In your response regarding Wahhabism yesterday you as an "expert" gave the broad brush treatment to the impact of Wahhabism on the rest of Islam. Tell me sir, is that because you don't want people to know how deadly Wahhabism is to the world and in particular to Islam
Why don't you express your outrage about the suicide bombing in Baghdad to day? You probably supported and cheered when you heard about it. Save your meaningless sense of outrage for the next victims of one of the righteous true believers of Islam.
Perc, I'm not Muslim, I'm not Catholic, I'm agnostic. Perhaps the reason my interperetation of Whabbism offended you is because I haven't any religious axe to grind. Islam is a multifaceted faith. there are roughly forty variations of Sunni Islam (of which Wahabbism is branch) alone. Wahabbism is growing due to two factors: The vigourous injection of funds it has recieved from the Saudi royal family (mostly as a "bribe" to keep them from spreading dissent at home) and its tendency to proselytize among the poor and downtrodden in Europe's Muslim immigrant community. It is amusing how similar the growth of fundamentalist Islam mirrors the rise of fundamental Christianity (just as goofy) in traditionally Catholic Central and South America, and Bhuddist Korea. My personal opinion is that fundamentalism of any flavour is dangerous. You are not going to get the sort of ideologically driven hatred you wish for from me. I really don't want to even admit you exist at the moment. Just go away, allright? Why don't you go beat up a homeless person, or torture a kitten? That is probably the sort of thing that would make you feel better.
Hobitbob
Now why don't I believe you?
I believe that's our second Plato quote for tonight. :wink:
I feel your pain, bob. But it's clear p. is here to exactly stir these kinds of emotions. Sabotage of the internet is the larger goal.
I think you just gave perc an organism ...
Oh THAT's what I've been having, Gelis... I thought it was something else...!
Shall we continue with something a bit more pleasant.
TERRORIST DESPAIR
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
August 20, 2003 -- THE first strategy employed by Iraqi dead- enders and their terror- tourist allies failed miserably: They attacked U.S. forces head-on - and paid a bitter price.
With their comrades killed, wounded or captured, their leaders apprehended (another one yesterday), their bases of support whittled away and U.S. resolve only hardened, our enemies have turned to a new, desperate strategy.
Over the past several days, the Iraqi hardliners and their terrorist allies attacked an oil pipeline and a water main. Yesterday, a terrorist drove a truck bomb into the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing dozens and wounding more than 100 people.
Our enemies' initial "Mogadishu Strategy" - based on the faulty notion that if you kill Americans they pack up and go home - was a disaster for them. Our response devastated their already-crippled organization. Now, with reduced capabilities and decayed leadership, they've turned to attacking soft targets. It's the best they can do.
It's ugly. But it's an indicator of their weakness, not of strength.
Demoralized by constant defeats, our enemies have become alarmed by the quickening pace of reconstruction. Consequently, we will see more attacks on infrastructure, on international aid workers and on Iraqis laboring to rebuild their country.
We'll also see al Qaeda and other terrorist groups become the senior partners among our enemies, as Ba'athist numbers and capabilities dwindle. There is more innocent blood to come.
Yet the bombing of the U.N. headquarters at the Canal Hotel was a self-defeating act. Even if it frightens the U.N. off (and it just might accomplish the opposite) the attack reminds the world yet again of the savagery of radical Islamic terrorists and the brutality of those whom we deposed in Baghdad.
Like 9/11, the Canal Hotel attack, though impressive at the moment, will prove another disaster for the terrorists.
Our enemies are frantically trying to prove to the people of Iraq and the world that they remain powerful and viable. But they aren't powerful or viable: They're reduced to a faltering program of assassinations, blowing up aid workers and infrastructure attacks that will alienate the people of Iraq. Any support they gain through such actions will be negligible, while the anger they have rekindled can only harm their cause.
Our enemies hope to make Iraq ungovernable. Yet, contrary to the images on TV, the country is making swifter progress than we had any right to expect:
* It was our Kurdish allies who captured Iraq's former vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, and turned him over to us yesterday.
* For all his rhetoric about raising an army of believers, Moqtada Sadr, a hate-filled Shi'a mullah greedy for power, is afraid to attempt anything of consequence. Senior Shi'a clerics despise him, while the people of the Shi'a heartland distrust him.
* Even the Sunni-Arab center of Iraq has become less restive than it was a month ago.
The signs for the dead-enders are all bad. They had to do something dramatic.
And if the remaining Ba'athists are despondent, the traveling terrorists of al Qaeda are outraged that the Iraqi people have failed to rise up against the infidels. It's likely that a non-Iraqi drove that truck into the Canal Hotel.
Why attack the United Nations? Other than the ease with which it could be struck? Several reasons.
First, the U.N. dealt a blow to the hardliners when the Security Council recently recognized the legitimacy of Iraq's Governing Council. Second, the Ba'athists will never forgive the U.N. for its support, no matter how lukewarm, for sanctions and weapons inspections in the past - or for failing to restrain coalition forces last March.
And for al Qaeda and associated terrorists, the United Nations is a Western-dominated tool of Christians and Zionists - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We are not facing reasonable men. They have a deep and furious need to hate.
The attack on the U.N. headquarters also was an effort to undercut reconstruction efforts. Our enemies hope that, by attacking aid workers, they can prevent other international agencies from coming to Iraq, that they can drive a wedge between the coalition and the Johnny-come-latelies nudging their way into reconstruction programs.
This will be a moment of truth for the United Nations. America and its partners have demonstrated that we will not be deterred by bloodstained bullies. Will the U.N. honor its dead by showing some backbone? Or will it flee Baghdad, handing the terrorists a real, if minor, victory? If the United Nations discredits itself by running away, it will hasten its long decline. If it takes a stand against terror and goes right back to work in Iraq, it may regain a good bit of its faded luster.
The truck bomb didn't simply attack the U.N. - it struck at the U.N.'s idea of itself. The lesson the U.N. must take away is that no one can be neutral in the struggle with evil.
Within our own country, every potential Howard Dean voter will declare that the U.N. headquarters bombing proves, for all time, that our occupation has failed, can never succeed, should never have been tried, and, anyway, that we're all bad people for disturbing poor, innocent dictators. Then they'll trot out the nonsense that, since Iraq has become a magnet for international terrorists, we've failed on that count, too.
On the contrary. We've taken the War Against Terror to our enemies. It's far better to draw the terrorists out of their holes in the Middle East, where we don't have to read them their rights, than to wait for them to show up in Manhattan again.
In Iraq, we can just kill the bastards. And we're doing it with gusto.
Yes, the Canal Hotel attack proves that terrorists are rushing to Iraq like moths to a hurricane lamp. But when that happens, the lamp wins, not the moths.
Retired Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters' next book is "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
perception wrote:
On the contrary. We've taken the War Against Terror to our enemies. It's far better to draw the terrorists out of their holes in the Middle East, where we don't have to read them their rights, than to wait for them to show up in Manhattan again.
In Iraq, we can just kill the bastards. And we're doing it with gusto.
Yes, the Canal Hotel attack proves that terrorists are rushing to Iraq like moths to a hurricane lamp. But when that happens, the lamp wins, not the moths.
Retired Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters' next book is "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
So lets see if I have this right. The nearly daily killings of US troops is a victory because it shows that the terrorists are still there?
Quote:In Iraq, we can just kill the bastards. And we're doing it with gusto.
But many of the "bastards" are innnocent civilians.
Its a nice, "woof-hoorah" article, meant to make those who love explosions feel good, but it does little else.
Fighting with the computer. Ignore.
For those interested in the hearings in the UK, the Guardian is the most thorough source I've bumped into....reportage and commentary
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1021534,00.html
The same information is used to draw a different conclusion:
How America has Created a Terrorist State
"The goal of creating a better Iraq is a noble one..."
Stern is often very smart, a right/centrist with whom I usually disagree. I don't like the implication here that our goal in invading Iraq was to make it better -- unless one adds that it means making it better for us, or some of us, or American enterprise.
The Iraqis know intellectually and now from experience that we aren't there for noble reasons. We are fully able -- have the resources -- to provide good security and services (huge portion of the US military+assistance from the UN + Britain in "state of California"). We haven't just failed, we appear to have intended to fail. Which makes the Iraqis see us as both malign and stupid.
Blatham
That's a very interesting battle between NO 10 and the BBC and I know you have some very strong opinions about the role of the Media. I also am well aware of your strong opionions regarding the way the war was justified. Let's leave that tiger sleep for a moment and talk about the Media and primarily the BBC which now has an operating budget of over 4 BILLION LBS--- that's roughly 6.5 BILLION $. This revenue comes from charging the owner of EVERY TELEVISION SET in the UK $275 pre year. What does the British taxpayer get for his money. They get a left wing beauacracy that has set itself up as the opposition to the elected gov't of the UK. I have the opinion (naive I'm sure) that responsible journalism (especially that which is publicly funded as opposed to mostly privately owned media in this country) should devote itself to reporting the facts and let the public decide the issues.
Gilligan couldn't be happy with his role as a reporter so he embelished the substance of his interview with Dr Kelly which in turn APPARENTLY caused the suicide of Kelly after he was questioned by the gov't. Gilligan may prove to be the next Jason Blair---at any rate I believe even you will agree that the public deserves more factual reporting and less bias by those who rule the BBC.
Tartarin wrote:
We haven't just failed, we appear to have intended to fail. Which makes the Iraqis see us as both malign and stupid.
Where is your evidence that we "intended to fail" ? I"m certain Paul Bremmer would be interested in that "evidence.
Just as you 'failed' 9/11.
perc
The BBC is quite dearly loved by most Brits (rather like the similarly funded CBC here). In fact, as Lawrence Olivier's wife recently bemoaned, the problem is that the BBC is moving too much in the direction of American broadcasting. I do not agree that the UK needs more objective reporting than what the BBC offers. To assume that the media must serve as lapdog, mouthpiece and PR agent for whomever is in power is to remove objectivity.
Yeah, well, our thermo-nuclear penis is biggern' anybody elses, so we get to make the rules . . .
Hmmph . . . guess i showed all them feriners . . .
Blatham wrote:
To assume that the media must serve as lapdog, mouthpiece and PR agent for whomever is in power is to remove objectivity.
How can the media serve as lapdog if they just report the facts (good or bad) and let the public decide?
I'm excluding editorial comment from these restrictions.
