Bound, Blindfolded and Dead: The Face of Revenge in Baghdad

Just goes to show that the "authorities" cannot protect individuals. When the peaceful majority of society is disarmed they are at the mercy of the thugs.
The only answer of course(from "government's" perspective) is an oppressive "police-state". And that "cure" is no better than the desease. It's a false choice. Counting on a "benevolent" government, in a conformist collectivist society is a fools fantasy.

What some people don't seem to get is that government feeds off of "problems", it has a vested interest in finding, exaggerating, and even creating them. This is why the Founders insisted on a maximally limited government. They understood human-nature.

Where it appears they have "solved" one percieved "problem"(or they don't solve it they claim they "didn't get enough power and money"), they inadvertently or indirectly create 10 more. This justifies MORE government and more intrusion and control, and more government jobs and more public debt. It never ends. Unless people finally go back to the principles of the Founders and the Constitution. But that is anti-utopian, and "unfair", because life and reality is unfair and often beyond our direct control. Denial of this, which is a disconnection from reality, and therefore a sign of insanity or mental chaos, is what our society is becoming based on. It is EMOTION-BASED reasoning, with no regard for falsifible/verifiable facts, evidence or logic. We have allowed the concept of "government" to become our collective "brain", because thinking and reasoning is work, and can lead to unpleasant conclusions. Including about ourselves.
Self-deception is the greatest and most difficult barrier to overcome in the pursuit of Truth.

One notes the rush for W and company to call this 'civil strife' ans opposed to a 'civil war.' They've been behind the eightball on Iraq from the get go. But, I know they know which way the wind is blowing. What puzzles me, actually shocks me, is they don't, or can't, believe in creative thinking. OK. It's civil strife, 40-50 die a day. Nobody knows, because it's not safe for Americans to report on this--they use Iraqi 'reporters,' young kids brave enough to find what little facts are discovered burried and tortured, and then often share bylines. Apparently, sometimes they don't share bylines which is kind of outrageous to. But the point is, Iraq as an experiment where democracy flourishes, trumping Islam, an utopian vision to be sure, is collapsing. But it is this very collapse, this voluntary ethic cleansing, Sunni and Shias leaving mixed neighberhoods and towns and cities and moving back to ethnic conclaves that gives us our magic out; the division of Iraq into three kingdoms. Three regions of influence--perhaps with a simple division of oil profits. This could work for Iraqi; wehy is this a nonstarter, utterly dissmissed. Why can't this be talked in polite company? Is this utopian? Seems very practical to me, something the various thugs over there might agree on because each group can flaunt their power as the leader of their particular zone. The Kurds would love it--this is what they want anway. The Shias would probably go for it--maybe into some federation with Iran, maybe not. The Sunnis would not want it, since their the minority in the whole thing, but they might support the oil split. Either way, I think most Iraqis would get behind it, allowing Bush to accept some bogus solution for us to get out: this is the only issue anyway. A fake federation of three countries. We can keep out embasy in Kurdistan, along with a CIA station, listening post, and small military strike force(in case we need to strike quick in teh region). Of course, the best solution from the standpoint of the infedals is probably more of the same . . . our shortsighted policy of trying to salvage divorce: Iraqi style. With our troops, aid, ect, to the ungrateful primative bastards, we only inflame the wounds b/w each group. This place will, of course, turn into Saigon. The question is when, not if. So when we leave in a year or four, it will be on somebody elses turn with another administration, a massive carbombing of US troops, or civil war even Bush would agree on as a definition(somebody could send him a DVD like with Katrina . . .a best of the beheadings/torture kind of thing), and then we'll leave, on the last train out of hell. I'm not smart enough to know if a civil war would then inflame passions throughout the entire region like Hugh states would ensue or might ensue. All I care about is American forces being used as armies--not peacekeepers protecting people who would love to sever our heads off, spitting and beating our charred corpses after a better and better IED goes off. No, all I care about is our boys. Bring them home and let Allah sort out Iraq. For only he can tell who's been naughty or nice.

I think this young microbiology student Nathaniel Blakeform Oreon State who wrote in Townhall this past week, makes some very excellent points as to why we have trouble winning the most important part of the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/NathanaelBlake/2006/03/24/191213.html

Bring the troops home. These people are hopeless.

Somehow the CFR, the international banking/finance firms and numerous other ultra-elitist orgs believed that this war could be used to further their objective of some type of socialist world government, sold as a way of creating a "safe" world. What they really want is domination of "humanity", because we are too "stupid" to govern ourselves. They get god-like freedom above us, and we get to be their willing slaves. They program and condition us to accept that idea, by pretending all of "humanity" is alike(collectivism). Which of course is only true at the basic level, and would take years of oppression, mind-manipulation and brainwashing to make it so. In other words, totalitarianism. They rationalize what we're doing in the M.E. by pointing to the absurdity of Islamic belief, and it's effect on the people there. The "ends justifies the means". But they are dishonest, they have propagated the idea that they have supreme intelligence and compassion, when what they are is megalomaniacal con-artists.

They create the "problems" that justifies their solutions. And they've been doing it for a long time. There is no denial that America is a police-state now. And there should be no denial that the reality of this is to maintain non-interference with what is called "globalization". This is just a small sampling of the documentary evidence available.

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/index.html

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=WallStHitler

But they are worried about the Truth getting out, and are working in Orwellian fashion to prevent it. They'd like us to believe we've always caught them, that we're still in control.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/

The minute Saddam Hussein was overthrown, a civil war became inevitable. This is something that the Bush Administration could not understand. Failing to understand Islam, and failing to understand Iraq, they expected that the relief of everyone at the removal of the murdering despot would be exhibited not only in gratitude, unfeigned and long-lasting, toward the Americans who did what no one else could or would do. But the Arabs in the main did not mind when Saddam Hussein killed Kurds -- who do you think did the actual killing? And the Sunni Arabs did not fault Saddam Hussein for persecuting or discriminating against Shi'a, or mass-murdering them either. What was more their concern was that the beneficiaries of the regime were few, and that Uday and Qusay, for example, were just as likely to kidnap, rape, and then kill a Sunni Arab girl as a non-Sunni. And too many of the Sunnis benefiting were from Tikri. But Sunni indignation at treatment of Kurds and Shi'a? No.

The Sunni Arabs constitute 19% of the population Because of the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages, conspiracy theories, rumors, all kinds of craziness, are most attractive and while, in Infidel lands, where 5-10% of the populatin may be susceptible, in Muslim countries it may only be 5-10% of the country that is not susceptible. In such an atmosphere, the Sunnis have clung to the belief -- the real belief -- that they constitute not 19% but 42% or more of the population. It's all a conspiracy, you see, by the "American-backed" Shi'a to transfer power to the supposedly more pliable Shi'a. Nonesense, but believed.

And the Sunnis will not give up power willingly, as under any system of vote-counting (Bush wants to dignify this as "democracy" though that word ordinarily implies, in the Western world, all sorts of other things, including legal rights and mechanisms, distinctly absent in Iraq) they would have to. And besides, the Shi'a are inferior Muslims, and to the Zarqawi school of thought, "Rafidite dogs," the worst of Infidels.

In the topsy-turvy world of Islam, it is possible that now the Shi'a will decide that they want the Americans to leave, becuase only then will they be able to deal with the Sunnis with the complete ruthlessness that they wish to exhibit. And the Sunnis now must be rethinking their desire to see the Americans leave, for they must realize that as the Americans leave, the Shi'a will, beginning in the south, start eliminating, in Muslim fashion that has nothing to do with Infidel-imposed rules of combat, the Sunnis there, and then proceed all the way to Baghdad.

There is an alternative explanation to the one I have given. I claim the Bush Administration did not understand Islam and Iraq. Some of its critics may wish to prolong the misunderstanding by all of us, and to pretend that things could have been different "if only" the Adminstration had done this, or not done that. It's nonsense.

Everyone was at fault. The Republicans, and the Democrats. There was a failure all way round.

And there still is.

One waits, and waits, and waits for someonne to say that the folly of American plans, the folly of the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations project, is that we have failed to understand the main nature of the problem, are diverting our attention from, and limiting our freedom to maneuver in, both Iran and Europe. The former requires the use of military force, to destroy or greatly damage its nuclear facilities. The latter requires ideological warfare, of the kind used during the late 1940s and 1950s, to resurrect the Atlantic Alliance, and to support those who realize that Da'wa and demographic conquest are not fantasies from some fervid imagination. The fantasists are those who deny the problem, who belittle it, who are sure that somehow "things will come right."

Hugh, so true. As much as the stupidity of Condi and W shine through the Iraq adventure; the democrats are equally pathetic as they couch their opposition to W in terms of "competance." As if a few good civil servants led by Clinton and William Cohen and company would do a better job. Blame is cast in many directions at once. At W's incompetance, Rummie, perish the though if we forget the neocons, Bremmer for disbanding the army, Bremmer for being a well dresssed stooge, generals for wanting too many troops, generals for wanting too few troops, the spineless Republicans, the toothless democrats, the witless press, Judith Miller, Bill Kristal as it doesn't suffice to just say the neocons--better to name a few Jews, Abu Grahb, even General Tommy Franks for kicking ass too well, but not taking on the paramilitary trash quick enough, and, finally, the Christian General who said, "My god is bigger than you god." Hell, I've vote for that guy for president right now. The point is it's all bullshit. Sorry for the profanity but would another word do? It's the Jihad, stupid. It's not a nationalistic issue. We've gotten involved, or rather between, a bunch of evil, sadistic, increasingly Islamist thugs. As I once heard in a movie: They're are no good guys, they're are no bad guys, they're just 'guys.' The democrats are just as guilty as W then and now. They are not much of an opposition party; more an opportunistic party. We need to lock and load, get out, and let the best Muslim win.

I never heard of a 19% minority living in the midst of a people that for years they brutalized and dominated and then, once out of power, randomly murdering members of that majority, blowing up their holy places etc. Shia death squads are just warming up - and I can't believe its taken them this long.

Civil War? Iraq is going to look like one enormous Wes Craven movie set.

Civil war could have been avoided only if the Sunnis had gracefully accepted their new status, one that befits their new position. Had their leaders, whether imams or "elder statesman"(I use this word comically) such as Adnan Pachachi, from the start recognized that a new master in Iraq, one resentful of its treatment in the past and holding all the cards, had appeared, then just possibly that war would have been averted.

Otherwise, given the Sunni Arab behavior in the past and the present, it became inevitable. And what will also be inevitable is that this internal Iran-Iraq war, at whatever level, will attract the attention and worry of Shi'a and Sunnis outside Iraq. Some may send money or military equipment. Volunteers, and also "volunteers," may arrive, from Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Egypt, to smite the "Rafidite dogs" so many of whom seem too well-disposed to Iran. From the Islamic Republic of Iran will come (have already come) agents with all kinds of ideas as to how to defend the Shi'a. Ideally this could use up men, money, materiel, from all over the Islamic world. And it could lead to more violence against Shi'a in Pakistan, between Shi'a and Sunnis in Yemen, to Shi'a agitating in al-Hasa province in Saudi Arabia, and even to Hezbollah members moving from Lebanon through Syria and Jordan into Iraq, to see that justice is done, much to the relief of Lebanon's Christians and its wary Sunnis.

What could be better?

Apparently, what could be better, from the standpoint of many American political figures, is that "civil war" be avoided at all costs, by the Americans who will be there to make sure that things do not get out of hand.

What could be sillier?

It's not bad enough that they kidnap and off their victims, but death squads that torture by power drills before execution, that is evil. Then nobaody sees anything, for fear they would be next. Sounds to me like a criminal enterprise. The head of the snake are the Shiite
religious leaders that are in defacto control of the region.
Maybe this is an openning gambit to Iranian negotiations over the fate of Iraq?

Everyone was at fault. The Republicans, and the Democrats. There was a failure all way round.

And there still is.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2006 11:45 AM

Hugh,

Now, that I understand! Why.. everything starts to make sense :)

I have lost all respect for the Iraqi they are complete morons,they were given such a great chance to have a free country and they are throwing it away.

Everyone talked about the poor Shia being treated so badly under Saddam and now here they are doing the murdering.

The country is a waste of time money and people.

Mackie i read the article written by Nathaniel Blake and it was so right i don,t believe we can do anything with these muslim countries as far as giving them democracy they are Islamic states and always will be they will never be like us and the scary thing is the increasing numbers of muslims in our countries.

The day is going to come when they have big political power and people are going to see what Islam is all about,i have no doubt that in the end there will be civil war in western countries with muslim against non-muslim there is no way they are going to increase there numbers and get strong political power and not try to run the countries based on islam.

Shia death squads are just warming up - and I can't believe its taken them this long.
Civil War? Iraq is going to look like one enormous Wes Craven movie set.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 26, 2006 12:59 PM
___

It has started and even President Bush will not be able to stop the hate that has festered for decades due to the violent murderous oppression of the Shia by the Sunnis.

Amen Texican -

And what I would really love to know is how in hell Saddam got wave upon wave of Shi'ite soldiers to die by the hundred thousands fighting - get this - Shi'ite Iranians???

Could it have been their intense Iraqi patriotism? (Iraq is not much older than I am).

What Shi'ites and Sunni do and have done defies all sense and I sincerely doubt if Bush could figure it out. I'm sure Allah is very confused Himself.

We see the mob wars (AKA Sunnis versus Shi'ites) in the Middle East revive, after a century-long breather -during which they learned new skills for warfare from their temporary conquerors.

The West, -who armed them intellectually, and literally, and who now face their gratitude: the global terroristic jihad.

Fools enabled this for decades.

I'd like to see them pilloried.

Inviting in their own doom.

Indifferent to the tyranny of Islam in history.

Changing the immigration laws to allow the inward movement of the self-declared enemies of your own culture.

With less and less control over immigration, visas, borders, identities, the threat grows.

Who in the West profited and profits from the undermining of the West?

Or is it a form of guilty nihilism?

Suicide by Mosque?

The more I read the news, the more I hate Bush for his incompetence and for a huge mistake of going into Iraq. If this was feasible, I would prefer to put Sadam back into power because his repressive methods were necessary to hold the country together. I do not give a damn if he massacres all Iragi Shia, the less muslims the better.

All the war has done is increase the power of Iran and Syria and Hezzballah. Now Iran has 1.5 countries, Syria will eventually come back to occupy Lebanon (if it does not continue to do so already). Who is going to stand up to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE - hell no. Yeah they do not want Shia to take over, but only arabs can be citizens of those countries and non-citizen shia or other minorities have no power. If everything fails, they can always blame Israel for everything and unite around the issue.

Logically Egypt should be scared out of their minds if Iran gets nuclear weapons and wants to spread their "revolution" into Egypt. And Pakistan should also be extremely unhappy with Iran getting nuclear weapons. But they are not natural and historic enemies of Iran, Iraq was. Not that Bush has eliminated a natural enemy of Iran, it set it up for the domination of the entire region. I say, we should support Sunnies more vocally instead of letting Shia militias take control.

Overall, it is hopeless. If we can get out of there somehow and spend 400 billion on our security and deporting those assholes instead of taking sides between extinct tribes of the Middle ages, we would be much better off.

On the otherside of the coin, mosmike, perhaps W is like Clouseau, a bumbler who somehow gets the job done. Let us back up the Shia's, continue for a few more months, let the whole place ignite. I think that when we leave, the Shia's will turn on the Sunni's big time(I mean big). Lots of scores still to be settled. I doubt the Kurds will lift a finger to help the Sunnis, except pull up their chairs for ring-side seats. In a month or three years, we will be gone. What I think will happen is a modest withdrawl--5-10 thousand a month, but this could be speeded up if the 'Shiah' hits the fan. Of course, when we're out, and Iraq goes 'Cambodia,' W will be bitched slap in public. Millions over there may die; W's legacy will be the civil war that Hugh forsees, engulfing the whole damm place with proxy armies invading and trashing one another. On the subject of military aid if this occurs, perhaps we should aid no one(the best thought)--or aid everybody(can somebody tell me who were the bad guys in the Iran Iraq war?). We can moan and groan about the upcoming religioius civil war in Iraq b/w Muslims, or we can sit back and enjoy the ride. Actually this is a varian of the honey trap theory: let them kills one another . . . and let the Prophet sort 'em out.

I do not see how giving control of the large portion of Iraq with its oil reserves, thereby making Iran the largest oil exporter benefits us. It is like facilitating the unification of China and Russia into a superpower that can rival the United States. It will not lead to a long civil war, but will lead to a stronger Iran. The genocide will soon be over and Iran will become a true super power.

We need to instill dictators in the Middle East, not democracies. Democracies do not work in all countries. A democracy of backward people does not mean a civilized country, it means a popular movement of backward people, people much worse than educated, reasonable and have political ambitions instead of religious zealousy.

Look at the new president of Iran and compare him to the old one. The previous president was more or less reasonable, religious but not zealous and acceptable to us. The new president, that looks like an homeless person I see on the streets, unshaven, wears a cheap suit without a tie and speaks like an iman. Anyways, I am rambling on, but the point still stands that we do want infighting among muslims, but the war in iraq does not cause that, but rather creates a larger empire.

Millions over there may die; W's legacy will be the civil war that Hugh forsees, engulfing the whole damm place with proxy armies invading and trashing one another.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 26, 2006 09:39 PM
___

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Shia and Sunnis fighting across the ME. The western civilizatios need to sell both sides all of the non-nuclear weapons that they have money for.

It does not matter which sides wins as long as the other side is destroyed. This will only leave one dominant sect that we have to deal with.

As to Iran, Israel will take care of Iran before Iran gets weapon grade feasonable material. Will it be conventional or non-covential weapons over Iran???

This is a Win-Win for everyone.

My kingdom for web site spell check.

Patriot2

Whether Israel will come to the world's rescue vis Iran's nukes remains to be seen. Melanie Phillips cites a WorldNetNews report about Iran sponsoring terrorist attacks to interrupt Israel's elections scheduled for tomorrow -- acts of war carried out by proxies, which, in a rational world, would justify a harsh response. But remember the condemnation Israel received instead for taking out Osirek -- an act that actually benefitted Iran more than any other country, Israel included.

However Amir Taheri notes there are other countries that should be more frightened than Israel is about Iran's nuclear ambitions, Russia included, as Iran has a long-standing grievance over territory lost in a czarist war.