What a surprise! Voting in Republicans in 2000 and 04 got us liberals.

Posted by: infidel! at January 26, 2007 12:29 PM

Elections are useless when all the candidates are crap. That goes for any country in the world.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 26, 2007 12:34 PM

With uneducated and uniformed masses, voting is nothing more than mob rule....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2007 12:36 PM

Democracy only works if the underlying culture is compatible. The underlying culture needs to be a "live and let live" culture which respects private property, and does not think that violence is a good response to differences of opinion

The United States is not a democracy. It never has been, and hopefully never will be. It's a Constitutional Republic, which is a quite different thing, in that the Constitution places certain rights outside being vulnerable to a simple majority vote.

One big reason why the American Revolution turned out so different from the French Revolution was that the majority of people in the US were small farmers -- minor property owners who were much more interested in preserving their own security than in trying to loot someone else. The French, OTOH, once they had seized the wealth of the nobility and the Church, held a bloodbath to determine how the spoils were to be divided

Posted by: PapaBear at January 26, 2007 12:41 PM

OT

FOR HITLER YOUTH- READ BLAIR'S CHILDREN

In maths and science, key Muslim contributions such algebra and the number zero will be emphasised to counter Islamophobia.

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

Despite massive education on the Internet, that Arabs bought Hindu mathematical concepts to Europe, it has failed. Our politicians are just as ignorant as before. They dont read and learn, or acquire even the rudiments of general knowledge. How depressing.

And from a Guardian article on the same subject, and linked in the comments thread, is this little gem

Issues to be covered include the "multinational state" of the UK.

This is news me to me. I was under the impression that Britain was a "multicultural" state at the worst. When did we become a multinational state?

A state or a nation is defined by a common culture and language, or else it will fall apart in civil war.

What is a multinational state? Is the UK a composite of the rest of the world, with no unique feature that defines it?

What is definitely not in doubt, is that the minds of the politicians and their advisors who thought this up, is a confused jumble, a veritable UN porridge of odds and ends.

Posted by: DP111 at January 26, 2007 12:44 PM

More often, nowadays, one reads a statement such as the following: "Democracy is not easily transplantable." Or "Iraq is not the same as Japan and Germany." Or "it takes a long time to allow democracy to take root."

All of these statements are very imperfect and groping attempts to explain the failure of the "democracy" project of the polypragmones in Washington. But all of them, while taking note of the difficulty of the task, miss the main point.

The main point is not that democracy is more than mere head-counting, but also requires the firm rule of law, that is man-made law, law which reflects the expressed will of the people. It requires guarantees for minorities, of equal treatment at law. It requires a belief in the rights of individuals, as opposed to the power of the state (see the Bill of Rights, see and read and re-read and memorize), and the power of the collective more generally.

And Islam is not merely a belief-system which is stony soil but rather a desert for the transplantatioin of democracy, as unlikely, and as impossible to maintain, as a golf course in the Empty Quarter.

Why?

In Islam the individual is unimportant. He is unimportant for several reasons. First, he is unimportant because he is a mere individual, and Islam is a collectivist faith: the supreme good is that which furthers Islam, or that which furthers the well-being and power of the Believers, the umma al-islamiyya, and not what permits an individual to achieve or to be permiteed to achieve. He is unimportant because, in the end, he is a mere mortal, and the dignity of the individual is merely a rumor in Islam, and the exercise of free will an impossibility. Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do, and die, if necessary, while conducting their lives, and fulfilling their Muslim duties, and that supreme duty of Jihad, Jihad fi sabil Allah (Jihad in the path of Allah), that no Muslim can escape. The Believer in Islam is a slave to Allah: he submists to Allah. Islam means "submission." He submits to Allah, and then, according to the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an, and as glossed by the Sunnah (the practices, manners, and customs of Muhammad and his Companions, as recorded mainly in the Hadith and the Sira). He is not a free agent. He does not submit the articles of his faith to scrutiny or to the claims of reason. He must accept: Allah knows best.

With such a belief-system dominating entirely the mental formation of those who grow up in societies suffused entirely with Islam -- in a way that those who think they know what a "religion" is cannot possibly conceive of, for every phrase, every allusion, every shared historic memory, of Muslims relates to Islam, and even to Islam of 1350 years ago. The sense of time, the sense of what is significant, is far different in Islam than it is in the other belief-systems that we traditionally call "religions" and that are far more concerned with matters of a relation of a believer to the presumed God or gods available for worship and gratitude and communication, in some cases, through prayer, than is Islam, in which ritual prayer is quite different, and the relationship to Allah also quite different, than in any other of what are too easily called by the same phrase, "world religions." Islam is a Total Sytem. Outside Islam, for Muslims there is not to be, for the true Believer, anything else. The Qur'an contains all of wisdom, and it is only a question of finding it, of understanding where that wisdom -- or those scientific discoveries of last year, or the year before -- are to be found.

Given all this, it should be no surprise -- but apparently to those who make American policy it is a great surprise -- that in Islam political legitimacy is located, by Believers, not in the expressed will of mere mortals, mere slaves to Allah, but in the will of Allah, as expressed by him in the Qur'an,and further glossed, most imoportantly, by the words and deeds of Muhammad. There are some in Iraq, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, who would wistfully wish that somehow that were not so, and would wish that in fact real democraciews could be estbhablished to replace the corrupt regimes and ruling dynasties that are such a feature of Islamic countries. But they can only wish, and do not dare to publicly proclaim, or even to admit to themselves, that the chief brake on an end to those corrupt regimes, and on democratic reforms, consists of the attitudes of many, or most, Muslims -- and the primitives in any society will always outnumber the non-primitives. In Muslim socities, the relative number of primitives is far greater than in the advanced West, which has managed to channel and tame and educate, to some degree, its own primitives -- though constant vigilance is required, for the forces of disorder and entropy and misunderstandings of "legal equality" are constantly threatening the legacy of well-ordered Western societies that took centuries to achieve, a legacy left to those who so often do not appreciate, nor know what to do with, much less how to preserve that legacy intact.

It is true to say that "it's tough to transplant democracy." But one must add more: in any society suffused with Islam, so that the majority of the population owes its allegiance to Islam, planting democracy will be like, as noted above, constructing an Arnold-Palmer-designed course in the middle of that Rub al-Khali, a sandy St. Andrew's, possibly a palm-fringed Pinehurst, its grasses forever thirsty, and the course itself doomed to disappear with the next season of simooms.

Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2007 12:53 PM

Aside from the flat contradiction between Western democracy and Islam, there is another thing that those making policy, and even those criticizing that policy, in Washington, completely overlooked. They overlooked the fact of Sunni-Shi'a hostility, that is not merely a matter of Saddam Hussein, and therefore somehow to be solved by Saddam Hussein. I doubt if one in one hundred of those making policy can sit down and explain exactly the history of what divides Sunnis and Shi'a in terms of doctrine, and what, outside of doctrine, has furthered the split. And the same goes for the press and pundits who are now giving to referring, as if they knew all along all about it, to the "Sunnis" and the "Shi'a" but still haven't the faintest. Go ahead -- ask Tom Friedman, ask Dinesh D'Souza, ask Bush or Cheney or William Kristol, to tell you about Sipaha-e-Sahaba in Pakistan, and what the existence of that organization signifies, or should, for American policy in Iraq. Ask them about the Zaidis in northern Yemen, and exactly what the relations are between Sunnis and Shi'a, in Yemen, this year, ten years ago, during the civil war in which one side -- the "Royalists" -- were backed by Saudi Arabia (could Saudi Arabia ever have backed the Shi'a in Yemen? If so, why?) and the "Marxists" [a term J. B. Kelly has mocked as inappropriate to the context] of the south were backed by Nasser and the Egyptian army.

Coasting, coasting. So many are so lazy, so many are coasting. And meanwhile, other people pay with their lives or with their wounds or with their lives disrupted, and taxpayers pay with their money, $700 billion and counting, for the laziness and ignorance and stupidity of their self-confident leaders, or rather - those "taking a leadership role."

Enough. More than enough.

Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2007 1:00 PM

Koran in, Koran out. GIGO

Posted by: Report at January 26, 2007 1:27 PM

Exactly right, Mr. Fitzgerald. What I've thought often, though expressed less on this site, is of the unspoken expectation of the United States: that a democracy in a mostly Muslim country will put forth governing candidates of an Iraqi version of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington or a Ronald Reagan to immediately jump out and lead the nation is folly and beyond hope. That's where George Bush, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and the State Department have failed us. Instead, we have to choose the milder of the two sides, either Sunni or Shiite, and hope for the best.

This policy was an unmitigated disaster in the recent Palistinian elections. And it may well be the same in Iraq. Seeing that the government coddled the death squads of Mookie al-Sadr since he is also Shiite, and despite his questionable claim to Islamic Imam-ism, I'm completely dismayed that the U.S. waited until just now to aggressively go after this creep, certainly in league with Iran's Diplomats in Iraq, the Revolutionary Guard.

I've not wanted to say this before- but I don't see this as anything near over soon. A democracy in Iraq?? Don't hold yer water... but do pray for it.

Posted by: localmalcontent at January 26, 2007 1:30 PM

Democracy comes with time evolves to a point where everyone is treated as equals and I think that is what this is about in Iraq and what democracy is about. By forcing it you miss all the little progressions the details so no one is going to learn what democracy is in a non democratic country because they have never experienced or been taught it let alone want it even if they did, so they see it as an war on Allah.

Even the past history in Europe or the West the systems they had made one group outsiders and another more accepted. Modern democracy tries to be Jesus like without using his name in loving all nations under one roof.
Islam has the opposite effect, either you are a sheep following ISLAM or you don't count hence why not many non-Muslims or Europeans live in the Middle East compared to how many live here. You would not know how many true Muslims are in the Middle East or how many really want to separate from it because that is suicide and you never will find a development of democracy because before it takes shape you are in prison or tortured or forced to flee if one changes religion. Also communism like in China is also the same, the problem is that people do feel a presence of God what ever they believe and that is part of our genes that connection to a universal being that billions feel within but communism denies those feelings that people have a right to explore as one would creativity.

Yes Islam is a strong system and so is a Prison but does not mean people want to live in one, and if you cannot escape that prison it will just remain that. Christianity is not a prison for example it’s not a battle of the earthly conquest but of the spiritual and if multitudes of people believe in it's principles then they can get on as a whole whilst the message that outsiders (infidels to some religions) should be treated equally also, but even Jesus failed by employing his ways as do Christians for their soft touch but that is the price and all the Prophets and people in Christ will have to endure without laying a finger back if done properly. These are things in the past, the present and future that the elect in God would go through, it's not a system to over take nations but to overtake violence in man's hearts to a Godly level. If it becomes a measuring stick for all people and systems to follow and used as law by the people then it should until it loses the battle or changes shape or throws Christ's name out replace it to be shown as their own wisdom rather than glorify the origin it came from.

It's just cogs turning everyone is a small cog the nations are the bigger ones call it a fractal system of mathematics’.

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at January 26, 2007 1:40 PM

I don't think it is a mindset our pols don't understand. I think it is a function of them just trying to use the situation to their personal benefit - and the hell with everything, and everyone else.

You cannot elicit a knowledgeable response re the sunni shia rifts from a congresscritter because frankly they don't care to become educated about the situation. What they care about is the narrow concentrated vision of being reelected and maintaining power.

Thats why these goofballs don't accept mail - electronic or otherwise - from those outside their districts. Even though they are making decisions and policy which affect us all. If you can't vote for me - sucks to be you. Full stop.

Posted by: infidel! at January 26, 2007 1:50 PM

Hugh, we need you to force the enlightenment down our leader's, pundits, and broadcaster's throats.

Posted by: Gotham at January 26, 2007 1:51 PM

"Elect who we wanted into office and into government jobs - don't let it up to factions of muslims who have absolutely no idea how to get along with others."
Posted by: s_sgt7
+++++++++++++++

What and you think those who disagree with what would be deemed as "US puppets" would then silently sit on thier hands and submit to the great infidel stain in the land of Islam ? I guess you think the multitude of "martyrs and freedom fighters of "allah" would stop coming with thier bombs ? I guess you think that Iran would stop sending in thier fighters ? No, it will never end, they will not give up and we know it.

Posted by: TheRegulator at January 26, 2007 2:04 PM

Hi Yall,

I agree 100% with Mr. Hugh.

The first problem was not the national elections. The first problem was the invasion itself. Whatever yall may think, there was no way anything close to what the US expected would have come out of this. In my opinion, the Brits had a penchant for colonizing other countries. Even they could not hold onto Iraq after the first world war. I feel America is no good in Colonizing other countries and especially not a country like Iraq.

Now some of you may think that this is a leftist/liberal thinking. Nope. I am not a lefty or a righty. And that is the misfortune of this war. Most everyone is looking at it from a conservative or a liberal perspective. Most of them are wrong. The left is too self loathing and the pundits on the right are plain ignorant. And then you have soft brains/ charlatans like D'Souza. I supported the Afghanistan war. But even there, i feel things are slipping out of hand because of Iraq.

I feel just as you folks that Islam needs to be countered and this war has been a setback in achieving it. The way to counter it apart from fighting a defensive war is to counter it by using the intellect. There is this pervasive thinking that "Islam is a Peaceful Religion and there are some fringe elements who are causing all the trouble blah ....". I feel like most of you do that Islam itself is the problem and the best way to counter it is to intellectually challenge the core teachings of Islam (as is being done on this forum). Yes Islam is political and in fact it is an Arab imperialistic movement (as Anwar Sheikh puts it). The hope is that by consistent and continuous scrutiny and challenge, there may come a point when there would be massive apostasy and defections from Islam and that is the way to winning over it.

Till then the solution for Iraq (which i know you folks may think is crazy), find somebody like Saddam who can rule Iraq with a iron hand and is friendly towards the US.

Regards

Posted by: Ishwar at January 26, 2007 2:28 PM

Elections are useless when all the candidates are crap. That goes for any country in the world.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

Most of all where it counts most: right here.

Money will ensure that good patriots know they need not apply.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 26, 2007 2:56 PM

Till then the solution for Iraq (which i know you folks may think is crazy), find somebody like Saddam who can rule Iraq with a iron hand and is friendly towards the US.

Regards

Posted by: Ishwar

I'm on record having said multiple times that we need not have invaded Iraq. Saddam was exactly that semi-secualr tyrant. he loved to drink and party. Definitely not a good moslem. Who are WE to impose democracy on them?

We should apply our limited resources where they are needed in an emergency such as Afghanistan. Or in South Sudan. Not Darfur. I mean the CHRISTIAN South Sudan. THEn Darfur. Let's take care of the people who are most like ourselves first!

I swear the liberals will be the death of us all.

Which is why I am happy to increase Global Warming. I have NO intent on leaving the world to the moslems. Without us toi fix things they'll hopefully die off from lack of air conditioning.

Out the window go all our great works of art and architecture.. but if NOONE fights for our common culture NOW.. then what use is there worrying about such abstracts like Global Warming?

One can only hope that Global Warming will be our bleated revenge visited upon the moslems should they succeed in stealing everythign from us.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 26, 2007 3:12 PM

If you must stop a Moslem country that threatens your existence, go in, destroy it, and leave them to crawl about the rubble. Let others in their umma rebuild it, if they are interested in doing so.

If it takes the target another 13 centuries to rebuild, that give us that much time to get ready for the next assault. Islam is not going away. Like a many-headed hydra, you slice off a head as soon as it becomes dangerous.

Until the idea sinks in that it is what makes the heads act as they do, the heart of the matter, must be destroyed, this is the only measures that we can take.

So far, that is a big no-no, and if brought up is immediately shouted down, with rotten fruit and vegetables being thrown at the one who proposes such an "unthinkable" idea.

Perhaps one day it will become "thinkable" (or not, as by that time there will be no one left with the ability to think about it).

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 26, 2007 3:44 PM

Isn't it ironic.. here we are trying to figure out how to rule their countries. In the meanitme they're busy figuring out how to rule OURS.

I'd hate to engage in some serious comparisons about who is having better success at furthering their aims.

Good night.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 26, 2007 5:03 PM

The United States is not a democracy. It never has been, and hopefully never will be. It's a Constitutional Republic.

Shouldn't that read Used to be a Constitional Republic, PapaBear?

The Constitution has been trumped, in a very big way, several times since Roe v Wade. And by Republics as often as by Democrats; from the Congress and Excecutive as much as from the Bench; but always by one form of ledgerdemain or another:

- Termination of federalism

- Taxation without representation

- Equality before the law

- Permanent implementation of Marxist institutions after the Great Depression emergency subsided.

- Government limits on free speech

- Government limits on the right to bear arms

- No more borders

- Legislation from the bench

- Undelcared wars

- De facto acceptance of sedition and treason

- Illegal institutionalization of the Republican and Democratic parties

- Illegal constraints on Commander in Chief over the military

Hell, at this rate Infidel Americans just might beat our Moslems to our shared ultimate goal: Sharia.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 26, 2007 5:10 PM

Whats on

Posted by: Indiana_jones at January 26, 2007 5:49 PM

Islam is not like Communist Russia.
It is far bigger problem.
Iy is not regional problem.
It is the problem the world faces especially non Muslims.
If not action is taken now it will be costly later.
Becasue they dont want compromise.
They want absolute Islamoc rule on the wrold and for then death to every non muslim is no big deal.
Political correctness and seculasrism and democracy are words they detest.
How can negottiations take place with such people.

Posted by: Indiana_jones at January 26, 2007 5:51 PM

Can laws be sufficient for the building of a strong democracy? I am not an intellectual giant as Hugh or Robert, nor I was born into the people of the free, but as I live here, I have continually observed the differences between the Western democracy and that of the quasi democracy of non-Christian countries; for example—Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and etc, where I have visited. If you have been following my personal stories, you should have known me by now, that I have lived most of my life without a country; that is to say, “I held no citizenship of any nation since my birth until I finally arrived in America.”

Now, let me share with you of my observations. Though I have not a formal education in history--please don’t laugh-- one day while reading in a library, much to my surprise, by chance, I have learned that America did not invent democracy. From then on, I began comparing all the different forms of democracy in the world, and got very confused at one time. I questioned my self, “Why do I hate so much of what I saw in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, and why do I like so much of what I see in Canada, Australia, and America; after all, aren’t they all democratic countries? I should say, “America is still the Number One.”

I used to go to library book-sales to collect books on American History. I read one, then another, still another until I finished reading all my small collection of nine books. At this end, I had not learned much about democracy, other than knowing all the dates and facts. Then something good had finally arrived; being a Christian, I was given a book called “History of America from Christian Perspectives,” from which I transformed from “I was blind to now I see.”

By reading “history of American democracy from the Christian Perspectives”, I have come to understand why America is so free, which is more free than the Great Britain and her Common Wealth countries—I had lived in Canada and Australia for a short period. I looked in a map published by National Geographic, where nations and their religions are painted in different colors; it shows that there is only one country painted as a Protestant. Yes, it’s America. Why? It had puritan pioneers, though you may deny all you wish—please remember: I am a foreigner; I am not a salesman.

Enough, I have heard that the puritans were pain in the rear. Yes, they were morally strict, no saints, but upright hypocrites like all of us. It was this beginning that Americans’ practice of honesty and generosity, without consciously knowing, that has made America so great. It was these subconscious morally good old practices—-including good work ethic and “strong spines,” added with vastness of land and resources--- made American democracy much greater that all the rest in the western world. Though you may say the human laws have made it strong, I say non-sense! Sorry--- I mean: I am not sorry.

I read the story of Laura Ingall and many other old books, including the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin by Benjamin Franklin. Despite the human imperfection, I found these pioneers had no laws we have to day, but a simple hand shake; in other words, “The American good moral ethic made freedom a complete success.” Contrary to American freedom is the “Ugly democracy,” a democracy that can rob its people by inundation of new nonsensical laws, such as that of the ACLU’s. Take a look at Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Singapore; these are police states. You may say these police states have no choice because they have the need to prevent anarchy. Yes! But why!

Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia are Muslim countries, these, you already knew why, and have learned much about Islam from Hugh and Robert; however, it’s a very different story when I come to see Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea, where Islam is not the dominating power, but it has been the bad ancient heathen customs and habits that dominate every day life, where one man will devour another man without the slightest qualm. In these countries, honesty is only practiced within families and clans, where people rip off the governments and other clans, where people believe that every race or clan has it own god who cares less of others. I have heard their people said, “it’s alright to rip off the government because I am not taking it from my neighbors;” another said, “The god of my clan gave me what he took from another.” Because of all these filths, you should understand why their form of democracy would need an iron hand to rule the stiff-necks. I saw where there were no police present, traffic lights fail to serve their purpose; I saw construction materials being carried away by the mop in day light, where the owners stood defenseless—this is how a Mullah took a TV from my home, when I was a little boy--I saw a man being jailed for stilling a hen, while bank robbers were turned loose after sharing wealth with the police department. They have a saying, “If you rob, make sure you rob enough to share with the President.” By now, you should see why the new democracy in Central Asia and Middle East couldn’t stand.

We too will fail, if we do not humbly admit to our complacency. No doubt, American democracy is very unique, a democracy founded on a solid rock, which is of the Judeo-Christian values. The history has attested to the American greatness during WWI and WWII, during which time the ACLU was not in existence, during which there were less legislated laws; however, America has slowly drifted away from its greatness everyday, while there is more and more laws being created everyday, but more problems have emerged with great revenge. Why?

My observation says: The fear of God that was prevalent in the old America has almost completely evaporated into the thin air! Let’s take my experience for an example: My wife shopped (in America) at a drug store. She discovered a big mistake on the receipt, while she was exhausted caring a baby in her arms. She arrived home discovering not only that six items, among other things she bought, had not been charged; they were subtracted from the total payment. She returned a week later to pay the difference to the store, at which time the manager screamed at his employees. Seeing what took place, a customer, shopping at the store, came to my wife, saying, “I wish all my customers are as honest as you,” while many others jeered at her, including the cashiers, thinking she was being eccentric. Another example of the American moral decline is the Pentagon Papers case, in which an NSA employee escaped punishments after committing treason in 1972, see Radical Son, by David Horowitz; still more example of perpetual moral decline in America, is the treason committed by Times writers, Risen and Lichtblau, see how they were admired for their immorality and exalted by the other writers, see Market Watch, January 6, 2006. By looking at how writers escape punishment for committing treason, as aforementioned, it should tell you the reality of what little man-made laws can do for a strong democracy. Though it’s better than Sharia that perverted all reasoning, the man-made laws aren’t good enough. Better yet than the laws, is the fear of God-- the god of Israel.

I have no doubt the atheists will confront me by asking, “Are you saying that without God, we cannot be morally good?” My answer is: If there is no God, let us all become Hitler. For Christians I can offer you what Victor Hugo say, “To be a saint is the exception; to be upright is the rule. Err, fall, and sin, if you will, but be upright!”

Let me say again: Without the fear of God of Israel, there will be no need for moral or virtue, and there will be no lasting free democracy!

Stand up! Make you choice!

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2007 5:54 PM

Elections are useless when all the candidates are crap. That goes for any country in the world.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 26, 2007 12:34 PM

The trouble these days is we are getting mere politicans, not statesmen (or even real men for that matter) as we once did. Where are all the General Grants, the Ronald Reagans, the Winston Churchills, the Teddy Roosevelts? I wish to God I knew.....

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at January 26, 2007 7:21 PM

THE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIIAH

Of course we could not have expected the conquerors of Iraq in 2003 to have been prepared of what would follow the simplistic attempt to force this tri-partite Humpty-Dumpty in a mold stamped "democracy."

Nor can we expect General Petraeus to get involved in the refinements of the Sunni-Shiah split (the trunk of the Islamic palm had been split--and it will be up to us to widen that split until the palm dies and withers away).

There should be people bright enough "up there
somewhere in our administration" that can comprehend these fine points and vociferously make
themselves heard, by somebody, anybody, to point out that they only hate us--the kafir--more than they hate each other.

Now, if we can divert their attention from us--especially at this time of the "Mahdi Rising"--to go at each other full force, all over the umma, wherever there are pockets of one in the territory of the other, it would benefit us.

Idiotic concern with preserving Shiah and Sunni lives in this battle must be discarded. Either they kill each other or they come united and kill us.

They will unite for that purpose, even it goes against their grain. Hezbollah will join with Hamas to try and eliminate the hated Yahudis of Israel. In the Iraq that Petraeus is inheriting, the prime target is still Americans, despite the internecine killings.

Protecting Shiah from Sunni and vice versa should NOT be the US's prime mission. Extricating our troops from being in the middle of this war that started when Mahomet died should be.

Here, I'm talking from the top of my head, but deploying to, let's say, Anbar province and concentrating in cleaning out the Sunni al qaedas theer, whilst in Bagdad Sunni kill Shiah and vice versa, might work. By having a heavy concentration against the Syrian border as well as a formidable naval/air presence in the Persian Gulf, could keep Iran from going into Iraq to join the fray.

The ideal situation would be to have al qaeda and Sadr's "mahdi" army inflicting heavy casualties on each other, while Saudi and Iran are squared off to support their proxies.

This is only wild brainstorming, I'm no strategist, but shoot, everything else's been tried already, what would we have to lose?

In other words, "Get out of the frickin' sandbox and let them hooligans fight!"

SOURCES

from an ant-Shiah, a Sunni website:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/beliefs_of_khomeni_the_leader_of_iran.htm

COMMENT:
These sores in the Sunni-Shiah relationship must not only be kept open, but poked and dug into so that they never heal but fester and consume the entire body that is the ummah.

KHOMEINI'S DECLARATION
"The Islamic and non-Islamic powers of the world will not admit our power till such time that we establish our hold over Makkah and Madinah because these are the centers and citadels of Islam. Hence our domination over these places Is an essential requirement ... when as a conqueror I will enter Makkah and Madinah, the first thing to be done at that time by me would be to dig out two idols (Abu Bakr and Umar) lying by the side of the Prophet's grave."

Khomeni's View Of The Sahabah (companions of the prophet):

In his book, Kashful Asrar, on page 115 Khomeini accuses Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhuma) of having opposed the clear texts of the Qur'an. Thus he says:

"We shall present a few examples of Abu Bakr and Umar having opposed the explicit laws of the Quran and deciding against it. The general body of the Muslims accept their decisions (which were in conflict with the Quran). "

On page 119 of his book, Khomeini openly brands Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) as a kafir and zindeeq. Khomeini states:

"From the examples of Abu Bakr's and Umar's opposition to the Qur'an, cited by us, it is clear that contradicting the Quran publicly and adopting actions in violation of the Quran were not regarded as a serious matter by these two. The Muslims of that time (viz. the Sahabah) either joined their (Abu Bakr's and Umar's) party in the quest for Political leadership which was their goal, or if they did not join their Party because of not fully supporting them, they never said a word in opposition to those unjust oppressors and powerful munafiqs (referring to Hadhrat's Abu Bakr and Umar). They lacked the courage for this...

Abu Bakr who had plotted the whole conspiracy would have fabricated a hadith in contradiction to the Quran just as he had done for depriving Hadhrat Fatimah of her share of inheritance in the estate of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And Umar - it is entirely to be expected that he would have said that either Allah Himself erred in revealing this ayat or Jibraeel or Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) erred in its delivery. At that time Sunnis would also have supported him and would have aided him in opposition to the command of Allah ... just as is their
attitude in all these alterations which Umar effected in the Deen of Islam and its teachings. In all these (alterations of Umar) the Sunnis accorded priority to the statements of Umar in opposition to Qur'anic ayat and
statements of the Rasool of Allah and that is exactly what they (Sunnis) are following. "

These are the claims and allegations of Khomeini who vociferously and deceitfully, raises the slogan: "There is no Sunni'sm and no Shi'ism." In the above "tract from his book, Kashful Asrar, it is abundantly clear that Khomeini is echoing the following Shi'i beliefs:

*That Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar and the entire body of the Sahabah were murtads and munafiqs.

* That Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar interpolated in the Qur'an, changing and deleting to suit their whims and desires. They fabricated and forged ahadith in conflict with the Qur'an.

The logical conclusion emanating from these Shiah beliefs is that the Qur'an which we have with us today is not authentic since it was the compilation of these very Sahabah who are regarded as munafiqs by Shi'ism. Besides this fact stemming as the logical conclusion from Shiah beliefs, the highest books of the Shiah religion categorically assert the falsity of the present Qur'an. Insha'Allah, this claim will be described later.

Abu Hurairah (Radiallahu Anhu) is a famous name. This illustrious Sahaabi of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is well-known for his copious narration of ahadith. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made special dua for Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radiallahu Anhu), but Khomeini has the following to say about this eminent Sahaabi and Muhaddith:

"God knows what Misfortunes Islam has Suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil 'ulama'. Abu Hurairah was one of the fuqaha, but Allah knows what judgments he falsified for Muaawiya and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam - But when a faqih like Abu Hurairah or a judge like Shurayh joins such a government, he improves its standing while besmirching the reputation of Islam."

SHIA SLOGAN OF FALSEHOOD:

Khomeini's popular slogan is: "NO SUNNI'ISM AND NO SHI'ISM". This overt call of the Shi'i priests is designed for the consumption of Sunni Muslims who constitute the Ummah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

However, like numerous verbal professions of the Shi'i priests are based on their doctrine of Taqiyah, so too, is this vociferous slogan of "No Sunni'ism and No Shi'ism." (Taqiyah is the Shiah doctrine of holy hypocrisy by which it is permissible for them to conceal their true beliefs and profess verbally what they do not believe). How is it possible for there not to be Sunni'ism? And, how is it possible for there not to be Shi'ism? The foundation on which Sunni'ism is reared is Love for the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while the cornerstone of Shi'ism is Hatred for the Sahaabah. The two religions, viz., Islam and Shi'ism are irreconcilable opposites. The one repels the other. The slogan of Khomeini is nothing other than a piece of political trickery to gain the support of the Ahle Sunnah for the fulfillment of his despicable motives of political power. A group which pours out such extreme hatred for the Sahaabah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as the Shiah sect, can never stand on the same platform as those whose article of faith includes Love and respect for all the Sahaabah. Shiahs who proclaim that the highest among the Sahaabah were murtads and kafirs can never themselves be Muslims. Such vile claimants can never be the friends of those who follow the Path of the Sunnah, the Path of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the illustrious Sahaabah.

COMMENT: This following is very important, muy importante, for OUR purposes.

Khomeini stated in a message for a youth rally:

"The Islamic and non-Islamic powers of the world will not admit our power till such time that we establish our hold over Makkah and Madinah because these are the centers and citadels of Islam. Hence our domination over these places is an essential requirement ... when as a conqueror I will enter Makkah and Madinah, the first thing to be done at that time by me would be to dig out two idols (i.e. Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar) lying by the side of the Prophet's grave."

(Khomeinism and Islam-by Abu Rehan Farooqi).

This attitude of Khomeini is not only his personal belief and personal hatred for the greatest 'Sahaabah, but it mirrors the belief of Shi'ism regarding Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu). In the books of Shi'i theology, the following noxious beliefs are propagated:

* When Imaam Mahdi appears, he will order the exhumation of the bodies of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. Their bodies will be hung on a tree for public show. Their bodies which even according to Shi'ism have not decomposed, will be stripped of their kafan. Thus, the nude bodies of these noble Sahaabah will be put up for a disgraceful show.

* Imaam Mahdi will restore Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar to life.

* The sins of entire mankind, right from the inception of the world until the time of Imaam Mahdi's appearance, collectively devolves on these two noble Sahaabah. Hence, Imaam Mahdi will put them to death. They will then be revived and death will continuously be inflicted on them a thousand times daily, forever and ever. These corrupt and vile allegations are stated in the Shi'i book, Haqqul Yaqeen, the author of which is among the highest Shiah theologians, Mullah Baqir who is also the author of another book Zaadul Ma'aad which likewise contains many vile fabrications about the Sahaabah. In his book, Zaadul Ma'aad, Mullah Baqir asserts that:

* Hadhrat Umar, the second Khalifah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), was a kafir. (Nauthubillaah!) Not only a kafir, but the leader of the munaafiqeen.

* Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had cursed Hadhrat Umar and had prayed for his destruction. As a result of the la'nat (curse) which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Hadhrat Faatimah (Radiallahu Anha) invoked on Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) he was murdered by the kafir Persian, Lu'lu'.

* The murderer of Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu), by virtue of having murdered Hadhrat Umar, deserved the mercy of Allah, hence, Hadhrat Huzaifah (according to Shi'i falsehood) prayed for Allah's Rahmat to be on the kafir, Lu'lu', the murderer of Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu).

* The most auspicious day in the year is the day Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) was murdered and the virtues and excellencies of this day stem from the murder of Umar. In honor of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi Wasallam) and Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu), Allah Ta'ala annually-grants Shiahs three consecutive days in which they are permitted to sin freely. The Recording Angels are instructed to cease recording sins on these three days commencing on the day Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) was murdered. Three free days of sinning are among the ways of rejoicing the murder of Umar (Radiallahu Anhu).

* Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) altered the Qur'aan Shareef and prevented others from Islam.
These corruption's as well as many other falsehoods are imputed by the Shiahs to Hadhrat Umar, the man about whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "If after me there had to be a Nabi, It would have been Umar." "the most resolute in the Law of Allah is Umar". But, Shi'i priests shout: "No Sunni'ism and No Shi'ism."

Muslims should not allow themselves to be deluded by the slogans of the Shi'i priests. Such slogans are motivated by a lust for political power. In his futile attempts to seek fulfillment of his dreams to rule the World of Islam, Khomeini strives to lure and dupe Sunni Muslims into his camp, for he is fully aware of the fact that minus Sunnis there is no Ummah, no Islam and no Islamic history. All Muslim lands barring Iran, are Sunni lands. Without Shiahs, Islam exists, since Shi'ism is a religion at variance with Islam. But, without Sunnis there is no Islam, for the only true Islam is the Deen followed by the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'. Khomeini understands this much, hence he seeks to woo the Ahle Sunnah by means of his hollow and insincere slogans of "No SHI'ISM and no SUNNI'ISM". But this slogan is raised under cover of the confounded Shiah doctrine of Taqiyah (holy fraud and holy hypocrisy).

Khomeini's Criticism:

"A certain person asked the Caliph (Abu Bakr) a point of law and he was unable to answer; he was therefore unfit for the position of a leader and successor to the Prophet. Or again, a certain act he perform was contrary to the laws of Islam, hence he was unworthy of his high post." (Writing and Declarations of Khomeini)

etc., etc., etc.

more of the same on this website

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/beliefs_of_khomeni_the_leader_of_iran.htm

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 26, 2007 8:43 PM

And of course mistakes are made in war... Where is the media reporting on scale of rage that should be brought upon the jihad armies in Iraq when they put bullets to the head of all their prisoners... This is accepted by the western media as acceptable enemy behaviour...

Yet let an american slap a prisoner and you hear the westeren media scream from one end to the other, no balance, no liogic of comparison... Just one message of bad americans. No matter how compassionate, the media has no balance only a seek to elect their particular left favorites.

Someday, if American behaviour ever matches the enemies, the media heaven's will fall.

Posted by: winston at January 26, 2007 8:54 PM

"Where are all the General Grants, the Ronald Reagans, the Winston Churchills, the Teddy Roosevelts? I wish to God I knew....."

You won't find them. The most able and most honorable refuse to enter the muck pit that is the political arena. Thank the media.

As to the future: Though we have excellent stock to raise, we have entrusted them to an educational system intent on producing socialist automatons, not free thinking men.

It's been years but I remember reading a Kipling story about a man who "read books about people's insides written from the point of view of men who have no stomachs." These types dominate the halls of academe and we are the worse for it.

The nobles have deserted us. It's up to the yeoman.

Posted by: USBeast at January 26, 2007 9:38 PM

It took the free will of the Palestinians in their election of Hammas to give reason to stop 30 years of aid shipments. The policy of wishfull thinking went right out the window. Pretty much forced the two state solution to come to a screeching halt. While giving every reason possible for Israel to offer the world knowing it will never be justifably asked to deliver. You've got another area where Islam will fight each other. while exposing Irans connections in Lebanon to the full light of day.

Look at things more simply. Elections in the Middle East give them reason to fight each other for Votes. Without the spread of Democracy, the divisions within Islam would not have the catalyst by which it's divisions can be expressed. Either way we win. They learn to vote like we do or like they seem to like to.

The only question left open is when to stop manning the polling Booths in one Country and move the Voting to another.

All these free elections provide the burden of proof necessary to justify taking future defensive measures. By their own free will do they profess their hatred for us.

That is the true lesson of Hammas.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 26, 2007 10:39 PM

What was done right in Iraq? As far as what has been done, all was fine up to allowing islamic law to build on, meaning the building of the new free people stopped right there. Islam is the enemy of the world, and even those who claim to follow it, death hovers near them all.

Mistakes in Iraq, now Iran may be near. If we attack, the U.N. will scream foul, so will the dems. If we wait until they push their hand , and say a city is destroyed in the U.S., the dems will scream "Bush should have done somthing to stop it".

So easy to see what you do wrong from this day, looking at yesterday.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 26, 2007 11:36 PM

Unicorns,

Your link was really interesting. I dug a little further and found this:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/sadaqah_appeal.htm

Notice that there is an urgent appeal for funds to build a mosque in India. The P.O. Box where you send the money to help out is in Saudi Arabia. Interesting.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 27, 2007 12:30 AM

In every single case, democracy in a majority Muslim country brings in Sharia. After all, the most democratic of Muslim nations is Iran.

No, it is better that Muslim countries be ruled by enlightened despots like the late Shah or even by tyrants like Saddam rather than give these people free elections.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 27, 2007 1:22 AM

Palestinians vote for Hamas, Afghans vote for sharia. Maybe someone should let our leaders in on a little secret: voting is only part of the equation.

This is very true. Libya has the same situation at the moment as well. Qaddafi's rule is absolute, but he has given significant power sharing to the parliament, which constantly bring up measures to implement parts of the Shari'a.

Provoslavni wrote:
No, it is better that Muslim countries be ruled by enlightened despots like the late Shah or even by tyrants like Saddam rather than give these people free elections.

I agree 100%; it is as they say the lesser of two evils. Saddam was an evil dictator/tyrant who commited mass murder and violated the human rights of his country. But he did manage to keep the Christian minority safe within his borders by focusing his wrath on the Sunni and Shi'ites, who were afterall the only legitimate challenges to his authority.

Democracy does NOT work with people who prefer or aspire to theocracy.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 27, 2007 1:48 AM

Isabellathecrusader,

Thanks for pointing that out. Somewhere here, I wrote and posted about a Hydra that has many heads that can be sliced off, but there is a center that controls them.

You have pointed out where that is. It isn't Mumbai, where another mosque is projected to be built. It's where they ask for the money to be sent.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 27, 2007 5:36 AM