So that is why we saved their keffiyah-wearing asses from Saddam?

Great.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 1, 2007 3:16 PM

If Saddam had kept Kuwait (it rightfully belonged to Iraq anyway) this wouldn't be an issue. Iraq under Saddam had many female miniters and NONE of them wore hijab since that would have been contrary to the secular Ba'athist ideology of equality.

Yet the US kept Kuwait separate so that the its Islamists MPs can have a free reign while imposing an Islamic state on Iraq. Now Saddam has been murdered and Iraqi women and Christians driven from government at the cost of thousands of dead US soldiers. If there were any real justice, the US imposed Iraqi leader Nuri al-Maliki and the al-Sabah Sheiks of Kuwait would hang from the same gallows on which Saddam was murdered.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 1, 2007 3:51 PM

On Iraq and Kuwait ...

Iraq never owned Kuwait. The land area which is the combination of Iraq and Kuwait was part of the Ottoman Empire, but Kuwait was actually settled by the Arabians from the Nejd Plateau in Saudi Arabia, and had independent relations with Great Britain as early as 1775.

When the Empire was broken up -- both before and after WWI, the tribes in Kuwait requested British protectorate status in exchange for a fair amount of local autonomy. It got it. It then negotiated with Turkey, not Iraq (which did not exist) its current borders, which were established in 1913. These borders were acknowledged and ratified by Iraq in 1932, when IRAQ BECAME SEPARATED FROM TURKEY.

Iraq never had a claim to Kuwait. It only CLAIMED it had a claim on Kuwait.

The crisis of 1980 was precipitated when Kuwait broke a kind of traditional agreement to match oil output to that of Iraq. Instead it upped production, a move that hit the Iraqi economy hard. It did the same 10 years later. Saddam issued a proclamation that said that the overproduction of oil by Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates constituted economic warfare against Iraq.

Saddam then manufactured an irredentia issue to take the oil wells in the islands and northern areas of Kuwait and attached those areas as the 19th province of Iraq. The so-called "border dispute" between two was invented, and the lie that the area had once been a part of Iraq was disseminated as propaganda.

The U.S. defense of Kuwait was no such thing. The U.S. defended a Saudi tribal enclave for two reasons: The Saudis feared that if Saddam weren't punished for invading what was really considered Saudi tribal territory, they'd take the whole of Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia.

The Kingdom, with a tiny air force and no real land troops capabilities then played on the immiment collapse of the foundering Citibank, depositing US$ 18 billion to prevent insolvency, thereby buying a mercenary force from the United States to fight Saddam, giving the US use of the Prince Sultan air base on Saudi soil from which to deploy, infuriating Bin Laden, who was incense about US troops on Saudi soil.

The sons of oil-rich Kuwaiti citizens fled to Cairo, where they waited out the war fought for them by US troops in the underground discos near the medina and Cairo Museum. It was across the street at the Nile Hihlton that I watched a Kuwaiti kid 16 years old win and lose 1/4 of a million dollars in just a little less than 45 minutes. It was so little money to him that he simply didn't care.

But ... it was never a real territorial claim on Saddam's part. The borders as they stood at the beginning of the war were negotiated in 1913 and verified by Iraq upon its own independence in 1932.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 1, 2007 5:57 PM

'Kuwait is a conservative religious state but unlike neighbouring Saudi Arabia, there are no restrictions on women’s dress code and they are free to wear the hijab or not.'

So what is this story about? Are women in Kuwait free or not? Why is this woman being 'pressured' to wear the sack?

Posted by: Dane at April 1, 2007 6:44 PM

I think the purpose of the article is to demonstrate that the freedoms Kuwaiti gained in 2005 (new freedoms) are now under attack from Islamists, who intend to force this woman back into cover.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 1, 2007 6:52 PM

what if she made her own multi-coloured one? but put bells on it and wore really massive shoes with bells on them, would they like that? or is it regulatory black? like darth vader?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 1, 2007 9:22 PM

If you give Muslims the right to vote, invariably they will choose a religious political party.

Posted by: Guillermox at April 1, 2007 9:42 PM

Guillermox ...

I'm not sure that's true. The latest huge elections in Indonesia in 2003 overwhelmingly threw out the Islamist party idea, and reaffirmed the Pancasila doctrine of pluralism that supports Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestantism (they see these as two separate religions, and Confucianism. In Malaysia they did the same, in the same year. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, and the 4th most populous of any country, so I think that is, in fact, the majority of the Muslims in the world who CAN vote have voted down an overt attempt by Islamists to declare an Islamic state. They voted it down by 87% to 13%, and I think that is pretty convincing.

It's not without problems, but it's always the same: the radicals operate outside the law and terrorize people, who haven't the guts to fight back, and therein lies the source of the problems of the spread of extreme shari'a. Nigeria is a perfect example. A highly-financed (by the Saudis) 10-year campaign in Zamfara province was finally able to impose sharia. The OVERTLY stated aim of the Saudi "Taliban" there is to take 19 provinces of Nigeria's 36. That would then be a majority of states, and that is when they will attempt to proclaim shari'a for the whole country. It's cost so far probably $100 million in Saudi financing to get it to where it is. And it's the usual: kidnap Christians, beat women into cover, declare it illegal for women to ride in public transporation, send women home from education. All very tempting to the egos of men, one way extreme shari'a always spreads.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 1, 2007 10:07 PM

alternative energy NOW!!!!!

And moslems back to the Orient.

BACK TO THE BOGS!!!!!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 1, 2007 10:07 PM

Had Saddam never supported the lesser Jihad against Israel, it would have been okay for the US to acquiesce in Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and then buy all the oil they needed from him. The cash from that oil would have gone into palaces, and weaponry that could have been used to confront his Shia rivals, like Iran and Syria, while conquering Arabia would have allowed Sunnis to outnumber Shia, as they did and do in Iraq. While one may cringe at that use of oil money, it sure would have beaten mosques and wahabi institutes being funded worldwide.

If only Saddam had been a real secular ruler, like Ben Ali or Bourguiba in Tunisia, or Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 1, 2007 11:01 PM

OT: US to join OIC

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 1, 2007 11:15 PM

So are women allowed to drive a car in Kuwait without male supervision?

Posted by: alexon at April 1, 2007 11:51 PM

I attended an event yesterday at St. Patricks church in Sydney, it was entitled "A christian experience of Islam" sponsored by catalyst for renewal whose mission it seems, is to demonstrate to the rest of Australia how to peacefully submit. Geraldine Doogue was the MC, and she wins the quote of the day award:

“One of the things that I found quite challenging when I was doing the documentary for “Compass” and the book, was that I discovered even more powerfully that the Christ I followed was a victim and the prophet mohammad was an exceptional victor, he was impressive in every way, he was an exceptional achiever, if I can put it like that.“

There were three other panelists, Fr. Patrick McInerney, who as you may know, was called by the Muslims as an expert witness against the two christian pastors they are perscuting in victoria.

Next was one Ann McDowell, who is nobody in particular but who is a product of McInerney's dhimmification course and last was Fr. Herman, who confessed to wanting to be a Muslim and wished that he could describe himself as a "muslim christian", even though he was introduced as a Jesuit priest.

At one point, they basically indicated that Christ had wasted his time on the cross, because everybody will be saved, they didn't appear to believe in the uniqueness of the Christ or his work on the cross. Interestingly, one chap in the crowd asked why so many westerners are turning to Islam. It's not hard to see why, if the people at the front of the room are indicative of Christian leadership in this country.

I actually have a recording of this event, however I do not have the capacity to host the files, if anybody can help out, that would be appreciated.

Posted by: darrinh at April 2, 2007 12:15 AM

They also discussed the relative merits of having a Kaliphate, so as to provide a unified voice for Muslims.

Posted by: darrinh at April 2, 2007 12:59 AM

Darrinh Islam is than easy religion to follow with no pristhood like in Christian, our Islamist Center have no Imman to lead in prayer so some religish scholar in our over 3000 community are leading in prayer with some given the firday speech to the community. People are getting with no problen and the work of the communinity is moveing forward. Women are allow in our Masjid to study the Koran and to pray and all the treacher at our Islamist school are woman who are also mother to treach the kid's math,science and other non-religious subjects and treach Islamist sudjects and arabic to the sudents of pre-k up to 4th grades.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at April 2, 2007 1:21 AM

For Alexon:

Women in Kuwait hold jobs as surgeons and oil executives -- and are not forced to wear cover but many do -- but they cannot drive or vote, much to the disappointment of the royal family and many of the policy-makers at Kuwait Univerisity.

The all-male Parliament won't go for it, though, because they can't control the outcome of the elections (their re-elections) if they do. And they run a great risk because women in Kuwait are literate and skilled, as opposed to the women in Saudi Arabia who have very little experience outside the home even if they have been to grammar and high school.

In 2004 there was a massive women's rally and there were no arrests.

I think it's a long time coming. Even if the King dissolved parliament and gave it to them by decree, there'd be bloodshed. Because men don't like to give up a privileged position where they have it, a lesson learned by women in every culture in the world and in every religion, too.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 2, 2007 6:50 AM

Defender of Islam:

Are women allowed to lead prayers?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 2, 2007 6:52 AM

"Are women allowed to lead prayers?"

.....Do Muslim men pray for the health and happy life for women?.......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 2, 2007 7:17 AM

re: So are women allowed to drive a car in Kuwait without male supervision?

Yes - women are allowed to drive in Kuwait. Unfortunately many of them do this fully veiled. I live in Kuwait and have had more than a few close calls with them on the highway.

Posted by: Wmabrad at April 2, 2007 9:24 AM

our Islamist Cente...

Uh oh!

Posted by: thomas ato at April 2, 2007 11:26 AM

Please Note from a posting repeated here:

"St. Patricks church in Sydney, it was entitled 'A christian experience of Islam' sponsored by catalyst for renewal whose mission it seems, is to demonstrate to the rest of Australia how to peacefully submit. Geraldine Doogue was the MC, and she wins the quote of the day award:

“One of the things that I found quite challenging when I was doing the documentary for “Compass” and the book, was that I discovered even more powerfully that the Christ I followed was a victim and the prophet mohammad was an exceptional victor, he was impressive in every way, he was an exceptional achiever, if I can put it like that.“

There were three other panelists, Fr. Patrick McInerney, who as you may know, was called by the Muslims as an expert witness against the two christian pastors they are perscuting in victoria.

Next was one Ann McDowell, who is nobody in particular but who is a product of McInerney's dhimmification course and last was Fr. Herman, who confessed to wanting to be a Muslim and wished that he could describe himself as a "muslim christian", even though he was introduced as a Jesuit priest.

At one point, they basically indicated that Christ had wasted his time on the cross, because everybody will be saved, they didn't appear to believe in the uniqueness of the Christ or his work on the cross. Interestingly, one chap in the crowd asked why so many westerners are turning to Islam. It's not hard to see why, if the people at the front of the room are indicative of Christian leadership in this country.

I actually have a recording of this event, however I do not have the capacity to host the files, if anybody can help out, that would be appreciated."

[Posted by: darrinh at April 2, 2007 12:15 AM]

If anyone can help "darrinh" to "host the files" then he can no doubt be contacted through JW; send an email to Robert, and he can then put you in touch with "darrinh."

Posted by: Hugh at April 2, 2007 12:31 PM

Hugh, can he upload into YouTube or give JW the audio file to upload?

He can stream an audiofile (.wav .mwv etc) to JW using gotomypc of you guys have it on both ends. Friends of mine in Australia do this all the time.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at April 2, 2007 1:30 PM

morgaan sinclair-

If he calls it a "song" (with some strange lyrics, admittedly) he can upload it as an MP3 file to "Download.com", where is can be played by anyone (JW, etc.).

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 2, 2007 6:32 PM

For those who are interested, a brief report + links to the audio files can be found HERE.

Posted by: darrinh at April 2, 2007 11:20 PM