Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Once again, religious intolerance is upon us. This time Iraqi tennis players who wear wearing shorts have been shot dead because they were deemed to be indecently exposing themselves by showing their legs. I am increasingly ashamed of being a human being.

Religion as a spiritual force for individuals could be a powerful force in living a good life, but organized religion has brought nothing, but tragedy and coercion. Shame on you.

Quote: Iraqis shot 'for wearing shorts'

The coach of Iraq's tennis team and two players were shot dead in Baghdad on Thursday, said Iraqi Olympic officials.

Coach Hussein Ahmed Rashid and players Nasser Ali Hatem and Wissam Adel Auda were killed in the al-Saidiya district of the capital.

Witnesses said the three were dressed in shorts and were killed days after militants issued a warning forbidding the wearing of shorts.

Other Iraqi athletes have been targeted in recent incidents.

In this case, according to accounts, the men dropped off laundry and were then stopped in their vehicle by gunmen.

Leaflets

Two of the athletes stepped out of the car and were shot in the head, said one witness. The third was shot dead in the vehicle.

"The gunman took the body out of the car and threw it on top of the other two bodies before stealing the car," said the witness, who requested anonymity.

He said leaflets had been recently distributed in the area warning residents not to wear shorts.

Last week, 15 members of Iraq's taekwondo team were kidnapped between Falluja and Ramadi, west of Baghdad, said a member of the Iraqi Olympic Committee. The kidnappers have demanded $100,000 for their release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5020804.stm

[Nico]

When are we allowed to call this a civil war? Is it once all the foreigners have left and Iraq can be held up as a basket case because the people who wrecked the place have gone?

[Demonic Spoon]

Meh. Religion will do that.

Organized or not, it really doesn't matter. The problem with religion is that it forbids rational thought.

[cap'n queasy]

Religious intolerance, or Islamic intolerance?

What other religion does this sort of thing?

BTW Iraq was a wreck long before the US presence there.

[Nico]

cap'n queasy wrote: Religious intolerance, or Islamic intolerance?

What other religion does this sort of thing?

BTW Iraq was a wreck long before the US presence there.
How far back are we talking Cap, and can you really compare the sectarian bloodbath going on now to any previous Iraqi internal struggle? 40 killed a day is beyond the pale. you can't tell me this is something that was always going on, even though it was us who starved them in the hundreds of thousands for ten years. I'm talking internecine blodbath here, pure frikin civil meltdown, and we have to start calling it what it is. you watch; the second we put a foot outside it will be on the news as civil war, while now it is the word people won't use.

[uzi]

Nico wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Religious intolerance, or Islamic intolerance?

What other religion does this sort of thing?

BTW Iraq was a wreck long before the US presence there.
How far back are we talking Cap, and can you really compare the sectarian bloodbath going on now to any previous Iraqi internal struggle? 40 killed a day is beyond the pale. you can't tell me this is something that was always going on, even though it was us who starved them in the hundreds of thousands for ten years. I'm talking internecine blodbath here, pure frikin civil meltdown, and we have to start calling it what it is. you watch; the second we put a foot outside it will be on the news as civil war, while now it is the word people won't use.

Yeah 40 a day is a lot more than 7,000 people killed in Halabja in 3 or 4 days (by chemical weapons).

40 a day is a lot more than about a MILLION people killed in the Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88. Let's do the math together shall we:

1,000,000 : (8 x 365) = 342

so 342 people dead per day...

40 people are a lot more than the tens of thousands of Shiites killed in the Shiite uprising of 1991 (you know, those mass graves).

And it's a lot worse than those thousands of Iraqis killed during the first Gulf War when Saddam attacked Kuwait and defied the world (not counting all the Kuwaitis killed, tortured, or raped during the occupation!).

And I love how you blame the west for the 500,000 Iraqis who died under Saddam's rule during the U.N. sanctions. Of course Saddam isn't to blame for using the money to rebuild his army, build palaces, and let the Iraqi people starve. No, it's not his fault at all!

And I am really sorry that I don't have the numbers of people who disappeared in Saddam's prisons during his reign of terror. It's interesting how peace-loving people around the world will remember Abu-Ghraib only as the place where those several dozen U.S. MPs took humiliating photos of those Iraqi prisoners, and not for the thousands of people tortured and killed there under Saddam's regime.

That's how "40 killed a day is beyond the pale"...

In fact if only 40 people a day were killed under Saddam's regime you wouldn't even come to the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war (not even if it continues like this for 25 years!!! And hopefully it won't.). And remember, most of those people are being killed by terrorists, not by coalition forces.

Everything would've been just dandy if the U.S. hadn't removed Saddam...

[Nico]

uzi wrote:

Everything would've been just dandy if the U.S. hadn't removed Saddam...

What are you talking about? Saddam was a dick, but if you think that our sanctions weren't the reason Iraqis got no medicine [hell you couldn't even import pencils because the leads were made of carbon] and f all food then you're just soothing your own conscience. was saddam the reason kids started dying like flies from cancer? saddam screwed his people, then we took out the shovel and buried them. Any one with a brain would realise that sanctions don't hurt leaders, and they never have, so what tard thought that starving the country would magically make him give up?
We bombed them, we starved them, we fed them funds when it suited, and none of this was aimed at making saddam grow a heart. It was suffering rained on the people by us to get them to stop liking him. What a gip. He couldn't kill half the number we did, and 500,000 is comnservative for what we did.
We gave Iraq the wink to invade Iran, hell they were considered the good guys. I remember the press while it happened. He was the white knight ridding us of Iran. Then we shipped them all weapons. What a cosmic joke that we wash our hands so daintily now. We have the ultimate blameless culture :lol:
Saddam could have been gone with one bullet, and Baghdad would have electricity and people would probably be getting used to the next miserable bastard who took the reigns. Do you think it's better now than five years ago? as for the Shia, yeah they have had it tough under Saddam but it was us who hung them out to dry. I remember GB senior coming on the news telling them to rise up, then stranding them to get slaughtered. And the kurds have been killed by the turks in far greater numbers but do we invade Turkey or wring our hands about that? Are the troops massing as we speak? No.
And none of your reasoning stops this from being a civil war. It just won't get called one till we can avoid the blame for that as well. And that is the point. we are the eternal good guys spreading love wherever we step.

[Plato & Socrates]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh. Religion will do that.

Organized or not, it really doesn't matter. The problem with religion is that it forbids rational thought.

Well said!

[uzi]

Nico wrote: uzi wrote:

Everything would've been just dandy if the U.S. hadn't removed Saddam...

Any one with a brain would realise that sanctions don't hurt leaders, and they never have, so what tard thought that starving the country would magically make him give up?


How lucky for us and the Iraqis then that Bush put a stop to those useless, harmful sanctions.

Even a "tard" can see that continuing with those sanctions wouldn't help anyone. I'm glad we agree on that.

Quote: And none of your reasoning stops this from being a civil war. It just won't get called one till we can avoid the blame for that as well. And that is the point. we are the eternal good guys spreading love wherever we step.

I have no problem with anyone calling it a civil war. You can call it anything you want. And I agree that western governments have to carry a share of the blame for the chaos in this region, but they don't carry all the blame. They didn't invade Iran, Saddam did. They didn't invade Kuwait, Saddam did. They didn't gas the Kurds, Saddam did. They didn't rule Iraq for the passed 25 years, Saddam and his henchmen did. When you're not too busy doing your soul searching why don't you admit that Saddam and some of his Iraqi followers were also responsible for their own actions. At least a little bit.

It's time you allowed Arabs to take responsibility for some of their own actions. Sure the west could have done more to help. But Arabs ultimately have to take responsibility for their own actions.

And what do the Turks have to do with the fact that Saddam killed lots and lots of people? Are you going to bring up the Armenian genocide too?

You said that the number of deaths today are far worse than the deaths under Saddam, I merely brought you some facts and figures to help you with your math. In fact you said that 40 deaths per day was not something that was going on before the liberation of Iraq, so I think you might not be aware of some of these facts.

Would you like me to go over it with you again?

Even if this civil war goes on at a pace of 40 deaths per day for 50 YEARS it will not yet reach the number of casualties during the eight year Iran-Iraq War.

Peace!! :-D

[cap'n queasy]

Nico wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Religious intolerance, or Islamic intolerance?

What other religion does this sort of thing?

BTW Iraq was a wreck long before the US presence there.
How far back are we talking Cap, and can you really compare the sectarian bloodbath going on now to any previous Iraqi internal struggle? 40 killed a day is beyond the pale. you can't tell me this is something that was always going on, even though it was us who starved them in the hundreds of thousands for ten years. I'm talking internecine blodbath here, pure frikin civil meltdown, and we have to start calling it what it is. you watch; the second we put a foot outside it will be on the news as civil war, while now it is the word people won't use.

This thread thread is about some folks who were shot because Islamic extremists didn't like the fact they were wearing shorts, and everybody use it to jump on the anti-religion bandwagon.

When someone points out that all other religions do not shoot people for wearing shorts it's suddenly sectarian violence. Give me a break.

I have news for you, this civil war is between two groups of Islamic extremists. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites. It's not sectarian violence at all. It is a violent conflict between two competing groups of Islamic extremists. Folks who think it is in the interest of their religion to remove any perceived threat to it.

Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Tower, they are involved in most of the conflicts around the world now, they are causing trouble in Israel, they are causing trouble in Europe and Africa, everywhere there are Muslims there is a problem. Because of Islamic extremism.

It is not religious extremism that are causing these problems, it is Islamic extremism. Yet if anyone points out the obvious facts about these nuts you people squawk about not tolerating Islam, yet if they kill some tennis players for wearing it is religion that did it.

Yeah, that's a really rational thinking pattern.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: We gave Iraq the wink to invade Iran

What the heck do you mean "we"? You're not an American. And no one "gave them the wink" to invade Kuwait, which what I suppose you mean rather than Iran, since there is no such BS accusation concerning Iraq's invasion of Iran. They invaded Iran and Kuwait completely on their own.

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about.

[nrhy]

how does this article apply to religion....its just a bunch of gunmen prohibiting something they don't like to see...

[Tepic]

nrhy wrote: how does this article apply to religion....its just a bunch of gunmen prohibiting something they don't like to see...
Can you think of a non-religious reason for hating shorts? Enough to kill people?

[nrhy]

can you think of a religious reason?

I can think of one...the gunmen believe shorts to be an american invention...

[Nico]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We gave Iraq the wink to invade Iran

What the heck do you mean "we"? You're not an American. And no one "gave them the wink" to invade Kuwait, which what I suppose you mean rather than Iran, since there is no such BS accusation concerning Iraq's invasion of Iran. They invaded Iran and Kuwait completely on their own.

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about.

:lol: yeah Cap, we're the 90 year old lady driver of the world; we've never had an accident but we see them all the time. And I'm not talking about Americans my myopic friend, i'm talking about the western diplomatic and military bloc. the united front of first world handshakers. That includes such luminaries as the US/England/France/ Australia/NZ/ Israel and others. It's no conspiracy, just a well understood approach that we take in respect to the world at large.

We gave them the wink for Kuwait, and that is on record see:April Glaspie. Of course it was considered an accident, just like all our other accidents, and the diplomat responsible has vanished back to hum-drum daily life. Iran was a more complex matter: we gave long term approval via our visits leading up to the war to do deals, and the continuance of such, without protest, for the duration. this while we armed the Iranians as well.

But as I said, 90 year old driver. It makes our sweet innocent face totally plausible, yet there we are. I'm long past casting a holy aura over everything the west does and taking this prevalent gold fish memory approach to events, letting them morph over the years from "yay we bombed people" till it becomes "yeah that was an unfortunate incident and a bomb was dropped on some people", which seems to infect the populace at large. eventually it becomes " what bomb?", and that sickens me to the core.

And none of this addresses my assertion that this is a civil war. This is a civil war, and is unfolding in the same manner I remember the collapse in the Balkans. Do you ever dare call it one, Cap? I suspect you do, but I'll put odds that you won't call it that for a while yet.

[Nico]

uzi wrote:
Even if this civil war goes on at a pace of 40 deaths per day for 50 YEARS it will not yet reach the number of casualties during the eight year Iran-Iraq War.

Peace!! :-D


well there I agree. peace out [i was in a ranting mood :) ]

[LandOfHypocrisy]

For anyone who doesn't know, this is exactly how the revolution happened in Iran. The religious nutz would issue religious decrees, and shoot anyone who didn't comply.

They were left standing as the sickest, badest hombres on the block. ...And for that, Iran had to suffer under their tyranny.

The U.S. trained force is the best hope Iraqis have of a non-imposing authority that will protect civil liberties.

[cap'n queasy]

Nico wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We gave Iraq the wink to invade Iran

What the heck do you mean "we"? You're not an American. And no one "gave them the wink" to invade Kuwait, which what I suppose you mean rather than Iran, since there is no such BS accusation concerning Iraq's invasion of Iran. They invaded Iran and Kuwait completely on their own.

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about.

:lol: yeah Cap, we're the 90 year old lady driver of the world; we've never had an accident but we see them all the time. And I'm not talking about Americans my myopic friend, i'm talking about the western diplomatic and military bloc. the united front of first world handshakers. That includes such luminaries as the US/England/France/ Australia/NZ/ Israel and others. It's no conspiracy, just a well understood approach that we take in respect to the world at large.

We gave them the wink for Kuwait, and that is on record see:April Glaspie. Of course it was considered an accident, just like all our other accidents, and the diplomat responsible has vanished back to hum-drum daily life. Iran was a more complex matter: we gave long term approval via our visits leading up to the war to do deals, and the continuance of such, without protest, for the duration. this while we armed the Iranians as well.

But as I said, 90 year old driver. It makes our sweet innocent face totally plausible, yet there we are. I'm long past casting a holy aura over everything the west does and taking this prevalent gold fish memory approach to events, letting them morph over the years from "yay we bombed people" till it becomes "yeah that was an unfortunate incident and a bomb was dropped on some people", which seems to infect the populace at large. eventually it becomes " what bomb?", and that sickens me to the core.

And none of this addresses my assertion that this is a civil war. This is a civil war, and is unfolding in the same manner I remember the collapse in the Balkans. Do you ever dare call it one, Cap? I suspect you do, but I'll put odds that you won't call it that for a while yet.


I've called it a civil war since it began. They are slaughtering each other.

Just like they always have.

I notice you don't have much to say about the Islamic religion being a major root cause of this violence.

People like you are anti-religion only if Christianity can be lumped into somehow.

Which is just what you and others were trying to do when I pointed out that Islam alone is to blame for this behavior, no other religion has the slightest thing to do with radical Islamic violence, and which you have attempted to sleaze away from.

Now comes the part where you get on your high horse and defend Islam.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: We gave them the wink for Kuwait, and that is on record see:April Glaspie.

That is total BS, Saddam took it upon himself to invade Kuwait because it was in his interest to do so.

That's just more leftist blame shifting.

BTW you said Iran, not Kuwait.

[Tepic]

nrhy wrote: can you think of a religious reason?
Modesty? Not specific to Islam, mind you, you would've found that concept in Christianity a while back and probably Judaism...

nrhy wrote: I can think of one...the gunmen believe shorts to be an american invention...
That would be quite sad, because then they'd have to shoot everyone who used cars and lightbulbs and computers and other American inventions ... meanwhile shorts were probably first used on some Pacific island :lol: