Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

The American wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The American wrote:
War is here, and we have not brought it. We as well as those in Islam demanding peace has suffered attacks for the last three decades. Time is at hand to declare enough is enough. To overide concept with concept, one has to be provided of better taste. The Majority in Iraq and Afghanistan have made that choice. It is called democracy.

You did see who won the Iraqi Parlimentary election right?

Also Afganistan is a f***ing mess, hardly a good case study.

There has to be a start somewhere. Islamic culture is behind times. The way to deal with disagreements is by the knife. However, it is hard to stick a steel point into a concept. It is concept they fight. They call it Jihad. JIhad against Democracy is a no win situation. To turn your back and ignore it, it won't be long before it visits your neighborhood again. The ideology of Islam fighting Islam has not contained itself. It has spread dramatically across the globe.
I think you mean Islam fighting salafism.

Anyway Islamic culture seemed to be doing pretty fine in indonesia (where most of the worlds muslims live) when they overthrew the dictorship and instated a republic.

Quote:
It effects those who have a choice to live peacefully among each other, in the fact it is not right to have your throat slit, because you choose french fries over mashed potatoes. Introducing democracy into a world that desires it when opposition is dead set on killing it, you will have a mess such as you see in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if that seed is protected against the weather, it will grow and spread effecting its neighbors as it goes. That my friend, is the whole meaning of the term "Changing the face of the Middle East ". In that change against radical concepts, one has to expect to experience a black eye during that face change.

I get it.

Trig.
Again did you see who the elected. I'll give you a hint, one controls the Badr Brigade which kidnaps and kills people, the other major party (these being the two major parties in pariment by a long way and the second being the one to which the prime minister belongs to) used to blow up french and american embassys.

Yay democracy, now you can elect your mullahs!

[Heinz]

Trajan wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure? And how many shiites dies from sunni action before?

Merry-go-round and round.

I don't really care. How a foreign country handles it's internal affairs is not my concern.

No wonder the history behind the violence is eluding you. Maybe if you had more knowledge on the "bigger" picture you wouldn't be here wondering why it's easy to quell your opponents if you kill them off.

[The American]

Heinz wrote: Quote: But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

That's what he thought he was going to bring....

1200 years of fighting isn't going to end in 3 years.....democracy be damned.

Wrong.

It is hard to put a time frame on an issue such as this. Slavery has been around for many centuries. Longer than 1200 years. It was brought down in this country by civil war. How long did that war last? Democracy won.

Trig.

[Kilo Tango]

Swampfox.f wrote: Tono wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Why is it that incompetent politicians don't have to sacrifice their financial lives for their mistakes?

Would that include all who voted for the war, or just those who acted on those votes?


All who voted for it with the exception of those who voted just for the war in Afghanistan and not Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act was a policy statement calling for regime change in Iraq that was passed unanimously in the senate and signed into law by Clinton.

[Heinz]

The American wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

That's what he thought he was going to bring....

1200 years of fighting isn't going to end in 3 years.....democracy be damned.

Wrong.

It is hard to put a time frame on an issue such as this. Slavery has been around for many centuries. Longer than 1200 years. It was brought down in this country by civil war. How long did that war last? Democracy won.

Trig.

Slavery is different than a war between religious idealogies. Slavery in America wasn't driven by religion. There was no higher purpose. Once the concept that whites were better than blacks was destroyed, slavery went with it. It will be much harder for religious in-fighting.

Everyone is trying to get to Heaven.

Islam is global and so still is slavery. We ended it in our own country.

[The American]

Quote: [quote="thefranzkafkafront"]I think you mean Islam fighting salafism.

Anyway Islamic culture seemed to be doing pretty fine in indonesia (where most of the worlds muslims live) when they overthrew the dictorship and instated a republic.


Maybe in some minds. Reality is a factor here. I find it odd you bring it up.

Quote: Maluku chiefs form council to foster reconciliation
National News - November 17, 2006


M. Azis Tunny, The Jakarta Post, Ambon

Maluku's traditional chiefs, or latupati, have formed a council to assist in reconciling the local Muslim and Christian communities, who were involved in a violent conflict several years ago.

He told The Jakarta Post the council's main task was to maintain peace among Maluku's different communities, including religious communities.

He said the council would assist the government in working with residents to develop the conflict-torn region.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20061117.G03





thefranzkafkafront wrote: Again did you see who the elected. I'll give you a hint, one controls the Badr Brigade which kidnaps and kills people, the other major party (these being the two major parties in pariment by a long way and the second being the one to which the prime minister belongs to) used to blow up french and american embassys.

Yay democracy, now you can elect your mullahs!

I am always willing to learn, if the sources check out. Where did you obtain this information? Reference please. Nevermind, is this what you look for? Its foundation is opposite.

Quote: Badr Corps


The Islamic leadership in Iraq followed civil methods in its religious, cultural and political movement in Iraq after the 1920 revolution against the British occupation. However after the second Ba'ath coup in 1968 the Islamic movement as whole faced all kind of repression in the late 1960's and 1970's. Thousands of religious scholars and Islamic activists have been arrested and tortured. Hundreds of them have been killed while being torture or executed.

The Ba'ath regime started its reign with a brutal confrontation with the religious leadership of Grand Ayatollah Sayed Muhsin Al Hakim who was put under house arrest. His son Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim was accused of being a traitor and fled the country and was assassinated later in Sudan in 1988.
In 1974 five religious leaders were executed. In 1977 there was a popular uprising when the regime prevented the people from visiting the Shrine of Imam Husain in the holy city of Karbala. Sayed Mohamad Baqir Al the leader of SCIRI and the son of Grand Ayatollah Sayed Muhsin Al Hakim was arrested, tortured and sentenced to life imprisonment without a trial.

http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/About_Us/Badr/badr.html

Seems they are Ba'ath party oppositionists. Is that a bad thing?

[The American]

Heinz wrote: The American wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: But Bush was going to bring democracy with violence and it would end the struggle right?

That's what he thought he was going to bring....

1200 years of fighting isn't going to end in 3 years.....democracy be damned.

Wrong.

It is hard to put a time frame on an issue such as this. Slavery has been around for many centuries. Longer than 1200 years. It was brought down in this country by civil war. How long did that war last? Democracy won.

Trig.

Slavery is different than a war between religious idealogies. Slavery in America wasn't driven by religion. There was no higher purpose. Once the concept that whites were better than blacks was destroyed, slavery went with it. It will be much harder for religious in-fighting.

Everyone is trying to get to Heaven.

Islam is global and so still is slavery. We ended it in our own country.

How is it different? One person or group exploiting another person or group?

Basically, the concept is the same. Concept = ideology. Two concepts are at war today. Conform to Radical Islam or die? They kill their own race. That my friend is the only difference.

:wink:

[The American]

Quote: [quote="thefranzkafkafront"]
Yay democracy, now you can elect your mullahs!

I am not without seeing your point in this statement. I experienced seeing this in the election of Hamas.

[Swampfox.f]

Kilo Tango wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Tono wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Why is it that incompetent politicians don't have to sacrifice their financial lives for their mistakes?

Would that include all who voted for the war, or just those who acted on those votes?


All who voted for it with the exception of those who voted just for the war in Afghanistan and not Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act was a policy statement calling for regime change in Iraq that was passed unanimously in the senate and signed into law by Clinton.


While not even a stones throw away from how we got there I agree that these MIC puppets like Clinton need to be locked up and thrown away. They never act in the best interest of this country moreso they act in the best interest of their wallets.

Our foreign interevention and nation building will destroy us while the corporations and wealthy citizens will remain. It is a shame that our government is merely a vessle for the elite.

[Heinz]

Quote: How is it different? One person or group exploiting another person or group?

Who's exploiting another group? They're technically "exploiting" eachother.

No one group has power over the other. They're both taking pop-shots at their respective groups.

Quote: Basically, the concept is the same.

Only in YOUR mind.

Quote: Concept = ideology. Two concepts are at war today. Conform to Radical Islam or die? They kill their own race. That my friend is the only difference.

You also forgot the fact that it is driven by religion. Slavery in America was not driven by religion. Slavery being ended in the US has nothing to do with Islam, The Middle-East or present Iraq.

[Nathyn]

Heinz wrote: Quote: worse day of civilian deaths since war was launched...ya think the bushco can learn civil war is his fault?? Poor postwar planning...and this is the result

Any idiot with 2 brain cells and a common knowledge on the history of Islam knows that the Sunnis and the Shia have been fighting since Muhhamed's body went cold. Salaldin tried to mend the ties, but to no avail.

This is bigger than Bush.

To blame violence that existed long before Bush and that will exist long after Bush on the man himself is quite ridiqulous.
Tell me how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, again?

No, the violence didn't exist before we invaded.

[thefranzkafkafront]

[quote="The American"] Quote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Yay democracy, now you can elect your mullahs!

I am not without seeing your point in this statement. I experienced seeing this in the election of Hamas.

That democracy is not the magic bullet. Its fairly simple.

[thefranzkafkafront]

double post.

[thefranzkafkafront]

[quote="The American"] Quote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: I think you mean Islam fighting salafism.

Anyway Islamic culture seemed to be doing pretty fine in indonesia (where most of the worlds muslims live) when they overthrew the dictorship and instated a republic.


Maybe in some minds. Reality is a factor here. I find it odd you bring it up.

Quote: Maluku chiefs form council to foster reconciliation
National News - November 17, 2006


M. Azis Tunny, The Jakarta Post, Ambon

Maluku's traditional chiefs, or latupati, have formed a council to assist in reconciling the local Muslim and Christian communities, who were involved in a violent conflict several years ago.

He told The Jakarta Post the council's main task was to maintain peace among Maluku's different communities, including religious communities.

He said the council would assist the government in working with residents to develop the conflict-torn region.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20061117.G03



Did indonesians who are overwhelming muslim insitute there own republic without foriegn help, yes or no.

Im also confused what that article proves exaclty, Maluku's tribal cheifs are lovely chaps?


Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Again did you see who the elected. I'll give you a hint, one controls the Badr Brigade which kidnaps and kills people, the other major party (these being the two major parties in pariment by a long way and the second being the one to which the prime minister belongs to) used to blow up french and american embassys.

Yay democracy, now you can elect your mullahs!

I am always willing to learn, if the sources check out. Where did you obtain this information? Reference please. Nevermind, is this what you look for? Its foundation is opposite.

Quote: Badr Corps


The Islamic leadership in Iraq followed civil methods in its religious, cultural and political movement in Iraq after the 1920 revolution against the British occupation. However after the second Ba'ath coup in 1968 the Islamic movement as whole faced all kind of repression in the late 1960's and 1970's. Thousands of religious scholars and Islamic activists have been arrested and tortured. Hundreds of them have been killed while being torture or executed.

The Ba'ath regime started its reign with a brutal confrontation with the religious leadership of Grand Ayatollah Sayed Muhsin Al Hakim who was put under house arrest. His son Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim was accused of being a traitor and fled the country and was assassinated later in Sudan in 1988.
In 1974 five religious leaders were executed. In 1977 there was a popular uprising when the regime prevented the people from visiting the Shrine of Imam Husain in the holy city of Karbala. Sayed Mohamad Baqir Al the leader of SCIRI and the son of Grand Ayatollah Sayed Muhsin Al Hakim was arrested, tortured and sentenced to life imprisonment without a trial.

http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/About_Us/Badr/badr.html

Seems they are Ba'ath party oppositionists. Is that a bad thing?

I imagine you'll poo poo wiki, but before you do, you might want to take the time to check all its citations first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_Islamic_Revolution_In_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party

Dawa used to blow up american and french embassies, and the catchy named Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq not only controls the Badr brigade kidnap and kill people, but they also fought alongside iran in the iran-iraq war, and to top it all off they like to engage in de-bathication or as we in the west like to call them, witch hunts. Oh and they have a habit of attacking british troops in basrah. Lovely chaps once you get to know them though im sure.



Just being Anti-bathist dosent make them good in my books, communists are anti-nazi that dosent get them on my christmas card list.

Thouse iraqi people with the little purple fingures people like having pictures of, well thats who they voted in.

Go go action democracy.

[Tono]

Seeing what these savages do to each other makes part of me want to just pack it in and bring our boys home. The other part of me says we owe it to the innocent and civilized population of that country to see this thing through.

All politics aside, I can't see how people would want to abandon the innocent and peaceful Iraqis when the lack of security in that country is in fact the result of the US invasion.

[Heinz]

Quote: Tell me how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, again?

No, the violence didn't exist before we invaded.

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Is this that hard a concept to understand?

Violence did exist under Saddam. A one-way violence against the Shia.

Now that violence is a two-way street.

I blame Bush for not sending enough troops to provide security. I blame the violence on those who commit it. To say it wasn't there before is naive at best. It shows you have no knowledge of the history of Islam or the Middle-East.

[cool_chick]

Heinz wrote: Quote: Tell me how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, again?

No, the violence didn't exist before we invaded.

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.


I don't think there was any sort of genocide in minimum a decade....

I thought the retaliation you speak of was in response to trying to kill Saddam......

So with all due respect, Iraq wasn't like Darfur is or anything like that when we invaded.....


Warning to whomever: please let's keep my comments as they are and not "add" anything to them in desperate strawman efforts. I'm just clarifying for Heinz.

[cool_chick]

Tono wrote: All politics aside, I can't see how people would want to abandon the innocent and peaceful Iraqis when the lack of security in that country is in fact the result of the US invasion.


That I agree with.

But I wonder if we're rendered useless due to who we are at this time...

300,000 or more need to be sent in now or we have no choice but to abandon. The numbers have been, continue to be, and will always be too low for this situation.... I wonder if an international force wouldn't be more effective than all US though.....

[Heinz]

Quote: I don't think there was any sort of genocide in minimum a decade....

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.

Quote: I thought the retaliation you speak of was in response to trying to kill Saddam......

So with all due respect, Iraq wasn't like Darfur is or anything like that when we invaded.....

He killed all of his opponents, who happen to be Shiite. He was purposely trying to kill a select group of Iraqis. I merely stated that there was violence before we invaded and all of it was directed at the majority Shia group. Now that Saddam is gone, that violence is going both ways with the Shia and Sunni killing eachother everyday.

Violence then. Violence now. To blame this on Bush is a reach.

Blame him for lack of troops, not a civil war that was waiting to happen years ago.

[cool_chick]

Heinz wrote: Quote: I don't think there was any sort of genocide in minimum a decade....

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.

Ahhhh the strawman. You guys can't don't have the ability to even talk without them, can you?

LOL

Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

Nathyn wrote: ]Tell me how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, again?

No, the violence didn't exist before we invaded.


Heinz wrote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.


Your response didn't make sense because of this:

cool_chick wrote: I don't think there was any sort of genocide in minimum a decade....

I thought the retaliation you speak of was in response to trying to kill Saddam......

So with all due respect, Iraq wasn't like Darfur is or anything like that when we invaded.....

Try to stay focused and quit with the mindreading act, will ya?

You said it, it didn't make sense, I pointed that out, you dodge by trying to act like you can "read minds" and assign a false position to me. It didn't work. You CAN'T read minds, dude! No one can. And after all your strawman, your statement still doesn't make sense! LOL