Troubling news out of London today, as the Daily Telegraph reports that the results of a secret poll conducted by Britain's Ministry of Defense indicate that a majority of Iraqis - 65% - support attacks against Western forces stationed throughout the country:
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.
The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.
This really doesn't come as much of a surprise. I think most of us suspected this was the case. The question is, what next? Maybe they can send Karen (I'm your dhimmi) Hughes door to door? Better yet, send the whole damn State Department to Iraq. Their as useless as you-know-whats on a bull!
65% of Iraqis support killing Allied troops? I'm suprised they got 35% of the population to say they support not killing Allied troops. That's got to be the highest rating of any Arab nation in the region. I'd say it's time to declare victory again, and pull our troops out.
They have a constitution, time to pack up and git. Form one long convoy and drive to Israel, Syria will just be a speed bump.
20% of those who are called "Iraqis" -- the Kurds -- do not support the killings, save for that handful belonging to Ansar al-Islam. Another group, possibly 5% of those who are called "Iraqis," consist of Assyrians and Chaldeans and odd numbers of others (Mandeans, Armenians, and so on) -- also do not support killings of the foreigners.
So 65% of those who are called Iraqis support killing of those who removed Saddam Hussein out of the 75% who support killing (100% minus the 20% that consists of Kurds, and 5% of various kinds of non-Muslims). That in turn means that not 65% of the Arab Muslims, both Sunni and Sh'a, but rather 65/75, or 87%, of those Arab Muslims, are not merely uneasy, or hostile, or angry, but actually are perfectly willing to admit that they favor the KILLING of Western forces. We know what the Sunnis -- the same Sunnis whose children danced around in glee the other day as they watched an American contractor be burned alive, and delightedly fed the fire -- are like. And now we know, if there had been any doubt, that even the British soldiers, the ones who, the Western press has insisted, have been quite unlike those somewhat beastly and over-aggressive Americans, who simply lack that famous finesse and cultural awareness that, supposedly, the British soldiers have exhibited in the Shi'a regions which they are responsible for in the south of Iraq, including the city of Basra -- now we know from this secret poll that despite all this, nearly 90% of the Arabs in Iraq, Shi'a and Sunni, approve of killing them. So much for the kindnesses, the repaired roads, schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, so much for those soccer balls and candy distributed to the children whom, one felt, might possibly not yet have been raised up in the inculcated hatred of Islam but even in elementary school, and certainy after the age of 10, it is simply too late. Islam enters their brains, the hatred that comes with Islam enters their brains, and they are now fully ready to dance around the Infidels as they lie, dead, or dying, or slowly being tortured to death, say by being set on fire, in their delighted and enthusiastic and bloodcurdling presence.
And this desire to kill those who came, who got rid of Saddam Hussein, whom all of the Shi'a, at least, and many of the Sunnis, had good reason to hate and fear, shows the full depth of anti-Infidel hatred -- a hatred that the Americans had no idea existed, had no idea would trump any supposed gratitude for the removal of Saddam Hussein, had no idea could be felt even against people who wished them naively well, and who have remained in Iraq only in order to get some semblance of political decency that would give the so-called "ordinary Iraqi" who wants the "same freedom" that -- so Rice and Bush and others keep telling us -- is a universal human desire. It isn't. They don't. The Sunnis want to keep most of the power, and the money. The Shi'a want now to keep most of the power, and the money, and in addition want more Islam. The Kurds want independence from both kinds of Arabs, and want less Islam in political and social life, but if they must go along with the Shi'a who want more Islam in the places they control, they are willing to do so in order to get, in return, continuing Shi'a acceptance for the Kurds retaining at least the degree of autonomy that, thanks to American protection from 1991 to 2003, the Kurds enjoyed even under Saddam Hussein's regime.
Why should American -- or British -- soldiers fight and die for people who hate them and wish them dead? Why? Because our leaders cannot admit that they are continually puzzled by the behavior of so many in Iraq, because they have yet to begin to comprehend what Islam does to people, how it makes them see the world? For that matter, how does the Americfan taxpayer feel having to pay, and pay, and pay, for this refusal of our leaders to see that from the Infidel point of view, a plague on Sunni and Shi'a, and let them fight each other, and let them draw money and material and men from outside, and wear each other out, as much as they possibly can. The Iraq-Iran War was, from our point of view, absolutely splendid. It used up on one side the fresh energies and fanaticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran, for 8 years. On the other side, it used up the power of Saddam Hussein's armies, and the initial injection of OPEC wealth, and also, what is more, used up tens of billions in money lent to Iraq by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E.
Had the Iran-Iraq War not lasted from 1980 to 1988, one shudders to think what the Islamic Republic of Iran might, in the first flush of Khomeini, managed to do, what damage to Infidel peoples and polities. Had the Iran-Iraq war not lasted from 1980 to 1988, one shudders to think what the homicidal Saddam Hussein might have done that he, for a time, could not do.
If the American government continues with the mad, bad, and silly policy of helping people, and sacrificing men (and don't give us any nonsense about how few the casualties are as compared to other wars -- neither 90% of the South Koreans nor 90% the South Vietnamese wished to kill the American officers and men who had come to help them. In World War II the American army was fighting to destroy an enemy, and there was no nonsense about fighting to "bring democracy" to the poor, downtrodden, victimized Germans -- who were, as we all know, up to their neck in support for the Nazis and no amount of post-war rewriting will let them off the hook of implacable history.
What more does one need? How much evidence of the squandering of resources? how much evidence that the kind of people the Americans talked with in Washington, or meet with in Baghdad, the plausible, the English-speaking, the charming, the mostly friendly (or the ones who so oilily fake it with practiced middle-eastern charm for they are looking for ways to relieve the naive Americans of still more money) are the Unrepresentative Men and Women, and that this kind of secret poll, showing that nearly 90% of the Muslim Arabs -- Sunni and Shi'a -- would gladly support the killing of Americans and British and other coalition forces -- shows us exactly who the Representative "Iraqis" really are, and what they so murderously think.
The American public will not be kind to anyone, of any party, who continues to support this madness. And posterity will not be kind to those who support this madness in Iraq that misallocates so much, squanders so much, diverts attention so much -- from the islamization of Europe, of black Africa, and even, one fears, of parts of North America.
This cannot go on. This stupidity cannot be tolerated.
"anti-Western". More like anti-infidel.There is no winning the hearts and minds of muslims.
First of all, if you actually read the article cited in the post, it gives no detail as to how or where the poll was carried out, margin of error, etc..
Second of all, the statement that "65% support attacks against Western forces stationed throughout the country" is inaccurate. Again, if you actually read the article, it states that the 65% is only is the British-controlled Maysan province, and the number is 45% elsewhere.
Next time, please read the article you are writing about more carefully.
Hugh I agree. Why this administration has been so misled and refuses to study Islam and refuses to reassess our strategy is frustrating and cannot be understood by me. Damn, there's that vision again. The vision of Bush kissing Abdullah is right there in front of my retina like some flotsam floating daintily across the sea in my eye.
I keep on hearing Rice for 08, and I just think 'Are you nuts?!' Not in a million years.
OT: regarding the book The Mind of the Musselman, I will get the book next week. I purchased an exceptional OCR package, ReadIris, that I have been experimenting with to copy scan text images into Word docs. This software is incredible. It analyzes a scanned page and blocks it for text, images and tables and gives you many formatting options for output, maintaining tables, images and page structure, even fonts! I got it for 12 bucks on Ebay. Such a deal. It's an older version but has it all for what I need to do. Google is probably using a superversion of ReadIris for its library project. I was always wondering how they were going to do that with accuracy, speed and cost effectiveness. This software does that. And get this, this software company is headquarted in Belgium with major operations in France. I'm pretty sure it is the Cadillac of OCR conversion software. At least all is not lost in Europe.
It will be no problem to put up The Mind of the Musselman on the web for everyone to read if they wish.
Mr. Hugh:
As someone who spent a year in Iraq interacting with all segments of Iraqi society, I agree with most of your astute conclusions. Undoubtedly, the Arabs, whether Sunni, Shiite or communist, wish Americans ill. However, you seem to underestimate the Islamic feelings of the Kurds and their support for Ansar il-Islam. I say that about 20% of the Kurdish population has about the same level of anti-American attitudes. The reason being that their have been an influx of Kurds from Iran, Turkey, Syria, and parts of Europe that are far more Anti-American than the rest of Iraqi Kurds. Young Kurds living in the Kurdish zones do not understand Arabic because of the anti-Arab reaction to the Anfal operation have permitted a generation under 18 years old to know very little about Islam, but this is changing now. The confident victorious Kurds are going back to Islam… They are retaking Arabic names, praying more regularly in the Mosques, and going back to their roots by showing hostility to the local infidels, taking their land, kidnapping their women, and killing them in cold blood, and denying them justice.
"the statement that "65% support attacks against Western forces stationed throughout the country" is inaccurate. Again, if you actually read the article, it states that the 65% is only is the British-controlled Maysan province, and the number is 45% elsewhere.
Next time, please read the article you are writing about more carefully."
-- from a poster above
The comment is true, at least for me -- I read what was posted, and took the figure of 65% as being not that for "British-controlled Maysan province" but for all of Iraq. For Iraq as a whole, the Telegraph report says that the secret study, commissioned by the British and conducted by Iraqis at a local university, showed that 45% of all Iraqis favored the killing of American, British, and other coalition soldiers.
Let's go with that figure, then. Again, if 25% of the population in Iraq (not "Iraqis"), the Kurds and the non-Muslims (the remnants of those who once constituted 100% of the population of Iraq, before the steady pressure of Islam reduced the non-Muslims, as they have been reduced everywhere that Islam conquers and Muslims rule), that means that the 45% of Iraq as a whole is really derived from the 75% of the population that consists of Muslim Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a.
Again, 45/75 yields 60%. So 60% of Muslim Arabs in Iraq not only approve of killing, but are perfectly willing to admit it. And if one takes a lesser level of hostility -- I can hate someone, we can all hate someone, wish them ill, wish them out of our presence, be entirely ungrateful for all that they have done for us, and still have a long way to go before we wish to see them blown up, murdered -- then no doubt among that 40% of the Muslim Arabs who do not approve of killing outright, there are plenty who despise, who hate, the Americans and the British. How many? Shall we argue about it? Would at least half of those remaining 40% who hold back on desiring death to the soldiers who clearly rescued them from Saddam Hussein's admittedly murderous regime, which had been in power for three decades and was prepared to rule for another three or more, and no one could have overturned it save the Americans -- would half be placed in the "hate Americans but don't necesarily want them killed" column? I think that would be fair.
What percentage of the population of Muslim Arabs in Iraq must not want us dead for the conclusion to be reached that the resources that continue to be spent in Iraq are being wisely spent, carefully spent, husbanded rather than squandered, in a most thoughtfully-considered campaign to use the local situation cleverly, in order to divide and demoralize and thereby weaken Islam? Isn't just 60%, rather than 90%, as I argued above, still enough? And if we add to that those who merely "hate" Americans and British as opposed to those who "hate them and want them killed," would a figure of, say, 80% of all Muslim Arabs in Iraq not be enough to convince, say, the families of all National Guard troops, and all Reservists, that this is not the place for either the National Guard, nor the Reserves -- and if the regular army has signed up to do whatever it is assigned to do, they are as professional soldiers in a different position, and do not expect to be impressed by the profound rightness of the policy that they are asked to fight and sometimes die for. But it would be nice if they too thought the policy made sense. And the generals who prate -- even the British generals who prate in the Telegraph article above -- may be playing to their civilian bosses, but they are earning the contempt of many of those in whose name they presume to lead. The officers and men on the ground, meeting those Iraqis, seeing how they behave, even returning to Iraq for tour after tour in which they can easily compare the behavior and attitudes of those Iraqis with the kind of hallucinatory statements of Bush, Rice, and assorted bigwigs in the Pentagon and among the generals whose first duty should always be to their men, and not to a policy that everyone else in the country, or many, can see makes no sense.
And it makes no sense because, in not being based on a thorough understanding of Islam, and of the world-wide dimensions, and chiefly non-military instruments, of the Jihad that has gone from wish to reality throught the miracle of oil revenues and Muslim migration to the Dar al-Harb, the House of War, or otherwise expressed, the Bilad al-Kufr, or Lands of the Infidels., it focusses on the wrong place -- on Iraq, and on the MIddle East, when the Middle East is, for the moment, hopelessly Muslim and will remain so until events force Muslims to confront the connection between their despotisms, their econonomic backwardness, their social injustice (to women, to all non-Muslims), their intellectual paralysis (about a thousand years old, dating back to the time when the non-Muslim element in the population had after a few centuries of Muslim rule been sufficiently diminished, and marginalized, so that it no longer fructified the Muslims who had invaded, conquered, and now ruled over the indigenous non-Muslims).
The point remains. Very few Iraqis wish us well. A great number -- more than half, and possibly two-thirds -- of all the Muslim Arabs openly confess to poll-takers that they support the killing of American, British, and other Infidel forces that have come only to remove a tyrant and mass-murderer, and to promote political justice through the ballot, and to build water-treatment plants, power grids, schools, hospitals, and all the rest of it -- in the vain hope of making enough Muslims somehow forget that the Americans and British are Infidels, and therefore to blame, to blame, to blame.
I should have read the full Telegraph text. Reading it, and using what information it supplies, does not diminish very much the force of what I argued.
And I will paste here an excerpt from the original article that deserves comment:
"The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."
I don't give a damn about what the Iraqis think. If they all said they wouldn't touch a hair on any American's head, as long as those Americans kept rebuilding the country, it would leave me cold. Iraq is important to the United States only for ensuring, at this point, that whatever happens there, will lead not to some vague hope about "democracy" -- i.e. the replacement of Sunni domination by Shi'a domination -- but by something more certain.
And that more certain something is to allow the natural fissures within Islam that Iraq presents in such unique abundance -- fissures both sectarian and ethnic, and that would, if only the Americans and their allies leave, naturally give rise to all sorts of clashes, hostility, instability, and other Islamic powers intervening on one side or another -- Sunni or Shi'a -- while the non-Arab Kurds may find those conditions of sectarian warfare ideal for achieving their own ambitions for Kurdish independence.
Why this continues to be ignored is a puzzle. Possibly the Administration simply does not believe it has any way to force Turksih acceptance of Kurdish independence. But Turkey needs the United States for diplomatic support, economic cooperation, military training and aid. It has nowhere else to turn. An offer by the United States to guarantee the inviolability of Turksih borders against Kurdish claims (which claims can be supported to the hilt if made against Syria or Iran), could at least cause Turks to see the wisdom of not intervening instead of refusing to consider the matter at all.
And why the Americans or other Infidels have a stake in risking the lives of their citizens to make the lives of others, most of whom support suicide-bomb and other attacks on those citizens, those soldiers, and almost all of whom dislike or hate, as they cannot but, the Infidel Americans, is also a puzzle, or a puzzlement.
Are we not allowed to notice the real atittudes of Iraqis? Are we not allowed to ask, again and again, just how this "democracy" business will help stop the islamization of Europe, make Islam less attractive both to Muslims and non-Muslims who may be among the populations vulnerable to Da'wa, the Call to Islam? Shouldn't every single act of the American and other Infidel governments be designed not to support and buck up and train Muslims (train them to be cleverer as propagandists if they already live within the Infidel lands, by teaching them the local languages and mores, all in the mad effort to "integrate" them, or by training them, within the Islamic domains, in the arts of warfare) but rather, in any and every possible way, to weaken the appeal, its hold on the minds of many who were born into it, and its appeal to those who, though now non-Muslim, may be tempted by what they see as an ideal vehicle of protest against their own societies -- but which turns out to be a system of brainwashing difficult, it appears, for many to resist.
Christians, kurds and few more. I think that later, the foreign troops have to go out, this inquiry is very sad but have to be consequences.
One way to both save face in a troop pullout and prove the power of the democratic process to the rest of the ME is to simply have another election....this time, the question being....
"Do you want the coalition forces out of Iraq now?"
...or if that's too big of a bite for some to chew, try this...
"Do you want the coalition forces out of Iraq now for a trial period of one year to see if Iraq can take care of itself?"
If majority say yes, do as they vote and pull out. Immediately. This way, it'll be Iraq's new democracy that get the coalition forces out, not the insurgency or militant Islam. Then no one can blame the coalition if things go to pot from there. It'll have been the people's choice, ballot supplanting bullet. Show Iraqis that the democratic process can be trusted to produce actual, tangible results. Win-win for democratic Iraq and the coalition.
This popular sentiment has been measured hundreds of times already.
One must only gauge by how many pairs of Moslem eyeballs watched silently as Jihadists set IEDs by roadsides to destroy our troops, no alert given to the local military authorities.
Both the US and Britain intervened in Iraq without understanding the nature of islam/muslims, goals, motivations, and above all loyalty. Not all people and cultures take to Freedom and democracy. One size does not fit all.
Jesse Clark
What you say is right about looking at the figures correctly. But even then, after all the sacrifices Britain and America have made for the Iraqis (not for us), it is still disconcerting to say the least.
Another aspect of this report is that it is now freely available for Iraqis to read. Some of them will also read Hugh's analysis and come to the conclusion that Christians and Kurds are "traitors", which will have consequences for these minorities. (Not that they need excuses anyway).
Hugh posted: Are we not allowed to ask, again and again, just how this "democracy" business will help stop the islamization of Europe, make Islam less attractive both to Muslims and non-Muslims who may be among the populations vulnerable to Da'wa, the Call to Islam?
An assumption of the Bush/Blair view is that a free democracatic society is an inalienable right of all humans and cultures, and they will take to it given half a chance. It has not occurred to them that muslims regard islam as allah given and divine, and regarded as infinitely superior to anything as crude as a man-made democracy.
The other assumption of the Bush/Blair policy is that once a free society has taken root in Iraq, it will spread throughtout the muslim world. If it does not, then as the Bush/Blair policy rests on the view that our safety depends on spreading democracy in the muslim world, it requires that we continue to forcefully "democratise" the rest of the islamic world. This is truly a Herculean project.
That's correct, it states that the 65% is only is the British-controlled Maysan province, and the number is 45% elsewhere.
Certainly is still really disturbing if that is true.
But I would amend the posting to clarify - a headline that 45% support attacks throughout Iraq, based on a British led poll is still troubling. It provides context that I think is valuable.
However, in fairness we should not trust ANYTHING the mainstream media says about a poll unless we can see it ourselves. I have seen more deceptive polls in the past 4 years than I have in my entire lifetime.
Hear's a question: why isn't this in the MSM? I thought they were intent upon making Bush look bad. As it turns out, this is yet another example that bolsters MY theory: the MSM is not beholden to any American or Western political or moral movement per se (e.g. "liberalism," "christianity," "political correctness") but instead will shill and dissemble for anyone that can put up some cash. Since the craziest Muslims are those that have all the oil, guess who has plenty of cash to spread around? Now you know why the MSM is pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and pro-Oil. And now you know why the Bush Administration is right there with them too.
It's like asking the guy "Why do you rob banks?" His reply: "That's where the money is."
Ask Dubya "Why do you love Saudi Arabia so damn much?"
Ask CNN and FOX "Why do you love Islam so damn much?"
Ask the "Left-wing" "alternative" media "Why do you love Islam so much?"
Ask the far-Right Nazis, militias, and KKK why they hate Jews and Israel so much.
Ask the far-Left Naderites, pretend Socialists, "Peace and Justice" phonies, and ISM why THEY hate Israel so much.
(Etc.)
You WILL NOT get an answer. But if a correct answer were to be given, it would be "That's where the money is." (Or if it's Dubya, it would be "That's where the money's at.")
sorry... "Here's a question." Power was out last night and I overslept...
"we should not trust ANYTHING the mainstream media says..."
-- from a posting above
The results of the study, commissioned by the British, appeared in The Telegraph of London, a newspaper which has been covering Islam, and the Iraq, more intelligently and accurately than any other major newspaper in the United States or Great Britain.
The right wing LGF type of fatheads are really confused now. Here is how they think: Any bad news is the result of the MSM. They hate Muslims and Arabs and think they are scum, but the Iraqis really like us and we should rebuild their whole country and they will be so grateful. The soldiers really love Bush and the War, so only a traitor or a moonbat would complain or point out shortcomings.
I’ll add two secondary points. One has to do with Arab culture and the other with Islam.
The typical Arab response to our generosity has been to prove to their Arab brethren that they haven’t been co-opted. This is one of the reasons that Arab hate of America is directly proportional to our aid. The Egyptian government controlled press, for example, spews anti-American hate on a regular basis. In this regard, it is interesting to note that before the 2003 liberation of Iraq, one Iraqi-American, speaking to an Iraqi group-in-exile on C-Span, asked what can be done to prevent the typical pattern – that of cultivating anti-American hate to prove to their Arab brethren that they haven’t sold out. No answer was given.
The second point, relating to Islam directly, is the practice of diverting violence to non-Muslims. After the 1979 Islamist attempt to seize power in Mecca, the Saudi response was to condemn Muslim-on-Muslim violence and fund the fighting of the Russians in Afghanistan. When that ended they continued to fund the jihadists and told them to take the war elsewhere – America is fair game.
Today we see jihadists deliberately targeting and killing Iraqi (Shiite) civilians. As we know, there will not be a condemnation of such violence on universal ethical terms. Instead we’ll see a condemnation of jihadists for killing Muslims. And once again we’ll see the exhortation to direct jihad violence to the proper target: infidels.
Surely, we should see the pattern. Muslims export their violence. The Saudis have done this as I said above. The Egyptians banned the Brotherhood who then found haven in Germany (like Atta’s mentors), the UK (like the teachers of the 7/7 bombers in London), and other places. Now, if we’ve done nothing else but create another Islamic country that redirects or exports jiahdist violence to the infidel, what have we achieved?
One of the triumphs of Islam, according to the mythology, was to stop Arabs from fighting among themselves and conquer the world.
Even the dhimmi get in on the act. How many times have you heard a Western commentator trying to use Islamic standards to justify the condmenation of 9/11 in terms that Muslims can understand? They say, “Even Muslims were killed in the World Trade Center!” Oh, a Muslim must think, now that is a terrible thing. “If only they made sure they just killed infidels.” The futility of dealing with Islam as it is should be apparent.
Without the repudiation of Islam, as a supremacist hate ideology, there will be no fundamental change. A partial repudiation of jihadist violence (when it is against fellow Muslims) is of no value to us. And the situational ethics of Islam, that allows only minor condemnation of the timing and place of jihadist violence, is no foundation for a lasting peace.
How many times have you heard a Western commentator trying to use Islamic standards to justify the condmenation of 9/11 in terms that Muslims can understand?
The worrying thing is that we hear this and don't notice it, so deeply ingrained is our dhimmi mentality.
Excellent post, as usual. Everybody should read Jason's brilliant blog, Liberty and Culture, which he is too modest to plug himself.
Hugh - you're right about The Telegraph, an very good newspaper all round, and still not tabloid or 'Berliner'. But we're also saddled with The Guardian, and too many people read it, though not as many as read The Telegraph.
"Without the repudiation of Islam, as a supremacist hate ideology, there will be no fundamental change."
-- posted by JasonP
Hear, hear!
And there can be no such repudiation and subsequent fundamental change until open discourse is possible.
That, alas, won't be until after the Big One, after which Marxism in all its debilitating permutations (leftism, political correctness, socialism, freedom-hating academia, forced self-censorship, the MSM) is thoroughly discredited and sacked.
2000 American dead, many more wounded, some terribly, and for THIS? And right next door, The Moo-lahs of Iran are cobbling together nuclear weapons - more "Islamic bombs", just like our good buddies the Pakistanis. They are much closer than Saddam ever was, and now we are too weak to stop them.
What would a withdrawl from Iraq look like? I suspect this is why Bush and the current administration is hanging on. They don't want to be remembered that way. If someone else does it (think of the Simpons episode where Homer is Sanitation Chief), they can be blamed, and we can even home-grow conspiracy theories about the president who bites the bullet and gets us out.
Quijybo
Dumbo said "...only a traitor or a moonbat would complain or point out shortcomings."
That is exactly the foundation that the discussion about Iraq takes place upon. Which is why we are where we are, 2000 soldiers later as Sharia is being enshrined in the constitution.
From article:Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified...
It's understandable that a people who feel occupied by a foreign force, might support attacks against that force.
But the issue here is not attack itself, but choice of weapons. A suicide attack is a weapon.
The attacker is not a normal soldier. A normal soldier rarely commits suicide for Allah.
So how do the clever take an normal person and turn them into an abnormal soldier? The answer is that they bomber was never 'normal' to begin with. He/she has been brainwashed since birth (except converts), into an abnormal mindset called Islam. In this mindset, it is a glorious thing to emmoliate yourself on the alter of Allahs jihad. You have been promised all kinds of good things for doings so, virgins ect.
Promises, promises, you have been promised things for your ultimate sacrifice that wont be delivered. Ferverently believing that they will is one of the roots of Islamic psychosis. This psychosis and hatered of Allahs enemies are what allow for the choice of this weapon. Millions of Iraqi and other muslims approving of this psychotic symptom shows that it is systemic in Islam. Consider this...
Muslim:C41B20N4681 “Abdallah heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger said: ‘Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords.’ A man in a shabby condition got up and said: ‘Abu, did you hear the Prophet say this?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ He returned to his friends and said: ‘I greet you (a farewell greeting).’ Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought with it until he was slain.”
This very psychosis is alive and well in Islam to this very day. Take off your armour, (self preservation)...advance on the enemy...and fight untill you are killed (blow yourself and the enemy up)...All in the name of Allah or because someone said 1400 years ago..."I heard the Prophet say..."
That's what happens to people when they smoke camel poop for generation after generation...
I think it's called brain damage.
special guest
2000 deaths, many more severe casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars in expeneses as well asd aid to Iraq, we have with great aplomb, legitimised sharia in the Iraqi constitution.
Same thing in Afghanistan. The Taleban was wierd but there were advantages
1. It was not recognised and thus unable to get kaffir aid on a massive scale
2. It served as a good example of what an genuine islamic government meant.
Now we have an Afganistan, which again is a sharia constituted government legitimised internationally by us, and a recipinet of aid for Infiderl governments.
Bush's response to 9/11 has been to rescue decrepit islamic governments that were giving islam a bad nane and replace them with ones that are convinced that we owe them a living. Everywher in the muslim world, from Indonesia to Morocco, islamic governments are in receipt of larger cash handouts from America then before 9/11.
Wife calls for dinner. Must go.
"2000 American dead, many more wounded, some terribly, and for THIS?
-- posted by Quijybo
Take heart, Q.
The expenditure of American blood and treasure hasn't been just for unappreciative Moslems, whether Arab or Kurd, Shiite or Sunni.
The value of the Iraq Project will be that of due dilligence, by which it has been demonstrated that these animals can't be civilized.
This is important because, after the Big One takes place, the groundwork will have been laid to strike back with great force, and then go ahead and begin the quarantine process whereby Moslems are thrown out of America, and Europe is warned to divest its Moslems also, or face deadly consequences.
JasonP makes some excellent points above.... To summarize -- the condemnation among Muslims of terrorism seems only to apply, once their words are parsed, to those acts of "terrorism" which adversely effect Muslims -- either through death and injury, or by making the connection between terrorism and Islam too obvious and plain for the infidel to continue to believe otherwise...
Fully 4 years after the 9/11 opening salvo, I see absolutely NO SIGN -- -- that ANY muslim ANYWHERE in the world has taken any meaningful step towards confronting Islam's export of hatred, violence, and jihad.
Eventually the whole house of cards must come tumbling down for deluded Westerners who believe that moderation exists in Islam... Those who still believe Muslims claims: " I don't support terrorism " will be forced to adjust their dimwitted miscalculations when it becomes crystal clear that Muslims ALL harbor the idea that jihad against infidels is rarely terrorism...
But will the bleak realization happen for the majority before it's too late for us all, or will it happen too late for us to survive the onslaught?
Furthermore, what will be the impetus to create the tipping point?
1 nuclear bomb in a major "infidel" metropolis?
2 bombs?
100,000 vaporized?
1,000,000?
or will it take something of the order of 150,000,000 dead from a smallpox pandemic?
You already know that such events will never be believed to be caused by the Muslim among Muslims -- there will never be an end to their hysterical conspiracy theories -- The Pentagon destroyed NYC with a tactical Nuke to facilitate the extermination of the Ummah... etc... And will those sick traitors in our midst -- the 'there-is-no-objective-truth-but-it's-gotta-be-America's-fault' crowd -- will they/can they wake up from their psychotic self-loathing hate-fest in time to change -- or will they join the ranks of frothing Muslims writhing and rampaging in a frenzy for our annihilation?
What will it take to vex our collective consciousnes out of its stupor? Will it happen? Will it be too late?
At the risk of sounding cold (FTR, I mourn), 2000 US war dead is four days' worth of World War II casualties. It's even a piker compared to Viet Nam. Even now, the US highway system and the South Side of Chicago are more dangerous places for young Americans than Iraq.
Kepha posted: At the risk of sounding cold (FTR, I mourn), 2000 US war dead is four days' worth of World War II casualties.
That was WWII at the height of the war against an organised and a very capable European army. This is Iraq, where supposedly major combat operations ended some two years ago. In addition many of these deaths are due to the actions of a bunch of jihadis operating individually or in small groups.
There is no equivalence between the two situations.
It is no surprise whatever that Iraqis hate the coalition forces. The koran tells them to do so, as they are the occupying Christian/Crusader forces. The jihadis many of them foreign to Iraq, would be easily captured if the locals actually detested them. They are not, as the jihadis can rely on the support of the locals.
There is an analysis here one the subject of the poll:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/10/polls-can-we-rely-on-them.html
As Omar points out, some of it make no damn sense at all, such as the highest percentage of people saying that suicide bombings of British is something they want coming from an area in which no suicide bombings of British troops have ever happened (and certainly not US troops, who are not even in that region), never mind the fact that other than some IED, **no** suicide attacks have known to have been directed at the British troops.
Then there is the whole 'secret' thing. Ok.. Who, conducted it, what where the 'actual' questions, did they include time frames, who was 'actually' polled and how if it was secret, did the press somehow get it? The implication seems to be that the press took it themselves, but we have seen what that produces. If it looks like you are going to make the insurgents look bad, your kidnapped or dead, if you are going to make them look good, you get droves of insurgents showing up to 'help' make it look like all Iraqis hate the coalition. Unless you cunducted the poll in some way the removed insurgents or their allies as those answering the questions, it would take less than five minutes for more insurgents to show up, or threats to spread that answering in the positive would get you killed.
It also contradicts itself, as Omar points out, in the silly comment that 57% of those polled thinking that there is improved stability and peace, means that less than 1% of them believe the coalition helped improve stability or peace... Think about this a moment. Nearly **all** successful training has been cases of Iraqis working in teams 'with' coalition, to give them an exmaple and **all** attacks against Iraqi police and troops have been do to claims of collaboration. So how the @$%@$@#$ does less than 1% of the polution know that the coalition is responsible for the added stability and peace that 57% of them do believe has happened?
This is biased, one sided, insurgent manufactured bullshit, just like half of everything else the press has reported from Iraq since this started. And being total BS, it completely contradicts things said by both many Iraqi bloggers and people like Michael Yon, who don't sit in the middle of the green zone, waiting 4-5 days at a time to have some insurgent sympathizer tell them what happened 100 miles away in some other city.
Friends in the Mountains