THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

That's a silly comment Walter. That was an interesting link, though, thanks.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but it does say:

Quote:

This is not a new problem. Assyrians have been the object of hate and discrimination since the coming of Islam, which treated them as Dhimmis, "people of the book," recognized by the Koran yet treated as second-class citizens.

THat is almost exactly the way the woman in my much-pushed audio file describes it (only her translation is off). :wink:

0 Replies

Truth is truth no matter how it's colored or sized.

The following is an excerpt from the 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 2.4, that identifies who Turabi is and describes the full character of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a homogeneous group of terrorists. Rather it is an affiliation or confedration of many groups of terrorists.

Quote:

Bin Ladin seemed willing to include in the confederation terrorists from almost every corner of the Muslim world. His vision mirrored that of Sudan's Islamist leader, Turabi, who convened a series of meetings under the label Popular Arab and Islamic Conference around the time of Bin Ladin's arrival in that country. Delegations of violent Islamist extremists came from all the groups represented in Bin Ladin's Islamic Army Shura. Representatives also came from organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah.51

Please note in addition to Turabi, the previous quote mentions bin Laden's confederation, and bin Laden's Islamic Army Sura (i.e., bin Laden's al Qaeda).

The following quote is an excerpt from the 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 2.4. It is a paragraph that too many have too narrowly and/or too illogically interpreted.

Quote:

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

Now let's examine this paragraph sentence by sentence.

Quote:

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam

Note that Turabi, an acknowledged participant in bin Laden's confederation and bin Laden's Islamic Army Sura (i.e., al Qaeda), had ties to Iraq. So Turabi is at least one al Qaeda communication channel to Saddam. We probably cannot know for sure all the agreements negotiated between bin Laden and Saddam (i.e., between al Qaeda and Iraq) in that relationship.

Quote:

Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control.

This group was also a member of bin Laden's confederation and bin Laden's Islamic Army Sura. That is, they were members of the al Qaeda confederation. There is no evidence that this group was not known to Saddam.

Quote:

In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces.

Clearly these Kurdish forces did not choose to tolerate the harboring of this al Qaeda group in Iraq any longer, but instead chose to destroy it.

Quote:

In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help, they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.

However, despite the Kurd's intolerance of the harboring of AaI's (i.e., Ansar al Islam's) al Qaeda predecessors, AaI was formed with bin Laden's (i.e., al Qaeda's) help. In 2001, AaI was thereby established as a member of al Qaeda's confederation and became harbored in northern Iraq. The intolerance that the Kurd's expressed and acted on toward the predecessors of AaI obviously did not materialize when AaI was established.

Whatever occurred or did not occur prior to 2001 is not relevent to AaI. All references to pre-2001 events that some allege are related to AaI's control or harboring are clearly not related at all to AaI's control or harboring, because AaI did not exist prior to 2001.

AaI with bin Laden's help became part of bin Laden's confederation and bin Laden's Islamic Army Sura (i.e., al Qaeda). In other words, as of 2001, two years before the US invaded Iraq, al Qaeda was harbored in Iraq.

Quote:

There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

Well then, who probably did control the harboring of al Qaeda in Iraq? Did the Kurds, who were the acknowledged enemies of AaI's al Qaeda predecessors, exert their control over AaI? No! There's no evidence of that. Al Qaeda controlled that harboring. But then who willingly and knowingly and tolerantly harbored al Qaeda in Iraq? If Not the Kurds, the enemies of the al Qaeda predecessors of AaI, then who? It had to be Saddam who willingly and knowingly and tolerantly harbored al Qaeda in Iraq. Otherwise, the Kurd's would probably have again at least attempted to destroy AaI, the al Qaeda successors of their al Qaeda enemies.

Alternatively, if Saddam did not tolerate AaI there and didn't want to bother to order his troops to remove AaI, he could have simply requested the Kurd's, the proven enemies of AaI's al Qaeda predecessors, to destroy AaI.

Again, all references to pre-2001 events that some allege are related to AaI's control or harboring are clearly not related at all to AaI's control or harboring, because AaI did not exist prior to 2001.

0 Replies

You know about what time Ialsm came inti existence? And you certainly know, how other Christians persecuted the Assyrians in the first centuries AD?

0 Replies

Nice colour yelling.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You know about what time Ialsm came inti existence? And you certainly know, how other Christians persecuted the Assyrians in the first centuries AD?

If you are trying to have a contest about who's more knowledgeable on the subject, Walter, it's no contest (you win). It's your opinions I frequently disagree with... not your facts.

Your most interesting link does provide:

Quote:

Since 630 A.D., the coming of Islam, Assyrians have suffered 33 genocides at the hands of Muslims--an average of one every 40 years. The worst one occurred in World War I, between 1915 and 1918, when 75 percent of Assyrians (750,000) were killed by Kurds and Turks. One of the first official acts of the newly formed Iraqi state, having just gained its independence from a British mandate in 1932, was to massacre 3,000 Assyrians in the village of Simmele and its surroundings on August 7-11, 1933.

Hardly indicative of the Christian persecution being new, is it?

0 Replies

Also the Christians weren't persecuting anybody except a few heretical fellow Christians in the first centuries of Christianity. In fact until Constantine legalized Christianity in the Fourth Century A.D., the Christians had their own problems with being persecuted. And even then they weren't picking on anybody but themselves until the medieval period and well after the initiation of Islam.

0 Replies

Well, they killed a passel of Jews circa the Spanish Inquisition <toward the end of the medieval period>. But, hey, who didn't kill Jews.

<broil>

0 Replies

Yes they did. The Crusades and the Inquisition were some of the sorriest chapters in the History of Christianity; however, both were based far more on political expediency than on any tenets of the Christian faith. Then again, the Jews were not always magnanimous toward people when they had the upper hand either. There's plenty of finger pointing to go around as far as uglies in our various histories.

What we have become is perhaps more important. It is too bad that Islam did not retain its enlightened and progressive spirit that it had in the beginning.

0 Replies

Man being animals.................

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Nothing to do with the invasion." It was an illegal 'invasion.'

What laws or treaties did we violate?

cicerone imposter wrote:

If we had followed the advise of the world's governments and peoples, we won't be where we are today in Iraq. It has everything to do with the "invasion."

Where would we otherwise be? I'm not prescient but anyway I shall offer my IF .

But first the facts. Al Qaeda declared war on Americans everywhere. Al Qaeda purposely killed (i.e., murderd Americans in a series of murders since 1983 prior to 9/11/2001. Al Qaeda murdered Americans on 9/11/2001. After 9/11/2001, al Qaeda murdered several large groups of other people some of which contained some Americans. Since 9/11/2001, al Qaeda has not murdered any Americans in America.

IF we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, removed their al Qaeda harboring governments, and in our own self-defense killed a great many al Qaeda, THEN al Qaeda would have probably murdered more Americans and other people in America, and al Qaeda would have probably killed other people and some Americans elsewhere.

President Bush said to us the night of 9/11/2001 (several times thereafter, for example, to us and our Congress the night of 9/20/2001) that we would punish not only the perpetrators but also their harborers. President Bush was re-elected! We're attempting to do just what he said we would do. To exterminate al Qaeda, it is necessary to replace all those governments that refuse to stop knowingly, willingly and tolerantly harboring al Qaeda. Hence it is necssary for us to be where we are today. Freedom isn't free!

So if we weren't where we are today, where would we be today?

0 Replies

All the historic reports, you guys bring up highlights my point. Since the dawn of time, christians and muslims have been fighting each other. So why have muslim immigrants into western countries? It just asks for trouble. Why not, they stay in their country, and we will stay in ours. The world would be such a better place!

0 Replies

australia, Neva hoid of the revolutionary war?

0 Replies

what do you mean ci?

0 Replies

http://www.columbiana.org/WebPageGraphics/Homeland-Security.gif

0 Replies

"Since the dawn of time, christians and muslims have been fighting each other." Actually, men have been at war with each other no matter what their culture, race, or religion. The revolutionary war is only one example of why "since the dawn of time" has no barrier for the reasons of wars.

0 Replies

I am not justifying the war. I just think it is crazy to have muslim immigrants in western countries. It would be better if we kept to ourselves, and they kept to themselves. Better for everyone.

0 Replies

We are all immigrants; not only the Muslims.

0 Replies

Yippie, I get a chance to agree with CI again! (quite rare).

Australia, people are people. You can't seriously want to divide us up like that. Make your real point already, would ya?

0 Replies

Yes, I know. But I would prefer Muslims in muslim countries, not western countries. No matter who is right or wrong, the compatibility factor between muslims and christians is practically zero. Generally speaking, they regard us as westerners and we trust them as far as we can throw them. Why not, keep separate paths for the good of both sides.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I common sayin in Germany, first came up during the Nazi times:

'The one who shouts, is wrong' ("Wer schreit hat Unrecht").

never heard that one before, walter. i'll have to file it for future use. :wink:

i like this one too; "eine inner reichsparteitag". which i suspect some folks have been getting into the last 2 years...

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know