After several weeks of relative absence, I see Ican is still posting in this thread, still recycling the same arguments, still refusing to engage in substantive debate. Rock on.
In other, more horrifying, news: NOTHING.
McTag wrote: ... I smash my way into your home, and you and your neighbours fight with me. Who is the biggest contributor to the conflict?
Is it you, your neighbours, or me?
That's a false analogy.
I'll make it analogous.
First,
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home, publically threaten to destroy all my family and all their homes. Then
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home destroy some of my family and some of their homes. Then I smash my way into your home, and
you, some of your family, and some of your neighbours fight with me. Who is the biggest contributor to the conflict?
The biggest contributor is
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home.
IronLionZion wrote:After several weeks of relative absence, I see Ican is still posting in this thread, still recycling the same arguments, still refusing to engage in substantive debate. Rock on.
I see that you, after several weeks of relative absence, still do not recognize your continuing propensity to recycle the same arguments and to refuse to engage in substantive debate. What is your continuing argument? You argue too much about me and too little about the merits of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, or the methods of securing the peace in those countries..
However, you are not alone in this. For example, Gelisgesti seems to have recently succumbed to the same failing.
3rd Request
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
IF ELECTED:
What do you want Kerry to do? What do you think Kerry wants to do? What do you think Kerry will try to do? What do you think Kerry will do?
What do you want Bush to do? What do you think Bush wants to do? What do you think Bush will try to do? What do you think Bush will do?
Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Friday, August 27, 2004
Thousands Stream into Shrine of Ali
Muqtada orders Followers to Disarm
CNN's Kianne Sadeq continues her excellent reportage from Najaf. She and her team report that supporters of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani streamed into the shrine of Ali in Najaf. After reaching an agreement with Sistani, Muqtada pledged to ask his men to leave the shrine. Sistani wants Najaf and Kufa to be demilitarized. Muqtada al-Sadr's men used the microphones ordinarily employed for the call to prayer to relay his message that the Mahdi Army should lay down its arms. Wire reports suggest that some were obeying the order. With all those pilgrims now in the shrine, it will be easy for the Mahdi Army fighters to slip away if they so choose.
Sadeq also says that Qasim Dawoud, the Minister of State for Military Affairs, has pledged that Muqtada al-Sadr would be a free man as a result of the agreement he reached with Sistani. Dawoud said,
"Muqtada al-Sadr is free to go anywhere he likes. ... He is as free as any Iraqi citizen."
Meanwhile, the full extent of the destruction inflicted on Najaf by the US military may never be fully appreciated in the U.S. itself. How many civilians did our troops kill in their campaign in a densely populated urban area against the Sadrist street gangs--especially in the first days of the conflict before most city residents fled the old city? I find chilling the words of John Burns and Dexter Filkin of the New York Times
' One of the last American actions before the cease-fire went into effect involved the use of a 2,000-pound, laser-guided bomb to strike a hotel about 130 yards from the shrine's southwest wall, in an area known to American commanders as "motel row." '
Chris Allbritton, an eyewitness writes to remind me that by this time, the area was completely deserted by civilians, so this strike did not kill any. My point was only that especially in the first week of the three-week battle, there seem to have been civilian casualties, and we don't know anything about them-- how many, how bad, etc., despite sporadic reports and statistics from the Iraqi Health Ministry.
Al-Hayat reports that while he was in London, a delegation of Iranians came to see Sistani and to request that he support a bigger role for Iran in Iraq. He is said to have rejected this overture vehemently, and to have decided in the aftermath to return to Iraq without coordinating that step with the British, American or Iraqi governments. [This claim of non-coordination is coming from Sistani circles in London and is not plausible-- the British had to be in this up to their eyeballs.]
Winners and losers:
I think the big losers from the Najaf episode (part deux) are the Americans. They have become, if it is possible, even more unpopular in Iraq than they were last spring after Abu Ghuraib, Fallujah and Najaf Part 1. The US is perceived as culturally insensitive for its actions in the holy city of Najaf.
The Allawi government is also a big loser. Instead of looking decisive, as they had hoped, they ended up looking like the lackeys of neo-imperialists.
The big winner is Sistani, whose religious charisma has now been enhanced by solid nationalist credentials. He is a national hero for saving Najaf.
For Muqtada, it is a wash. He did not have Najaf until April, anyway, and can easily survive not having it. His movement in the slums of the southern cities is intact, even if its paramilitary has been weakened.
posted by Juan @ 8/27/2004 06:52:17 AM
That's is probably, how the U.S soldiers avoid with
known journalist:
Iraqi editor's experience in US custody
Quote:In the very early hours of 2 August 2004, four US military vehicles in Baghdad stopped the convoy of Dr Muthana al-Dhari, editor-in-chief of al-Basaer newspaper and media officer of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS).
In his first interview about the incident since his release, al-Dhari started by explaining to Aljazeera.net why he was driving in a Baghdad street at that hour of the morning.
"On 1 August, I participated in a live talk show on LBC television (Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation), I left the studio shortly after midnight. I headed to the headquarters of the AMS intending to spend the night there and do some work for the newspaper".
US soldiers identified al-Dhari and the officer told him that he knew his father Shaikh Harith al-Dhari, secretary-general of the AMS, but said the patrol was searching for possible attackers who had fired RPG missiles at US forces in the neighbourhood a few hours earlier.
"I told them where I had been, that millions around the world would have seen me live on TV, but they searched the cars and started serious discussions with their base. We were six in total, they separated us and military vehicles continued to patrol the area.
"After some time they searched the cars again much more aggresively this time, and threw our belongings on the ground. An officer approached me and said we are going to give you a body scan. Then they said that explosives residue had been detected on me and two of my colleagues.
"The officer requested an explanation for them finding evidence of the residue, I told him that I had been speaking live on air, and that I could not give an explanation. He said you are not cooperating and we are going to arrest you.
"They handcuffed us and blindfolded us and put us in a military vehicle. I could not see anything, but being a son of Baghdad, I could figure out that we were heading to the airport area, which was proved right the next morning."
What were conditions like in the detention centre?
"I spent the first hours until the morning sitting on a chair. Then they took us to a prison cell where they did an initial interrogation. Then a doctor checked us, and said everything is OK.
"But his diagnosis was wrong, because the next morning an Egyptian doctor came and gave us another checkup, and found my blood pressure was high, while my colleague had breathing difficulties.
"He was very angry and sent every US soldier out of the room, and made another thorough check. The doctor then wrote a report that we needed medical care.
"At 10 in the morning, we were introduced to the prison reception. They took our pictures and fingerprints. We were very tired; we spent the whole night sitting on a chair with a huge generator roaring in the next room.
"After that they kept me in a good room, they gave me a copy of the Quran and a prayer rug. The food was terrible, some cheap soup, a piece of mandarin, and dry biscuits. That same meal was served as breakfast, lunch, and dinner."
He spent four days in prison, and his release was just as curious as his arrest.
"I prepared myself for a long stay in the detention centre, but I learned after my release that high-ranking US officials intervened and said they did not want to lose the involvement and efforts of the AMS."
What subjects did they bring up during the interrogation?
"Basically, because the AMS have made efforts in the releasing of several captives in Iraq, they suspected that we have links with the captors, but the truth is that the AMS is highly respected and the only link between us and the them is our appeals in which we remind them of the principles of Islam which prohibits Muslims from harming people."
"They also mentioned the names of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and wanted to know if I knew any of them. The interrogators were keen to find out anything about the Iraqi resistance."
"They think because we are a revered Sunni Muslim organisation, we might have information about the so-called Sunni resistance, but the truth is the resistance is Iraqi not Sunni."
"They asked me, why we hate them? I told them that we do not hate the American people, they are welcomed as tourists, traders
etc., but not as occupiers.
"An interrogator blamed the Israeli-Arab conflict for the hostility between Arabs and Americans, and if Israel removes the settlements everything would be alright."
"I did not agree with him, and reminded him of Jerusalem, and how it is occupied. I let him know that Muslims do not mind Jews and Christians living with them in Jerusalem, but they must ask for permission not come by force."
What was your conclusion?
"I got the impression that US interrogators and CIA officers have not a clue about what they are doing. Their questions were shallow and indicated serious ignorance of the Iraqi scene."
"I also noticed they are so keen to mock, ridicule, and insult us. Some of them are good people, and are very angry at [President] George Bush, one of them told me if he (Bush) loves Iraq so much, why does he not bring his family and live here?"
"But interestingly, some of them (US soldiers) are just thieves. They stole my agenda and wrist watch in front of my eyes."
ican711nm wrote:McTag wrote: ... I smash my way into your home, and you and your neighbours fight with me. Who is the biggest contributor to the conflict?
Is it you, your neighbours, or me?
That's a false analogy.
I'll make it analogous.
First,
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home, publically threaten to destroy all my family and all their homes. Then
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home destroy some of my family and some of their homes. Then I smash my way into your home, and
you, some of your family, and some of your neighbours fight with me. Who is the biggest contributor to the conflict?
The biggest contributor is
you, some of your neighbors and some of those living in your home.
No, wrong again. Iraq did not threaten the US. There was plenty of hot air, but there was no credible threat.
So, we must return to the original analogy.
There was a very good letter in our national press this week, by a man from Oxford, and if I can find it I'll copy it out here for all to read. If there are any readers left on this thread, that is, for you, Ican, have all but smothered it with your inane, tedious and tendentious ramblings.
I'm here, lurking, McT, and appreciating your posts. Ican has an ability to frustrate the facts that most people can only dream of surpassing.
The question that I ask, and the question that No one answers, is this:
If you really went into Iraq to liberate, do you intend to attack Saudi Arabia, whose treatment of subjects is even worse? S.A. probably does have destructive weapons.. but there seems to be an unreasonable difference between there and Iraq. People post thousands of posts a day about human rights breeches in Iraq, and forget entirely what the Saudis are doing. I wonder why?
dròm_et_rêve wrote:The question that I ask, and the question that No one answers, is this:
If you really went into Iraq to liberate, do you intend to attack Saudi Arabia, whose treatment of subjects is even worse? S.A. probably does have destructive weapons.. but there seems to be an unreasonable difference between there and Iraq. People post thousands of posts a day about human rights breeches in Iraq, and forget entirely what the Saudis are doing. I wonder why?
The Saudi government is a long term ally of the U.S. Apparently our President and elected representatives deem it is in our national interests to keep them as such. We elect them to make those weighty decisions.
So why would they now decide to invade SA?
Did someone say attack Saudi Arabia? Has everyone forgotten our and the worlds dependence on Saudi oil. We have already essentially, as the result of our invasion of Iraq, cut off that supply of oil. If we did the same in Saudi Arabia and the supply got cut off or even diminished. The industry of the world including the US would quickly come to a standstill.
I did, but it was hypothetical, as I know that you wouldn't go after SA. If the US want to fight the war against those who oppose the justice of the free world, which is the new name for the war on terror, -- then it is hypocritical that they do not hit Saudi Arabia, whose régime poses More of a terrorist threat than Iraq ever did.
dròm_et_rêve
It is not a question of wouldn't or shouldn't. The fact is that in truth the way the cookie crumbles as it stands now we couldn't.
I know, au. It's very sad, really, that the most powerful country in the world, and the representative of the free world in Afghanistan and Iraq, does rely so heavily on Saudi Arabia. As we know, it was, with the exception of-- I think-- two hijackers, an all Saudi crew who flew those planes into the Pentagon. And yet, war is waged on Iraq, which has nothing to do with it at all. Iraq and Saudi Arabia hate each other more than Franco hated the Catalan Nationalists.
Would you support war on Saudi Arabia, if they did not have such an impact on the US' economy?
dròm_et_rêve wrote:Would you support war on Saudi Arabia, if they did not have such an impact on the US' economy?
Not unless they were deemed by our government to be a threat to our national interests in areas other than the economy.
dròm_et_rêve
I don't support preemptive strikes or wars of choice. Regarding Saudi Arabia a war with them would only bring what is left of our Moslem "friends" squarely in the laps of our enemies and make the threat of terrorism even greater. We should have learned a lesson from that misadventure in Iraq.
I agree, Au. Why spend billions of dollars to make more enemies, eh?
So, in what way were Iraq a threat to American national interests? They didn't want war with America; they have no involvement with the Saudi-based Al Q'aeda whatsoever; and, lo and behold, they didn't have the nuclear weapons for which America apparently went to war. But anyway, Larry, wouldn't you call a repeat of 9/11 by Saudi Al Q'aedaëm a threat to American interests? -- Or had you rather bomb Iraq a bit more instead?
dròm_et_rêve wrote:I agree, Au. Why spend billions of dollars to make more enemies, eh?
So, in what way were Iraq a threat to American national interests? They didn't want war with America; they have no involvement with the Saudi-based Al Q'aeda whatsoever; and, lo and behold, they didn't have the nuclear weapons for which America apparently went to war. But anyway, Larry, wouldn't you call a repeat of 9/11 by Saudi Al Q'aedaëm a threat to American interests? -- Or had you rather bomb Iraq a bit more instead?
But of course. And I hadn't "rather bomb Iraq" or anyone else that our President and elected representatives do not deem it prudent to do. But having elected them to represent me in such weighty matters, I am content to let them represent me. If I do not approve of how they do that, I will vote to remove them from office PROVIDED that ,in my opinion, there is a better alternative.
Ok, then, Larry. I find it inacceptable that they should talk about terrorism in Iraq when it's the Saudi Al Q'aedaëm who are the terrorists. But I suppose you have to turn a blind eye to those sorts of things, when you are being given milions upon millions of investment money by people who do this every day:
[quote]There's been a major terrorist attack in Riyadh targeting Americans; early reports are that at least one American is dead and there may be a lot of people who have been wounded in the attack. The best guess is that it's al Qaeda.
Obviously no one wishes for a terrorist attack. But what's good about it is that it is undeniable that it's a terrorist operation, and that it was launched by Arabs, specifically probably by Saudis. It's big and high profile and getting lots of publicity. That's the good part.
There's actually been terrorist operations inside Saudi Arabia for years, but the government has been in full denial and coverup mode about it all. In order to avoid admitting to what was really happening, they've been blaming a lot of what has been happening on foreigners. And in some cases they've arrested westerners, subjected them to torture to force them to confess (and eventually everyone will to end the torture).
For example, there was a car bomb attack which killed a Brit and injured several other westerners. The Saudis arrested a Canadian named William Sampson and a Brit named Alexander Mitchell and accused them of the crime. The allegation was that they were part of a liquor smuggling ring and that it was an attack on a competing group of smugglers, but that was always ludicrous. They were tortured and eventually confessed, but of course everyone always confesses eventually; you'll say whatever they tell you to say in order to make it stop. They were then given a secret trial and both were condemned to death.
And the purpose of all of this was to find someone non-Arab to blame, so that the government could continue to deceive the world and itself into thinking that there was no domestic terrorist problem.
[/quote]
they're peaceful if you turn a blind eye to that, I guess. So, if Sadaam Hussain were a major donor to US economy, on the scale of the Saudis, would you have disagreed with a war on him, too?
