or those he chose to quote. Some may find that he chose to post a report from an apparently Baathist Resistance site worth noting, others may not. I found that tracing the origin of the Americans planting car bombs post very interesting. Lots of discussion about killing 'puppet Iraqis'on the site of its origin. I suppose TT might differentiate betweed puppet Iraqis and puppet Arabs--maybe they are unworthy of being called Iraqi?

I find that TT engages in propaganda and hasn't been terribly shy about it or reluctant to let others respond to it, up to a point. What little of consequence that he has revealed about himself directly or indirectly has come almost entirely in response to 'irritating' comments, not the condescending and sycophatic ones in which you specialize. You may have also noticed that the posts that generate the most response and views are those that contain the most 'lively' commentary, some of which you have engaged in while proclaiming yourself above it all. Some think a little confrontation helps clear the air, or at least shakes the bushes to get things out that may be in hiding. For good or bad, it certainly makes thing more interesting at times. Like TT's last in response to madtoms's 'nastiness'---Americans took Saddams boot off our necks (or 'bad Iraqis' necks at least) and now we have become bitter enemies--now doesn't that raise some interesting questions if you think it through?

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"But if you wanted to change his attitude, wouldn’t it be better to use reason rather than snide sarcastic put-downs like that above?"

Oh, please, John. Your holier than thou attitude is rather tedious. The comments made by people here such as Italian, Bruno, Hurria and yes YOU are certainly just as snide and sarcastic. If not more so. Please spare us the phony nice routine.

"We used to live as brothers..."

I see. That is why people in Halabja and elsewhere were summarily killed. Well, with family like that one doesn't need enemies, does one?

Is that the kind of political system you really want? One where if someone disagrees with you, you kill them?

Here is an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal dated October 14, 2005 regarding Tal Afar. Sorry, I don't have a link to the online version. For anyone with a paper copy it is the article that starts on page 1 with the headline of "For U.S. Military, A Key Iraq Mission is Averting Civil War".

"In May 2005, not long after he arrived in the city, Col. Hickey sat in on the interrogation of a 17-year old member of a Sunni assassination cell. Under questioning, the boy explained that his job was to hold the legs of the victim while somneone else lopped off the head. When the interrogator asked the boy what he aspired to, "he responded that he wanted to be the guy who got to cut off the head," Col. Hickey recalls. "It was chilling.""

Is that the kind of person you call a Mujahid? Is that the kind of person you are proud of? Is that the kind of "civilization" you want Iraq to be famous for?

Claude Dorsel said...

sigh ...

Why do you believe US propaganda and refuse to believe propaganda / reports from the other side ?

IRAQ said...

in an imaginary world were more intelligent leaders exist in the white house and more wise and less greedy people exist in the greenzonestan.

They will reach the conclusion that it is acceptable to sacrifice this peace of paper as a price to lure the Sunnis into the political process, defeating the constitution would have been a victory to all Iraqis and will pave the way for a speedy withdraw for foreign forces from Iraq and will bring peace eventually to this bleeding country

Truth teller said...

Without comment!!!
I am sorry, it is too difficult to be translated into english.

من تقارير المراقبين
15 أكتوبر 2005

هذه تقارير جاءتنا من مراقبي شبكتي تموز و شمس و التي راقبت عملية الاستفتاء في جميع انحاء العراق و ذلك بمساعدة مؤسسة فريدريش إيبرت / مكتب عمان

في السليمانية واربيل. قام عدد من مسؤولي مراكز الاقتراع بملئ مئات من اوراق الاقتراع بنعم ووضعها في الصناديق وذلك بتوجيه من بعض القوى الحزبية، وفيما يلي بعض المراكز التي حدثت بها هذه الخروقات:
مركز مدرسة بيسراني رقم 216010
مركز مدرسة 1 شباط رقم 216009
مركز مدرسة ئاكام رقم 216011
مركز مدرسة رامان رقم 215003
مركز المركز الصحي رقم 215008
مركز مدرسة هلبجة رقم 215009
مركز مدرسة شيروانة رقم 212012
مركز اعدادية داراتو رقم 215011
مركز مدرسة بيخود رقم 215006
مركز مدرسة داستان رقم 215010
مركز مدرسة بيشمركة رقم 215007
مركز مدرسة سابات رقم 216006
مركز مدرسة تريفة رقم 215012
مركز مدرسة جوتيار رقم 203017
مركز مدرسة كسنزان رقم 216005
مركز مدرسة حمرين رقم 204009
مركز اعدادية التجارة رقم 204002
مركز مدرسة بليسة رقم 210001
مركز مدرسة رابرين رقم 202015
مركز مدرسة هلويست رقم 202008
مركز مدرسة هلكورد رقم 201002
مركز مدرسة جوار جرا رقم 202005
مركز مدرسة شاكار رقم 212202
مركز مدرسة بابان رقم 202015
***
وفي اربيل ايضا وفي المركز رقم 21001 وهو مدرسة بليصة و وبالتحديد في المحطة رقم 2 قام مدير المحطة باملاء مائتين بطاقة واشر على كلمة نعم وادخلها بنفسه الى صندوق الاصوات وامام اعين المراقبين والموظفين .

وفي مدرسة شاكار رقم 2002/212 وفي المحطة رقم 4و 5 لا يذهب المواطنين الى غرفة التصويت اي مكان التصويت بل يقومون بادلاء اصواتهم بشكل علني امام الموظفين عند تسجيل اسماءهم وان ذهب بعضهم الى المكان السري للتصويت يقوم مدير المحطة بالدخول معه ورؤية جوابه

The source:
http://www.niqash.org/blogs/referendum/ .

Moron99 said...

Iraq,

they secular spies within greenzonistan eviscerated it before the referendum even started. if the document stands it will only be because no one in the next parliment is able to agree upon how to change it.

Anonymous said...

IRAQ--Please explain--It all seems moot to me as either way it's all up for reconsideration--the question is if there will be another transitional government doing the work or a more permanent government. Since it seems the constitution will be open to complete overhaul by those elected in December, do you think that the method laid out in the consti

strykerdad said...

IRAQ--Please explain--It all seems moot to me as either way it's all up for reconsideration--the question is if there will be another transitional government doing the work or a more permanent government. Since it seems the constitution will be open to complete overhaul by those elected in December, do you think that the method laid out in the constitution by which those members will be elected is fatally flawed? Otherwise, what is the objection? Do you think that the Arab Sunnis deserve another opportunity, and if so, how does the next election preclude them from expressing their wishes through the ballot? I understand their concerns about fraud in this election, but also think they should be held somewhat responsible as it was their own intransigence that limited their ability to monitor and contribute to those elections to their own satisfaction. What do you propose that would persuade those who thus far insist upon using violence that they will have more of a voice through the democratic process? They don't seem to see that in their best interests thus far. Are you simply saying that it was improtant that the Sunni Arabs see that they could continue to thwart the will of the majority, even through the democratic process? How long will that last when the power of veto is gone and they have to rely upon their level of popular support among the people at large? Won't they return to their old ways as soon as things don't go their way? Truly interested in your response.

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

CLAUDE--sighWhy do you believe US propaganda and refuse to believe propaganda / reports from the other side ?

CLAUDE-was that sigh in my general direction? -I am not proposing that anyone believe anything, just consider it for themselves, then use those conclusions to inform their opinion when judging things related by those who put propaganda up for consideration. Did you read what he posted and find it credible? You very well may as I saw where you promoted the stories about US soldiers throwing their fellow soldiers into rivers to hide the true number of US deaths. You choose to believe that and promote it, then others should judge everything else you say with that in mind whether they agree with you or not. Is that unfair?

I will bet I spent more time researching TT's propaganda on his family site than he did. I certainly found better, more credible sources to support his argument about the Halabja massacre and Saddam's innocence than the ones he used. But none seemed even remotely as credible or as well researched as the opposing side of the argument, some to which I provided links.

On his post about Americans planting car bombs, I reject that on its face as it is almost as ridiulous as the hidden American dead story. Still, I followed his sources to see if there were any supporting facts at all and found some of the silliest, most outrageous claims to be found anywhere along with photos of masked men holding their weapons aloft in front of very flattering pictures of Uncle Saddam. Is it wrong to consider that when reading anything else he has or will post?

TT posted these things and left them open to comment. Should I not oblige him or should I be condescending and make allowances and not speak my mind? Should my conclusions about what he posted not contribute to those things that inform my opinion of statements he made elsewhere prior or subsequent to those posts? I thought it relevant to his 'Kurds and puppet Arab' observations as well as some others, and said so. No one is obliged to agree or even read what I think, and are free to comment either way. Is that unfair?

I think I was very thorough and fair with TT's propaganda. I don't accept all Pentagon or Admin releases as accurate or truthful, they are conducting a war after all, but when a Wash Post reporter quotes a lower ranking officer as was done in lynette's post, I find that pretty easy to accept, especially when it conforms to personal accounts told to me by people I have come to know and trust. All sources are not created equal and each gives them the weight they feel each deserves-- does that sound reasonable or deserving of a sigh?

madtom said...

"This is just to proven what American freedom and democracy bring to us. We used to live as brothers and now after you liberated us, we live as potential enemies."

Trying not to upset the sensibilities of your readers let me start this by saying.
May I suggest to you that what you are seeing are the long held frustrations that were buried deep within your society. Could it be that what the liberation has done is bring these issues to the surface. Maybe people feel that it's now or never and want to make sure that they are heard loud and clear. This could even be true with people you have known all you life and that you would never suspect how they felt, and may very well never told you before how they really felt about certain issues.
Sometimes these things are very hard to see when you happen to be part of the top. I see it in my own community. Many of my older friends, people that grew up in the pre castro Cuba do not and will not admit or see any of the social disparity that existed, some of which were just the times, and were no different anywhere in the world, some of them were specific to Cuban society. And of course the dictator took hold of some of those very issues to grab on to power promising change that never came, and that has in fact only gotten much worse over the years. But the fact remains that if the dictator were to drop dead tomorrow, we could never return to the old days, nor would my generation permit such a thing. We see the injustice that they are unable to see.
No doubt our current society also has inequalities which we are blind too, but that our children will see quite clearly.

Some of your Kurdish friends are aware of your postings on the other blog and are gathering their troops to counter what you have said there. So I will not comment and wait to see what happens. In today's liberated Iraq they have their own voice and a means to express it. But if I could make a suggestion. Maybe you could use your blog to invite them as friends to voice their side of the story to avoid any unnecessary acrimony

IRAQ said...

This election had more value than just to approve or reject the proposed constitution, to make foreigners understand that they must understand that after April 03 Iraqis in general divided into two groups. The first group is the people who accepted the change, the occupation, the political process, and benefit from all that and those are mainly Sheia and Kurdish. The second group didn't accept the changes, the occupation and with time fought it ether with action or in passive way. now there was a chance that most of the second group will join the others in participating in the political process and stabilizing the country and re-establishing the lost unity between all Iraqis by building a united Iraqi Parliament that represent all Iraqis, and a national government that put Iraq first then the regional and sectarian interests.

Q:Do you think that the Arab Sunnis deserve another opportunity?
they are part of Iraqi people and every single Iraqi deserve to be heard and granted it's rights as Iraqi even if others don't agree with him.

Q:Do Sunni want to be back as the sole rules of Iraq?
Mostly, I don't think so; I believe they want to work with all others to build a new Iraq.

Q: how all that could have been achieved by rejecting this constitution??
It happened that the rejection side of this constitution represent the second group!! And those people did threatened to cut the fingers of anybody who will participate in the last Jan. election, but now in this election reports came that in some areas the insurgents were guarding the polling stations to protect them from attacks by Arab Jehdests. Did that tell you something, it say that the insurgents are accepting the political process. And defeating the constitution would have considered as a victory for them achieved not by weapons but by voting.

Q: if they defeated it will they repeat their record participation in the next election?
Of course

Q: so what would have happened in that case?
the Iraqis would have voted for a new Parliament, many faces in the current government would have disappeared because Iraqis saw that they are good for nothing and the new Parliament that is more balanced, more secular, and with more Sunni in it would give birth to a more strong government that will be accepted by most Iraqis, and many of the AK holders will drop it and join the herd of democracy.

Q:Do the current Iraqi politicians want something like that to happen?
I don't think so, because if more Sunni are in office and there is stability on ground someone will start calling for foreign troops to withdraw and Kurdish don't want that, weeks ago Talabani appeared in the white house asking with no shame for permanent military bases in Iraq, for the Sheia politicians the present of the foreign troops will keep the Sunni busy while they complete their control on everything and stock pile arms from Iran.

Q: so what they want?
Crush the Sunni insurgency with American power and then put some Sunni that they compromise with them in negligible positions.

The Sunni participating in the new Iraqi democracy is the only way to create a stabilized country as all military commanders say there is little hope in crushing this insurgency by force

Bruno said...

[lynette] “I see. That is why people in Halabja and elsewhere were summarily killed.”

But Lynette, you ARE aware the US government, through the Pelletiere report, made it clear it believes IRAN was responsible for the Halabja massacre. Are you anti-American now? ;)

[lynette] “In May 2005, not long after he arrived in the city, Col. Hickey sat in on the interrogation of a 17-year old member of a Sunni assassination cell. Under questioning, the boy explained that his job was to hold the legs of the victim while somneone else lopped off the head.”

OH PU-LEEZE! This crap is so obviously propaganda on the line of “Iraqis killing Kuwaiti babies” and Saddam’s ‘woodchipper’ machine that it doesn’t warrant a reply. Let’s get real, OK? There is news that is plausible, and there is trash like this. If I were so dumb as to believe this, I’d be also quoting “resistance reports” of American tank columns being annihilated on a daily basis. Lynette, you GOTTA learn how to sift between fantasy and reality, y’ hear?


Strykerdad –

[sdad] “On his post about Americans planting car bombs, I reject that on its face as it is almost as ridiulous as the hidden American dead story.”

OK, see, here is something to debate about.

On the face of it, the noble Americans would NEVER stoop to such a tactic.

But, the fact is you already have.

Historically, the US/ UK used just such a ‘false flag’ operation to discredit Mossadeq in Iran, 1953. Clerical offices were bombed, the Communists blamed, and the rumour spread that Mossadeq was sympathetic to their cause. In Italy, the CIA funnelled explosives via a circuitous route to fascists which blew up a train station in Bologna, after which the Commies were again blamed. False casus belli such as the Gulf of Tonkin ‘incident and the false WMD story also come to mind.

So, the question is less WOULD the US do it than ARE they doing it? I have seen several reports detailing the planting of explosives into civilian vehicles. That British SAS thing was also very fishy. To be honest, I’m not really sure how credible these reports are. (The sources seem somewhat vague.) Although, the fact remains, it is true that MANY Iraqis believe this to be the case.

In an absence of direct evidence, we have to resort to circumstantial evidence and logic. I find it useful to put myself in the various parties’ shoes for a second.

Setting of car bombs that kill bunches of Iraqi civilians and especially Shias serves a Sunni – based Resistance no purpose. Guerrilla armies thrive on civilian support, and anything that turns sentiment against them is negative. Secondly, even IF the Sunnis really had a secret diabolical plan to do away with the Shias, why try to execute it when the US Army is running the show and providing support to various Shia militias etc.? It would make FAR more sense to take on one enemy at a time, assuming that such a diabolical plan exists, than to take them all on at once. Militarily and politically, sectarian tensions do NOTHING to advance a patriotic Resistance’s cause.

Look at what happened during the First battle for Fallujah. The Shiites rose up in support of the Sunnis in Fallujah, and the US was forced to back off. It was clear that a sense of unity between Iraqis was detrimental to US war aims, was it not? Again, Iraqi unity can only benefit a legitimate Resistance. So who stands to gain from sectarian tension? Who gains from random car bombs stoking such feelings? HMM.

Furthermore, if one examines who is in charge of the US at the moment, well, it’s the Neoconservatives. You know, those Israel – luvin’ chaps? Their thinking is reflected in a document called “A Clean Break” which was written by them and their close Zionist friends. (Some of the authors : Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser )

This in fact details the need to break Iraq up through destabilisation and details the need to redraw the middle east into a new format so that Israel can play power games with the Arabs and impose its will upon them. Example:

“A Clean Break”

“Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
[…]
This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
[…]
For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity. Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq
[…]” //end excerpt

A sectarian, divided Iraq in which ‘Sunni’ ‘Shia’ and “Kurd” struggle for dominance fits right in with the strategy described. And, let’s remember this document was drafted by people who are very close to (or ARE Neocons) the Neocon rulers of Bushite America.

Again. Who gains from the sectarian tension caused by the car-bombing of Mosques? Who gains from the outrageous statements of the probably mythical Zarqawi?

NOT any patriotic Iraqi Resistance, that’s for sure. I think we all know who gains, and who is able to exploit power differences between Iraqis for its own ends.

Claude Dorsel said...

Yups. Cui bono.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

Bruno,

Some reading for you in your spare time.

Excerpt from Human Rights Watch report.

"7 Books on the Iran-Iraq War have routinely echoed the unsubstantiated report that both sides had used chemical weapons in Halabja. This notion originated in a study for the U.S. Army War College: Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1990). It is repeated in a later book by Pelletiere, a former U.S. intelligence officer, The Iran-Iraq War: Chaos in a Vacuum (New York: Praeger, 1992). This strongly pro-Iraqi work comments, "On May 23 (sic), in fighting over the town, gas was used by both sides. As a result scores (sic) of Iraqi Kurdish civilians were killed. It is now fairly certain that Iranian gas killed the Kurds." (pp.136-137)

The supposed factual basis for this conclusion is that the Halabja victims had blue lips, characteristic of the effects of cyanide gas--which Iraq was not believed to possess. Cyanide gas, a metabolic poison, would indeed produce blue lips, but they are far from being a specific indicator of its use. Nerve agents, which are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that cause respiratory paralysis, would also turnvictims' lips blue. Middle East Watch interview with Dr. Howard Hu, Harvard School of Public Health, May 13, 1993. On Iraq's proven use of nerve agents against the Kurds during Anfal, see below footnote 10.

10 See Galbraith and Van Hollen, op cit. The February 1989 report by Physicians for Human Rights, "Winds of Death: Iraq's Use of Poison Gas Against its Kurdish Population," concluded that the injuries of refugees examined in Turkey were consistent with exposure to sulfur mustard (yperite). However, PHR noted, "Eyewitness accounts of deaths beginning within minutes of exposure...cannot be explained by mustard gas alone." The mystery was laid to rest in April 1993, when research on soil samples from the village of Birjinni, the site of a 1988 chemical weapons attack, showed the presence of trace elements of the nerve agent GB, also known as Sarin. See PHR-Human Rights Watch, "Scientific First: Soil Samples Taken from Bomb Craters in Northern Iraq Reveal Nerve Gas--Even Four Years Later," April 29, 1993.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL1.htm#P41_8395

"Lynette, you GOTTA learn how to sift between fantasy and reality, y’ hear?"

Don't we all?

Bruno said...

So Lynette, I take it that what you are saying, in your somewhat circuitous manner, is that the US has flip flopped on the issue of Iraqi use of gas in Halabja. IE - it is no longer the Iranians, but the Iraqis?

Convenient, isn't it? I mean, to be able to change one's opinions as the political climate changes?

FYI, my comment was less about culpability (since I believe Iraq was in fact responsible) than about Amreekan duplicity.

Bruno said...

But let me hasten to add that, Lynette, your engagement with actual research and thought out exploration of the issues is appreciated. Even though I disagree w/ 90% of what you say.

I really can't stand debating with a brick wall.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"since I believe Iraq was in fact responsible"

"I really can't stand debating with a brick wall."

Strange, isn't it, how on some things we can agree?

madtom said...

"Lynette, your engagement with actual research and thought out exploration of the issues is appreciated."

Wait five minutes, or just jumpt to another blog, and he'll never have heard anything about it.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

"Wait five minutes, or just jumpt to another blog, and he'll never have heard anything about it."

*chuckle* Selective memory.

You know, TT should really get some smiley faces for his blog. They can enhance the conversation.

Tilo Reber said...

From John
"Yeah well Moron, nice to see you and let me add, whatever institutions that are being built are entirely unsupportable without the prescence of the occupier."

There is no occupier microbrain. The entire world recognizes the Iraqi government as sovereign. The coalition is now in the country at the discretion of the that sovereign government. Your overloaded, overused reliance of the term "occupation" is an attempt to hide the fact that you really have nothing to say.

"Whatever people support them are already branded and surely defined as traitors to their country!"

Let's see. That would be the minority of the Iraqis calling the majority traitors.

I would never engage in any "democratic" process under the barrel of a gun,

So, a bird brain like you would still have the Nazis running Germany and the Emperor running Japan. As for the people of those countries, they would now not accept anything but the democracy that was forced upon them at the barrel of a gun.

"and the credibility you assign to this process is really no different than Sadaams regime which you have already defined your abhorrence for! "

Now there is a stupid comparison if I ever heard one. Democracy is nothing more than allowing people to choose who will govern them. The only people who have to have such a concept forced upon them are people who don't want to give that choice to others because they want to rule themselves at the point of a gun or a Quran.

Tilo Reber said...

"FYI, my comment was less about culpability (since I believe Iraq was in fact responsible) than about Amreekan duplicity."

Yes, it's one of those things that you have to agree to when you apply for American citizenship. You have to allow them to implant a duplicity gene in your cells. Jerk.

Tilo Reber said...

Bruno said:
"Lynette, you GOTTA learn how to sift between fantasy and reality, y’ hear? "

Duh, let's see. What Bruno like to hear is reality and what Bruno doesn't like to hear is fantasy. Okay, got it!

johninnz said...

"Fantasy."
My fantasy was that the US conquest of Iraq would bring a better life to all it's citizens.
That was the idea, wasn't it?
So when are you going to start doing it?
How about turning the power back on, just to show nice?
Come on, you can do it! You're the SUPERPOWER, aren't you?

Hurria said...

"Get better sources! I can help if you wish."

YOU?! Help people get better sources?! LOOOOOL! That's a good one!

Hurria said...

"Do you think that the Arab Sunnis deserve another opportunity?"

What the hell does this mean? Another opportunity at what? To accept the will of the foreign invader? Give me a break! No Iraq deserves such an "opportunity", and very, very few Iraqs accept such an "opportunity" despite all the propaganda about Shi'ites and Kurds.

"Do Sunni want to be back as the sole rules of Iraq?"

Where the hell does this question come from except straight out of American propaganda? Anyone who knows anything real about Iraq knows very well that Sunni have never been the sole rulers of Iraq.

Hurria said...

"Look at what happened during the First battle for Fallujah."

Bruno, please do me a very big favour, and do not use this disgusting propaganda term. It makes my stomach turn to see it.

johninnz said...

It is so difficult for us in the West who do not have the benefit of Fox News. We have to rely on blatant phony liberal leftist reporting like this:

(The British Government) have left a British army stranded in an Arabian desert with no apparent exit and no control over its fate. Their only possible redemption is to withdraw that army (other than as advisers) when the next Baghdad government is installed in the new year. Iraq can then be left to the Iraqis. If the Americans want to stay, more fool them.
Before leaving Baghdad I saw on television a desperate earthquake rescuer in Pakistan pleading for just one thing, helicopters, to save thousands from death in the mountains. Two hours' hop to the west, I was gazing on inert helicopters as far as the eye could see. Not one was saving lives - only political skins.
(Simon Jenkins of the Guardian)

Intrepid Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk has revealed that the situation in Iraq is now so dangerous that he doesn't know whether he can go on reporting from the country.
Fisk, who has previously accused colleagues of practising "hotel journalism" in Iraq, said that "mouse journalism" is now the best he can do in the country.
Fisk ... described mouse journalism as the practice of popping up at the scene of an event and staying just long enough to get the story, before the men with guns arrive.
"You cannot imagine just how bad things are in Iraq.
"A few weeks ago, I went to see a man whose son was killed by the Americans, and I was in his house for five minutes before armed men turned up in the street outside.
"He had to go and reason with them not to take me away. And this was an ordinary Baghdad suburb, not the Sunni Triangle or Fallujah.
"It has got to the stage where, for example, when I went to have a look at the scene of a huge bomb in a bus station, I jumped out of the car and took two pictures before I was surrounded by a crowd of enraged Iraqis.
"I jumped back in the car and fled. I call that ‘mouse journalism' — and that's all we can do now.
"If I go to see someone in any particular location, I give myself 12 minutes, because that is how long I reckon it takes a man with a mobile phone to summon gunmen to the scene in a car.
"So, after 10 minutes I am out. Don't be greedy. That's what reporting is like in Iraq."
He continued: "This country is now hell — a disaster. You cannot imagine how bad it is.
"The Ministry of Health, which is partly run by Americans, will not give out any figures for civilian casualties; staff are just not allowed to give us these figures.
"When I went to the city morgue in Baghdad one day nearly four weeks ago, I arrived at 9am and there were nine violent death corpses there.
"By midday there were 26 corpses. When I managed to get access to the computer system of the mortuary, I discovered that in July 1,100 Iraqis had been killed in Baghdad alone.
"Multiply that across Iraq and you are talking about 3,000 a month or more, which means 36,000 a year.
"So these figures claiming 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties are not necessarily conservative at all. But no-one wants to report on this.
"It is almost impossible to get access to free information outside Baghdad or Basra. Most of the reporters who can travel are doing so as members of military convoys with armour to protect them.
"The last time I travelled to Najaf, the road was littered with burned-out American vehicles, smashed police vehicles, abandoned checkpoints and armed men. That's Iraq today — it's in a state of anarchy, and many areas of Baghdad are in fact now in insurgent hands."
He added: "This is a war the like of which I have never reported before.
Over and over again, we are escaping with our lives because we are lucky.
And it is getting much worse, not better — don't believe what Blair is telling you.
"It is very sad to have to say that I don't know if we can go on reporting in Iraq. I don't know if I can personally keep on going back."
"This last trip there was so dangerous and frightening, I actually said to some people that we were going to have to debate whether the risks are worth it all.

Lynnette in Minnesota said...

" We have to rely on blatant phony liberal leftist reporting like this:"

Why, John, you finally wrote something accurate! lol!

Moron99 said...

Johninnz says
My fantasy was that the US conquest of Iraq would bring a better life to all it's citizens.
That was the idea, wasn't it?
So when are you going to start doing it?
How about turning the power back on, just to show nice?
Come on, you can do it! You're the SUPERPOWER, aren't you?


Funny stuff John. It will take america 10 years to rebuild New Orleans. NOLA is about 5,000 miles closer to home, everybody there speaks english, there is little or no sabatauge, and government employees are not targeted for assasination. What makes you think they are capable of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure under the current cirumstances?

Tilo Reber said...

"This last trip there was so dangerous and frightening, I actually said to some people that we were going to have to debate whether the risks are worth it all. "

Ah yes, the great Robert Fisk who lent his name to the term "to fisk", meaning to deconstruct an article for the nonsense that it is. Since every one of his articles goes through such a process, usually from numerous sources, "fisking" is now a part of our language.

"This last trip there was so dangerous and frightening, I actually said to some people that we were going to have to debate whether the risks are worth it all."

And I remember that some Afghans beat the crap out of Fisk at one time. Since he didn't know why, he made up the excuse that it was because of the Americans.

So, if it is such anarchy in Iraq, why did over sixty percent of the registered voters go to vote. Why where there only twenty attacks on polling places when there were over a hundred in January. Why were there absolutely no incidents at all at 99% of the polling places. Is that anarchy or is that simply a journalist with an agenda using hyperbole that would shame a professional liar. Oops, scratch that. Fisk is a professional liar.

Let's take another example.

"By midday there were 26 corpses. When I managed to get access to the computer system of the mortuary, I discovered that in July 1,100 Iraqis had been killed in Baghdad alone.
"Multiply that across Iraq and you are talking about 3,000 a month or more, which means 36,000 a year.

The insurgency is active in about 20% of the country. In the rest of the country virtually nothing is happening. So using the Baghdad numbers and pretending that they apply to the rest of the country is about as dishonest as the Lancet study itself was. One could go to some of the cities in the south of Iraq, run Fisk's stupid little experiment, and conclude that less than a thousand Iraqis were dying violently every year.

And let's not forget another factor. Saddam killed 300,000 of his own citizens. And that doesn't count the Iranian war losses. So Saddam was executing his citizens at a rate of about 10,000 per year.

Tilo Reber said...

Hey Truth Teller,

I see that your favorite book is the Quran. Tell me the truth then, is Islam incompatible with democracy?

johninnz said...

Tilo Reber
It’s agreed that no one knows the real figures for violent Iraqi deaths. But unless someone’s fiddled with the Baghdad Mortuary computer, you seem to have a rate of over 10,000 per year in Baghdad alone, round about Saddam’s supposed record. Anyway, no-one (except a few diehard Baathists, I suppose) is defending Saddam. When ordinary Iraqis are reported saying "Bring back Saddam," it’s clear that it is a bitter joke about the Occupation, not a real wish.
The point is, his removal should have led to a better situation for Iraqis, not one that’s much the same if not worse.
A competent conqueror would have anticipated the level of lawlessness and insurgency, and gone in with strategies to deal with it.
What on earth is the point of half-conquering a country? Or "liberating" it by replacing tyranny with anarchy?
Oh, and by the way, don’t reply with a peevish "Suppose you could have done better." That would be childish.

Moron99 said...

John sez -
Anyway, no-one (except a few diehard Baathists, I suppose) is defending Saddam

That is a false assumption. Without the financial, mangerial, and logistical support of people who remain loyal to the baathist regime the insurgency would have fallen apart a long time ago. The politicians and policemen would not be getting assasinated, the infrastructure would not be getting sabatauged, and the incoming suicide bombers would find no-one to provide them with c4 vests, car bombs, and targets.

Tilo Reber said...

Johninnz:

It should come as no surprise to you that there were Fisks and johninnzs after WWII and their crying sounded much like yours. Check this article.

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

And I doubt that Fisk knew what kind of numbers he was looking at. They may well have included deaths from natural causes, accidents, and common criminal activities. A city of five million is going to have a lot of those. Since Fisk never provides evidence, his numbers are useless.

We could have squashed the lawlessness and the insurgency by practicing the same kind of brutality as Saddam. But we decided that was a bad long term approach. By the way, the crime rate in the Soviet Union went through the roof after the fall of Communism. And it's taking forever to get it back. The crime and genocide in Kosovo went on after we defeated Milosovic. It was simply redirected against the Serbs. The international peacekeepers stood around with their thumbs up their butts while the Serbs were run out of Kosovo. And we still have a presence there after all this time. So if Bush's operation is incompetent, who do you see that has done it right?

johninnz said...

Moron99
As I understand it, Saddam was a ruthless gangster-type dictator who, among other things, tended to remove any underlings who looked like becoming possible replacements for him - he was a great admirer of Stalin after all. And his so-called Baathist regime had long abandoned Baathist ideals (Arab nationalism and socialism, I believe) in favour of simple retention of power and sycophantic loyalty to him.
Once he was captured, they can’t seriously have believed that he would ever be released.
My suspicion remains that, even if the Baathist remnants are providing some of the money and organisation still, the insurgency has become more of a patriotic resistance than anything else.
(Plus the imported fanatics and religious fruitcakes, of course.)
The point is, wherever its coming from, it seems to be fighting harder than ever.
Your compatriot Tilo Reber says "We could have squashed the lawlessness and the insurgency by practicing the same kind of brutality as Saddam. But we decided that was a bad long term approach."
I think he meant to say "But we decided that would be immoral." That’s the civilised point of view, surely?
My suspicion remains that even a lesser amount of brutality is fueling the insurgency.
I mean, those bridges that were bombed to deny their use to insurgents - wouldn’t they have been essential to local farmers, workers etc as well as handy for the bad guys?
How many reports about civilians being bombed by mistake do we have to have before we’re allowed to believe one?
And my suspicion remains that the whole sad enterprise was pretty much doomed from the start by the lack of proper planning for occupation and reconstruction.
That’s not being Anti-American. It’s being Anti-Stupidity.
There used to be a difference.

Tilo Reber said...

johninnz:

"My suspicion remains that even a lesser amount of brutality is fueling the insurgency."

If brutality is the driving factor, then why are the insurgents not shocked at their own brutality in bombing markets of civilians, unemployed looking for work, shia religious gatherings, commercial neighborhoods, etc? Why are they so fond of filming and displaying beheadings? Obviously an adversity to brutality is not their motivating factor. If anything, they have a love of brutality and they feel that those who use it best deserve the most respect. People like you whine about motivating insurgents with things like Quran desecration and pictures of naked prisoners. But let's take a look at the behaviour of the Islamists who are supposedly shocked at this.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011994.php

After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. The city's foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an 'open city' and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967.

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones from the ancient cemetery and used them as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian Army camps, including use as latrines. When the area was recaptured by Israel in 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it. The Intercontinental Hotel was built at the top of the cemetery. Sadar Khalil, appointed by the Jordanian government as the official caretaker of the cemetery, built his home on the grounds using the stones robbed from graves. In 1967, the press published extensive photos documenting that Jewish gravestones were found in Jordanian Army camps, such as El Azariya, as well as in Palestinian walkways, steps, bathrooms, and pavement.

And here is another one covering the behaviour of Hamaz in Gaza after the turnover.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA101905.02O.gurwitz.11859e21.html

Now, do you really believe that these Islamists have such refined sensibilities that they are motivated by what we do, or are they just using that excuse to try to implement their goal of a theocracy?

By the way, what do you think the odds are that TT will be willing to engage in a discussion that exposes his real views and motivations?

Tilo Reber said...

johninnz:

One more question. You describe the insurgents as patriots. Tell me, did the American patriots bomb other American civilians when we were fighting to kick out the British?

madtom said...

"So when are you going to start doing it?"

Never, as a matter of fact, and we never intended to "do it". That's up to the Iraqi's themselves. All we can do is shove our foot in the door so it don't close on them. But they are the only ones that can up and walk through.

Moron99 said...

john,

it's not so simple. never was simple, but it got really fubar'd last january. instead of getting a representative government they got a government intent upon grabbing power and favors for their sects. Usually this works out for the better in democracy since the competition for votes is exactly how greedy and corrupt politicians are co-opted into not being so openly greedy and corrupt. But it didn't work out very well in Iraq because there was no counter-balancing competition for votes.

The first mistake was the elections themselves. Being based on national proporations rather than regional voters meant that the group with the highest turnout would dominate. Even if that group only inhabited one section of Iraq, they would win a disproportionately powerful representation in governance. Those who drafted TAL failed to see this possibility. I think that they were too focused on the fear was that baathi would kill anyone who tried to vote and a baathi representative could theoretically win a seat with only one vote. The second mistake was the sunni boycott. By boycotting the elections, the shia religous parties gained too much power. They spent a great deal of effort trying to strongarm their political opposition into submission and not enough time trying to negotiate compromises. In my opinion the real fuel for the insurgency is not the actual presence of the US soldiers but the political outcome of their policies. In specific, the net result of events in Iraq has been an unjust and disproportionnate rise in the power of shia religous blocks and a marginalization of sunni interests. While the newspapers have focused on the suicide bombers and the insurgents have focused on "puppet government" the US has been fighting on two fronts. One front was to geographically contain the insurgency and the other was to politically contain the shia religous groups. Yeah, you're right. That's pretty much tantamount to saying that the US was keeping Iraq from moving forward until the next set of elections. What other options were there?

What would you have done?

johninnz said...

Tio Reber
I’ll be gone from here for a while, my RAM can only handle so many Comments on this Blog, then it grinds to a halt. You say: "People like you whine about motivating insurgents with things like Quran desecration and pictures of naked prisoners."
Best of my knowledge, I’ve never mentioned either of those things. For your records, I’m a devout atheist, I’ve got no time for any religion, least of all for extremist Islam. I can’t even be bothered reading your stuff about Gaza or wherever, it’s got nothing to do with the US conquest of Iraq, which is the subject under discussion.
There’s 1.2 billion Muslims, and rising, spread across I dunno how many countries. What are you gonna do, keep blaming them all for the actions of a few extremists, and bully them all into becoming Christians? What Army are you going to use? Your present one doesn’t seem able to handle just 5 million of them - certainly with its present tactics.
"One more question. You describe the insurgents as patriots. Tell me, did the American patriots bomb other American civilians when we were fighting to kick out the British?"
Once again, point to something I’ve said which indicates support for anyone, Muslim or American, bombing civilians. Most US casualties seem to be caused by IEDs, which aren’t aimed at civilians - think Star Wars, with the cute bear things taking out Darth Vader’s Stormtroopers. Unless your argument is: Muslim extremists bomb civilians, therefore we might as well bomb civilians too.
Duh.
Incidentally, my understanding is that most of your "American patriots" were only one or two generations removed from their British or European roots. There’s just a tiny difference between a colonial revolt against Monarchist rule, and an indigenous resistance against foreign invaders.
If you can’t see it, try some new glasses.

Moron99
You’ve become suspiciously reasonable all of a sudden, haven’t you?
What would I have done? I wouldn’t have put my dick in the blender in the first place. A sensible man don't.

Moron99 said...

I've always been this way John. I've just never been any good at figuring out why people behave emotionally and even less adept at communicating with them when they do.

Tilo Reber said...

"In my opinion the real fuel for the insurgency is not the actual presence of the US soldiers but the political outcome of their policies."


Can't agree with you. The insurgents are not interested in having their fair share of the power, they are interested in having all of the power. Zarquawi stated outright that democracy was incompatible with Islam. And of course the Baathists want all of the power with the Sunnis being the dominant class.

The Shia as a religious group make up the lions share of the population and so deserve a lions share of the power. Later, when things are more settled the Shia will find that there are issues that are more important to them than their religious affilitation and they will split their vote accordingly - as will the Sunnis and the Kurds. The result of seeing Al Sadr's heavy handed policies is already changing minds in the South. And there are many Sunnis who are turned off by the religious extremism that they see in their own ranks. I think that you will see the power of the religious parties dimminish slightly in the December elections and then more as time goes on.

Tilo Reber said...

Johninnz:

"I can’t even be bothered reading your stuff about Gaza or wherever, it’s got nothing to do with the US conquest of Iraq, which is the subject under discussion."

It's got everything to do with the insurgency. The Zarquawis of the world are motivated by the same religious extremism as Hamas. And they are equally insensitive to brutality. Read the article or not. Your comment about being motivated by US brutality is still nonsense.

"What are you gonna do, keep blaming them all for the actions of a few extremists,"

How many is a few? And what about the people who support the extremists like TT. Are they also a few? What about the Imams that preach hatred for the infidel in their mosques. Are they also a few. What about the Muslims who go to those mosques and say nothing while their Imams are preaching hate. Are they also a few?

"and bully them all into becoming Christians? "

Why would I do that. I have no religion. Does exposing a religion as being a source of violence mean that you have to be an advocate for another religion? Wake up.

"Once again, point to something I’ve said which indicates support for anyone, Muslim or American, bombing civilians."

You called them patriots.

"the insurgency has become more of a patriotic resistance than anything else."

A patriot does not bomb his own civilians. They are not a patriotic resistance as you stated.

"Most US casualties seem to be caused by IEDs, which aren’t aimed at civilians "

We are not talking about US casualties. An Iraqi patriot could fight the US and still be a patriot, even if he was a misinformed one. He could not, however, purposely bomb and murder women and children and countrymen simply to terrorize them into accepting his power. He would not bomb his nations infastructure in order to make his own countrymen suffer. That is not a patriot. So your point about the insurgency is just plain wrong. It does not consist mostly of patriots.

"Unless your argument is: Muslim extremists bomb civilians, therefore we might as well bomb civilians too."

And you are crying about what you didn't say? Where does that come from?

"Incidentally, my understanding is that most of your "American patriots" were only one or two generations removed from their British or European roots."

That didn't stop them from putting bullets in them.

"There’s just a tiny difference between a colonial revolt against Monarchist rule, and an indigenous resistance against foreign invaders. "

This has absolutely nothing to do with bombing your own people and with the insurgency being or not being patriots.

Moron99 said...

The difference lies in the definition of a nation. If the "true" nation is defined as an ideology then it matters not whether they are minority or majority. Under such a definition those fighting to uphold the ideology define themselves as patriots. The competing definition is that the "true" nation is the people. Under such a definition then the meaning of patriot is independant of ideology. A patriot will be anyone who fights to protect the ideology of the masses irregardless of his personal beliefs. John seems to define patriot as those who protect an ideology wheras tilo seems to define patriot along the lines of protecting the people.

johninnz said...

Sorry Moron, you lost me there with your fourth sentence about protecting "the ideology of the masses" irregardless of his personal beliefs. Don’t understand it.
I think of a patriot as someone who fights to defend his nation in the geographic sense, basically, although obviously sometimes it’s more a matter of defending its interests.
The non-Nazi Germans who fought to the end in WWII were German patriots, I guess.
The Shia are quite capable of this sort of patriotism - remember the courage of the young guys in Najaf. At the moment it serves their interests to bide their time, but in the long run, as we’re starting to see in Basra, they will be no more tolerant of foreign troops in their country than the Sunni are. Doesn’t really matter either whether the foreigners are American, French, or little blue men from Mars.
And I’ve never understood why the US is expending so much treasure and blood to ensure an Iranian-oriented Iraq. (Said it before, the Muslim world is 10% Shia, 90% Sunni - of course the minority are going to stick together.) Please explain.

Bruno said...

Hurria --

Sorry, I didn’t realise that term was offensive to you. I don’t see what is so weird about what I said. There WAS a battle for the control of Fallujah. Unless this has to do with the US subverting and appropriating the language of debate, as they have done before. In which case I apologise. What term do you prefer?


Johninnz –

(1) GET MORE RAM.

(2) The US machinations in Iraq are hard to understand unless one views it from a Neocon perspective. The believe that they can ‘create their own reality’. Ergo, if Iran is getting too much toehold in Iraq, the answer is either to remove Iran or change the nature of its influence.

I fully believe that there will be extensive covert operations within Iran to overthrow the current regime (I’m thinking MEKA here) or failing that, an outright invasion to ‘liberate’ all those democratic liberals yearning for freedom there. That move would be disastrous IMHO, but its coming. At the very least, there will be a solid bombing campaign. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

Moron99 said...

john,
if a nation is defined as the people then there are no absolute politcal, moral, or religous ideologies. It becomes whatever the people believe and it evolves to suit each new generation. Under this definition the patriot fights not for a particular ideology, but rather for the protection of the masses, their right of citizens to believe whatever they want to believe, and the responsibility of government officials to protect it citizens and reflect their beliefs irrespective of their own. It gives rise to such odd things as a patriot fighting to defend your right to oppose his beliefs.

Tilo Reber said...

From the internet dictionary:

patriot

n : one who loves and defends his or her country [syn: nationalist]

If it's the country that is being defended then it must be defended from some threat. The only threat that one can imagine the insurgents fighting is the threat to Iraqi sovereignty. But since the US has been consistenly moving power over Iraq to Iraqis this is nothing more than an imaginary and propagandistic threat. The Iraqi public has exercised their freedom to choose a leadership and that leadership has asked us to stay.

Now, consider the possibility of a different kind of nationalism. One that does not involve a nation, but rather a threat to the entire Islamic Ummah. If your world view is that the world of Islam must be defended and even expanded then you have a solid justification for fighting both against the US and against other Iraqis - even the majority of Iraqis. Your concern is no longer Iraq as a nation, but rather the nation of Islam, the Ummah. And if Iraqis behave in such a way as to be a threat to Islam, then they may be killed.

If you look at what is happening in Iraq it is easy to see that there is no threat to the nation. In fact, as a nation it will be much better than it was under Saddam. But the threat to Islam and the worldwide cause of Islam is extremely real in Iraq. This is the case from two directions. Those who believe that the Sunni Islam is the only pure Islam are threatened by any power that might revert to Shias. But the bigger threat to Islam lies in democracy. Islam has always lead through force and intimidation. For example, when the prophet died many of the tribes on the Arabian Peninsula fell away from Islam. Mohammed's successor Abu Bakr was forced to go to war against these tribes in order to regain control over them.

Democracy means three things that are feared by the Islamists. It means that there will be a higher level of education in the country, there will be religious choice, and there will be freedom to express opinions that are counter to Islam. Islamists know in their heart that such a transformation would lead to the death of Islam, much like it has lead to the death of Christianity in the west. And if it happens in the heart of Islam, the Arabian penninsula, they fear that it will be contagious and that the Islamic state that they long for will die.

And that is why the fight for Iraq is so intense and so bloody. And that is why we must win it if we want to beat the terrorists in the long run. This is also why the argument that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion is irrelevant. The Islamists of the world can be defeated here as well as anywhere else, because they are not nationalists. As for the US, we could hardly hope for a better battleground for fighting this war. But I'll explain that sentence at another time.

waldschrat said...

Time Magazine, a well established news magazine in the US, had an article about election irregularities.

Link: "Stealing Votes in Iraq"

While the referendum vote was not perfect, it seems to have producerd the result which was anticipated by legitimate estimates made in advance of the election: strongly Sunni provinces were the only area where significant opposition to the new constitution was found (as expected) and despite the strong Sunni efforts there were insufficient "No" votes in two provinces (as expected) to muster the required "2/3 in 3 provinces" majority needed to veto the constitution. In other words, everybody cheated every chance they got but the results were probably legitimate and would not change in a "perfect" election: the constitution passed (as expected).

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

Dear Truth Teller,

why don't you kick out this rabid sectarian loony 'tilo reber' (10/21/2005 08:17:00 PM), who blatantly denies reality ("the threat to Iraqi sovereignty. But since the US has been consistenly moving power over Iraq to Iraqis this is nothing more than an imaginary and propagandistic threat") and incites to hatred and to a world war against all Muslims? (and if he were inciting hatred against the Jews or the Christians or the Buddhists it would be precisely the same, in my eyes).

johninnz said...

I support Italian’s suggestion, Truthteller.
Tilo Reber has revealed himself to be some kind of "perpetual war on Islam" nutcase - he has a vision of the West countering "terrorism" by bringing "democracy" to the Islamic world at the point of a gun. America is currently trying this in Iraq and it doesn’t seem to be working.
Basically, he’s the American mirror image of Bin Laden, and he doesn’t understand how isolated his country is. Apart from the UK which has been misled by Tony Blair, who will soon be gone, none of the rest of the world are interested in joining in this lunatic crusade - not most of Europe, not Russia, not China, not India, not Africa, not South America, not Canada .....If China decides to dump its T-Bills in favour of Euros, the rest of the world will follow suit, and the US will be broke anyway. How’s he going to fight his perpetual war then?
He’s not contributing anything useful to the discussion.

strykerdad said...

Not neccesarily associating myself with anyone's comments beyond my own, but I find it interesting how it is always the ones who demand 'tolerance' and those concerned for the world in the face of American fascism who are the first to call for the banishment to 'Siberia' of the ones who dare to differ with them and their 'collective' concepts. If they had the power they would no doubt send all who support effort somewhere (NZ?) for reeducation. Competition is the enemy, freedom of thought a tool of the oppressor! Comrades in arms (as long as they don't actually have to CONTRIBUTE anything besides tell us all how smart they are, critize those who try to make a difference and soliloquize on what simpleminded fools anyone must be to have a different position or ask them for a realistic solution to the problems they endlessly bitch about).

Tilo Reber said...

"Tilo Reber has revealed himself to be some kind of "perpetual war on Islam" nutcase"

One of the things that I find interesting about the secular left is that they patronize, to no end, Islamic fascists while at the same time ridiculing and berating Christians in their own country who are far less radical about their religion. TT says that his favorite book is the Quran. If a blogger in the west said that his favorite book was the Bible, the left would accuse him of being an intolerant, bible thumping televangalist.

"he has a vision of the West countering "terrorism" by bringing "democracy" to the Islamic world at the point of a gun."

The Americans and the Brits brought democracy to the Germans at the point of a gun. And the Americans brought it to the Japanese at the point of a gun. Would you also like to reverse those results.

The idiocy of your statement is that we are forcing democracy upon a people who don't want it. You have to be blind not to see the Iraqis marching to the polls to cast their vote, without an American gun at their back, and then to claim that they do not want democracy. The guns are here not to force them to take democracy, but rather to allow them to have democracy when there are others with guns who would deny it to them. People don't have to be forced with guns to take democracy, but they are forced with guns to accept radical Islam. Being the hypocrite that you are, however, you have no objection to that kind of force.

"He’s not contributing anything useful to the discussion."

Meaning that your are too dumb and too cowardly to deal with me point by point and so you would like to see me gone so that I don't expose your sloppy reasoning.

An Italian. said...

@ 'tilo reber', 10/22/2005 08:29:19 AM.

Well, Truth Teller may like his Quran, but he does not call for any Jihad (in the sense of 'holy war'); he is instead a secular Iraqi patriot.

But you keep denying that there is, or that there can be, ANY such thing as Iraqi patriotism. You keep saying that the Iraqis fighting your occupation troops cannot be Iraqi patriots: they must be fundamentalist Islamic fanatics! Why?

So, you deny that Iraq is a nation (like any other), and deny the Iraqis the right to defend themselves against an invader and its minions. Because, so you go, the Iraqis are Muslims; so there is not any Iraq, but just the Ummah; and they are fighting because of religion (& so they are all religious fanatics), and not for their country.

And than, you abominable sectarian fanatic, you incite to some unholy war against the whole Islamic world, with funny comparisons like "The Americans and the Brits brought democracy to the Germans at the point of a gun".

Now, the Allies just RESTORED democracy in Germany (didn't bring it); and, what's more important, Germany was precisely a nation, not a worldwide religion like Islam. Whose business is 'to bring democracy' (at gunpoint) to a religion? Why did you choose Islam rather than, say, the Catholic Church (since I belong to this latter, of course I would defend it in arms; and for sure it is one of the further targets of you US loonies, like most organised religions on earth: it's not that the world religions are not 'democratic', it is that they are not 'US-compatible' enough).

As for the post of Truth Teller about the referendum (and your cheeky "You have to be blind not to see the Iraqis marching to the polls to cast their vote"), before talking about 'democracy' you should wash your mouth, you hypocrite: they did go and vote AGAINST the Iraq-destroying 'Constitution', but - surprise, surprise! - the result were completely rigged! Is that the 'democracy' you are bringing around, at the point of a gun?

Aren't you a rather inept inciter to sectarian religious hatred?

johninnz said...

Strykerdad
You are presumably aware of the invalidity of the "ad hominen" form of debate - where one attacks one's opponent personally rather than addressing their argument.
It is generally frowned upon in serious discussion - you tend to end up with people saying ridiculuous things like "... hide the oil well, here comes Strykerdad," which isn't very nice.
Bloody funny, though.

johninnz said...

"Tilo Reber has revealed himself to be some kind of "perpetual war on Islam" nutcase."
Tilo, although you quote this, you do not seem to refute it in any way.
How big and long a war on Islam do you want, and how will we know when you have won?

Tilo Reber said...

Johninnz:
"Tilo, although you quote this, you do not seem to refute it in any way."

I'm suppose to refute your calling me a nutcase. I'll just let you do it.

"You are presumably aware of the invalidity of the "ad hominen" form of debate - where one attacks one's opponent personally rather than addressing their argument.
It is generally frowned upon in serious discussion"

Now, if you want to talk about the specifics of anything that I have said, I'm always ready. When you choose to make broad generalizations that are mischaracterizations, then why should I waste my time?

madtom said...

"everybody cheated every chance they got but the results were probably legitimate"

Did they mention what a terrible president this sets for future elections? I guess the election workers are now well trained in the workings of a "free and fair" election, we know it was plenty free, free to cast multiple ballots.
I call it a disservice to those who paved the way, and the future of Iraq democracy.

An Italian. said...

@ Stukasdad, 10/22/2005 08:02:37 AM (& all).

"I find it interesting how it is always the ones who demand 'tolerance' and those concerned for the world in the face of American fascism who are the first to call for the banishment to 'Siberia' of the ones who dare to differ with them and their 'collective' concepts.", etc.

Now, dear Stukasdad, you very well know that I haven't got the highest regard for you, but... you definitely are not a troll. You are not a troll, because you engage in the debate, you generally stay ON topic, etc.

What you wrote is a slight to your own intelligence you did by yourself. Now, this 'tilo reber', like that 'ertejaa' before him, IS instead a troll. He didn't write a single word about the subject of Truth Teller's post (the referendum on the 'Constitution'), while instead spewing out his general delirium and attacking other posters. Can you call him a 'dissenting' voice? No, he's somebody who came to TT's blog just to disrupt ANY meaningful discussion of the constitutional referendum.
Would it be 'undemocratic' for TT to ban him? Apart that a blog is not a democracy, and TT is the owner and sovereign of his blog, it is clear that this 'tilo reber' has nothing at all to contribute to the debate, apart from screaming loud his sectarian & hateful hallucinations.

As about the subject of TT's post, the referendum on the 'Constitution', it is getting more ridiculous and sinister day by day.
On the ballot there were just two squares, one for the 'YES' and one for the 'NO' (so the votes are not very difficult to count); and now we are told that the results won't be released before Monday! Thirteen days to count some eleven million votes!

By now even a dunce would know that there's something more than fishy there: i.e., that the referendum was completely RIGGED.
If the referendum was a FRAUD, it is quite obvious that the next elections will be a FRAUD as well.

Now, Stukasdad, are you still of the opinion that your children are in Iraq to bring 'democracy'?
Do tell us, please.

march said...

SEO
排名行銷
搜尋行銷
網站排名
網路排名
網路行銷
網頁優化
自然搜尋排列
關鍵字
關鍵字行銷
韓式隆鼻
割雙眼皮
縫雙眼皮
內視鏡隆乳
豐胸
抽脂
整形
整形外科
狐臭
眼袋
開眼頭
隆乳
隆鼻
雙眼皮
果凍矽膠
抽脂
拉皮
整形
玻尿酸
眼袋
脂肪移植
除疤
隆乳
隆鼻
雙眼皮
削骨
不孕症
人工受孕
多囊性卵巢
精蟲分離
肉毒桿菌
試管嬰兒
婦產科

march said...

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
白蟻防治

慢慢來 said...

監聽器材
離婚諮詢
監聽手機
財產調查
電話監聽
網路詐欺
女人偷腥
肉體外遇
商業調查
信用調查
婚姻諮商
婚姻問題
老婆外遇
外遇處理
筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查

慢慢來 said...

晚情徵信協會全國網
大愛徵信社
三立徵信社
離婚|離婚證人有限公司
離婚|離婚證人-高雄徵信同業工會
離婚|婚姻挽回專區
一品蒐證尋人器材網
全國女子徵信社
晚晴徵信
八大徵信社
離婚│華納徵信社
徵信社品質保障關懷協會
晚晴徵信協會全國網
溫馨法律諮詢
劈腿大剖析
全國優良婚姻挽回
法律諮詢|免費諮詢華陀
亞洲徵信總部
感情挽回全國徵信
鴻海徵信尋人免費諮詢法律諮詢
大陸抓姦二奶-法律諮詢社
三立徵信有限公司
大愛徵信社
離婚|離婚證人非凡有限公司
女人國際徵信社
中區嚴選聯合徵信網
女人國際徵信
大愛徵信有限公司-台中
婦幼徵信有限公司
女子偵探徵信團隊
離婚|外遇觀測站
法律諮詢|免費諮詢網
外遇抓猴徵信偵探社
離婚-感情挽回Q&A諮詢網
新浪私家偵探社
離婚|女人徵信社
離婚|女人私家偵探社
婚姻挽回│國際聯盟社
法律諮詢所
外遇抓姦|女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
外遇|抓姦-女子偵探全國入口網
全國優良女人徵信社