They are ignoring and glossing over it because they are trying to brainwash the muslims.

They are applying behaviorist psychology(rats in a cage, Pavlovs Dog) on the muslim world in an effort to corrupt and subvert islam. Oh, it works, they've been doing it to us for years and years. What they are doing is to - eliminate choice- by deception. Choice and free-will are figments of our imagination in the Pragmatist-leftist world-view.ie; subjective reality rules, and truth is determinant on usefulness.
It is the ultimate con-artist's philosophical base.

It should go without saying that by denying choice and free-will, freedom cannot really exist.

Posted by: kentim at April 5, 2005 8:58 AM

Nice religion and nice method to generate its growth.

The Koran is the law, and the leader is whomever is seen to interpret it most accurately.

Disgusting.

Moose

Posted by: Moose at April 5, 2005 10:02 AM

There's a reason mentally deficient toads aren't supposed to play with knives.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 5, 2005 12:05 PM

Just some more proof that you cant believe one thing these people say...They are constantly talking Islamic peace while sharpening their swords. The Islamic idea of peace is similar to Lenins...he said..."peace will come when all opposition to communism stops"...Quran 8:39 " fight them untill all opposition ends and all submit to Allah"...Also 8:39 "So fight them untill there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and all submit to Allah alone (in the whole world)".
Islam has been waring so long, because of some quranic verses and Mohmmadic traditions, that it has become normal, any necessity (if there ever was any)has given way to addiction. When any muslim says "we love death", he is confirming his addiction and the fact that he is a very dangerous character. Divine authority/addiction for murder is very dangerous. (in the whole world)is proof that this addiction is exportable and contageous among the ignorant. As long as this is going on, no one is safe living next door to these people. In modern time's nearly everyone lives next door to them (muslims), so everyone is at x amount of risk. The ultimate fate for surviving infidels is convert or dhimmitude. This is not a good path but it is the one we are on...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 5, 2005 12:23 PM

The sooner people understand that, the sooner the world can start saying "NO, we won't", to the right things. Instead of giving the impression we give by saying nothing. Whether it be out of political correctness or simply trying to be a caring individual, we must answer directly to certain beliefs or opinions held within Islam.

Otherwise, we encourage the beliefs because we make them seem to be effective. We become as much of the problem as anyone else.

Moose

Posted by: Moose at April 5, 2005 12:37 PM

The buck stops with each individual. Each of us must do our our part to say "No" and to continue to repeat the uncomfortable messages about Islam that many still don't want to hear and the Muslims themselves try to hide. Sooner or later this must happen or we will all succumb to this ideology in death or in dhimmitude. There is no other way.

Posted by: epg at April 5, 2005 12:55 PM

I know this sounds a little barbaric, and politically incorrect, but when is the intellectual global western culture going to understand that if the local populace in Iraq fears the Islamic movement more than the US military and it’s allies, and in large Iraqis continue to support the enemy, will we eventually have no choice but to destroy them as partakers and supporters of the Jihad mentality? I think so! We can't win a war if Iraqi's do not learn to respect the western victors. History shows that force is what wins in Islamic historical context of rising to political and socioeconomic control.

If the Iraqi populace in large harbors and supports demonic Jihadist's like the Christian community of Germans did in WWII with the Nazi's, how can we defeat a major religion of Iraqis that endorses a demonic fanatical ideology to overthrow us? Is that an intelligent basis to wage war? Islam uses religion as a guise for murder, and large portions of Islam’s followers agree and adhere to that point of view. By our standards this defies all logic and could be classified as a demonic cultural phenomenon had it not appeared over and over again in Arab history, as a “cultural and religious identity!”

So, how do we win you ask? The answer? Carpet bomb the populace until they clearly understand that to support terrorists will result in wreaking terror upon themselves! They choose which side in war, and if they choose the Jihadists, in so doing they will be demoralized and possibly destroyed for protecting them. Once the smoke clears, the remaining survivors will reach a point where they can only rebuild their lives to a higher standard by outlawing Wahabism and fanatical Islam…………….period……………. forever, or perish.

Why should coalition forces roam around a country where terrorists guerillas pick off the coalition forces one by one, supported by rogue nations, and being supported by blending into the population where they rearm and resupply? We cannot win by that means………….history proves it, over and over again.

We must get serious about the future of Western existence and look the Islamic based evil we are dealing with squarely in the eye, and make them and their supporters pay the price. German cities were bombed and 10's of thousands died in one night bombing raids to protect allied missions and ground soldiers to take Germany...........hence we won the war!

Do we not enter into a war to win? Why are we so afraid to do it in Iraq and elsewhere? Let me guess outside of domestic economics, it's domestic and international political correctness? ...........Answer ---- YOU BET!

So, open our borders, speak Spanish, change our culture to allow for the minorities to feel comfortable with our country, and lay down and die. That will be our alternative, if we don’t reeducate the US population and our allies population about what the nature of Islam and this war really is……………………….total world domination, and to destroy, and dominate all who challenge it. To think otherwise is wishful thinking, like the German civilians did in WWII. See no evil, speak no evil…………the US military’s bombers are overhead. In a time of war, we are to wage it to win, least we put ourselves in peril. No one likes war, but we must win, and stop worrying about global impact of our actions. Again the US is in the forefront so everyone else can benefit. I doubt if it will work this time. We are truly in a struggle for the future of the US, the West and our allies. May God give us the strength to move forward and finish what they have begun.

Posted by: WOG at April 5, 2005 1:57 PM

It is deeper than political-correctness WOG. We are nobodies in the grand scheme of things, we are expendable.

Posted by: kentim at April 5, 2005 2:46 PM

Kentim:

I do not follow the logic of your initial post on this thread. Are you suggesting that western media and "middle east experts" are trying to brainwash the Arab street into believing the jihaddists are inspired/motivated by forces other than religion. (I believe Robert's point is that western politicians, bureaucrats, "experts" and journos are the ones ignoring the obvious and rationalizing the motivation as coming from poverty and injustice inflicted upon them by the Infidels, particularly as personified by Israel and the US.)

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 5, 2005 3:32 PM

And the rest of the world continues to ignore the implications of this, preferring to pretend that the religious dimension of the present conflict can be ignored or glossed over.

Everyone glosses over or ignores the fact that the Iraqi's have the full right to defend themselves from invasion and occupation. This IS the religious dimension because Islam instructs the believers to defend themselves when attacked. Those who co-operate with the enemy especially in a time of active war are called Traitors. i.e: one who commits treason i.e:

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

Treason carries the death penalty in virtually every country on the face of the earth.

The explanation is so simple. Yet the overtones of every single comment that Mr. Spencer provides with his posted articles betray a fervent desire to justify his thesis, made against all available facts and evidence, that all of this is nothing more than a world-wide Muslim take over conspiracy.

I think that people should be more desirous of arriving at the truth rather than seeking to justify their opinions through half-truths.

Posted by: Shukri at April 5, 2005 6:23 PM

What the world's Islamists like the ones here haven't figured out is that Islam is THEIR religion. And theirs ONLY (and then only in their deluded minds at that).

They are shoving it down everybody else's throats (even while severing some in the process) under the delusion that such actions imply someone else is acquiring ownership of it--in fact it's the other way around. People who have Islam shoved down their throats then belong to this 'religion' and not the 'religion' to them. (Too bad Islamists can't be successfully sued for false advertising).

Whatever the case, the Islamists can KEEP Islam all to themselves....

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2005 6:39 PM

"I think that people should be more desirous of arriving at the truth rather than seeking to justify their opinions through half-truths."

- Shukri

And so you should, Shukri, and so you should.

I won't argue the legalistic aspects here; for in the cold, shrivelled heart of legalistic sensibility what Shukri says does enjoy precedent: the French Resistance is often cited in this manner, and I'm sure Shukri wouldn't disagree at this point. While not really a government (and such, thus, that they did not have any 'international' right to declare war as such, nor to designate, as Shukri does so gleefully, members of their opposition as 'traitors'), they did have the integral ability to fight against the Nazi invaders. But that shrivelled heart beats with malice, not justice.

What exactly do these terrorists - for, indeed, as there is a twisted sense of legitimacy conferred by comparison to the above - hope to exact for the populace? Is it A) The restoration of the old state (Saddam Hussein), B) the emplacement of democracy, or C) the institution of a new regime entirely unrelated to either of those? The answer, clearly, is C). In this fine legalistic sense (the precedent for which Shukri is feeling around for), how exactly do the terrorists represent a force of "defense"? Do they hope to bring back Hussein? If not, then, what, in fact, are they 'defending' Iraq from?

To continue with our examination of this analogy: let us suppose during WWII in occupied France, instead of the French Resistance an entirely new strain of resistance to the Nazi invader built up, this one formed around Fascism, as opposed to that relatively inert brand of French communism/socialism. Suppose they started killing German collaborators as "traitors". Of course, to make the comparison really cogent with the present day, the Nazis would have to be replaced by those of some other power with the goals of eradicating a notably horrendous dictator and installing free voting. No totalitarian rounding up and mass shooting of anyone, frankly, is going on in Iraq, unless it be that of 'collaborators' and 'traitors' (incidentally, a clip I saw on MEMRI has an official with a very different take on 'collaborator' than Shukri observes - perhaps that, like 'freedom fighter', is in the eye of the beholder also?). No massacres of anyone except those shooting RPGs at the 'horrible invader'. Not QUITE the same situation.

Similarly, that small 'collaborator' section of the populace would have to be replaced by a majority population ready and eager to vote on their own behalf and form a new government - one, in the case of Iraq, that emerges as islamic in its own right (and some would say 'fundamentally' so). I wonder how long other historical 'occupying' powers would tolerate such a situtation? The example of history, for those who choose to study it, might teach: not too long, if at all.

Thus, by process of simple reductio on the basis of intent and, frankly, fact, we arrive at a quite different scenario. Islamic fundamentalists have really no right to attack Iraqis who want democracy, or perhaps the freedom to make their own political choices without being killed. One might ask further if the vaunted French Resistance would similarly target civilians for their beliefs (in Iraq, either religious beliefs or non-religious behaviours), even if those civilians never so much of an attempt to assist the 'invader' as farting downwind from them instead of upwind. This constitutes Shukri's argument as well, though she doesn't mention it: the terrorists mostly blow up innocent civilians, lest one consider Shi'ites 'non-innocents' for their 'unwise religious choice'. Perhaps they're the enemy also? If so, then isn't the current terrorism the result of internectine conflict rather than 'defense'?

While in my opinion they never should have bothered, the Americans are going to leave eventually, unlike the Nazis in the utterly broken analogy of 'defense' - and the less violent and happier Iraq is, the sooner they'll go. They don't want to be there any more than the population wants them to - it is a proportional relationship. If the terrorists represent such a popular political force (do any terrorists use the word 'Popular' any more? It used to be all the rage in 'Life of Brian'), then let them disarm and vote in the next election. If they don't like the outcome, the recent history of US elections suggests that they can bitch about it for literally years and years after the actual bloody event, "stolen states" and "rigged machines" and all, making reading the popular media an absolute nightmare of homogenous politcal opinion so that even their supporters will get nauseated from all the rhetoric.

What a 'radical' idea.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 5, 2005 7:21 PM

What I can't figure is- wasn't this captured soldier ARMED - at least originally?

If so, why surrender, EVER, to these lunatic jihadi murderers when you know what the end result will be? ("Strike at their necks!" as Mohammad wrote in the Koran.)

Advice to Iraqi soldiers, cops, etc.:

1) Carry a gun.
2) Keep it loaded.
3) Shoot the enemy accurately and lethally until you have one bullet left.

AND:

4) Use that final bullet on yourself, in extremity, in order to avoid ending up like a sacrificial sheep on an internet gloat-fest staged by these Psychotics for Allah.

As 'followers of Abraham', I would have thought that the jihadis had read the story of Isaac. Wherein their Lord forbade any further human sacrifice.

But then, I guess Mohammad erased that chapter, when he plagiarized it for the Koran, along with his own censored "Satanic Verses".

Judging by his own murderous behavior in Mecca and Medina, the pedophile prophet wanted to turn the clock back to the Spiritual Cannibal Age.

And Iraq is its new, gruesome proving ground.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 5, 2005 7:25 PM

That reminds me: could I sell my religion then, if others are "selling" theirs?

"FOR SALE: one broken-down gnosticism, fairly ratty around the discriminatory edges. Borders unclear and central dogma is a little loose - leans indiscriminately to the left and right. A real fixer-upper! Serious inquiries only please; no time-wasters. Asking a fractional proportion of one soul O.B.O."

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 5, 2005 7:27 PM

BigSleep, I disagree. I'd shoot one more jihadi.

THEN, when I was captured, I'd pretend to have a revelation about 'reverting' to islam and quote Sura 9:6 at them so that they'd have to take me somewhere safe and cosy so that I could hear the Word of Allah's Messenger:

Q 9:6 "And if any one of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Mo-mo), then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterward convey him to a place of safety. That is because they are a folk that know not."

Easy-peasy. "I don't know! I don't know! I am of the folk that know not! Don't stab me. Let me hear the word of Allah!" Then, when I'm all recovered and cozy, I break out and leg it.

It's funny, but I bet there's a ayah/hadith especially for that situation.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 5, 2005 7:34 PM

Geoff,

But that shrivelled heart beats with malice, not justice.

First, I thank you for taking the trouble to be polite and respectful. That said, I strongly disagree with your above statement. It is justice and not malice that a traitor to his country be executed.

I agree with you that the apparent lack of a centralized governance of the Iraqi insurgency seems to preclude the possiblity of the insurgency being a legitimate entity. However, I would argue that this should not be a determining factor in concluding legitimacy or illegitimacy simply because decentralization is a necessary factor to their survival due to inequitable distributions of firepower and hardware between them and the American Occupier. Also, it seems to be pretty clear who the traitors are. Note that the Iraqi insurgency usually mentions confessions or some other proof of guilt when showing such videos.

On a side note, such videos are not meant for American viewing in order to "weaken their will" as is commonly thought. Rather, it is to give warning to other traitors or individuals who might be seduced into treason by attractive financial remunerations being offered by the Occupier.

What exactly do these terrorists - for, indeed, as there is a twisted sense of legitimacy conferred by comparison to the above - hope to exact for the populace?

I am disappointed by the referral to terrorists. There are perhaps terrorists amongst the legitimate insurgency but they are a small and uncontrollable group of zealots. You will find that atrocities in this conflict (from the insurgency side) are almost always perpetrated by the same tiny group of zealots/terrorists. I would appreciate it if you could refer to the fighters amongst the general populace as "insurgents". I would call them "freedom fighters", however it is necessary to take the middle line, and I think that "insurgents" is a fair term. I hope you agree.

Regarding what they seek to obtain. They seek to obtain (1) Freedom from an Occupation. Once this is obtained, a democracy in conformance with Islam could be created. This would not be Western Democracy in which the populace could decide that adultery is acceptable and then such a wish becomes law. Rather it mean that the law of God (Sacred Law) would be implemented and leaders who are honest and trustworthy would be elected in a democratic manner to ensure that they will fulfill the trust of Sacred Law by being just and fair rulers. The second thing that they wish to obtain is complete Iraqi control of Iraqi natural resources including land and airspace.

If not, then, what, in fact, are they 'defending' Iraq from?

They are defending Iraq from being a puppet of an enemy invader and occupier. They are also ensuring that no one but the Iraqi's should be allowed to use Iraq's natural resources. The attacks against the oil installations are nothing more than a deterrent to prevent the enemy Occupier from benefitting from Iraq's wealth. One notes the $8.8 Billion missing or otherwise unaccounted for in the audit of the spending of Iraqi money by the Occupier installed Coalition Provisional Authority (Note that "Iraqi ministries" referred to in the link are also Occupier installed).

let us suppose during WWII in occupied France, instead of the French Resistance an entirely new strain of resistance to the Nazi invader built up...to make the comparison really cogent with the present day, the Nazis would have to be replaced by those of some other power with the goals of eradicating a notably horrendous dictator and installing free voting.

Free voting was definitely not the goal. A manufactured goal of defending the US against a threat from "Iraq's WMD's" was the alleged objective formed even before the attacks of September 11 (see "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward). It is very clear that the current cozy relationship between the current US government administration, Big Business and Iraqi oil should be up for some serious investigation. It is noteworthy that a significant percentage of Bush Administration officials are former executives in companies that are benefitting in a huge way by this war and its continuation. I do not believe that this is a coincidence.

incidentally, a clip I saw on MEMRI has an official with a very different take on 'collaborator'

Unfortunately, MEMRI is not a very reliable source on Arab news, started as it is by a former Israeli intelligence officer with the apparent intent of furthering Israel's political agenda.

the terrorists mostly blow up innocent civilians, lest one consider Shi'ites 'non-innocents' for their 'unwise religious choice'. Perhaps they're the enemy also?

See above comments on "zealots/terrorists"

the Americans are going to leave eventually, unlike the Nazis in the utterly broken analogy of 'defense' - and the less violent and happier Iraq is, the sooner they'll go.

I generally understand this comment to mean that the Occupation and the subjugation of Iraqi will to the will of the American Occupier "must" be accepted. Islam, however decrees otherwise:

216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. - Quran 2:216-217

Posted by: Shukri at April 5, 2005 11:16 PM

Waterdragon52,

What "they"(including Bush and everybody else higher up who says "islam is peace,islam is great, islam is tolerant etc",and excepting those devout muslims practicing deception or the "denial-ridden believers"),, are doing is not so much denying a religious motivation but they are trying to discredit the jihadis as corrupters of "true peaceful" islam.
And anyone who says differently will be labeled islamophobe, bigot,ignorant etc.

This is a BALD-FACED LIE( among oh-so-many-others during the last 100 years or so).

Who are "they'?? They are the elites who run the world. They will protect their privileged positions at all costs. They are nuts, incompetents and megalomanics who think we are too stupid and dangerous to manage our own affairs-- and we can't handle the truth. Actually these master-race freaks don't believe in concrete reality or self-evident truth. They think they can make reality into anything they say it is, a VIRTUAL REALITY. They don't give a sh-t about anything as long as the negative consequences are paid for by anyone but themselves.--Us.
We are living a lie.

I have been chasing the communist/leftist "enemy"responsible for subversion and treason in America and elsewhere through historic sources for years only to finally see they were/are philosophical soul-mates with the Pragmatists. In fact they both seek the same thing, with only a slightly different vision of what Utopia will look like.

McCarthy was right. As far as he went-- he did'nt go far enough. And the John Birch Society also was on to something also in the 50's and 60's. And so are the anti-'New World Order' people.

I myself cannot articulate it right now, it would probably require a doctoral thesis to synthesize.
There is a leftist-Pragmatist axis. They are (defective,criminally)philosophically driven and what they do comes naturally, not so much by organized conspiracy. Differences are mostly semantic, and used to continue the illusion of opposition and choice.

These three people(among others) have identified various people, groups,events, and motives, methodology and ideological/philosophical sources and analyzed cause and effect. I think if a person could eliminate any contradictions or provable errors of all three and then synthesize them into one condensed overview of American "progress" over the last 150 years or so, the true state of the nation would be apparent for all to see. The democratic republic has been nearly destroyed from within. And time is running out before it is lost forever and George Orwell's warnings become 100% fact.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/rlkocher_index.htm
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/
It takes an investment in time and thought, and willingness to endure sensibilities being offended(at first),and seeing different angles to look at things instead of the simplistic 1 or 2 dimensional way things are presented by the Matrix, to read this stuff and research further for confirmation or denial.
The fact is few will bother with it, especially since it will burst a comfortable bubble. But that is the Pragmatist way.
The unpleasant consequences of reality will not be put off,many people are gonna have to pay the piper for the fun and games of the elites.

Posted by: kentim at April 5, 2005 11:57 PM

Watching the beheading videos should be mandatory for all members of Congress,Senate,the ACLU and mainstream media.

Posted by: adela at April 6, 2005 12:10 AM

You're welcome, Shukri.

The decentralization of guerrilas (a nice, neutral term) has been argued since time immemorial as a legitimizing factor. Unfortunately, it carries no weight for or against anything. Decentralized guerrila movements have been used for good and evil, and even that is construed differently by those involved. So to argue that these people have the right to decide who and who is not a 'collaborator' is pointless; it is determined by extrinsic factors. It is, however, undeniable that they have no strictly legal right to do so. That point might be neither here nor there, but it deserves stating.

For, you see, the Iraqi authorities also see very clearly who the traitors are. They, too, show confessions or other proof of guilt. It appears that your 'guilt' is not my 'guilt', and you make the implicit assumption that I must agree with you. So it's simply impossible to say that the terrorists are right because they 'show videos or other 'proofs' of guilt'. It's only guilt from your perspective. From mine, it's loyalty.

"On a side note, such videos are...to give warning to other traitors..."

This drives at the heart of my question. Where, indeed, are the Americans and the Iraqi authorities executing terrorists for their treachery? The underlying moral distribution would seem to be the major difference here. These 'occupiers' aren't behaving much like occupiers.

I'm sorry you're disappointed by the referral to terrorists, but what would you have me call those that blow up women and children, that hide in the civilian population and kill state workers and make videos to "warn" other "traitors"? They seek to cause terror. Hence, they are terrorists. This is a universal term, really. That tiny group of zealots seems to be responsible for a great amount of harm. I will consider "insurgents", however.

As for what they seek to obtain: 1) "They seek to obtain Freedom from an Occupation. Once this is obtained, a democracy in conformance with Islam could be created."

This has been done. So why are they fighting? This is another key flaw in your platform. The people have the will to decide all of the above; that they want sharia, that they do not want sharia, that they want adultery to be punishable by stoning or that they do not so wish. So, in effect, you have your wish. The majority will decide their laws, as described above, and if they will it, it could even be sharia. The will of the 'insurgents' is immaterial, as they compose only a tiny percentage of the population. Should the minority dictate to the majority? And if so, explain why. Is the majority composed of fools? Apostates? Do they all seek to leave islam? I assume this is not your premise. (By the by, I must laughingly inform you that adultery is not 'acceptable' in Western society. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from here, but a) cease the subconscious da'wa since no one is likely to fall for it, and b) stop watching Jerry Springer.) =D

Incidentally, who are these "honest and trustworthy" leaders, if they cannot be elected in a fair fashion by the populace? Again, does the minority speak for the majority? Are these leaders so trustworthy, that the only way they could win would be to be elevated above the wishes of the people? What if the people didn't want to live under sharia any more? Would that be allowed? If not, why not?

"The second thing that they wish to obtain is complete Iraqi control of Iraqi natural resources including land and airspace."

Regrettably, I doubt this is true, and I ask why you think it is justified. The Axis powers of the Second World War were forced to live under occupation a long, long time even when their populations considered (or didn't, which was more typical) the Americans as liberators. Why should Iraq be any different? Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator. He ran an evil system. Is there some reason the Germans can accept their fault in letting a monster come to power, but the Iraqi people cannot? Are you saying Iraqis have no sense of honour? I would disagree sharply. The forces of this 'interested nation' - and I would prefer it if you would use 'interested nation' rather than 'occupier', as that term seems more neutral and since we obviously cannot agree completely on the terminology - are leaving EXTREMELY early compared to the usual annals of war. What would you have them do?

"They are also ensuring that no one but the Iraqi's should be allowed to use Iraq's natural resources."

That remains to be seen. Who can say what the 'insurgents' would do if they ever got power? And will ONLY Iraqis use their resources? They won't sell any for profit, as they have been doing for years? I think that highly unlikely. By contrast, will the Americans be stealing the profit from the oil refineries for themselves, or stealing the oil? Isn't it up to Iraqis to decide that for themselves - say, via democratic process? That would seem to me the only fair way.

"Free voting was definitely not the goal."

Regrettably, I have read Woodward and frankly I find his analysis a little naive. Of course a plan was developed for the attack of Iraq. NATO and the US have historically developed plans to attack about any country in the world. The Soviet Pact had a plan to invade Western and Southern Europe. Did they? Of course not. These are called 'contingency plans'. Every country with any military has them. Even Syria, Egypt and Jordan, to list a few examples.

And why, really, would the war have been for the oil?. That could be bought as it has been for years. What possible advantage could minor price fluctuations gain anyone? Gas prices are back up again. And what was the cost of the war? How many trillions of the American economy was drained into it? How many dead men? This so Haliburton can exploit a fairly minor economic market? Dubious. If the Americans really wanted oil, they'd invade Canada, from where the majority is imported anyway.

"Unfortunately, MEMRI is not a very reliable source on Arab news, started as it is by a former Israeli intelligence officer with the apparent intent of furthering Israel's political agenda."

Regrettably, it is a very reliable source of Arab news, since those running it have extensive educations in Arabic. You might disagree with it, but I have yet to see anyone start a site saying that MEMRI is lying. The last attempt, by a writer at the Guardian, fell far short. I note the word 'kufr' is surprising common on such shows. I don't need translation for that word, or for the intent of a stick someone waves around, or for a show about a rabbi who kills Christian children to collect their blood for matzah bread - the infamous and twisted 'blood libel'.

You did not really respond to the question about the Shi'ites. Most of the attacks seem to be committed against Shi'ites, or against those trying to use their freedoms. Why?

"I generally understand this comment to mean that the Occupation and the subjugation of Iraqi will to the will of the American Occupier "must" be accepted. Islam, however decrees otherwise" [here you posted Quranic quotations]

And here we come to the rub of it. This was in fact a major issue of the site in general:
"Does islam proscribe violence? Is violence in the Quran meant to mean 'physical violence' or the 'internal struggle'?"

You appear to have answered this question most completely. The answer, by your position, is: yes. Islam proscribes violence. The Quranic calls to violence are exactly that.

The true horror of it is that it is all utterly unnecessary, since the Americans are leaving soon. But, again, the failure to use violence in islam would appear to be a major deficit of obligation:

"Q 2: 216. Fighting is prescribed for you [Pickthal has "Warfare is ordained for you"], and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Could you explain this ayah as it pertains to real, physical obligations in greater detail? I am very interested to learn more about this aspect of Islamic law.

I note also a subtle undercurrent of shariac hysteria in your posting: 'these insurgents' want the Holy Law, 'these insurgents' want leaders to enact the Holy Law. Is it not you, yourself, as well, that wants to enact it? I note your second Quranic posting was:

"Q 2: 217 They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter."

Is your support for the jihadis who murdered this officer based on a fear that an islamic country might reject sharia, and indirectly, a more radical interpretation of islam? Are you Wahhabi, by any chance?

I look forward to your reply,

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 6, 2005 12:22 AM

Sorry - another question about MEMRI. When you read Bob Woodward's book, or listen to ex-American generals berate the American effort in Iraq, do you consider that the source is inviable because of the nationality of the source?

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 6, 2005 12:24 AM

Shukri, if we wanted Iraq's oil we would simply take it, not spend BILLIONS rebuilding this godforsaken hellhole for a bunch of atavistic, neanderthal Islamic zealots to destroy. I don't know why we're wasting precious American lives and taxpayer money for a lost cause and quite frankly, it makes me sick. Muslims deserve exactly what they strive so hard for: misery, poverty, tyranny,and perpetual victimhood, the bountiful fruits of ISLAM.

I agree with you, we shouldn't be in Iraq because muslims are not worthy of our sacrifices. I do sympathize with the secular faction in Iraq, and the women. But when muslims get tired of living in brutal, tyrannical hellholes then THEY can get off their whining asses and change things. You cannot imagine how disheartening it is to know that all we have really accomplished in Iraq is to remove one brutal tyrant and replace him with the tyranny of Islam. I'm sure Saddam was no worse than what lies ahead.

You discredit yourself with the hackneyed conspiracy theories; can't you conjure up a few new ones? And I have found MEMRI to be quite reliable, but naturally you would see a Zionist conspiracy behind every word!

I don't suppose it makes much difference which deranged sect of Islam seizes power in Iraq, but I find it appalling that you approve of the terrorists butchering Iraqis who are trying to rebuild their country. I guess that means you prefer the Wahabbi butchers to the Shi'ite butchers. Don't worry, it will all work out in the end. You can wage an all-out bloody jihad once the "occupiers" leave. A full-blown internecine war, just like the good old days. I'm sure you're sharpening your scimitar as we speak, just itching to whack off some heads. May the best lunatic win and the more casualties, the better.

Posted by: Susanp at April 6, 2005 1:07 AM

Geoff-

A masterful reply to junior Maoist guerilla apologist-sounding Shukri. (Shuck 'n jive.)

His thesis seems to boil down to: "The will of the minority is the real majority- so kill!"

Susanp-

A pefect coda. Coup de grace-ful.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 6, 2005 1:46 AM

I watched the video on the site below,if you look at the man being killed he isn't the same man
in the uniform with the white t-shirt.
There appears to be a library of videos and even a few Al-Qeada tapes showing roadside bombs
have a skip or blur in them,the attack on the prison only shows a fire or explosion near a rocket launcher and not the 15 of them actually
firing and landing on target.

After seeing how easily some Muslims can be fooled into murdering Gods children for Allah,it wouldn't take much to recruit the idiots that can't see the fakery in the terrorism and repeat
beheadings.

http://www.ogrish.com/index.html

Posted by: ala-sux at April 6, 2005 2:56 AM

Everyone glosses over or ignores the fact that the Iraqi's have the full right to defend themselves from invasion and occupation.

Posted by: Beagle at April 6, 2005 7:49 AM

Shukri wants the Americans out of Iraq. Couldn't agree more. Americans should leave Iraq, forget about all that reconstruction, for already 25,000 schoolrooms have been built, more than 100 hospitals built or rebuilt and re-equipped, and so much more of which no notice is taken, and no gratitude offered. Get out of Iraq, and take every bit of American weaponry, and American money. With the price of oil having doubled and still headed up, the Iraqis can afford to pay for their own Reconstruction, or borrow against future earnings. And forget about cancelling Iraq's debt to the West -- Iraq has plenty of money now, and in the future.

As for lessons learned, here are some. They may please Shukri, or not. Concentrate on stopping the spread of Islam outside the Middle East. Stop pressuring the Israelis to sign, like the Meccans with Mohammed, their very own and very foolish Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, and recognize that any further Israeli surrender will whet, not sate, Arab appetities, given the psychology of Muslims which pockets every concesssion by Infidels, and regards it as a sign to press further and further. Compromise is a Western notion, and it is foolish to assume, as naive Americans so often do (the Europeans don't but are much more heartless, cynical, but in the end stand to lose far more from the Jihad, pressed through various instruments, than the United States does).

No American or other Infidel aid to Muslim states -- none to Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, the "Palestinian" authority. No debt relief, no nothing. No continued access, except at rates that might reflect the price of oil as compared to the real cost of lifting it from Arabian sands -- i.e., medical care for Arab plutocrats, but at sky-high prices, a hundred times what Infidels are charged. No access to Western education -- let that great Islamic civliization take care of educating its own. No access to Western technology -- ditto, as far as great Islamic civilization goes.

End all migration of Muslims to the Bilad al-Kufr. Cease permitting the building of mosques and madrasas that are paid for by foreign donors, especially by the Saudis. When anything suspicious -- false papers, explosives, the usual videocassettes of beheadings -- are found in any mosque, shut that mosque down permanently.

Make no concessions, no changes, in the political or legal system, or in the laws and customs, in dar al-harb, to appease the demands and whines of Muslims who had no hand in the building of Infidel civilizations and whose presence in the Lands of the Infidels makesthe lives of both the indigenous Infidels, and of non-Muslim immigrants (Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs) much more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

The goal of Western policy should be to prevent the islmaization of Europe, the conduct of Da'wa aimed at particularly vulnerable groups, and an effort to education many Infidels about the theory and practice of Islam, particularly in relation to those Infidels -- first by studying Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and then by examining the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslms, from Spain to the East Indies.

Everything must be done to encourage, in the Lands of Islam, a growing recognition that the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and peoples can be directly attributed to Islam itself. It may be that this is now underway in Iran. But it should happen elsewhere as well.

Shukri and many posters here agree: American forces should leave the Iraqis to their own devices. Let them hash it out, and "reconstruct" their own country, if they can, and with their own money, if they can. We differ only in our varied reasons for desiring that quick departure, and on the results we expect from such departure.

Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2005 4:36 PM

For, you see, the Iraqi authorities also see very clearly who the traitors are.

The "Iraqi authorities" aka "Interim Government" are Occupier installed. They, as agents of an enemy Occupier are completely illegitimate and fully qualify for the word "traitor".

They, too, show confessions or other proof of guilt. It appears that your 'guilt' is not my 'guilt', and you make the implicit ssumption that I must agree with you.

You do not have to agree with me. However, I do believe that this is the reasonable view i.e that Occupiers and their puppets (aka interim Government) are illegitimate and illegal entities in Iraq (Occupiers because they are there through false pretenses of defence and collaborators/puppets because they are assisting the invading Occupier) and that, until the Occupation ends, any and all who actively assist the Occupation is a traitor deserving of the death penalty.

It's only guilt from your perspective. From mine, it's loyalty.

Is it loyalty to you simply because you are observing the situation from a pro-Occupation standpoint?

This drives at the heart of my question. Where, indeed, are the Americans and the Iraqi authorities executing terrorists for their treachery?

There is no treachery on their part. They are simply upholding the rights of their country to defend itself.

The underlying moral distribution would seem to be the major difference here. These 'occupiers' aren't behaving much like occupiers.

Or rather, these Occupiers don't "appear" to be behaving as Occupiers. However the incidents and widespread abuse in Abu Ghraib, the almost total destruction of the city of Fallujah and the the subsequent displacement of over 200,000 people who were turned into refugees not to mention the recent revelations that Occupying soldiers are kidnapping and holding hostage the family members of suspected insurgents belie the claim that this Occupation has any sort of altruistic motives and is behaving like anything other than a brutal Occupation.

I'm sorry you're disappointed by the referral to terrorists, but what would you have me call those that blow up women and children, that hide in the civilian population and kill state workers and make videos to "warn" other "traitors"?

Please give me a link to any reference that provides some evidence that insurgents are indiscriminately targetting women and children. Again, "state workers" are in fact Occupier stooges i.e traitors to their country.

They seek to cause terror. Hence, they are terrorists.

The way that they seek to cause terror is the same way that any other country seeks to cause terror by having an Army and security forces who terrorise the enemies of that country into being reluctant to attack them.

As for what they seek to obtain: 1) "They seek to obtain Freedom from an Occupation. Once this is obtained, a democracy in conformance with Islam could be created."

This has been done. So why are they fighting?

This has not been. The armed, invading Occupier is still on Iraqi soil subjugating Iraqi will and trampling over their land.

This is another key flaw in your platform. The people have the will to decide all of the above; that they want sharia, that they do not want sharia, that they want adultery to be punishable by stoning or that they do not so wish.

Their wish does not dictate law. Sacred Law stands against adultery, fornication, cheating and other forms of spreading corruption in the land. Hence, no one has a choice in legalising such heinous crimes. In the West, perhaps, people have lost their morals to the point of fornicating on the street. But, God willing, not in the East...

The majority will decide their laws, as described above, and if they will it, it could even be sharia.

The majority will elect the leaders. The Sacred Laws stand and will not be changed by whims and desires. The leaders are there to ensure that justice is enforced thereby creating a harmonious, safe and secure environment.

The will of the 'insurgents' is immaterial, as they compose only a tiny percentage of the population.

While the actual number of active insurgents (fighters as well as intelligence personnel) maybe "small" (15-20,000 according to the Defense Intelligence Agency or 200,000+ according to the Occupier puppet "Iraqi Defense Ministry"), the number of supporters are far greater.

I must laughingly inform you that adultery is not 'acceptable' in Western society.

Somewhat true. But again, general fornication is widespread and prevalent. I do believe, however, that the U.S is perhaps the most moral of the Western countries due to having a significant percentage of moral and upright people.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from here, but a) cease the subconscious da'wa since no one is likely to fall for it

Da'wa in Islam is an "invitation". It can be accepted or rejected freely and there is no compulsion to follow one way or the other. But in this case, Da'wa is not in my mind. Rather it is to correct what I feel are inaccurate and misleading statements made on this and other websites.

and b) stop watching Jerry Springer.) =D

I do not have a T.V in my house. It is one of the scourges of modern society, most of the content being pure trash.

Incidentally, who are these "honest and trustworthy" leaders, if they cannot be elected in a fair fashion by the populace?

Whomever the majority of the population decides are honest and trustworthy.

Again, does the minority speak for the majority?

No they do not. But you and I presumably disagree on which side the majority is on and since there is no solid data to prove either side correct, for the moment I will have to file this argument under "inconclusive".

What if the people didn't want to live under sharia any more? Would that be allowed? If not, why not?

No, because Sacred Law solves the problem of crime in society and the only reason that it does that is because it is divine law. Note that even in places like Afghanistan under the Taliban and current day Saudi Arabia, there is virtually no crime. However it must also be noted that so far there has been only partial implementation of Sacred Law in various countries. The effectiveness of Sacred Law in controlling and eliminating crime needs to be looked at in an in-depth manner by qualified sociologists.

Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator. He ran an evil system.

And I don't think that anyone disputes that. However it must be pointed out that he had the support of the West when he was perpetrating many of his crimes. Western governments do not care about the Iraqi people. This is why the US gov't was so willing to halt the Gulf War in order to let Saddam kill tens of thousands of people who had risen to overthrow him.

Is there some reason the Germans can accept their fault in letting a monster come to power, but the Iraqi people cannot?

As can be seen by the numerous attempts to overthrow Saddam and the subsequent interference of the US, Saddam Hussein was not overthrown because the people didn't try. Rather he was not overthrown due to the deliberate interference of the West, this being in line with their foreign policies at the time.

The forces of this 'interested nation' - and I would prefer it if you would use 'interested nation' rather than occupier'

Insurgents are not necessarily terrorists nor are they necessarily freedom fighters. But the "interested nation" are Occupiers whether you call them liberators or oppressors and Occupier is the neutral term.

are leaving EXTREMELY early compared to the usual annals of war. What would you have them do?

Wars are judged on their own merits and not in comparison to wars fought decades or centuries ago. I would have the Occupiers systematically evacuated.

will ONLY Iraqis use their resources? They won't sell any for profit, as they have been doing for years?

I apologize for my unclear language. I mean that only Iraqi's would be allowed to use their oil as they saw fit, whether they decide to sell it or keep it or charge any price that they wish for it. Currently sales are being managed by the Occupier and it's assorted puppet forces.

Regrettably, I have read Woodward and frankly I find his analysis a little naive.

His analysis is the most authoritative for judging the motives of the government Administration regardless of whether anyone considers it naive or not.

Of course a plan was developed for the attack of Iraq...These are called 'contingency plans'. Every country with any military has them. Even Syria, Egypt and Jordan, to list a few examples.

But every nation's government does not willfully go to war on poor and inconclusive evidence simply (and apparently) because companies that would be benefitted thereby are closely connected to the governing authorities.

And why, really, would the war have been for the oil?. That could be bought as it has been for years. What possible advantage could minor price fluctuations gain anyone? Gas prices are back up again.

When a war "for oil" is referred to, it is not the ordinary citizen who benefits. It is the governing authorities through their private connections to multi-billion dollar corporations that benefit enormously thereby in no-bid contracts.

Regrettably, it is a very reliable source of Arab news, since those running it have extensive educations in Arabic. You might disagree with it, but I have yet to see anyone start a site saying that MEMRI is lying.

The issue is not the accuracy of MEMRI's translations. The issue is MEMRI's selectiveness in choosing articles that either reflect badly on Arabs or serve to further the State of Israel's political and military agenda.

You did not really respond to the question about the Shi'ites. Most of the attacks seem to be committed against Shi'ites, or against those trying to use their freedoms. Why?

I referred you to my comments on zealots/terrorists. Meaning thereby that those targetting Shi'a just for being Shi'i are in fact the terrorists. However those attacks are rare and far between and always committed by the same tiny group of individuals.

And here we come to the rub of it. This was in fact a major issue of the site in general: "Does islam proscribe violence? Is violence in the Quran meant to mean 'physical violence' or the 'internal struggle'?"

It means both. In the first case, Jihad is initiated for two reasons. For defense as well as removing tyranny. In this particular case, as stated by innumerable Muftis and scholars of Islam, Jihad is prescribed and obligatory on each and every Iraqi to uproot and eliminate the invaders and their Occupation.

In the second case, you can get the sense of jihad against the nafs or self by reading through these entries

You appear to have answered this question most completely. The answer, by your position, is: yes. Islam proscribes violence. The Quranic calls to violence are exactly that.

Ignoring the context of the verse, one would definitely come to that conclusion. Trying, however, to understand Islam without trying to justify one's prejudices, one easily comes to the conclusion that violence against an enemy is proscribed only when violence will deter or impede that enemy.

The true horror of it is that it is all utterly unnecessary, since the Americans are leaving soon.

The Occupiers in Iraq are not leaving soon and will probably never leave until internal circumstances forces them to leave. Basically, the same situation as the Soviets in Afghanistan.

But, again, the failure to use violence in islam would appear to be a major deficit of obligation

See above on taking context into account.

Could you explain this ayah as it pertains to real, physical obligations in greater detail? I am very interested to learn more about this aspect of Islamic law.

Jihad in the Way of God

I note also a subtle undercurrent of shariac hysteria in your posting: 'these insurgents' want the Holy Law, 'these insurgents' want leaders to enact the Holy Law. Is it not you, yourself, as well, that wants to enact it?

It must to be noted that Sacred Law concerns mostly the Muslims. Traditionally, other religious communities in an Islamic state had their own systems of civil governance. Regarding your question, yes I would like to see Shari'ah law enacted. However I don't think that you and I have the same picture when Sacred Law is mentioned. You, I presume, imagine stonings, amputation and the like. However these Hadd punishments are extremely rare in a society where Sacred Law is enforced, due to extremely strict rules of evidence.

Sacred Law, as I understand it, is the implementation of the Law in it's totality with the intent of obeying God and preventing crime and corruption in the society.

Is your support for the jihadis who murdered this officer based on a fear that an islamic country might reject sharia, and indirectly, a more radical interpretation of islam?

This "officer" was not "murdered". He was executed for committing treason by joining and assisting an enemy force in consolidating enemy control over the country.

Are you Wahhabi, by any chance?

No, I am not. I am a Sunni Muslim who follows the Shafi'i school of Islamic Law. I am also a member of the Shadhili Sufi order.

Regards.

Posted by: Shukri at April 7, 2005 1:49 PM

"The "Iraqi authorities" aka "Interim Government" are Occupier installed. They, as agents of an enemy Occupier are completely illegitimate and fully qualify for the word "traitor"."

Regrets, they do not. A cursory examination of the media will show that there was, in fact, an election. Since that election was decided by the will of the people, rather than a small group of radical 'insurgents', will the 'insurgents' now lay down their arms and accept the will of the people they claim to represent?

Similarly, I do not in any way find your position on the 'guilt' of this officer to be valid. You would have to illustrate why working for a freely elections in this nation is wrong.

"until the Occupation ends, any and all who actively assist the Occupation is a traitor deserving of the death penalty."

So, now there's been an election, the 'insurgents' can put down their weapons and coast the next few months until the Americans get finished repairing infrastructure. The Americans will be gone shortly, and right now they're working for you.

My comment: It's only guilt from your perspective. From mine, it's loyalty.

Shukri's comment: Is it loyalty to you simply because you are observing the situation from a pro-Occupation standpoint?

My response: Is it only guilt to you simply because you are observing the liberation from a pro-radicalist standpoint?

You've already said that your only concern is the imposition of sharia. You also didn't answer my question about why these horrible 'occupiers' aren't simply walking around executing people. Have the Americans executed any terrorist for their crimes yet? Since we seem to be in a moral void on this argument and since the terrorists set the precedent for it, should they start doing so?

Again, the liberation forces seem to hold the moral high ground: they aren't behaving much like 'occupiers' at all. 'Total destruction of Fallujah' is unsupported, sorry. There's been damage but people are already returning there. That does not correspond to 'total destruction'. Fallujah was attacked because it was a major resistance point for 'insurgents'. 'Insurgents' hid out in everything from schools to hospitals to mosques. Real 'occupiers' would have simply flattened the place, 'insurgents' and all.

If, as you say, Iraqi and American forces are collecting the families of suspected 'insurgents', how would this be 'brutal'. They aren't going to kill them. You yourself say that the 'insurgents' fight their kind of war because they don't have access to heavy weaponry. Well, the Americans and Iraqi forces have to fight the 'insurgents' using counter-'insurgent' tactics, since they don't have any 'insurgents' themselves. Let's face it; you throw away one rule of war, you're pretty much out on all of them. I reiterate: the Americans don't go around shooting the families of 'insurgents'. That would of course be the 'brutal' thing to do. Are you just against the practice since you're 'for' the 'insurgents'? I wonder if the 'insurgents' would have the same sense of honour. Current evidence indicates not.

"Please give me a link to any reference that provides some evidence that insurgents are indiscriminately targetting women and children."

Very well:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005647.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005585.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005572.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005536.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005462.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005464.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005434.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005364.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005337.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005316.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005298.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005269.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005229.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005197.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005168.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005156.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004908.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004893.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004865.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005415.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004838.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004676.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004663.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004653.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004434.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004425.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004336.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004332.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004243.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004242.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003975.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003915.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004676.php

Some of these don't give details about exactly who was killed. But of course, several of the societies, countries and/or cultures attacked by islamic 'insurgents' worldwide do allow their children and even their women to go out (unveiled and all) walking about. Ergo, there are lots and lots of casualties among women and children as the direct result of the actions of 'insurgents'. All of these were culled from this website only (minus links to other sites from which this is derived, of course), and I'm actually a little over a quarter of the way down the whole list that searching at jihadwatch.org gives for the word "terror" alone. Some of them are just stuff that 'insurgents' in Iraq or elsewhere are merely planning. Of course, their choice of targets - restauraunts, movie theatres, schools - or weapons systems - a dirty nuclear bomb - is fairly telling. Is it that they don't know civilians including women and children would be there? Again, Western society allows women and children to go out freely without male companions.

This one about how foreign nationals (Saudis and the like) are entering the country to commit acts of 'insurgency'. How exactly would they relate to the issue of 'defense'?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004525.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004288.php

One of the most poignant is this one:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004731.php
Right in Iraq, several attacks killing civilians in a manner I would call 'indiscriminate'. Or maybe they deserve it for daring to go vote; I don't know.

"Again, 'state workers' are in fact Occupier stooges i.e traitors to their country."

In your opinion. Again, state workers are in fact resourceful and dedicated people trying to help rebuild their country after the war and after Saddam.

"The way that they seek to cause terror is the same way that any other country seeks to cause terror by having an Army and security forces who terrorise the enemies of that country into being reluctant to attack them."

Under this system, there would appear to be moral equivalency from the perspective of the 'right' to engage in miltary actions in Iraq. Thus, since the liberation forces a) got rid of Saddam and b) are going to give real freedom to the people, they occupy a higher moral ground than those that would take such freedoms away.

I regret to say that you're also incorrect about the necessity to fight: the Iraqi people were given the right to decide for themselves what government they wanted. Ergo, there is no need to fight anyone. Then again, I understand some Iraqi citizens have been fighting back against the 'insurgents' themselves, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is a need for the Iraqi people themselves to fight against the 'insurgents', since they have more at stake, ultimately.

My post: This is another key flaw in your platform. The people have the will to decide all of the above; that they want sharia, that they do not want sharia, that they want adultery to be punishable by stoning or that they do not so wish.

Shukri's post: "Their wish does not dictate law. Sacred Law stands against adultery, fornication, cheating and other forms of spreading corruption in the land. Hence, no one has a choice in legalising such heinous crimes. In the West, perhaps, people have lost their morals to the point of fornicating on the street. But, God willing, not in the East...
The majority will elect the leaders. The Sacred Laws stand and will not be changed by whims and desires. The leaders are there to ensure that justice is enforced thereby creating a harmonious, safe and secure environment."

Actually, the will of the citizens of Iraq WILL dictate law, most assuredly so. From where do you make the highly dubious connection that their political rights will lead to 'adultery, fornication, cheating [this is a duplication with the above]? You believe that Iraqis will choose this as their raison d'etre in law? Forgive me for asking, but: are you mad? "Fornicating on the street"?!? It's perhaps strange to you, but I've lived in the West quite some time and I've never seen that. Ever. Perhaps I live a sheltered life. =) You seem to have a serious fixation with fornication. Could you explain why this is, exactly? Are you currently involved with a woman you feel or suspect is cheating on you? That, I find, tends to be the usual rationale when the point is pressed to extremis.

The other point you had was contradictory: so the majority does not have the right to enact their own laws (the dirty fornicators!), but the "the majority will elect the leaders". So the leaders will all sing the same tune? Ahhhh. Now I see. Democracy without democracy. I believe the term for that is "theocracy".

In any event, it seems to me highly unlikely that the mere presence of democracy will lead to - ahem - "fornication".

"While the actual number of active insurgents (fighters as well as intelligence personnel) maybe "small" (15-20,000 according to the Defense Intelligence Agency or 200,000+ according to the Occupier puppet "Iraqi Defense Ministry"), the number of supporters are far greater."

Regrets, they're not, really. There are far more Shias in Iraq than Sunnis, Shukri. They have the right - as Sunnis - to be heard, and yet they went out and voted too, for which they were targeted. And besides - if the majority of the population supports the 'insurgents', then democracy will ensure that an 'insurgent government' gets elected. Then, everyone's happy, no?

My post: I must laughingly inform you that adultery is not 'acceptable' in Western society.

Shukri's post: Somewhat true. But again, general fornication is widespread and prevalent. I do believe, however, that the U.S is perhaps the most moral of the Western countries due to having a significant percentage of moral and upright people.

My response: 'Somewhat true'? Well well; don't contain your feelings, Shukri. If you hate Americans, just say so and be done with it. I won't judge you for it. Speaking of 'misleading information' as you do, that does take some gall. You may not watch Jerry Springer but perhaps it would be best then if you took the words of your imam and your politicians with a tiny pinch of salt, and ask yourself: "How do I really know what he says is true?" Then, ask the imam to stop watching Jerry Springer. I think you get my point here.

"Whomever the majority of the population decides are honest and trustworthy."

Well, we agree. The populace should have the final say in its governance. So why do you support 'insurgents' who want to take that away? Incidentally, in your example as applied, would George Bush be "honest and trustworthy", since a majority of the population elected him?

"What if the people didn't want to live under sharia any more? Would that be allowed? If not, why not?"

"No, because Sacred Law solves the problem of crime in society and the only reason that it does that is because it is divine law. Note that even in places like Afghanistan under the Taliban and current day Saudi Arabia, there is virtually no crime."

Regrets again, but this is not so. There is no reporting of crime, or precious little, which is not at all the same thing. Some estimates place the rape/sexual assault of women under sharia, such as in Pakistan, at well over 90%. If the people choose to reject your religion, what will you do? Will you fight them for it? How does this compare to Q 2:256 "There no compulsion in islam"?

"Western governments do not care about the Iraqi people. This is why the US gov't was so willing to halt the Gulf War in order to let Saddam kill tens of thousands of people who had risen to overthrow him."

Very doubtful. Bush was simply not disposed to enact regime change in Iraq. He felt he'd done enough by beating Saddam's army. Clearly, Bush Sr. didn't understand the situation. This is an error that has not been since repeated (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq II). I don't believe for a moment he halted the Gulf War for the reason you post above, although I believe it was a terrible, terrible mistake and damned stupid besides.

"As can be seen by the numerous attempts to overthrow Saddam and the subsequent interference of the US, Saddam Hussein was not overthrown because the people didn't try. Rather he was not overthrown due to the deliberate interference of the West, this being in line with their foreign policies at the time."

Disagreed. Where exactly is there any evidence that Western nations helped prevent Saddam from being overthrown? And why would the German comparison be any different? They tried - and failed - to kill Hitler. If the people had tried hard enough, they would have beaten him. The Soviet Bloc fell almost overnight at the movement of mass uprising.

"Insurgents are not necessarily terrorists nor are they necessarily freedom fighters. But the "interested nation" are Occupiers whether you call them liberators or oppressors and Occupier is the neutral term."

Regrets, it isn't. They aren't going to stay, therefore they're not an 'occupier'. An occupier is there for their own benefit and stays indefinitely. The Americans are more like a plumber, who comes in to fix a problem - and leaves. If he squatted on the toilet and refused to ever move, he could be called an 'occupier'. Be assured, the Americans are leaving - the populace is clamouring for it.

"I would have the Occupiers systematically evacuated."

Fortunately, they're leaving anyway. But why 'systematically'? That's a strange choice of word.

"[Woodward's] analysis is the most authoritative for judging the motives of the government Administration regardless of whether anyone considers it naive or not."

Regrets again, it is not. 'Most authoritative' is a very loose term, since no one has really supplied any 'authority' for the 'authoritativeness'. Are you reading the book jacket by any chance? Publishers will say anything to get you to buy a bloody book. =D

My post: Of course a plan was developed for the attack of Iraq...These are called 'contingency plans'. Every country with any military has them. Even Syria, Egypt and Jordan, to list a few examples.

Shukri's post: But every nation's government does not willfully go to war on poor and inconclusive evidence simply (and apparently) because companies that would be benefitted thereby are closely connected to the governing authorities.

My response: The bit about the companies is kind of hyperbole, without evidence. But your point was that a plan existed prior to the war. My point was that plans exist for a MULTITUDE of contingencies, likely and unlikely. There was one at one point for the USA regarding an invasion by aliens from outer space, I believe. The mere existence of such a plan proves nothing at all. Did the US government think it was likely they'd have to invade? Probably. When one breaks as many UN conventions as Saddam did, sooner or later one country may act.

"benefit enormously thereby in no-bid contracts."

They would have to benefit VERY enormously in order to offset the costs of the war on the economy.

"The issue is MEMRI's selectiveness in choosing articles that either reflect badly on Arabs or serve to further the State of Israel's political and military agenda."

Well, regrets to say, if the meanderings of political leaders, talk show hosts and hideous series on the "Blood Libel" serve Israeli interests, I fail to see where that is the Israeli's fault. The best thing might be to purge such elements.

"Jihad is initiated for two reasons. For defense as well as removing tyranny. In this particular case, as stated by innumerable Muftis and scholars of Islam, Jihad is prescribed and obligatory on each and every Iraqi to uproot and eliminate the invaders and their Occupation."

Thanks. Of course, since 'invaders' and 'tyranny' can get used quite liberally, you can see why sites like JihadWatch.org get founded. I suppose you see perhaps more clearly why more and more people are getting very uncomfortable about islam. Of course, since the Americans removed a 'tyrant', perhaps then their 'jihad' was justified, since by your rules it is in fact an islamically justified jihad. I wonder; while you say that violence is justified when only violence will impede or deter that enemy, you don't really specify further under what conditions it's justified, per se, to actually use it. What you've stated is a operation or functional usage, but not really a moral one. Is jihad justified to 'impede' those who 'impede the spread of islam'? How about those who are simply not islamic? I confess I'm very interested in this area of Islamic jurisprudence; these fine details of responsibility about Islam intrigue and draw me, as does lines and lines of hypnotic calligraphy.

"You, I presume, imagine stonings, amputation and the like [under sharia]. However these Hadd punishments are extremely rare in a society where Sacred Law is enforced, due to extremely strict rules of evidence."

I see. But when the rules of evidence are met - when strict shariasm fails - these punishments do occur. Do you agree with Tariq Ramadan that the time is "not right" for these laws?

Is your support for the jihadis who 'executed' this officer based on a fear that an islamic country might reject sharia, and indirectly, a more radical interpretation of islam?

"I am a Sunni Muslim who follows the Shafi'i school of Islamic Law. I am also a member of the Shadhili Sufi order."

Not a Wahabbi? I thank you for assisting me with clearing up some of my misunderstandings about islam, and the islamic sects. Please do respond to my posting: I find your postings incredibly useful.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 7, 2005 7:25 PM