Later that Sunday at Church -

So dawg, what happened?

Shoot, went to a rally to preach the word. Came out an accessory to a fist fight and inciting unrest. It's funny like that in the hood sometimes. You never knew what was gonna happen, or when. After that I knew it was gonna be a long summer.

-Don't Be a Menace to Saudia Arabia While Drinking Your Juice in the Heart Land.

I thought an internet troll was just someone who spewed something, hoping to invoke a reaction out of someone, not caring if it made sense or not.

You have demonstrated that you don't think before you speak, which is obvious in your other postings. Things have changed in the sixty years since the end of the war. You're also allies with Germany, and Bush gave her a comforting back massage. By your logic, back massaging a leader of a former axis country ought to be ten times worse than just a bow. Or how about when Bush referred to the people of Pakistan as: "Pakis?" Or how about when he held hands with the king of Saudia Arabia?

The libtard short-bus never stops at Facts or Logic on its way to Dogma.

Mmm, the irony is delicious here, apparently you don't either =D

You assume that I like everything Obama does. I don't like his current health care plan, also he still hasn't got rid of "don't ask don't tell" yet.

He is doing a lot better than the guy he replaced though.

Troll is still a troll, he's at least getting a better response this time.

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


The monsters that run Al-Qaeda and other violent fundamentalist groups are merely tapping into anger - an anger that exists BECAUSE of something else.


And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.


My problem is that he supports the war in Iraq. Which is crazy talk. The war itself whether fueled by greed, religion or misguided revenge is NOT convincing Muslims that being extremists is wrong.


Hitchens opposed the war in Iraq until he visited Kurdish Iraq and spent much time there. He came back with THEM having convinced HIM that the removal of Saddam was very important. It is well worth noting that the war in Iraq helped persuade Libya to change course in it's policies and even more, provided the Islamic Kurds a very bright future in place of the continual genocide Saddam was making for them. when talking about support for the Iraq war among Muslims you may want to take into account the populations of Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. You might be surprised at the support for the removal of Saddam that was present, even with the burden of Bush and Cheney's criminal bungling of the effort.

Well I said that because you said something about "ask the Kurds, Kuwait, etc..." I assumed you didn't know where he was from. No, I didn't know that, but as far as world history goes, I kinda suck.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You do realize that Kuwait would actually be a province of Iraq under Saddam had no one intervened?

In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

Well, I lived in Maine, which is right next to Canada and on the east coast. So I'm an expert in Relations with Canada, England Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Italy, Greece, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Cuba, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and OH, what do you know? Russia is on the Atlantic too, so count that one in there. Then add Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra-Leone, Liberia, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Ghana, Guyana, Suriname, Guyane, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize.

And that's just the Northern Atlantic.

Well, and Of course I was in Japan, Korea, Iraq and Kuwait, so add those and all surrounding countries.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to use my new-found skills to disssolve the DMZ and instill peace in the Koreas, Stop the mini wars in Africa, get the Columbian government to stop all drug trafficking into the U.S., convince Israel to calm down, get the Kurds, Sunnis and shiites to stop fighting and work together, Convince Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait to give half their oil to the U.S. for free, and Iran to stop all the "naughty business" with nuclear research.

You would think after all that, and with all my foreign relations skills I could convince MINK to stop being a douche. Well, I'm not God, you know.

It'll be a busy day.

"Though I'll disagree that the reasons for the Iraq war were intentionally dubious"

I merely stated that the reasons going into Iraq were wrong, mostly because the administration over sold the threat and under sold the actual cost of going into Iraq. I felt like it was fear mongering more then anything else, riding of the events of 9/11, with threats like "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud". There was such flimsy connections drawn between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But the greatest mistake was the lack of concrete planning for actions after the nation was conquered, that to me is the biggest mistake of the entire campaign in Iraq. ORHA was given a month to figure out how to run a nation, the CPA hired fresh grad students who brought technological know how to a country that could not afford the solutions they pushed forward. The dismantling of the Iraq military forces and de-Baathization. It all seems like dangerous adventurism.

Democratization of the Middle East

This is one factor I really supported with regards to going into Iraq, the region as a whole is full of autocratic and despotic rulers. However Bush's promises never materalized into anything concrete, mostly because they didn't understand the situation on the ground, when Palestine held elections Hamas ended up winning, the new president of Iran, Sadr in Iraq, polling results in Egypt and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US supports democracy but only on its own terms.

All the talk behind democracy faded after that, and I ultimately believe it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt who killed it, both nations that do not want to see any kind of democracy occurring anytime soon because of the strangle hold they have on power and money withing their respective nations. One of them happens to be the worlds largest oil supplier as well. The largest failing point was when the US sold billion dollars worth of arms to states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and so on after concerns over Iran.

The following is a comment I left on Dag's profile a while back regarding Democracy struggles in the Middle East in relation to autocratic rule, citing Israel as democratic nation in the Middle East.

I don't know the issue is rather merky when it comes to autocratic rule and Middle Eastern states, I mean for example Kuwait has a parliamentary democracy, and all decisions taken by the Amir have to abide by rulings made by the parliament and the cabinet, all positions that are elected. Women's rights and voting power has been factored in since early 2002 or so.

However politically the country is stagnant, its full of nepotism and corruption, its democratic nature while loved by the populace as it gives me a semblance of influence and most of all free press has seen the country degrade to alot of political infighting and hand wringing when it comes to making decisions with regards to developing the nation and reaching that common cited goal of becoming a "business hub".

Now compare that with nations like UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Saudia Arabia, they all have varying degress of autocratic rule far and above those of Kuwait. However when it comes to economic development, Kuwait is lagging far behind especially when you look at a place like Dubai that doesn't nearly have the same kind of oil wealth that Kuwait has, yet it beating Kuwait year on year with rapid economic growth and development. This is all while at the same time both Dubai and Bahrain are shedding restrictive control over the population via religious doctrine.

This has lead many to ask whether democracy is right for the Middle East as a whole or is it better to be ruled by influential western educated heads of State, Emirs, and Princes? This is a NY Times article on that very issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/United%20Arab%20Emirates

I agree Israel's democracy is good, but I also feel that it runs too aggressive because of a cornered rat symptom. Let's not forget that their economic prosperity has alot to do with American economic assistance and leanancy with regards to weapons sales and investment. Its true that actions of the state get questioned but I feel its always after the fact, look at the US, how many statues has the administration broken and other then a change of faces will anything really change? The greatest damage done is not that it was committed but that it gives someone else afterwards more room to do more damage. There is little actual accountability.

My personal wish is for Middle Eastern states to unshackle themselves from religious control, which is not there because Islam wishes it so but because its a great political control apparatus, especially in Saudi Arabia. A secular state with respect to religious freedom like the one I saw in Turkey set up by Ahmed Kamal is very admirable to me, but in all I think the population as a whole in the Middle East is not educated enough on civic rights and responsibility, too reliant on age old tribal control and influence that still manifests itself in the political process.

Biological Weapons

I agree that not many would willing go down that path, the costs of development and more so actual deployment require a national industrial project to be effective enough.

I believe the threat is more based around acquired biological weapons from poorly secured sources like those in Russia. However even then we are looking at small contained actions like those in Japan Subway system by that cult.

With regards to Iraq possessing WMD and Bioweapons I find the case was always put forward not because they possibly existed, but because they had the knowledge. I think is the same reason people high up in the US fear Iran, because nuclear development and weaponization is within their grasp, even if they are not working towards that goal. Its the knowledge that scares them.

I don't know the issue is rather merky when it comes to autocratic rule and Middle Eastern states, I mean for example Kuwait has a parliamentary democracy, and all decisions taken by the Amir have to abide by rulings made by the parliament and the cabinet, all positions that are elected. Women's rights and voting power has been factored in since early 2002 or so.

However politically the country is stagnant, its full of nepotism and corruption, its democratic nature while loved by the populace as it gives me a semblance of influence and most of all free press has seen the country degrade to alot of political infighting and hand wringing when it comes to making decisions with regards to developing the nation and reaching that common cited goal of becoming a "business hub".

Now compare that with nations like UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Saudia Arabia, they all have varying degress of autocratic rule far and above those of Kuwait. However when it comes to economic development, Kuwait is lagging far behind especially when you look at a place like Dubai that doesn't nearly have the same kind of oil wealth that Kuwait has, yet it beating Kuwait year on year with rapid economic growth and development. This is all while at the same time both Dubai and Bahrain are shedding restrictive control over the population via religious doctrine.

This has lead many to ask whether democracy is right for the Middle East as a whole or is it better to be ruled by influential western educated heads of State, Emirs, and Princes? This is a NY Times article on that very issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/United%20Arab%20Emirates

I agree Israel's democracy is good, but I also feel that it runs too aggressive because of a cornered rat symptom. Let's not forget that their economic prosperity has alot to do with American economic assistance and leanancy with regards to weapons sales and investment. Its true that actions of the state get questioned but I feel its always after the fact, look at the US, how many statues has the administration broken and other then a change of faces will anything really change? The greatest damage done is not that it was committed but that it gives someone else afterwards more room to do more damage. There is little actual accountability.

My personal wish is for Middle Eastern states to unshackle themselves from religious control, which is not there because Islam wishes it so but because its a great political control apparatus, especially in Saudi Arabia. A secular state with respect to religious freedom like the one I saw in Turkey set up by Ahmed Kamal is very admirable to me, but in all I think the population as a whole in the Middle East is not educated enough on civic rights and responsibility, too reliant on age old tribal control and influence that still manifests itself in the political process.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Well the heads of State of a country like Israel can (and often do) get tossed out if the people turn against them.

Can the same be said for Kuwait? I'll grant you that it's a benevolent regime at the moment - but power corrupts absolutely.

I disagree strongly with the policies of Israel - but I support their system of government.



In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
But is a government based on fear mongering really a democracy?

What is wrong with Kuwait's democracy? Its backward but its one of the few states in the Middle East that actually allows women to vote.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^ Say what you will about Israel - but at least there is a semblance of democracy at play. The same cannot be said for SA, Kuwait or others.

Just denying a problem exists does not make it disappear. Of course if you define followers of the "Real" Muslim faith as those who don't oppress women then you can go and make the claim that the Muslim faith isn't sexist. The unfortunate truth is that regardless of the arbitrary definitions the speaker in this video asserts, a substantial amount of nations made up of mostly Muslims have deplorable track records on women's treatment and rights. Countries like Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Much of the subjugation in these societies is based upon a fundamentalist following of the Islamic faith. If this man was really concerned with women's rights he would have spent his time at the podium condemning these actions and calling for change instead of throwing up a smoke screen. Very disingenuous.

And then there was the second half of the video
"the 148,000 prostitutes that walk the streets of the UK, or the 76,000 prostitutes that walk the streets of Holland"

Umm, using this guys own criteria on how to determine if a group is being oppressed, shouldn't he talk to the prostitutes? Who the hell is he to declare they are being oppressed?

"Naked little girls walking around Australia, with no clothes on"

What? Where in the hell is this guy even getting this shit? And I'm willing to bet that everyone in the room just ate it up as if it were literal fact.

"prostitution, venereal disease, prostitution, pedophilia and this horrendous number of children being raped and kidnapped that exists in the western world, it is almost unheard of in the Muslim world. So I think the statistics kinda like, speak for themselves."

(So shocked my jaw fucking dropped) I forgot that the Muslim countenance was white as snow. Nevermind those honour killings or acid attacks.

upvote for "Saudia Arabia." (It's Saudi Arabia, jackbutt)

I wonder what news was breaking from Saudia Arabia.

Realizing you are living in a despotic system requires free thought.

Free thought is dangerous and discouraged thoroughly in Saudia Arabia, not because of religion, but mostly because it would make the population realize that the royal family holds none of their interests in mind as they gallop around the world in the private jets.

"Coupland is right, there are far worse things that occur in Saudia Arabia, yet we strive to villify Iran in the run up to a possible armed conflict with them. "

This video wasn't posted with the intention to vilify Iran, not by me, or by MEMRI TV. It's a video showing an incident that took place in Tehran, there's no propaganda behind it.

Coupland is right, there are far worse things that occur in Saudia Arabia, yet we strive to villify Iran in the run up to a possible armed conflict with them.