The US, UN & Iraq III

2

The thread has a different topic and, perception, as far as I remember, you didn't start neither this one nor the two others with the same title.

I can understand the frustration of someone trying to make a point about something he strongly believes in, but one can't force others to one's own point of view. The best any of us can do is to present our point of view, hope for some discussion, and let the issue go if no one is interested.

I think the discussion of Wahhabism is really interesting, but maybe should be in a separate thread. And most of all, I think it would be helpful to be clear about one's sources and, if they are obscure or narrow, let us know where you found them...

It goes back a lot farther than Daddy Bush. Heck, look at Reagan's back room dealing with the Ayatollah. The US is directly responsible for putting both the Taliban and Saddam in power and now we're beating them both like a red-headed stepchild. We've always supported terrorism when it suited our interests.

Tartarin wrote:

And most of all, I think it would be helpful to be clear about one's sources and, if they are obscure or narrow, let us know where you found them...

I copied Ambassador Gold's words verbatim so as to maintain the Authors journalistic intent and to give him full credit---- While I admit to wanting to influence readers occasionally I really only want to present the facts as the author has and to let the reader decide. I think you will find that his research is well documented with full attribution to his sources.

Walter

I did not start this thread but I was here from the very beginning---thank you.

Let's allow a few more (slightly less prejudiced ) participants cast a vote before removing me to the trash bin.

Well, perception, edgar started the first thread just a day after you joined - part two and thre were started by jespah.

I think, it's more than just fair to ask edagr (or jespah), if he (she/they) agree, when you give this thread another theme.

Besides, why do you think, I'm prejudiced in this specific matter???

Bellicosity

Walter wrote:

I think, it's more than just fair to ask edagr (or jespah), if he (she/they) agree, when you give this thread another theme.

I agree---let's allow Jespah to decide---I do think however that you are confusing sub-topic with theme.

This as a sub-topic is very relevant to the current war in Iraq---The world and our environment are constantly changing Walter----learn how to shift gears in your BMW.

And about being prejudiced----my mistake ---your motives and your agenda are absolutely altruistic and as pure as the driven snow.

I was speaking mostly about my two good buddies---Tartarin and BillW.

I have been mulling the question about excerpts from perc's book.

The topic of the book is very relevant to this thread.

Others bring in articles daily; some of them are not as relevant as perc's. Why would it be any different for perc to post his? We would still all retain the right to offer criticisms, or alternate excerpts to challenge perc's offerings.

I think as long as perc's excerpts don't dominate the thread in length or frequency--there shouldn't be an issue.

I am interested in reading the material he's presenting. Really--how does it differ from the other source materials...?

Whoa! Jespah didn't start the thread, she split it when the first became too long. And discussions about complex and interesting subject matter always evolve and change, with temporary tangential discussions going off in one direction and then another, and then swinging back to something related to the original topic, and then catapulting off again. I have no problem with that: it is just the way good threads are.

As for learning about a subject matter, the more the merrier. I can learn from two different posters simultaneously. How rich and efficient. And if there should be a difference of opinion between the two, then again the discussion has an interesting point of departure into yet another tangential area. Good!

No one is suggesting that this limited education on Wahhabism constitutes a highjacking of the thread for its duration.

And, I perceive a negative attitude toward perception and his views which is wholly undesirable and unnecessary.

I want to learn more about Wahhabism, and it matters not to me whether I learn it here, or elsewhere. If perception prefers to do it here, why not?

Sophia and Sumac

Thanx for your support------Hobitbob can fill in the details that I cannot provide. I think this is healthy.

Sumac brings up a very good point-----it's not like I'm trying to hi-jack the thread. I can see only a few more episodes and then it will all be over
The reason for the episode thing is to have some discussion along the way and to allow Hobitbob to fill in the blanks about mainstream Islam.

Suggestion: A fresh thread about fundamentalism in the middle east, a thread with "Iraq" in the title. That leaves this one open to those who come here with contemporary information about what's happening in or about Iraq. Wahhabism is a good place to start: we need to know about it, and we need to talk about fundamentalism without getting immediately into the US fundamentalist Christian rut.

I am somewhat puzzled by the reluctance to discuss a topic that has been relevant and important every since 9/11. If you are a mainstream Muslim don't be afraid because we are making every attempt to be fair and objective. Ambassador Gold repeatedly states that the problem is not with Islam----the problem lies with the extremist element of Islam which Wahhabism exemplifies.

If you are concerned about our security (and I think all of us are) then why not try to learn about how a human being can develop into a homicidal, suicide bomber who kills mostly children.

If you are with al Queda-----I will be very quiet and listen to your story

I agree with Tartarin.

When speaking about 'Wahhabism', however, I think, Europe should be included as well, since many of 'terroristic' activities in former Russian republics are blamed by officials as inspired by "Wahhabism".

This thread is and always will be open-----is one little short episode(much shorter than the typical cut and paste article) and only one per day for just a few days????????????? is that unreasonable?

Walter wrote:

Europe should be included as well, since many of 'terroristic' activities in former Russian republics are blamed by officials as inspired by "Wahhabism".

I absolutely agree Walter----Ambassador Gold brings that out in his book later on.

I'll open up a thread in case anyone wants to tackle this subject with a wider perspective, per Walter's suggestion.

No, not unreasonable. But this is not a mutually exclusive discussion either. I welcome the episodes, but it might also be very enlightening to introduce the broader topic of fundamentalism in its own forum. So we can do both.

Not so fast Tartarin----nothing has been decided yet.