Forming an Islamic democracy

Some say that mixing Islam with democracy is like mixing oil with water, which isn't a bad analogy since they control so much oil. But a better analogy would be Islam is to democracy like white phosphorous is to air: it will burn on contact spreading all sorts of death and destruction and sticking to skin and burning to the bone!

Democracy only offers the franchise to choose freedom which obviously Iraqis aren't choosing IF government is based on the Koran and Sunnah much in the same way that Soviet-style democracy offered no freedom to the peoples that were held under the sway of that tyranny. Why President Bush thought otherwise is a mystery or perhaps a demonstration of his continued ignorance of the dangers built into Islam.

Islamic Democracy =

Canabalistic Vegetarianism
Democratic Communism

Simply Stated = Dugh, It won't work! Islam and democracy are like jumbo shrimp and military intelligence, a "near miss" if you will. Roll out the B-52's and let's get down to war.

I would just like to send my condolences to all Roman Catholics, The Pope, John Paul II was truly a great man, God bless him.

I personally do believe in an Islamic Democracy. This is possible and I really do doubt the above posters are Muftis or Islamic Scholars.
Please read the link below to understand how Islam and Democracy can be combined.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/ftp/ISCA%20-%20Islam%20and%20Democracy.htm

Can I just ask a question. What right does the US have of forcing democracy upon other nations?

ia786,

I believe Islamic democracy is possible, but it is an imperfect democracy, if Islamic states were to allow people to be apostles, follow other religions and be able to criticise those that interpret the Qu'ran and the hadith then that would be actual democracy because democracy and individual rights go hand in hand, you can not have one without the other, but I do not think you understand that.

What right has the US got, your having a laugh as we Brits say. The US removed a blood thirsty criminal killer, which I am sure you will agree with me was necessary. As for the US having the right, they were the only ones who could have removed this person, they are also helping the Iraqi people create a new government, do they have the right to spend their own taxpayers money?

I cherish seeing those happy people with dyed fingers, having been able to vote after years of terror.

Others should look at the Iraqi Model blog and his comments on the Kuwaiti criminal. Sort of gives one hope if there are people like him around.

The topic of democracy is one that is particularly fraught with pitfalls when discussing it with Muslims. A Muslim can honestly say that they support democracy, provided the discussion is narrowed to encompass only the electoral process for choosing leaders or to matters that are not specifically addressed in the Islamic canon (Koran, hadiths and Sira). The standard Muslim retort to the charge that Islam is incompatible with democracy is that the tribal shura mechanism is "democratic".

It is quite another matter however when the democratic process is used to legislate, as in the original Greek and Roman philosophy upon which modern democratic systems are modeled. It is the use of democracy to legislate that is anathema to Islam. In this regard, democracy is fundamentally incompatible with shari'a.

The most profound distinction between shari'a and Western law is that the canonical foundations of shari'a are immutable and the Western constitutions are entirely amendable. Noone in the Muslim world has authority to abrogate a single word of the Islamic canon, whereas the power to amend the Western constitutions is fully vested in the sovereign people.

Having elections for leaders by using popular democratic voting systems does not make a democracy. Even a truly clean democratic election may do nothing more than install a fascist despot. A democratic society is one in which sovereignty is vested in the people and in which self rule is operationalized through democratic public choice mechanisms in matters of legislation, not just choice of leadership.

ia786,

just read some of the this site, all very noble, did not agree with the bit about the West learning from Islam.

Note that the verse no compulsion in religion was followed by others that say kill non-believers etc. and because they were later they are the ones taht are followed and have the highest weight. Sadly the majority of Muslims do not follow these ideals.

But if people like you keep at it and stand up for these beliefs then who knows, but you have a long dark road ahead of you if you do. Good luck if you go down this route.

Quick question, if you visited a mosque in the UK and the imam was sprouting out hate against the kaffirs, would you just listen or say something?

Hi Daffersd

Honestly I have been going to Mosque for about 14 years and have never heard an Imam sprouting out hate against non-Muslims, although I will acknowledge there must be some. I’m assuming that you are American, you might have heard about some guy in the UK called Abu Hamza, well this guy spews out crap like that. When Muslim leaders found out they had him thrown out of his London Mosque. However he started leading prayers outside on the street, just for attention.
There was also Omar Bakri, he had an extreme Wahabi/Salafi group al-Muhajiroun, a splinter group of Hizb Ut Tahrir. Through protests by non-Muslims and moderate Muslims like m, we were able to put pressure on them and finally he decided to close his group down ^_^

I have to make this point, when I see sermons in mainly Arab countries they have a lot to do with politics, you know anti-America sentiment. In the UK sermons have very little to do with politics. They are mainly about spirituality. If I happened to be in a Mosque in which hate was being spewed I would finish my prayers there but never enter the Mosque again. I would not say something as this can be very difficult to do, in front of hundreds of people. However after leaving the mosque I would tell my friends and family to avoid the particular mosque.
According to Islamic etiquette we are required to listen to the Imam during his sermon and not make any noise. I think the elders within the community must do more to ensure that extremists do not get to be in such a position. I personally think the future in the UK is bright. My parents were not raised here so they may not know much about the culture of this country. However the new generation knows a lot more and this can only be a good thing. Now we as a new generation must ensure that only moderate Islam is preached in the UK, hopefully other extreme countries will see that love is the answer.

Hey ia786.. Don't give me this islam is love, peace, and happiness bunk. We all know that a moderate muslim is one who is a few page turns in their Quran away from becoming a radical islamic fundamentalist. Quit the BS! While you're at it.. quit islam!

What right does the US have of forcing democracy upon other nations?
none what so ever
Now what right do Muslims have of trying to force islam onto all non-muslim nations
You seem to enjoy and prefer to live in a democractic land.Yet you take pride in a indoctrination that denies millions of people who never have had the chance to taste democracy
because unlike you,where born into islam and live under very repressive goverments.
More and more people now are becomming aware of the violent nature of Islam,and there are a lot of good folks who are very active exposing Islam for what it is.
Now consider this.Your father came to my country,
we let him practice his religion freely,it seems he was able to make enough money so you and your brothers could get a good education,would this have been possible in your fatherland?I very much doubt it.I suggest that instead of trying to preach to us how wonderful Islam is,you and your hatefilled brothers and sisters should start showing a little gratitude for getting a better home than what your father left.
You are to young to remember the Skins and bovver boots.But the likes of you are only provoking the sound of the stomping steelcap,but with a difference.20 years ago they did not have the support of the general public,today the chances are they will have the silent support
of the general public.20 years ago if I saw a pack of skins beating on a Paki I would take great pleasure in bashing a skin or two,today,with what I know about Islam and muslims,I would just walk on by.
WHY you may ask
Well yesterday you stated that islam was a religion of peace,so I googled
Islam relglon of peace
Look what came up
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Default.htm

Please everybody check this link before going any further.this is one site no-one should miss

ia786,

I am British not American and I know of them both, thanks for answering that question, OK I understand why people do not say anything.

Glad to hear that you did you bit to deal with the extremists.

All the best.

Daffers

You cannot have a caliph and a democratic government *system*. That is too contradictory. But you can have a caliph and the basic (direct) democratic *rights* (popular initiative and referendum).

Another way to put it is to say is that democracy is less about electing than about voting. People must have their word to say in decisions. That is the basic principle of democracy (the power to the people). Whether the executive is democratically elected or not really is secondary, then.

Three items here

From the article

However, implementing the laws of God, as articulated in the Qur’an and Sunnah, necessitates the role of man who is given the position of God’s vicegerent or representative on earth (Al-Baqarah 2:30) because of his superior intellect, ability to acquire knowledge, and ability to exercise free will.

Free will in Islam. There is no free will in Islam All is the will of their Allah, the repetitious salutation In'shallah (if Allah wills it is proof of that).

Second Issue, in addition to Dr Macks statement that Shar'ia is not amendable (as a muslim told me Shari'a is writ in stone), any claim that the Qur'an is quoted out of context is dissembling and a specious charge.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the ineffable word of Allah, that each Ayah (verse) stands on it's own, there is no such thing as taking an ayah out of context.

While sectarian arguments range amongst Christians and Jews about textual contents of the Bible and Talmud, there is no counterpart to that argument in Islam. Muslims pay attention to kafirs and borrow their arguments and rationalizations. Arguments employed as defensive weapons against irreverent prying eyes and sentient minds in Dar al Harb.

And any Islamic scholar who claims the ability to correctly interpret the Qur'an is doing what Rsbbi's, Priests and Ministers do when they engage in exegesis.. playing ventriloquist.

There is no such thing, nor can there be such a thing as "moderate" Islam.

Third issue the Pope and Islam.

"Address to the Muslims of Damascus"

"Dear Muslim Friends,

As-salámu ‘aláikum!

1. I give heartfelt praise to Almighty God for the grace of this meeting. I am most grateful for your warm welcome, in the tradition of hospitality so cherished by the people of this region. I thank especially the Minister of the Waqf and the Grand Mufti for their gracious greetings, which put into words the great yearning for peace which fills the hearts of all people of good will. My Jubilee Pilgrimage has been marked by important meetings with Muslim leaders in Cairo and Jerusalem, and now I am deeply moved to be your guest here in the great Umayyad Mosque, so rich in religious history. Your land is dear to Christians: here our religion has known vital moments of its growth and doctrinal development, and here are found Christian communities which have lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours for many centuries.

2. We are meeting close to what both Christians and Muslims regard as the tomb of John the Baptist, known as Yahya in the Muslim tradition. The son of Zechariah is a figure of prime importance in the history of Christianity, for he was the Precursor who prepared the way for Christ. John’s life, wholly dedicated to God, was crowned by martyrdom. May his witness enlighten all who venerate his memory here, so that they – and we too – may understand that life’s great task is to seek God’s truth and justice.

The fact that we are meeting in this renowned place of prayer reminds us that man is a spiritual being, called to acknowledge and respect the absolute priority of God in all things. Christians and Muslims agree that the encounter with God in prayer is the necessary nourishment of our souls, without which our hearts wither and our will no longer strives for good but succumbs to evil.

3. Both Muslims and Christians prize their places of prayer, as oases where they meet the All Merciful God on the journey to eternal life, and where they meet their brothers and sisters in the bond of religion. When, on the occasion of weddings or funerals or other celebrations, Christians and Muslims remain in silent respect at the other’s prayer, they bear witness to what unites them, without disguising or denying the things that separate.

It is in mosques and churches that the Muslim and Christian communities shape their religious identity, and it is there that the young receive a significant part of their religious education. What sense of identity is instilled in young Christians and young Muslims in our churches and mosques? It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as communities in respectful dialogue, never more as communities in conflict. It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence. Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.

4. I truly hope that our meeting today in the Umayyad Mosque will signal our determination to advance interreligious dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. This dialogue has gained momentum in recent decades; and today we can be grateful for the road we have travelled together so far. At the highest level, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue represents the Catholic Church in this task. For more than thirty years the Council has sent a message to Muslims on the occasion of Îd al-Fitr at the close of Ramadan, and I am very happy that this gesture has been welcomed by many Muslims as a sign of growing friendship between us. In recent years the Council has established a liaison committee with international Islamic Organizations, and also with al-Azhar in Egypt, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year.

It is important that Muslims and Christians continue to explore philosophical and theological questions together, in order to come to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each others’ religious beliefs. Better mutual understanding will surely lead, at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions not in opposition, as has happened too often in the past, but in partnership for the good of the human family.

Interreligious dialogue is most effective when it springs from the experience of "living with each other" from day to day within the same community and culture. In Syria, Christians and Muslims have lived side by side for centuries, and a rich dialogue of life has gone on unceasingly. Every individual and every family knows moments of harmony, and other moments when dialogue has broken down. The positive experiences must strengthen our communities in the hope of peace; and the negative experiences should not be allowed to undermine that hope. For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness. Jesus teaches us that we must pardon others’ offences if God is to pardon us our sins (cf. Mt 6:14).

As members of the one human family and as believers, we have obligations to the common good, to justice and to solidarity. Interreligious dialogue will lead to many forms of cooperation, especially in responding to the duty to care for the poor and the weak. These are the signs that our worship of God is genuine.

5. As we make our way through life towards our heavenly destiny, Christians feel the company of Mary, the Mother of Jesus; and Islam too pays tribute to Mary and hails her as "chosen above the women of the world" (Quran, III:42). The Virgin of Nazareth, the Lady of Saydnâya, has taught us that God protects the humble and "scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (Lk 1:51). May the hearts of Christians and Muslims turn to one another with feelings of brotherhood and friendship, so that the Almighty may bless us with the peace which heaven alone can give. To the One, Merciful God be praise and glory for ever. Amen. "

And if that isn't enough The Pope''s speech at the Dehaisheh Refugee Camp

“The message of Bethlehem is good news of reconciliation among men, of peace at every level of relations between individuals and nations. Bethlehem is a universal crossroads where all peoples can meet to build a together a world worthy of our human dignity and destiny. The recently inaugurated Museum of the Nativity shows how the celebration of Christ's birth has become part of the culture and art of peoples in all parts of the world.

“Mr. Arafat, as I thank you for the warm welcome you have given me in the name of the Palestinian Authority and people, I express all my happiness at being here today. How can I fail to pray that the divine gift of peace will become more and more a reality for all who live in this land, uniquely marked by God's intentions? Peace for the Palestinian people! Peace for all peoples of the region! No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world, and it has gone on too long.

“The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquility with the other peoples of this area. In the international forum, my predecessors and I have repeatedly claimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations.

“We must all continue to work and pray for the success of every genuine effort to bring peace to this land. Only with a just and lasting peace -- not imposed but secured through negotiation -- will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled. Only then will the Holy Land see the possibility of a bright new future, no longer dissipated by rivalry and conflict, but firmly based on understanding and cooperation. The outcome depends on the courageous readiness for those responsible for the destiny of this part of the world to move to new attitudes of compromise and compliance with the demands of justice.

“Dear friends, I am fully aware of the great challenges facing the Palestinian Authority and people in every field of economic and cultural development. In a particular way my prayers are with the Palestinians -- Muslim and Christian -- who are still without a home of their own, their proper place in society and the possibility of a normal working life. My hope is that my visit today to the Dheisheh Refugee Camp will serve to remind the international community that decisive action is needed to improve the situation of the Palestinian people. I was particularly pleased at the unanimous acceptance by the United Nations of Resolution on Bethlehem 2000, which commits the international community to help in developing this area and in improving conditions of peace and reconciliation in one of the most cherished and significant places on earth.

“The promise of peace made at Bethlehem will become a reality for the world only when dignity and rights of all human beings made in the image of God are acknowledged and respected.

“Today and always the Palestinian people are in my prayers to the One who holds the destiny of the world in his hands. May the Most High God enlighten, sustain and guide in the path of peace the whole Palestinian people.”

And who is responsible for that "suffering", None other than Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah and the Mujtahid who eschew peace in favor of Jihad. Islamic peace is defined as Islamic hegemony and kafir
dhimmitude.

Here is another anecdote from that trip:

"Dressing the wounds as bitter hatreds persist"

"The pope’s first brush with the zero sum politics of the Middle East came almost as soon as he landed near Tel Aviv on Tuesday on a flight from Jordan. After being presented by Israeli children with a jar of sacred soil to kiss, the pope was told by President Ezer Weizman that Jerusalem is “the eternal capital” of Israel.

In receiving the pope in Bethlehem, Arafat rebutted by terming Jerusalem “the eternal capital” of Palestine. There too the pope kissed a bowl of soil, a potent symbol for Palestinians since the gesture is generally reserved for sovereign nations."

Add three more to the list

Three bombs hit southern Thailand

Three bombs have exploded almost simultaneously in southern Thailand, killing two people and injuring dozens.
Two of the blasts occurred in the city of Hat Yai, where the airport and a supermarket were targeted.

Another bomb went off outside a hotel in the town of Songkhla, some 40km (25 miles) to the north.

Over the past year more than 600 people have died in Thailand's largely Muslim south, in attacks officials blame on Islamic separatists.

Both victims in Sunday's violence were killed when a bomb exploded near a check-in counter at Hat Yai airport.

The city is the main transport hub for the far south, with most flights bound for other destinations inside Thailand.

At the same time, another bomb exploded in front of the Carrefour supermarket - part of a French-owned chain.

On alert

At least 40 people have been injured in both blasts - three are said to be in a critical condition.

The third explosion, in Songkhla City, is thought to have been caused by a bomb placed on a motorbike. There were no casualties there.

Security officials were on high alert because of intelligence reports warning of a car bomb.

The BBC's Kylie Morris in Bangkok says Sunday's attacks represent a further deterioration of security in the south, where violence is normally directed at soldiers, police, teachers and local authorities.

Well!! looks like the musis in thialand prefer bombs instead of the ballot box

There is free Will in Islam. You need to get your facts straight, God has stated that mankind is the master of his own destiny.

We Muslims believe that a lot of events in the future are already destined to happen, for example the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ (God Bless him) and the unveiling of Imam Mahdi.
We know that Saints of God can influence events in order to help guide believers. So lets get this straight there is free will in Islam.

'there is no such thing as taking an ayah out of context'

Yes there is. Just take a look at Wahabi/Salafi propaganda. These people take the meaning of the Quran literally, however the Sunni school of thought rejects the Wahabi approach. In order for you to get a more realest impression of Islam I recommend reading Sunni/Sufi books.

'no such thing, nor can there be such a thing as "moderate" Islam'

Yes there is. Judging from the amount you know about Islam I think you are in no position to make such a claim.

THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION: "THERE IS NO TERROR IN ISLAM"

during his 1994 tour of Indonesia, Clinton said:

We have had problems with terrorism coming out of the Middle East … this is not inherently related to Islam, not to the religion, not to the culture.

America said that there was a clear line separating Islam and terror:

Some Muslims, and others, believe that the U.S. has seemed, at times, to link terrorism with Islam. This is not U.S. Government policy… Islam and the West are not in confrontation. While we may have political differences with some countries whose populations are mostly Muslim, most Americans and most Muslims share fundamental values such as peace, justice, economic security, and good governance… Terrorism is not a principle of any major religion, including Islam. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Among that number, one finds a few extremists who misuse Islam as a justification for their violent criminal acts

Madeline Albright 'I am very, very pleased to welcome you all to the Department of State. And as many of you know, we had a similar Iftaar Dinner here last year for the first time, and tonight we continue what I hope will become a tradition that lives on for many years to come...

The month of Ramadan and the daily fast are powerful reminders for Muslims of the centrality of God and of the potency of the message conveyed through the Prophet Mohammed..'

These iftar invitations have continued under her successor Colin Powell. During his short address on November 29, 2001, at a State Department iftar meal, he stressed the following basic points:

Ramadan is a time of prayer and fasting for followers of the Muslim religion. This year, it is also a time of reflection for all Americans. Less than three months after the tragedy of September 11th, we were all examining our lives and reaffirming the importance of family, faith, and country. In fact, this year marks the first Ramadan for many non-Muslim Americans who have been made aware of the great significance of this period for the first time in their lives.

But there remains much ignorance and confusion about Islam, and that presents an opportunity for those of us who are not Muslim to learn from those of you who are. I hope that all of you here will seek out opportunities to talk with non-Muslims throughout your communities about your faith; to help all of us learn from, understand, and appreciate one another; and that you will encourage others in turn to talk to you about their faith.

A self-identified Muslim poisting above maintains:

"I personally do believe in an Islamic Democracy."

A sentence or two later, he then complains:

"Can I just ask a question. What right does the US have of forcing democracy upon other nations?"

Perhaps the mental confusion here is not apparent to him. He, after all, is the one confused, possibly permanently.

'if Islamic states were to allow people to be apostles, follow other religions and be able to criticise those that interpret the Qu'ran and the hadith then that would be actual democracy because democracy and individual rights go hand in hand'

I agree with you on that point

Regarding the US invasion of Iraq, I agreed with invasion, but not because of the lies that were given (45 min claim). The reason I supported the invasion was because the Iraqi people wanted it, they have had enough of Saddam. During the run up to the war, during the demonstrations I did understand why many went to them, at the end of the day the country belongs to the Iraqis. They wanted Saddam toppled and what they wanted was most important.

That is as far as I agree with the US Policy in the Mid-east. I believe that they should be putting pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop funding Wahabi propaganda world wide, especially in war ravaged countries (Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan) . Although I am happy for the Iraqi people I do wish that the country becomes stable as soon as possible as they have been through enough.

Although I think the toppling of Saddam was good, I personally believe that deep down the war was undertaken in order to control resources within the Mid-East and to give Israel a stronger position within the region. Muslim counties are in a pitiful state I admit that, although many of the tyrants we now have were put there by the US (Saddam), we cannot remove them and only the US can. So I think we need to support the US when it comes to opposing tyrants.

'I cherish seeing those happy people with dyed fingers, having been able to vote after years of terror' Me too. God bless the people of Iraq and give them strength.

Hugh,

"Can I just ask a question. What right does the US have of forcing democracy upon other nations?"

'Perhaps the mental confusion here is not apparent to him'

You have misunderstood me
The point in asking this question was that democracy is being FORCED, I just wanted to know what people like YOU thought about this issue.

Do you think the US has this right?

we the people through democratic means have the power to vote in a less islamic friendly goverment.Just look at the waves BNP are making.

could this be another message ftom the religion
of peace
03/04/2005 19:34 - (SA)

Related Articles
Hostage saved from 'mad dad'

Samurai swordsmen attack diners

Man attacks cop with sword

Stuttgart - One person was killed several others seriously wounded when a man ran amok in a Protestant church in this southern German city on Sunday, police said.

It was believed the man was armed with a sword, although this was not immediately confirmed.

"There are cut-off limbs lying around the church," a police spokesperson said.

Officers "were greeted by a scene of horror" after responding to an emergency call about 15:48, the spokesperson added.

Police arrested a suspect.

There was no immediate indication of the motivation for the attack

ia786-

"Much of the U.S. military force in Iraq will be withdrawn within a year, says a report published yesterday in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Many bases will be closed down by June under plans now being made in vulnerability assessments by the U.S.-led coalition, according to sources of the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

Even more bases are targeted for closure by next fall, the sources say. And by February 2006, a big portion of the U.S. force in Iraq will be withdrawn under current plans".

The people in Iraq will decide their own destiny now. I hope that they choose wisely.
Also, you can't "force" true democracy on anyone. The desire for an open, fair, and free society must come from within the hearts of the citizens.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy".
Abraham Lincoln

Treehugger

Sword man kills woman in German church bloodbath

Mon April 4, 2005 12:25 AM GMT+05:30
STUTTGART, Germany (Reuters) - A man wielding a Samurai sword killed a woman and injured three other people in a "bloodbath" in a German church on Sunday, police in the southwestern city of Stuttgart said.

"The 25-year-old perpetrator wrought a bloodbath in the church," said Michael Kuehner, deputy chief of police in Stuttgart. "He thrust about himself with a Samurai sword and struck out at random at the people in his way."

Police told a news conference a 43-year-old woman died in the attack. They had originally identified the deceased as a man. A man and a woman were also seriously injured and another man lost his hand.

Police arrested a Tamil from the Stuttgart region, who had previously behaved aggressively in the church. He also had a pistol on him.

He was still carrying the sword in his hand when police apprehended him with pepper spray just after the attack.

Police cited personal problems as the probable reason behind the attack. They ruled out any political motive.

Around 65 people were attending the afternoon service at the Protestant church when the man lashed out.

A witness said the area in front of the church was covered in blood.

Treehugger

'The people in Iraq will decide their own destiny now. I hope that they choose wisely.
Also, you can't "force" true democracy on anyone. The desire for an open, fair, and free society must come from within the hearts of the citizens.'

Treehugger

I agree with you 100%

The American government, or any Infidel government, can act as it sees fit to deal with the menace of the Jihad and its various instruments. Of course, if you think there is nothing wrong with Islam, nothing that limits human potential, or free and speptical inquiry, or artistic expression, or the Western emphasis on the individual rather than Muslim insistence on loyalty to the umma above all, then by all means object to Infidels trying to protect themselves.

Yhe forcing of "democracy" on Iraq or for that matter on Kumquat or Ruritania is objectionable because it involves a huge misallocation of resources (resources that were not misallocated when the task was merely to remove a regime, and disarm a country). The first $100 billion may have been necessary to find, and destroy, weapons projects and weapons caches, but the next $200 billion should have been put into energy projects, to diminish the wealth, and hence the ability to fund the Jihad in various ways, of OPEC oil states, chiefly Saudi Arabia and Iran, but including individuals in the U.A.E., Kuwait, and even smaller tribes with flags and bank accounts.

The example of Turkey shows that constraints on Islam should come first (as they did from Ataturk), then a democracy of sorts, but one which in any Islamic country will always have to have a guardian against the revenant-like appearance of Islam -- suddenly pushing open the door of the room in which it had been locked, and emerging to terrify the populace, or at least that secularised portion which had fondly believed it was permanently in its cell and were not nearly vigilant enough about protecting their own gains.

The less the Western world has to do with the world of Islam, the less the Islamic world can rely on the disguised jizya of foreign aid which is taken for granted, or on the availability of Western medicine, Western technology, Western willingness to permit, and to remain unhostile to, large numbers of Muslims settling within the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels to which they owe no loyalty, and possessing in their mental baggage an ideology that flatly contradicsts, and is full of hostility toward, Western political and social arrangements and, of course, to Infidels. Even the slightest greetings on Christmas or similar occasions, Muslims are warned, must not be given -- think of how much, in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, inculcate the idea of hostility, murderous hadred, dominance of Muslims over non-Muslims as right and proper.

The fact that some Muslims disagree with all this, or at least manage in some ways to avoid it, or even violate the spirit and the letter of Islam, is cold comfort for Infidels.

Imagine yourself an Infidel. Imagine too that you were not fooled by all the taqiyya, or tu-quoque, or constant misstatements or obfuscation about what Islam teaches.

Really, how would you react? What would you think? Why should real Infidels, and not those you are asked to imagine for your very own gedankenexperiment, think or behave differently?

What are we supposed to do? Welcome those who do not wish us well, who do not believe in freedom of individual conscience, whose entire mental condition is based on the idea of slavish submission to authority which is held up to us as an ideal? Don't be silly.

ia786-
I am curious about how you view Sharia Law and democracy. (I personally don't see how these two can be reconciled).
Would you mind posting some of your views?
For example, do you think that Sharia and democracy are compatible?
What is your position on the status of women? Do you think that people who leave Islam should face the death penalty?

Treehugger

ia786-

Democracy, by its literal definition as being "the will and rule of the people," cannot truly be forced, as you imply. It CAN be rejected by those too stupid or weak to accept it.

Are you really learning anything from this site and its participants, or do you come here day after day to inflict your own brand of da'wah? Or are you merely bored with how Islam has marked your life, and come here for some "forbidden" excitement? I'm finding very little in the way of substantial dialogue here.

ia786,

The US and the UK and other coalition members did not invade Iraq and depose Saddam Husein to "force democracy" on the Iraqi people, who, by and large seemed very happy to be rid of Saddam and to have the opportunity to participate in elections, but rather to get rid of a brutal, corrupt regime that operated Iraq like a Mafia fiefdom and supported terror through various means, including giving haven to such luminaries as Abu Nidal, operating training camps such as the one in Salman Pak complete with the fuselage of a passenger plane, and of course to find WMDs, which were, in all likelihood there in various states of development until the invasion, and then hastily dismantled and moved, probably to Syria or the Bekka Valley.

As for whether a western-styled democracy is something Arab Muslims would readily and happily adopt, I believe that ultimately, it is in the nature of human beings to reject tyrannical rulers of any sort and that although it will take longer for it to happen in Arab-Muslim countries, and while there will be many steps backward and forward along the way, ultimately, because they are exposed via the media and the internet to the free and open societies of the west, the Arab-Muslim world will want the same for themselves, with some localized variations.

After all, in postwar Japan the emperor told his subjects that contrary to what they had been taught all their lives, he was not divine. He formally renounced the religious justifications that had fueled the drive to war

Now if we could only get Mohammadanism to do the same.

Historically, democracy has had a hard time in Muslim countries. Things started off on a bad foot when, in order to establish the first Western-style democracy with a largely Muslim population, Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk virtually declared war on Islam. Ataturk, an open admirer of the West, looked upon his Muslim homeland and saw a benighted nation held back by its religion. He dealt the entire world of Islam a body blow in 1924 when he abolished the caliphate.....Ataturk extended his war against Islam down to the most minute details of daily life in Turkey. "The civilized world," he declared, "is far ahead of us. We have no choice but to catch up. It is time to stop nonsense, such as 'Should we or should we not wear hats?' We shall adopt hats along with all other works of Western civilization. Uncivilized people are doomed to be trodden under the feet of civilized people."

Bar

The reason that the US and UK gave to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was that he was developing and had WMD. This has proven to be wrong. No weapons of mass destrucyion have been found in Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
‘Mr Duelfer confirmed in October there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq’ The US has given up on its search for WMD in Iraq. It has been stated that plans were made before 9/11 to invade Iraq.
Of course the Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam, however lets not forget that it was the US that placed him there.

‘New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class’

‘U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.’

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

I actually have a video clip of Mr Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Regarding Islam and democracy, please check this out: I have a general idea but I don’t know the exact technical aspects of Islam and Democracy mixing.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/ftp/ISCA%20-%20Islam%20and%20Democracy.htm

Kafira
Actually I am learning a lot about the participants in this site, I am also discovering their interesting and varying views. I always like to hear what other people think, although I may not agree with it I find it refreshing.

Democracy is meaningless where the majority of the people have been pre-homogenized by a culturally-dominant dogma into accepting ONE idea as the guiding law of creation.

This would be a theocracy.

Which then forbids a counter-thought to arise, by law.

That's called a tyranny.

Small minds like big answers.

That's called 'the comfort of mental oblivion'.

Where no further knowledge about the serious questions of reality need ever trouble the religiously-placated awareness again.

(Epistemology, where is thy sting?)

Ofcourse a pure democracy can just be a mob that elects itself into power so they can get rid of any half-decent laws they don't like and abuse anyone they can get their hands on at a whim. I remember my classical/Athenian history.

A pure and primitive democracy can be a great tyrrany. I think I know who the mob will pick on next.

from the other thread
I don’t know Shiva, I’m sure if we were to meet and religion was not to be discussed there would no reason why we wouldn’t be able to get on. I only asked for an apology after I she called me a Nazi. I think this remark was quite pathetic.
Firstly I did not call you a Nazi,i called you a
Muzi.I started my posting [Nazi/Muzi/Nazi/muzi]
So you rather Believe your lying eyes than the print in front of you.The link below will begin to clarify why i started that posting with that observasion.
www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/
I have noticed that most/all muslim parents avoid telling their children the truth about islam,instead when the male reaches the age of nine they mutilate their penises without any pain-killers,in the name of Allah{thus in my eyes
all muslims abuse their children] Here in Indonesia the parents dont have the money to buy pain killers,or medicine should there be any complication,but they can find enough to pay the Iman to bless this and enough money to have a party to celebrate this dirty deed.It would be good to start educating kids about this evil practise so they can report to the police when the parents abuse them.
I live in Indonesia[not Bali],so I have a very good idea of the muslim mind-set,and if we did get to know each other,I do not think we would get along even if we did not discuss religion.
Because I dont think that you would be able to sit at a table together with the local Iman a couple of haji.s,one or two police officers and one or two local gansters and share a bottle of chivas regal or jack daniels.Here islam is not entirely Black and white,It is more Black and Brown.Could you accept that I sleep with Muslim women.Could you accept your daughter sleeping with a rastafari,or your son shacking up with Ravi,whose parents come from Delhi,or your wife go to bingo session at the local church to raise money for starving christian kids in the congo,No I do not think we would get along
I was born christian but once I found out about the violence christians committed I decided to have nothing to do with chistianity or religion.Not so easy for you to do,to leave your peaceful religon.Dead fish flow with the current.
I judge muslims by their actions not by their words.Words can lie,but over 2000 attacks committed by muslims since 9/11 do not lie.After every attack muslims whine not all muslims are like that yet they pour onto the streets and celabrate.
Was it not a muslim that advised Hitler to build gas chambers.
If you are proud to be a muslim then you deserve all the shiite and disrespect you get, thanks to your peace loving islamic brothers and sisters
Because when you muslims say not all muslims are like that,to me it is the same as when a nazi says not all nazis are like that.
It took the English along time to wake up to the truth concerncing the nazi threat,but when they did wake up,there was no holding back.
When England,and Europe wake up to the Islamic threatI am certian you will be much happier to be in Syria or Saudia,if anything is left of those hellholes.
Have you not noticed that you are not so welcome in my father-land any more,can you not feel more and more distrust.Have you not noticed how the BMP is gaining support a party that is normally hated and rejected.Dont listen to our goverments because they are full of bullshiite,it is on the streets the tide will turn against you,and once this starts to happen,the goverment will go against you.If it is the wish of the people for you to go,them you will go.
You are not a muslim by choice,you are just not strong enough to break the indoctrination pumped into you since you where crapping in your diappers.You bang your forehead to the floor when the Iman calls,just like Pavlovs dog drowls at the sound of a bell.
You are just another brainwashed islamictron
Most muslins that convert to Islam get out after a few year when the truth of Islam is revealed to them
I shall finish this rant just now by giving you a little comfort I do not have much respect for any religion,I think we would all be much better of without any religion
Foot-note,any-one coming to Bali in the near future,let me know if you could bring a couple of pork pies,and some cadbury,s Turkish Delight
In exchange I would be willing to show you around either Bali or East Java

ia786:

Saddam Hussein was himself a WMD.

Further, there was every indication that he possessed contraband materials and equipment right up to the time of the invasion in March 2003, but the main stream media would rather die than acknowledge this. For your enlightenment, I have pasted below commentary from Christopher Hitchens, which I believe was published on Salon.com or perhaps Slate, under the title, "this was not looting" following a New York Times news item sometime last month.

Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:17 a.m. EST
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites. The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states." "Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials." Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.

Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:

"It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away."

Calling the operation "sophisticated," Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured "cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," adding, "They knew what they were doing." The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state. The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.

Notice how the islamists who post on this forum have 'problems' with democracy being 'forced' onto people.. but have NO problem whatsoever 'forcing' an islamic theocracy onto people. After all, imposing an islamic totalitarianism onto people and turning one's country into a jihadiot hellhole is, of course, for their own good.

Mahdi Al-Dajjal:

How right (about the hypocracy of the Islamsts) you are.

I see I missed the Chris Hitchens piece, "This was not Looting" on the subject of the existence of Iraq's WMDs. See below:

This Was Not Looting
How did Saddam's best weapons plants get plundered?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 5:29 AM PT

Once again, a major story gets top billing in a mainstream paper-and is printed upside down. "Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says." This was how the New York Times led its front page on Sunday. According to the supporting story, Dr. Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, says that after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, "looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms."

As printed, the implication of the story was not dissimilar from the Al-Qaqaa disclosures, which featured so much in the closing days of the presidential election last fall. In that case, a huge stock of conventional high-explosives had been allowed to go missing and was presumably in the hands of those who were massacring Iraqi civilians and killing coalition troops. At least one comment from the Bush campaign surrogate appeared to blame this negligence on the troops themselves. Followed to one possible conclusion, the implication was clear: The invasion of Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place by randomly scattering all sorts of weaponry, including mass-destruction weaponry, to destinations unknown.

It was eye-rubbing to read of the scale of this potential new nightmare. There in cold print was the Al Hatteen "munitions production plant that international inspectors called a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory." And what of the Al Adwan facility, which "produced equipment used for uranium enrichment, necessary to make some kinds of nuclear weapons"? The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."

My second question is: What's all this about "looting"? The word is used throughout the long report, but here's what it's used to describe. "In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,' Dr Araji said. 'The second wave, cables and cranes.' " Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to "organized looting."

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves-which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct-which we have no reason at all to doubt-then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

Before the war began, several of the administration's critics argued that an intervention would be too dangerous, either because Saddam Hussein would actually unleash his arsenal of WMD, or because he would divert it to third parties. That case at least had the merit of being serious (though I would want to argue that a regime capable of doing either thing was a regime that urgently needed to be removed). Since then, however, the scene has dissolved into one long taunt and jeer: "There were no WMD in Iraq. Liar, liar, pants on fire."

The U.N. inspectors, who are solemnly quoted by Glanz and Broad as having "monitored" the alarming developments at Al Hatteen and elsewhere, don't come out looking too professional, either. If by scanning satellite pictures now they can tell us that potentially thermonuclear stuff is on the loose, how come they couldn't come up with this important data when they were supposedly "on the ground"?

Even in the worst interpretation, it seems unlikely that the material is more dangerous now than it was two years ago. Some of the elements-centrifuges, for example, and chemical mixtures-require stable and controlled conditions for effectiveness. They can't simply be transferred to some kitchen or tent. They are less risky than they were in early 2003, in other words. If they went to a neighboring state, though … Some chemical vats have apparently turned up on a scrap heap in Jordan, even if this does argue more for a panicky concealment than a plan of transfer. But anyway, this only returns us to the main point: If Saddam's people could have made such a transfer after his fall, then they could have made it much more easily during his reign. (We know, for example, that the Baathists were discussing the acquisition of long-range missiles from North Korea as late as March 2003, and at that time, the nuclear Wal-Mart of the A.Q. Khan network was still in business. Iraq would have had plenty to trade in this WMD underworld.)

Supporters of the overdue disarmament and liberation of Iraq, all the same, can't be complacent about this story. It seems flabbergasting that any of these sites were unsecured after the occupation, let alone for so long. Did the CIA yet again lack "human intelligence" as well as every other kind? The Bush administration staked the reputation of the United States on the matter. It won't do to say that "mistakes were made."

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is Love, Poverty and War. He is also the author of A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq and of Blood, Class and Empire.

The UK's reason for going to war was that Saddam had a capability use WMD within 45 mins. This 45-minute claim has been proven to be nothing but a big lie.

No WMD have been found, that’s it. End of story.
The weapons inspectors have left the country, they have abandoned all hope of finding WMD. It is obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the Invasion. The only time Saddam had these WMD was back in the 70s, 80s when the US gave them to him.

These are the established facts. Donald Rumsfeld actually met Saddam back then, there is footage of this. I can send it you if you wish.

The reason for going to war was a big lie, lets admit this and get on with addressing the issues that matter to the Iraqis. I doubt the Iraqi people now care whether Saddam had weapons, all they wish for is stability and peace.

Shiva,

From the other thread

‘You are not a muslim by choice’

Yes I am, as I stated earlier I live in the UK, I could have left Islam any time in the last 19 years. I have had no pressure put on me by my family or peers. I love my religion dearly. I would never leave my religion, I breathe Islam, my heart beats for the love of God and all humanity.

‘You bang your forehead to the floor when the Iman calls,just like Pavlovs dog drowls at the sound of a bell.’

I really don’t think talk like this is necessary. As I stated before your words cannot hurt me, my faith is like a mountain. You are blinded by your own hate. You may hate what certain Muslims are doing in the world however using this as justification to mock Islamic practices the way you have done is truly pathetic, it is appalling. You may not agree with Islam or the Quran, but mocking acts of worship, this is absolutely disgraceful.

‘thus in my eyes all muslims abuse their children’

‘I have a very good idea of the muslim mind-set’

Not all Muslims are the same, there are many Muslims with different views lets mot forget Muslims are individuals too.

‘I was born christian but once I found out about the violence christians committed I decided to have nothing to do with chistianity or religion’

Again this is your opinion and I have no problem with listening to your opinions.

‘Have you not noticed that you are not so welcome in my father-land any more,can you not feel more and more distrust.Have you not noticed how the BMP is gaining support a party that is normally hated and rejected’

Not really. The people of the UK are a very generous and welcoming people. They have stood by the Muslim community through the last few years. The party is actually called the BNP, the BNP is an extremely small party and has a very low amount of members. The party made small gains in certain areas, however this was due to their tough anti-immigration policy and not their zero-tolerance policy with Islam. This party was recently exposed in the UK, hidden cameras revealed their anti-Islam hate at a meeting of theirs. People were generally shocked and the countries leaders strongly condemned their policies. New legislation will be passed (or has it been passed) by the Government making inciting religious hatred (Anti-Islamic propaganda) against Islam illegal. This was already illegal regarding other religions such as Hinduism and Sikhism, however this law did not apply to Muslims as Islam is a faith that consists of people from a large variety of different nationalities and cultures.

‘the goverment will go against you.If it is the wish of the people for you to go,them you will go’

Again you seem to be living in a fantasy world. I am British. I was born here, do I have to be white to qualify as being British. I don’t think so, what you are saying about the Muslim is exactly what was said about the Welsh when they first came as well as the Irish, Blacks and Jews.

‘I shall finish this rant just now by giving you a little comfort I do not have much respect for any religion,I think we would all be much better of without any religion’

Again this is your view, I fully respect the fact that you are entitled to your own opinion.

If I have said anything before that has offended you or anyone lese here I apologise, I only asked Shiva for an apology after I was called a ‘Muzi’, am I asking for too much?

ia786

No WMD have been found, that’s it. End of story

Saddam had how long to hide or transfer WMDs? 12 years and about 6 months running up to the war. I'll bet I could hide anything I wanted to, given 12 years to do it.

Not exactly. UN weapons inspectors were in the country up until 1998, until they were thrown out.

At the end of the day, the justification for the War was wrong. Just admit it.

Don't think that I am an apologist for Saddam, I'm glad he's gone.

Read this short article

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm

Blair's dodgy dossier

'I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq', says UK prime minister Tony Blair in the foreword to the British government's assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, published today.

According to Blair, 'The assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme' (1).

Blair has come a long way since 7 September 2002. Then, while at Camp David with US President George Bush, he said: 'We haven't the faintest idea what has been going on in the last four years…other than what we know is an attempt to carry on rebuilding weapons.' (2) From not having the faintest idea to 50-plus pages of 'irrefutable evidence' in just 17 days? That ain't half bad.

Of course there is nothing new or shocking in Blair's dossier against Saddam. An early BBC analysis says, 'He may be a barrister but it is doubtful Blair would want to go into a court of law with [this] dossier' (3). Others point out that the dossier 'consists of a reworking of information that was already public' (4). According to one sceptic, 'It has everything you would expect, but little that would convince you'.

The dossier doesn't have everything you would expect. There is no mention of the alleged link between Iraq and al-Qaeda - even though British intelligence officials claimed just over a week ago that this would be Blair's 'major contribution' to the Iraq debate.

On 15 September 2002, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the draft dossier's central allegation was that 'Abu Zubair, believed to be in custody in the USA, and Rafid Fatah, still at large, were trained in Iraq and sent to work with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan' (5). The paper cited an intelligence official's claims that the dossier identifies two leading al-Qaeda operatives as having 'direct links' to Saddam.

Yet the final version doesn't mention al-Qaeda at all, or any of Iraq's other alleged links to terrorists. One commentator asks if those allegations were ditched because, 'amid all the speculation, there was no room left for lies' (8).

Perhaps the British government learned from the American experience. There, too, officials have made wild claims about bin Laden and Saddam being in cahoots. In early August 2002, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed 'there are al-Qaeda in Iraq', accusing Saddam of 'harbouring al-Qaeda operatives who fled the US military dragnet in Afghanistan' (6). In early September 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said: 'Iraq clearly has links with terrorism that would include al-Qaeda.' (7)

The dossier is full of speculation, rhetoric and rehashed allegations

Yet by the time the Bush administration published A Decade of Deception and Defiance (its allegations against Saddam) on 12 September 2002, all claims of a bin Laden/Saddam love-in had disappeared - and there was just one page on Iraq's alleged support for terrorism (8). It seems that some claims are just too insubstantial, even for Bush's and Blair's dodgy dossiers.

The British dossier alleges that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear weapon. 'Iraq has been trying to procure items that could be for use in the construction of centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium', it claims. The key allegation is that the Iraqi regime has attempted to 'purchase vacuum pumps which could be used to create and maintain pressures in a gas centrifuge cascade need to enrich uranium' (9).

But when the Americans made the same allegation on 12 September 2002, few experts bought it. Like Blair's dossier, the White House document claimed that Iraq's attempts to purchase vacuum pumps pointed to a 'clandestine programme to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs' (10).

The US Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) wasn't convinced, pointing out that: 'By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons. They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational.' (11)

In response to the US claims, the Financial Times reported three problems with the notion that Iraq's attempts to buy such materials were evidence of a nuclear weapons programme: 'First, it is likely but not absolutely clear that this is Iraq's favoured method of uranium enrichment. Second, the tubes could have been used for something else. Third, the alleged attempt to import the [materials] failed. So even if it was destined for a uranium enrichment facility, it never arrived.' (12)

It seems the British government has been reduced to rehashing refuted allegations in an attempt to convince us that Iraq wants a nuclear bomb, and will do whatever it takes to get it.

Both the American and British documents rely heavily on the International Institute for Strategic Studies' September report for the claims about Iraq's nuclear capability. The IISS document alleged that Iraq could potentially assemble nuclear weapons within months if another country supplied it with nuclear material.

In American and British statements, however, that claim simply becomes, 'Iraq could make nuclear weapons within months'. Yet according to Gary Samore, author of the IISS report, it would take 'several years' and 'extensive outside help' for Iraq to kickstart a nuclear weapons programme. 'We rate the chance of Iraq acquiring fissile material as low', he says. 'It would be difficult for Iraq or any other group to obtain enough fissile material to build a weapon.' (13)

Ia, I'm not so sure about the justification being wrong. There was certainly enough time, frankly, for Saddam to have moved whatever he chose to, and the constant interference with inspectors was not helpful in this matter.

Even if there were no WMDs, you do admit he was trying to purchase the materials to do it, which in itself I believe is a contravention of earlier agreements by the UN on Iraq. It might even have taken him years to build one - but who denies he would certainly have done so, if he had the opportunity? Sooner or later, someone would have provided him with such an opportunity - and if not him, his sons would have taken it up.

Should such a leader be left in power? Clearly not. As I consider more fully the arguments being posed here for and against the war, I come more and more - GREATLY to my surprise - to supporting it.

Geoff

Geoff I supported the War, all I said was that the justification for the war turned out to be wrong.
The fact that he was a blood thirsty tyrant was good enough for toppling him, so why was this not the reason. Lets not forget that the US put him there in the first place.

Was he a bloodthirsty tyrant when the US put him there?

Geoff