MSD

fatdaddy411

When will the muslims lose religion like the rest of us?

itlain

Zarqawi has also operated and has operatives in Jordan, Sudan, Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Libya. Does this mean we should also go to war in these countries to get rid of him? No. With the current mindset in the Middle East and the history and way people are raised there will always be animosity against western culture. Taking a step in the direction of disposing of a dictator and giving people an honest chance to be able to lead their country in the direction they want is worth the prices that we have paid. Everyone is saying that Iraq is a puppet government of the US. Actually being here there are quite a few restrictions that are placed on us now after the Transition of Authority that occured on June 28. While the US still advises Iraq its not to the extent that everyone thinks.

__________________
Support the troops, if not the war.

whocarz

Why are people arguing over the justification for invading Iraq? This isn't a thread to discuss that.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

roachboy

i'm afraid that the linkage between the situation in najaf now and the justification for the war in general as a sub-topic was my fault--mea culpa---as i made an offhand characterization of the war (or two--or more...) in the course of talking about najaf and was called out on it..whence the veer. there would be an relation between how you understand the war in general and what you think should happen in najaf, i suppose--to me it seems a way to reduce complexity.

the fact of the matter, in general, have been laid out:
najaf is a significant shi'a holy site.
there is a significant shi'a opposition to the american-installed regime in iraq
this opposition has as much to do with the type of faction-manoevering that had characterized iraqi politics in general for some time as it does with the occupation itself, i think.
the question of whether there is at this point an explicitly shi'a political block in iraq, or if the shi'a population identifies itself as often in clan or other terms, i do not know.
but i assume it is in sadr's interest to try to create or expand a political block rooted in shi'a identity, and that the milita is a military instrument for doing that.
which makes the question of why sadr would be based in najaf interesting.
the worst thing the americans could do, it seems to me, is to attack/level najaf because not only would it further sadr's political interests but it would also become a lightening rod for sunni populations to mobilize as alongside the religious elements in the shi'a population on religious grounds--and this would transform iraq into a religious conflict in ways that it has not up to now been (in the real world----this has no contact with the right's seeming inability to distinguish a secular from nonsecular regime when it comes to the middle east)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

the bad consequences are already unfolding for the americans on this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...FB092237F4.htm

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jcookc6

I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye", just pointed out that whoever leveled the World Trade Center, certainly did not give a shit whether there were innocent civilians there.
Also, nothing we do over there is going to ever make some of those people like us.

roachboy

how did this war get to be about making the iraqi people "like us"?
if you really think that, then your position amounts to admitting that the americans are a colonial occupation force in iraq, and this in the strict sense.
do you really want to argue that?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Locobot

Are you really willing to surrender all moral high ground to win a battle in a war that has virtually nothing to do with the WTC attacks? Why damage the buildings when we could just lob neutron bombs and install Dr. Evil as president for life?

Zeld2.0

If nothing we ever do is going to make them like us, then why are we there again? Trying to save people that don't care about us? Uhh... yeah.

And having Al-Qaeda operatives or indeed any operative in any nation doesn't automatically create cause that the country has ties or is supporting them. Al-Qaeda supposedly has operatives in the U.S., in the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Are those countries supporting them? No way in hell, but that is the similar causation being exhibited here.

powerclown

I hear you, and I understand the world is pissed at the US.
But fundamentalists killed 3000 people in the US, not Russia, not France, not Britain, not Austrailia. We didn't do this to them, they did this to the US.
I'm seriously not trying to sound the right-wing, rhetorical, neo-conservative, holier-than-thou battlecry, but what the hell is to be done about this??

Will I have to look forward to some war my son will have to fight and possibly die in, in 15-20 years because of these fundamentalist maniacs?

smooth

Part of the reason U.S. citizens engender so much dislike from the rest of the world do is due to their ignorance of the global situation. All of those countries you listed, plus additional ones you haven't (e.g., Spain and Greece), have been dealing with catastrophic terrorist attacks on their home soil for over 20 years now.

Suddenly the whole world is an oyster for the taking when it finally gets enough media play to make the citizens here feel affected--but it's been going on for a long time.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

tecoyah

Unfortunately....I would have to answer Yes at this point. We will likely STILL be fighting this "War on Terrorism " in 20 years, unless we find the forsight to at least attempt to understand the underlying cause of such incredible hatred.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

powerclown

I understand that they have, but there has been nothing close in history to the magnitude of death and destruction (both in a human life toll and a economic toll - $20 Billion) of 911 brought about by the fundamentalists.

The question I ask myself is what can be done to stop this from happening again, not just to America but to anyone, anywhere. As radical as invading Iraq is, the methods to which fundamentalists use to express themselves are quite extreme as well.

Yeah, its a pretty bleak thought, too...
Regarding the 'underlying causes' you mention, might it not be conceivable that at least some of the problem lies with the methods the fundamentalist mindset chooses to address its own problems? Do they have a right to be angry with the US and others, or are they expressing frustration and rage at their own shortcomings and failures as a society in general? As one example, this comes to mind: I wonder for instance how it must feel to the Iraqis for them to have to see one of their own, the respected Ayatollah Sistani, in a British hospital being treated for heart disease.

smooth

I think you believe their extreme methods require or justify an extreme response.

I think that their extreme methods are not very effective in terms of long-term change in their favor. But I think that, like their ineffective extreme methods, our similarly extreme (and people demonstrate their similarity by justifying one with the other--that is, some people seem to believe the US response is a just response; a response that is neither too little of severity nor is it too much.) methods will also be ineffective in the long run.

In my experience, people seem to distance themselves from extreme viewpoints and actions; conformity and stability are much less stressful than unpredictablity. I have not met anyone who condoned or supported terrorist acts.

But I think the same concepts apply when thinking about state sanctioned acts.

I don't see how state sactioned extreme behavior will engender popular support. It also seems to make us look violent and unstable to outsiders. So I don't support it as a strategy.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

fatdaddy411

Alright, if we home grow crazy ass terrorists here (see Mcveigh), how in gods name can we stop them from being created overseas? I think the United States needs to re-think the entire concept of a "War on Terror". Treating the symptoms ain't gonna cure the disease.

Mojo_PeiPei

"Treating the symptons" is a hell of a lot better then being complacent and defensive. Bring the fight to them.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

"Treating the symptoms" and not curing the disease as well as being complacent and defense do exactly the same thing - a whole lot of nothing in the end.

I dont think very many people go out saying being complacent - people who choose other methods do so often willingly and actively.

And yes, indeed, much of the world doesn't like the U.S. sudden realization of fundamentalism as though it were brand new is because this has happened for centuries even millenia.

Europe has had problems with fundamentalists - from such old things as burning people at the stake for witchcraft to simply plain fundamentalism.

Islam fundamentalism isn't exactly new in many nations - Greece has seen the spread of Islam in ancient days from the Ottoman Empire for example. Spain was where much of the fighting and the Reconquest and other things were done centuries ago. England has long dealt with this often because of colonial ties in the area. Russia has long long long fought them - indeed, the USSR once held many Islamic areas that didn't exactly like their masters.

IMO the reason a 'war on terror' can never be won is that as long as people are desperate and seek to change people's minds in a big loud way, there will be those who feel their only choice is terrorism in anyway. Be it simple pipe bombs under cars, or giant truck bombs leveling buildings, or plane hijackings, bombings, whatever - so long as people are desperate and act as they do, those types of things can and will happen.

Because what's really different from a person who is desperate and goes out to shoot people to make a statement and a person who uses a bomb instead?

Journeyman

Good points, but the problem with terrorism leading up to 9/11 is that it was going from frustrated lone assassins and whispered conspiracies (see L. H. Oswald and Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols, respectively) to organizations with a large, and growing, membership (see al Qaeda). I do agree that a "war on terror" is like fighting Hydra, but al Qaeda et al. need to be dealt with. As I see it, war with Afghanistan was a step forward, war with Iraq was two steps back.

Zeld2.0

Organizations like Al-Qaeda have been around a long time - indeed, people are mistaken to believe Al-Qaeda is the only big organization out there. In many many nations, terrorist organizations have been around and have long been mistaken as just solo jobs (at least, that is the perception in America).

Nowadays people say "oh gahd it's al-qaeda" on anything when, in fact, terrorist organizations are all around in every nation. Remember the gas attacks in Japan's subway? It's not Al-Qaeda but they have their own organizations who did it.

But here's the point though: Who makes up those organizations? Those same people who would and could do those solo jobs. You don't find regular people to do terrorist jobs. You find those people who are desperate to do it.

It's those smaller people who make up the bigger organization. And there's always the though that even if you do take out leadership like Osama bin Laden and others - who were the ones who were flying the planes? Not the big leaders, the lower level ones and their scrubs who were willing to do it.

roachboy

i dont think it makes sense to start thinking about these organizations at the level of the organizations themselves--rather at the trajectories that drove people to join them--linked to particular conditions, in particular spaces, with particular causes for them---and consider what might be changed or removed of these conditions. unless you do that, there will always be a war, it will always be unwinnable.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

it is starting to look as if the americans are being chumped by allawi on najaf:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A34B03946E.htm

allawi changes the rules after al-sadr had agreed to a truce earlier in the week--the americans are in a position to flatten one of the holiest shrines for the shi'a population--there was a way out, but allawi seems to want the americans to take the hit for destroying najaf.
what gives here?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Your anti-american bias is showing, again.

Al-Sadr broke the agreement by refusing to disband his militia. He also expressed his desire for 'martyrdom or victory' subsequent to the ultimatum. It seems he still has a chance to give up, as Allawi awaits his final word.

I would think that whatever the Americans do at this point will be characterized by Al-Jazeera in the worst light possible.

roachboy

powerclown: "anti-american biais"? because of the many articles i could have cited here, i happened to choose one from al jazeera?

would the same information be better this way?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...286368,00.html

or this way, with the ambiguities of the situation all pinned back on al-sadr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/in...D-IRAQ.html?hp

take your pick, it all comes to the same thing.

this is a kind of complicated situation facing the americans in najaf at the moment--i still think that going into the shrine would be a fiasco for everyone. i think that the americans are being manipulated into taking the fall for allawi's political ambitions--if you have a counter argument rooted in the facts of the situation, then make it--i would be interested in reading it.

but if opposing the war from the outset and continuiing to think it a sad, brutal farce makes me anti-american, then so be it.
but throwing around that label makes you kinda foxnews, powerclown, and frankly i think that is worse.

but enough of this--post a counter interpretation and muster some sources and we'll see what's there.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ObieX

Can't do much in this situation except let the iraqi's handle it themselves. I only wonder why if the shrine is so important the other iraqi's dont get more upset about radicals using it as a bunker. Bringing their weapons inside and probably firing from inside. How holy can they possibly consider it when they're shooting at people trying to kill them from the shrine. They'll get up in arms if a bullet puts a chip in the paint but its a perfectly fine location to kill people from.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

powerclown

At the very least, "it is starting to look as if the americans are being chumped by allawi on najaf" is a pretty inflammatory statement and an editorialization of the situation, on your part. The link from al-Jazeera was an ironic touch, as well.

I don't see the situation as the Americans being 'chumped'. I see it as them going out of their way to respect the shrine, and follow the Iraqi's lead. Its a tough enough situation as it is - they are damned if they do or don't. The "Fallujah Brigade" that the Americans set up in that city as a show of respect and deference has blown up in their face, and is now being disbanded due to Iraqi corruption and the kidnapping and murder (by insurgents) of a respected police chief. Expect renewed fighting there soon.

The fact that the shrine in Najaf is being violated by a group of lying, cowardly, power-seeking, pseudo-religious scumbags - who hide behind and defile their own religious structures - says much about what they are. The fact that the Americans haven't already levelled the place says something, as well.

roachboy

powerclown:
how do you know that these are "pseudo-religious" folk?
you know any of them?
al-sadr is an imam for fucks sake....
and you cannot be surprised to find elements within the shi'a population finding it expedient to mobilize on religious grounds--wherein lies the problem, of course. but i said this a bunch of times above.

that aside, today things are shifting again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/in...D-IRAQ.html?hp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...287251,00.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...F98CCFB299.htm

it is the conflicting reports business that interests me.
but there is nothing to be done except wait a bit and see what happens.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

Man, you said a mouthful there...

al-Sadr is to religion, as Boy George is to music.
The posterboy for the theory of separation of church and state.

roachboy

again, what positions you as qualified to speak about al-sadr's religious committments exactly?
seriously, fill me in--i have some questions for you if you know what you are talking about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

No, Im not an expert on Sadr, the faith he follows, or his family history.

From what I understand, he's a relatively low-level cleric who used his ayatollah father's popularity (and martyrdom) to amass a lawless, illegitimate militia, then went about killing off his rivals in ensuing power struggles. What makes him the more loathsome in my eyes is the fact that he's doing all his power plays under the guise of religion, a la the insane fundamentalist mullahs in Iran. As far as Im concerned, he less a holy man than an outright criminal.

silent_jay

So I've thought about this and I have finally found a reasonable comparison, we all remember Agent Orange from the Vietnam war, it defoliated the jungle and in a round about way turned it into a parking lot. Here's a site if you need more info. on AO:http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
another
http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/
and another
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Homeopathy...ie_orange.html

Now I know this is not the same as the Shrine in Najaf, but if you are talking about American blunders well turning Najaf into a parking lot would rank right up there with the Americans spraying AO on the jungles, but also on their OWN troops who were in the jungles. Has America not learned it's lesson yet?

If more links are needed I have many in waiting.

Jay

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

silent_jay

How can yoy be so sure that his plays are "under the guise of religion"? The man is fighting for his country, I mean come on if a foreign force was occupying your country would you just sit back and let it happen? I know what I'd be doing and sitting down would not fit the equation. Of course in your eyes he is an outright criminal because he is opposing your army, but is he a criminal, POW, or this new catageory that I still don't recognise "Unlawful Combatant"?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

DelayedReaction

Terrorism is an international problem, and deserves an international solution. Only by working with allies, and by working together to produce new ones, can we fight this evil. Our current policy of isolationist aggression does nothing to bring the global community to our side, and we CANNOT survive on our own.

President Bush should accept the UN invitation, and share the burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq with the rest of the world. We need to be viewed as part of a whole, not as independent conquerers coming to develop a colony.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

roachboy

well, if the object is really fighting this thing called "terrorism" then the american drive to flatten najaf, surround the imam ali mosque etc. seems about the stupidest possible thing to do. because if this thing called "terrorism" is about the mobilization of people against american-style capitalism in all its guises, including military, on religious grounds, then bushworld is moving straight into a self-fulfilling cycle.
unless they prefer having "terrorism" in this form around as an enemy to justify an endless war against an invisible enemy--in which case maybe najaf is an element of the bush re-election campaign? but that seems nuts...

an update from the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...289115,00.html

and something from al jazeera about american rockets damaging the imama ali mosque today (so the real downward spiral is at hand...)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...F398E3FA31.htm

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DelayedReaction

I don't think anyone seriously believes that Najaf should be turned into glass. At the time AO was not considered to be harmful (which is hard to believe given that it was mixed with diesel fule), whereas nowadays you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks a 1000 lb pound won't hurt people.

Dropping bombs on Najaf would be disastrous, both in Iraq and abroad.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Mojo_PeiPei

First off as far as Iraq goes, President Bush said it best ,"People seem to think because France isn't there, we don't have a coalition." He is exactly right fuck France, I can't knock them for serving their own interests, but they are definitly bastards for the way they have handled all of this. America and it's coalition can handle the situation in Iraq, and frankly I think it would be bad news bears if France or the UN showed up, they are a bunch of incompetant panty-wastes.

If fighting terrorism is the deal, then yes we do need the rest of the world. However by one way or another whether it be appeasement (Spain, Phillipines(sp)) or enabling (Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia(also South American terrorism with the cartel's) the world is doing a very shitty job. For the most part Europe has no resolve, and many people globally can't get past the naive mentality that we need to understand "where these poor souls are coming from" /turns off bleeding heart.

So all I can say is grow a sack, fill it with some balls, and take it to these assholes who want all of our white pasty honky ass'd-selves dead.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

No, believe it or not, other countries have been fighting terrorism for decades, if not centuries

The Philippines have been fighting extreme muslims for decades

The Spanish have been fighting extreme muslims for centuries since its spread over a thousand years ago

Europe has fought its spread since the days of the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades, and wars against the Ottoman Empire

Fact is, it hasn't been as big of an issue because their nations haven't been as affected with it in years

Anyways, getting the entire world involved on a thing which is OUR nation's issue, not necessarily others, doesn't make much sense when your own argument is that fighting iraq is our issue, not others (when most disagreed)

Mojo_PeiPei

Fair Enough Zeld. But at the time those would largely seem to be internal struggles, in the context of the post I was referring to "The war on Terra". Us American's have been lucky that this hasn't been an issue until now. Also I think the reference to the Ottaman/Turkish problem in Europe is off base, in the here and now America and Europe alike seem to be dealing with the same export terrorists, it's no longer an issue of internal struggle, it's the radical's Jihad.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

braindamage351

I have the perfect solution. We should leave immediately and completely disassociate ourselves from the Iraqi government. Then completely refuse to take any part in the insuing conflict. Everything would be the same, except we wouldn't be the bad guys. Just completely ignore the middle east all together. The situation over there wouldn't improve or decline, so we might as well. Iraq is another Israel. Nothing we do will help. We should just leave.

Zeld2.0

The problem with export terrorists unlike previous attacks/invasions is that these terrorists aren't part of any specific nation.

IMO the biggest issue we have right now is that our hunt is trying to go for leaders - the problem I personally see is that going for leaders is no good if people are willing to take their place. You have to remove the supply of willing fighters and suicide bombers - and that means removing the reasons and ability for them to join.

I don't come here pretending to show solutions to this issue since this is true with ever sort of paramilitary operation/guerilla action - the Nazi's couldn't stop the French Resistance from sabotage during the Nazi occupation and their methods of stopping the Resistance from activity really only lead to more people willing to join up.