And for future Islam invocations, gwaan's intent for the old collective was painfully clear:

"This collective is dedicated to celebrating the rich tapestry of Islamic culture - from the Moorish heritage of Andalusia to the Sufi traditions of China. It is a place for celebrating the languages, cultures, traditions, musics, and arts of all Islamic peoples. It hopes to show the other side of Islamic countries like Iran, Palestine, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - the side rarely shown by Western media. It also aims to dispel the oft-repeated myth of a 'clash of civilizations' and expose those in politics and media who cultivate this myth in order to achieve certain political objectives. Finally, it is a place for discussing the key theological, social, and political issues which dominate the Islamic world: Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, US foreign policy, British foreign policy, imperialism, democracy, sectarianism, 'terrorism', oil, the Islamic state, Islamic law - interpretation and legal authority, women's rights, minorities' rights, Islamic identity in the West, the public image of Islam, the future of Islam.

From time to time I'll post some important news stories from/concerning the Islamic world which will appear in the comments section of the collective."


I miss gwaan. I miss me.

Bah.

So now I need to get some of those medals, then I can look like an Army General who doesn't know how to get out of a sectarian quagmire. Sweet!

Hrm, sounds a bit like...

War = Peace
Freedom = Slavery
Ignorance = Strength

Happy happy double think!

>> ^rasch187:
I guess he just read the textbook of the current administration, entitled: "How Reality Doesn't Really Matter; The Words You Use Define It."
Chapter 1: Invasion = Liberation
Chapter 2: Civil War = Sectarian violence
Chapter 3: Recession = Economic slowdown
and so on...

I guess he just read the textbook of the current administration, entitled: "How Reality Doesn't Really Matter; The Words You Use Define It."

Chapter 1: Invasion = Liberation
Chapter 2: Civil War = Sectarian violence
Chapter 3: Recession = Economic slowdown

and so on...

>> ^shadownc:
While I don't believe we should have ever invaded Iraq, this seems to be more of an Iraqi issue. They have the perfect opportunity here to do away with all the old sectarian issues and get on with rebuilding their country, and instead they choose to keep hanging on to the old hatred that has been around that part of the world forever.
Even though I now think Bush is a colossal idiot (not just because of Iraq), I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt way back when they were lying to us about WMDs. Despite the now obvious reality that invading Iraq was a complete mistake, this seems to be a 'them' issue more than an 'us' issue.


I agree. I hate Bush as much as everyone, but as far as this video goes, it doesn't really convince me that this is all Americas fault. Suddenly we're to blame for their centuries old holy war?

More atheism please.

While I don't believe we should have ever invaded Iraq, this seems to be more of an Iraqi issue. They have the perfect opportunity here to do away with all the old sectarian issues and get on with rebuilding their country, and instead they choose to keep hanging on to the old hatred that has been around that part of the world forever.

Even though I now think Bush is a colossal idiot (not just because of Iraq), I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt way back when they were lying to us about WMDs. Despite the now obvious reality that invading Iraq was a complete mistake, this seems to be a 'them' issue more than an 'us' issue.

I have a friend from Basra, whose parents won't let him come home to visit them because they're afraid he'll be killed.

It doesn't matter if the surge is working or not, because we don't care about reconstruction. We only work with destruction and mayhem. More troops, but still no planning. This war was started on an aggressive stance, with no foresight as to the period after toppling Saddam. Sure, they had a vote and they have a President, but do they have local governments to keep order and begin rebuilding what they've lost? No. They have rival sectarian militias who Saddam kept at bay. Now they have civil war.

Baghdad has the Green Zone to protect American diplomats, while the rest of the city has nothing but a broken sewer that is left untreated, and hopelessness.

We treat our POWs with torture; what surprises us about the way we ignore the struggling of the average Iraqi citizen?

>> ^Payback:
Over a million Iraqis killed by US soldiers? Wow, I have trouble believing that... that's close to how many civilian casualties were inflicted on the Germans in WW2 by everyone else. Not sure how to vote this one.


Watch it again....

Over 1 million killed DUE TO THE US OCCUPATION. He did not say directly at the hands of US forces.

What this means is. The US occupation threw the country into chaos, resulting in internal strife and sectarian violence. Most of those 1 million deaths are the direct result of US occupation, causing regional destabilization, AND introduction of active Al Qaeda operatives which DID NOT EXIST until said occupation occurred.

Yes, Saddam was a bastard and did deserve his fate. HOWEVER He did hold tight reign on the factions (namely religious in nature) keeping the country within strong secular bounds. Keeping religious fanatacism under check prevented sectarian violence. Of course, it did not hinder his ability to commit violence against anyone he so deemed to target.

Now we need to look again at why the US invaded. The WMD proclaimed to exist did not. The intelligence was cooked up and has been proven to be completely fabricated. The so called 'freedom' of the Iraqi people was not WHY the US invaded to begin with. The 'freedom' card was played AFTER the invasion by Bush and his gang when the WMD story fell apart at the seams and when the majority blinded by his so called 'morality' and 'faith' was shown to be a sham to garner votes. While Bush was crying 'freedom' for the Iraqi's Karl Rove and Dick Cheney continued to spew the WMD excuse until they were standing in quicksand. Soon thereafter, they shut their traps and also pushed the 'freedom' agenda.

We went to Iraq for oil. We went to Iraq because Saddam was trading oil in Euros instead of the US dollar. We went into Iraq because George Jr wanted revenge on the guy who attempted to assassinate George Sr. But mostly it was all about oil. Resource control. The side benefit is our ability to have an entire nation under military control through the guise of an appointed 'democratic' government. Meanwhile, the US pops up military structures, bases and a massive fortified compound (for command-control-intelligence) right in the heart of the middle east.

A little bit of thought, and you too will see the underlying intentions which the US had from Day #1. Put 1 and 1 together, and you realize that we killed people, tortured people, threw a nation into chaos, and spent trillions of US taxpayer dollars all for what?

Oil.

That is what happens when you elect 'oil men' into the US presidency.

Now, lets go elect McCain and all his ex-Enron, Bush, and Neocon advisers to the US Presidency. Lets see how much better things become.

No. Instead lets use our brains and keep our war/oil profiteering government and their cronies in line. I don't care what party. They are all guilty of this money game costing the lives of untold numbers of people around the world.

Wake up. The US is not a Democracy. It is a Plutocratic Kleptocracy.

Watch out. They are ALL (including Democrats) playing this same game with Iran. Listen, learn, and get your info from MANY sources. Most of what we get fed in the US is biased propoganda, and we are only told PART of the world story.

They want to hit Iran next.

If Islam never had a Renaissance, then where did we get algebra and algorithms? Your ignorance hurts me.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
The important distinction campionidelmondo is that this is 2008, and no-one is killing in the name of Christianity. The Crusades and Christian Emperialism ended quite some time ago.

The Muslim world's drive, however, is still fueled by the ideology of a 6th century sectarian battalion. Islam never had a Renaissance... never had the period of self-doubt and introspection that Europe went through... this may be in part because just question Koranic validity is punishable by death!

Cheers to jwray for going against the grain.

The important distinction campionidelmondo is that this is 2008, and no-one is killing in the name of Christianity. The Crusades and Christian Emperialism ended quite some time ago.

The Muslim world's drive, however, is still fueled by the ideology of a 6th century sectarian battalion. Islam never had a Renaissance... never had the period of self-doubt and introspection that Europe went through... this may be in part because just question Koranic validity is punishable by death!

Cheers to jwray for going against the grain.

Petreus also publically admitted (in testimony to US foreign relations committe) that the attack was not cleared by, or endorsed by US forces. He in fact did not even know that the Iraqi military were going to attack Basra until the moment it occurred. This is nothing more than continued sectarian infighting endorsed by the so-called Iraqi government.

The attack on Basra made Sadr stronger and further increased sectarian tensions. The Iraqi army was unsuccessful. They failed in their attempt. Now Sadr and his militia will be even more vigilant and more likely to react violently to small incursions by Malaki and his ilk in Sadr's so-called territory.

Yes militants were killed. But so were women and children. Even more were injured. Such facts oh-so conveniently omitted from US media.

McCain is either senile or he is a very bad liar.

Vote McCain. Vote ignorance.

"There were no insurgents blowing crap up in Iraq until Mr. Decider got involved."
Nope, just a humanitarian nightmare of decaying infrastructure, daily executions to enforce loyalty and chemical weapons being used against Iran and the Kurds. Shame on the US for coming in and turning that all to pot.

"Sunni insurgent groups.. I thought McCain was saying the Shi'a in Iran were the bad guys."
It's neither the Sunni nor the Shi'a that are the problem, but the militant extremists from both. To paraphrase Hitchens, "The problem that many are making is looking at this as a war with Islam rather than a war within Islam".

Now I'm happy to criticize Bush as much as the next guy, but Iraq is not as simplistic as the above little blurbs might make out. The US obligation to Iraq started back in the 60's when they helped get Saddam into power. Selling him chemical weapons deepened that obligation. Going in and removing Saddam was obviously going to be a mess and shame on the Bush administration for saying otherwise. It is, however, just as dishonest to suggest that Iraq wasn't already a mess. The only change to sectarian violence that Saddam's presence made was that he ensured it remained one sided. Like using poison gas on the Kurds. But, if you'd like to call those the good old days, then why let reality get in the way?

"Farhad2000
There were IEDs, Al Qaeda and sectarian violence before the invasion? Sir you have your facts wrong."

I never claimed those were the only possible sources of death and misery. You are the one who has quite ignorantly made that claim. Astonishingly you also don't appear to consider violence, directed by the government of Iraq, at Kurds to be "sectarian". The book "The Long Short War" details enough about Iraq's support of international terrorism and burgeoning links to Al Qaeda that I am glad it went as far as it was ever going to go.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
"hundreds of innocent people die each week as a direct result of US's thirst for power, world dominance and cheap gas."
If your ok with religious fanatics, tyrants, gangsterism and foreign interests in Iraq, and want to give them a free pass on the death and misery THEY have inflicted both before and after the invasion I guess your free to do so. But where is this cheap gas you refer to cause I would really like to know. Also.... even if there is some cheap gas somewhere that I have missed, doesn't the astronomical cost of the war offset the savings?


There were IEDs, Al Qaeda and sectarian violence before the invasion? Sir you have your facts wrong.

There is no cheap gas because the plan was stupid from the start. Don't you remember the administrations claims that invading Iraq and bringing freedom and democracy was going to pay for itself as Iraq starts exporting oil?

And the cheap gas was never for you Sir, it was for the oil companies who would then make you pay more anyway because they like da profitz.

Yes, I've read Naomi Wolf. Cheney took advantage of 911 like Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire, but Clinton/Obama seem different. During the previous Clinton administration not one American claimed we resembled post-WWI Germany, though 9/11 itself was blowback from Clinton and pre-Clinton policy. I never supported nuclear proliferation, nor threats designed to prevent it. Nukes are safe in India's hands, but not with Pakistan or Turkey. I never supported "pumping Iraq full of money and weapons". You are putting words into my mouth. Somebody has to stop the sectarian death squads in Iraq. Replacing US troops with UN peacekeepers is good because it would calm some of the jihadists. Total immediate withdrawal would probably lead to a 3-way civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites and an eventual 3-state schism, and Iraqi Kurd independence would lead Iran and Turkey into the fray, and I can't say for certain that the total death toll of that would be higher than UN peacekeeping over festering wounds of sectarian violence, but it probably would. I wish the Iraqi Kurds could get a free state without Turkey&Iran making a fuss about the precedent that sets. Kurdistan is the most peaceful and least fundamentalist part of Iraq. I'm sufficiently uncertain about the difference in eventual effect between gradual withdrawal & UN peacekeeping vs. total immediate withdrawal that it's not really the most important difference between the candidates. The biggest problem in Iraq is the damn fundamentalist religion. They prefer to just blow each other up over an argument that started with who should succeed the ancient impostor Muhammad. Most Iraqis oppose total freedom of religion, even the ones who are afraid of being oppressed by a majority of the opposite sect. It's madness. Some days I wish someone would translate the complete works of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Richard Dawkins into Arabic and air-drop 100 million copies.