Why do the Sunni and the Shi'ite kill each other? (1 Viewer)

[MSgt]

I don't normally start threads. I enjoy posting on the contribution of others. However, I have been PM'ed a few times and asked in public threads why their most hardened followers seem determined to slaughter one another. It is a subject that is much more complicated than some think and others, like our intelligencia (the human soul is too hard to figure out and unpredictable), simply refuse to acknowledge. This has nothing to do with Bush this or Bush that or Democract this or Republican that, although I'm sure it will be introduced sooner or later. Here are some very brief key items on what is happening....

1) It involves the history between Sunni and Shi'ite. Historically, they have been shedding each others blood for centuries over the definitions of Islam from one Caliphate to the next and they have very different fundamental beliefs. Many aren't aware of this, but over 75% (up to 90?) of the world's current conflicts involve Muslim countries. The reason for this is the enormous amount of disagreements on a host of issues between Shi'ite and Sunni:

1) The succession of Muhammad: Shia / Sunni
2) Sha'ria (Islamic Law)
3) The role of women
4) Religious tolerance
5) Jihad (greater/lesser)
6) Secular vice Islamic government

These fundamental differences within very deeply religious societies define the core of the man and woman and their place in this world. Islam, especially in the Middle East, is going through the same crisis that other major religions have had to endure in history (read up on early 16th century Christianity in Europe). Those that have nothing but their beliefs in "God" will do what they deem necessary to "defend" that and bitter men will hate and slaughter over it.

2) It involves the very long time rooted sentiments of superiority amongst Sunni towards all other Muslims. To the Sunni Arab, Palestinians and Kurds are snubbed as inferior and they treat them as such. Between Sunni and Shi'ite, there is a sense of superiority based on those fundamental beliefs stated above. There is an extreme accepted weight of racism that runs rampant throughout the Middle East. Generally, in Iraq, the Sunni have spent decades basking in the Saddam sun, while Shi'ite and Kurds have received scraps from the table. Without their dictator, Sunni Radicals are lashing out and the Shi'ite Radicals are seeking revenge for past and present grievances. This is the result of forcing a broken civilization of people to live with each other under the watchful eye of a bayonet for so many decades. (Pakistan serves as a perfect model for how a Democracy can fail amongst feuding "tribes.")

3) It involves their unit cohesiveness which is based on primitive practices. In any Muslim government where a form of democracy is practiced, Muslims will vote for their tribesman or sectoral leader rather than the best man. Saddam Hussein and a John F. Kennedy could be running for office and the Sunni would vote for Saddam Hussein. This works both ways. The Shi'ite would simply vote for whoever represents the Shi'ite - no matter what form. In this type of civilization, which is certainly not exclusive to Muslims, the "tribal" leader trumps the best man. Again, the most accurate example today about what is happening in Iraq would be the history of Pakistan.

4) It involves the dissention among the sects on an internal level as well. In each sect there is a heavy sense of Radicalism that strives to define Islam as a brutal intolerant religion. These elements wish to turn back the clock and return to the "Golden Age" of Islam that they have heard so much about from their Clerics, which is mostly myth. They believe this return will lift them into their rightful place on Earth. The Sunni Arab is by far the absolute worse offender of Islam hijacking. Most international Islamist terrorist are Sunni Arabs, which is a direct result of our friends in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In the local setting of Iraq, the insurgency is attempting to regain lost power since Saddam was toppled and the hardened Radicals are using this to their advantage to satisfy their blood lust to punish "back-slidden" Muslims for their version of what "God" is. They know just by reviewing the entire world that the Islamic extremist vision of a world governed by the harshest interpretation of their faith could not survive where people pick their own leaders.

5) It also involves the widesweeping misery inside the Middle East. This is where people are having a lot of trouble understanding. We in the West have been fortunate enough to have been born and raised in civilizations that have moved on from the failures of the Middle East, so it is hard for us to imagine living in a world like the Middle East. There is so much anguish and desperation amongst the youth in the Middle East and they have no outlet. They have no futures or opportunities. There are no programs for the poor. The Arab oil barrons have misused the oil money as a drug and wrecked their societies through neglect and abusive control (while we looked away). They blew it. An entire century has gone by and their societies can't even produce a car. Their leaderships have managed to squander large fortunes on everything except their people. They are drowning in religion and it defines their entire world. It is ever present in their daily lives where ever they go - school, military, government, entertainmnent, etc. There is no value placed upon education and the free flow of information is restricted. All around them, where infidels praise a different God or not a God at all, other civilizations progress and prosper while theirs festers in stagnation and poverty. And thanks to our technological age of wonder and the furious pace of the information race, they are reminded of this daily. In civilizations throughout history where such societal failures exist, men have always found comfort in what they know. They seek what is soothing, predictable, and traditional. They seek answers. The hardened men of Islam look to give those answers. Blame has become a narcotic. The battle ground in Iraq provides them their opportunity to please "God." They find purpose in "God." To so many, they are willing to believe in a powerful Satan across the sea rather than a just and tolerant "God" above.

**********
We in the west cannot fathom such misery, because of our cultures. We can't imagine what it is like to live under the microscope of a single dogmatic religion in a region of such mass failure. So instead, we try to define the events by summing it all up in a neat package. We place emphasis on "oil greed" or "Bin Ladden's false complaint of bases in Saudi," because it is easier and we think we have it figured out.

But we have to start opening our eyes and accept that jealousy, historical rage, religious ego, and shame have a lot to do with this. This is a much larger war that Iraq which is going to be fought in the realms of the soul and because the soul cannot be seen, Westerners genuinely dismiss it as a factor.

 

[shuamort]

There are attempts to reconcile the factions. For more info, check out this website: One Ummah

 

[niftydrifty]

But we have to start opening our eyes and accept that jealousy, historical rage, religious ego, and shame have a lot to do with this. This is a much larger war that Iraq which is going to be fought in the realms of the soul and because the soul cannot be seen, Westerners genuinely dismiss it as a factor.

Great post, GySgt, but I have to partially disagree with this last paragraph. About four years ago, and throughout the winter of 2002-2003, I read dozens of op-eds and articles about how an invasion of Iraq would backfire and turn into a sectarian struggle and an endless occupation. This is why I opposed the War in Iraq. It seemed to me that there was a better way to do it, and that the administration was not acknowledging these factors, at all. The war was destined to become what it is now. Many predicted it. Their arguments were compelling. How right they were.

Many had their eyes open, but they weren't in power. The invasion was unpopular with the public before the war began.

I also have to think that some in the west can fathom such misery. After all, Christians kill Sunnis and Sunnis kill Christians.

So instead, we try to define the events by summing it all up in a neat package.

This is so true. There are so many complex inter-related factors, and our soundbite media culture, for the most part, doesn't attempt to make accurate sense of much of it.

 

[Captain America]

That was profound Gunny. Thanks for the info. I will walk away a smarter person for it.

As we say in Texas, "Boy, you got a head like a cutworm." (That's a compliment, by the way.)

 

[Inuyasha]

Excellent post once again Gunny. I am sharing it with all my friends. Your understanding of the ME in general and Iraq in particular is deep and you know how to make it crystal clear to the layman. :applaud

 

[Iriemon]

The question for the US is whether it is in its long term interest to directly take sides or meddle in the intra-religious struggle between Shiite, Sunni, and other Islamic sects, as we are doing, unwittingly or not, in Iraq. Directly supporting one side or the other mostly likely has the unwanted consequence of motivating support for the other side against us (ie foreign sunnis flocking to Iraq to fight against the US/Shiite coalition) while the long term support garnered for the US by the side we are supporting (Iraq Shiites) is dubious, at best, IMO. Another likely consequence of US military intervention on behalf of one side is to fan the flames of direct conflict and agrevate the already touchy situation, as we are seeing in Iraq.

 

[Sponge4u]

The entire ME has complex reasons for killing each other.

I think the debate on what the US should do in regards to ME violence and actually all over the world is a HUGE undertaking. If you do nothing, do things like 9-11 happen or do things like 9-11 happen because of things we've done in the past? and since we've already meddled in the ME does this mean regardless of what we do in the future we will have more incidents like 9-11? Can there ever be peace in the ME? Has there ever been?

I'm not saying i know any these questions but i love hearing what other ppl think about them.

 

[oldreliable67]

There are attempts to reconcile the factions. For more info, check out this website: One Ummah

There have been attempts at reconciliation almost continually since, oh, about 1623. (Those familiar with Muslim history will recognize that date.) Some efforts have gotten further along than others, but to date, all have failed. In fact, some cynics assert that continued Muslim internecine warfare offers the non-Muslim world its best opportunities: just get out of the way and let the various Muslim factions destroy each other or at least reduce each other to organizational ineffectiveness.

 

[Moot]

We in the west cannot fathom such misery, because of our cultures. We can't imagine what it is like to live under the microscope of a single dogmatic religion in a region of such mass failure. So instead, we try to define the events by summing it all up in a neat package. We place emphasis on "oil greed" or "Bin Ladden's false complaint of bases in Saudi," because it is easier and we think we have it figured out.

But we have to start opening our eyes and accept that jealousy, historical rage, religious ego, and shame have a lot to do with this. This is a much larger war that Iraq which is going to be fought in the realms of the soul and because the soul cannot be seen, Westerners genuinely dismiss it as a factor.

Good post GySgt. Its good to see someone from the west giving the culture in Iraq some thought and understanding. I have always believed that was one of the biggest mistake the US made going in there and nothing has changed my opinion.

While I agree with the bulk of what you say, the question still comes to mind....why wasn't there sectarian violence under Saddam? And now that there is sectarian violence which for all intent and purpose IS a civil war, how come the sects can still agree on one thing? That being they want the US to leave as soon as possible? Is it possible that the main cause of the escalating sectarian violence stems from the US occupation?

Which brings another question to mind....the bombing of the Golden Mosque. Why wasn't the mosque protected by US or British troops if the US truly feared sectarian violence and a civil war would break out?

Even though the Shiia and the Sunni have a long history of violence, when have they ever destroyed each others shrines? Surely since the Sunni, who were already marginalized, outnumbered and unprotected would not risk the wrath of all the Shiia on themselves? It just doesn't make sense they would do such a thing. That is why I suspect someone from outside, a non-Iraqi bombed the mosque in hope that a civil war would break out.

Which brings another question to mind....who would benefit the most from a civil war in Iraq? Who would benefit if the Shiia and Sunni were at each others throats?

Prior to asking this question, let us note the timing of the bombing.

The last weeks in Iraq have been a PR disaster for the occupiers. First, the negative publicity of the video of British soldiers beating and abusing young Iraqis has generated a backlash for British occupation forces they’ve yet to face in Iraq.

Indicative of this, Abdul Jabbar Waheed, the head of the Misan provincial council in southern Iraq, announced his councils’ decision to lift the immunity British forces have enjoyed, so that the soldiers who beat the young Iraqis can be tried in Iraqi courts. Former U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer had issued an order granting all occupation soldiers and western contractors immunity to Iraqi law when he was head of the CPA…but this province has now decided to lift that so the British soldiers can be investigated and tried under Iraqi law.

This deeply meaningful event, if replicated around Iraq, will generate a huge rift between the occupiers and local governments. A rift which, of course, the puppet government in Baghdad will be unable to mend.

The other huge event which drew Iraqis into greater solidarity with one another was more photos and video aired depicting atrocities within Abu Ghraib at the hands of U.S. occupation forces.

The inherent desecration of Islam and shaming of the Iraqi people shown in these images enrages all Iraqis.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000365.php

"Enraged ALL Iraqis"....

So basically what both the Shiia and Sunni had before the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Sammatra (February 23, 2006) was a solidarity against the US coalition occupation for the shaming and desacration of Islam and the Iraqi people. This must have been quite a threat to the coalition because the next thing that happened was the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

So why would Sunnis bomb an Islamic mosque, even if it was a Shiia mosque, if they were so offended by the desacration of all Islamic shrines by the coalition? Why didn't the Sunnis bomb the mosque while under Saddams rule? In my mind, the Sunnis bombing the mosque just doesn't make sense.

Does anyone remember when some British soldiers got caught out of uniform and dressed as Arabs?

September 19, 2005 - The fighting broke out after two British soldiers, allegedly dressed as Arabs, opened fire on a police patrol killing one officer and wounding another.
http://newsmine.org/archive/war-on-...dressed-like-arabs-fired-on-police-patrol.txt

The Washington Post adds a new twist: Iraqi officials in Basra say the British soldiers were arrested for planting bombs.http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/dressed_as_arab.php

This occured just a few months before the bombing of the Golden mosque.

Anyone who can think a couple moves in advance, can see where I'm going with this. IMO, the coalition was not only inspiring the sectarian violence but is the main cause. The big question is WHY?

I'm going to stop now and sum this up quickly.

Even though the Islamic sects have had a long history of violence, they also have a long history of co-operation and peace. So to blame this entire sectarian civil war that is now occuring on the Iraqis religous or tribal culture is IMO, just an easy way for the West to avoid accepting or facing responsiblity for the ignorant and needless carnage and damage they have and continue to cause. The sooner the US coalition forces leave Iraq the sooner the people of Iraq can find common ground and heal. On this, both the Shiia and the Sunni are finding themselves once again in agreement.

And after all, isn't that what we supposedly want?

Al-Maliki tired of US excuses
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7BB6FE30-7707-4024-B080-9FD1921911DB.htm

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html


If we leave it to the US to decide, they will never leave.

 

[akyron]

Meh. The land is hot and there is not much water.
Its enough to drive anyone off the deep end eventually.


Heat and Violence Study

 

[cherokee]

Meh. The land is hot and there is not much water.
Its enough to drive anyone off the deep end eventually.

True... they drove off that bridge along time ago...Same for the west but we got back on the road for the most part.

 

[oldreliable67]

why wasn't there sectarian violence under Saddam?...Is it possible that the main cause of the escalating sectarian violence stems from the US occupation?...Is it possible that the main cause of the escalating sectarian violence stems from the US occupation?

You asked a good question, then went off into the deep woods. There is no way of assigning exact percentages on who is responsible for the sectarian violence, but it is clear that the purpose of much of the AQ/Zarqawi and successors violence has been to provoke sectarian groups into ever more violent retribution, thus placing an ever greater security maintenence burden on US and Iraqi forces. The deliberate targeting of Iraqi civilians and their religious shrines takes strategic advantage of the centuries old enmity between Sunni and Shia and has but one purpose: to destabilize and promote sectarian violence and chaos which will in turn, call forth more repressive and unpopular measures from those responsible for security.

This has been an OBL/Zawahiri strategy from the beginning of their jihad in Afghanistan. Zawahiri promoted this method in his days in Egypt, before allying himself with OBL. In Iraq, it got to the point where OBL had to caution Zarqawi to be careful about killing Iraqis and to make sure he did it in a way so as to keep the media presentation friendly to the cause. The Looming Tower by Wright presents a quite good description of this AQ strategy.

The root cause of the majority of sectarian violence is the ongoing religious power struggle. There is a reason that much of the violence originates at the local mosque; there is a reason that much of the violence pits one religious sect against another. The battle is for control of the religious life of Iraqis. In No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah, Bing West recounts the role played the various imams and their extreme influence over the insurgents: the exhortations over the public address systems to kill Americans and Iraqi soldiers or police; the usage of the mosques to store weapons and ammo; the call for Sunni's to kill infidels and apostates; the battles between competing religious elements and imams.

Given all of the above, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the main cause of the sectarian violence is indeed the US occupation. But not in the way in which you suggest. The main cause is a lack of sufficient US and/or coalition troops to maintain security and prevent the success of the strategy of those who take advantage of sectarian enmity to promote chaos.

 

[MSgt]

While I agree with the bulk of what you say, the question still comes to mind....why wasn't there sectarian violence under Saddam? And now that there is sectarian violence which for all intent and purpose IS a civil war, how come the sects can still agree on one thing? That being they want the US to leave as soon as possible? Is it possible that the main cause of the escalating sectarian violence stems from the US occupation?

Saddam murdered and slaughtered all those that defied his "peace." He jailed their family members and executed them. His soldiers in the villages raped women to punish father's and husbands. We are not prepared to do such things to command obedience to the rule of law. It's pretty easy to behave when the bayonet is pointed at you. This is why the Sects did not commit terror upon each other.

The definitions of a "civil war" are recorded in history. Iraq is not a "Civil War." What we see today are the very few who terrorize others over bigotry or revenge and a very few militias. Iraq is made up of over 20 million people. How many are causing trouble?

 

[Moot]

Saddam murdered and slaughtered all those that defied his "peace." He jailed their family members and executed them. His soldiers in the villages raped women to punish father's and husbands. We are not prepared to do such things to command obedience to the rule of law. It's pretty easy to behave when the bayonet is pointed at you. This is why the Sects did not commit terror upon each other.

Yes, Saddam was bad dictator. But should Saddam be held personally responsible for all the violent acts of those who served under him, any more than Bush should be held responsible for all the violent acts of those serve under him? Maybe so because..

Under the leadership of Bush, US soldiers have "murdered and slaughtered" all those that defied Bush's ideology of what the ME should be. In his name, US soldiers have "jailed, tortured and executed innocent people.". In his name, US soldiers have "raped women and murdered their fathers and husbands". The US is "prepared to do such things to command obedience" according to Bush's ideology and interpretation of international law and disregard for the Geneva Convention. Perhaps this is the real reason for the Sects to commit terror and remove all those who co-operate with the US.

If the Sunnis and Shiite hated each other so much as you claim, then Saddam couldn't have stopped them from fueding any more than the US military can stop them now. Something set them off. Perhaps it was Abu Graib; or Mossad and British soldiers disguised as Arabs blowing up crowded markets and mosques; or the rape and murders in Haidatha; or throwing Iraqi teenagers off a dam; or killing hundreds of innocent civilians at check points; or rolling over pedistrians with tanks; or raiding Iraqi homes and touching their women and taking their men; or perhaps it is the US training and oversight of the Iraqi police death squads.

I previously showed evidence that the Iraqi people want the US military out of iraq and why. Of course they are grateful to the US for removing Saddam but now that the US has proven itself to be much much worse than Saddam ever was, shouldn't the Iraqi's themselves now have a say in the matter? Why is it the US's sole decision to stay or leave Iraq?

Or does the US have no intention of ever leaving Iraq? It sure looks like they intend to stay judging by those permanent bases they are building and Bush's soundbite 'staying the course' and 'getting the job done' rhetoric. After so many lying excuses for the invasion and the reasons for staying, now the latest excuse to stay in Iraq is because of the sectarian violence? How convienent considering the US occupation is the MAIN CAUSE for the sectarian violence and its escalation to begin with.

The definitions of a "civil war" are recorded in history. Iraq is not a "Civil War." What we see today are the very few who terrorize others over bigotry or revenge and a very few militias. Iraq is made up of over 20 million people. How many are causing trouble?

Calling it a civil war is much nicer than calling it a genocide don't you think?

Here's the definition of genocide....

Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Here's an insert from one of Bush's many speeches inciting genocide against Muslims.....

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest...."

It is the decisive ideological struggle for the 21st century.....

But of course we, meaning Bush and his loyal followers are the freedom lovers and everyone else are ideological fanatics that must be destroyed in the struggle for the 21st century. Whats really disturbing is that Bush is now using the same "ideological" rhetoric in his stump speeches against Democrats.

So tell me, what separates Bush from Saddam?

 

[Moot]

You asked a good question, then went off into the deep woods. There is no way of assigning exact percentages on who is responsible for the sectarian violence, but it is clear that the purpose of much of the AQ/Zarqawi and successors violence has been to provoke sectarian groups into ever more violent retribution, thus placing an ever greater security maintenence burden on US and Iraqi forces. The deliberate targeting of Iraqi civilians and their religious shrines takes strategic advantage of the centuries old enmity between Sunni and Shia and has but one purpose: to destabilize and promote sectarian violence and chaos which will in turn, call forth more repressive and unpopular measures from those responsible for security. .....

After thouroughly searching the internet I cannot find one single instance of Al Qaida or Zaraqawi bombing or taking credit for bombing a mosque. Maybe you will have better luck than I.

Regarding Zaraqawi.....

Some people have claimed that Zarqawi's notoriety was the product of U.S. war propaganda designed to promote the image of a demonic enemy figure to help justify continued U.S. military operations in Iraq,[79] ......the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph described the claim that Zarqawi was the head of the "terrorist network" in Iraq as a "myth". .....This report cited an unnamed U.S. military intelligence source to the effect that the Zarqawi leadership myth was initially caused by faulty intelligence, but was later accepted because it suited U.S. government political goals.[81] One Sunni insurgent leader claimed on 11 December that "Zarqawi is an American, Israeli and Iranian agent who is trying to keep our country unstable so that the Sunnis will keep facing occupation."[82]

On February 18, 2006, Shiite cleric Muqtada as-Sadr made similar charges: "I believe he is fictitious. .....

On April 10, 2006, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military conducted a major propaganda offensive designed to exaggerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi insurgency.[84] [/b] .....In an internal briefing, Kimmitt is quoted as stating, "The Zarqawi PSYOP Program is the most successful information campaign to date." The main goal of the propaganda campaign seems to have been to exacerbate a rift between insurgent forces in Iraq, ..... While Pentagon spokespersons state unequivocally that PSYOPs may not be used to influence American citizens, there is little question that the information disseminated through the program has found its way into American media sources. .....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_Al-Zarqawi#Arguments_downplaying_Zarqawi.27s_importance

So I guess your right. Zaraqawi did help create a rift between the sects. Except it was the US using mythical Zaraqawi propaganda to do it. Isn't it amazing that our intelligence is still cooking up fake intelligence to convince the American people there is a war on terror?

The root cause of the majority of sectarian violence is the ongoing religious power struggle. There is a reason that much of the violence originates at the local mosque; there is a reason that much of the violence pits one religious sect against another. The battle is for control of the religious life of Iraqis. In No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah, Bing West recounts the role played the various imams and their extreme influence over the insurgents: the exhortations over the public address systems to kill Americans and Iraqi soldiers or police; the usage of the mosques to store weapons and ammo; the call for Sunni's to kill infidels and apostates; the battles between competing religious elements and imams.

When the Sects and the Islamic leaders are saying the root cause of the sectarian violence is the US occupation, then who are we to believe? The US propaganda or the sects themselves?

Given all of the above, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the main cause of the sectarian violence is indeed the US occupation. But not in the way in which you suggest. The main cause is a lack of sufficient US and/or coalition troops to maintain security and prevent the success of the strategy of those who take advantage of sectarian enmity to promote chaos.

Well, if the US coalition and its actions while in Iraq are the cause of sectarian violence, then I really don't think more troops is going to solve the problem. They did a pretty good job of creating the violence and chaos with what they had. More troops would only make it worse.

But let just me just add this.... I don't blame the troops or our military for anything that has happened in Iraq. The US troops were trained for combat, not reconstruction and winning hearts and minds of civilians in a foreign country. No sir. I totally blame the US political leadership for the entire travesty from its very inception and everything since that has transpired since. May they rot in hell for what they have done.

 

[MSgt]

This was just rediculous. C'mon. Let's keep with some sort of reality here. America is not split between NeoCons and Liberals only. They are the ones that distort reality to fit a mold. Those that look to twist every event into a mirror image of our obvious enemies are just the jester in their courts.

Yes, Saddam was bad dictator. But should Saddam be held personally responsible for all the violent acts of those who served under him, any more than Bush should be held responsible for all the violent acts of those serve under him? Maybe so because..

......So tell me, what separates Bush from Saddam?

This is a thread about why Sunni and Shi'ites are killing each other. This is all factual information based on studies conducted by social engineers, Middle Eastern experts, Islamic studies, Muslim scientists, and historical evidence. Not your hatreds for U.S. service men/women of which you know very little about. Nor is it about your hatreds for this current administration and your "guesses" about what is going on. And it certainly isn't about your spins and desires to paint as evil picture as possible on the people who protect you. The reason they are fighting is well known and has something to do with why the world chose to leave Iraqis to the misery of Saddam after the Gulf War.

If the American military rolled in and began slaughtering all those that did not behave, then we could control as Saddam did. The goal of removing a brutal dictator should never be to instill another. I wonder why Sunni slaughter other Muslims and Christians in Sudan? I wonder why Radical Muslims in Pakistan hold moderate Muslim villages hostage? I wonder why Islamic militants in Somalia slaughter other tribesman of other sects? I wonder why so many African countries are wrecked with feuding Muslim ideals? I wonder why Indonesian Radicals target fellow Muslims who seek a better life by cooperating with the religiously tolerant government? There is no American presence here, but according to you Iraqis slaughter because Americans breath their air and have committed a few stupid acts for which the offenders have been punished. I guess if we simply installed more Saddams across the third world, they would all behave and we could call it "peace." History is a hell of a teacher. Check it out.

Your need to lump the very extreme handful (dozens) of renegades (that are Court Martialed) into the hundreds of thousands of men/women that have deployed abroad shows more about your issues than your deflections. Your accusations are ludicrous. How many Americans have "raped women and murdered their fathers?" How many have "torured?" Count them out for us. Let's see how horribly exxagerated your views are. Casting aside lies, unsubstantiated facts, and unproven innuendos, how many can you produce?

Your "evidence" is "moot." Polls are meant to produce a specific result that hasn't anything to do with the reailty of the situation. Sunni Iraqis want America gone, because we ruined their party. Shi'ite Iraqis want America out, because they hope that Sunni violence will stop, despite the Shi'ite militias that target Sunni. Kurdish Iraqis want American bases in their lands. It all comes down to people not knowing what is good for their country during desperate times. "Evidence" can be shown how all of America wants us out of Iraq. However...ask the majority of them what we are doing over there and you will be met with thousands of erronious answers. What is worst in Iraq is their fellow Muslim...not Americans. We have committed very few civilian deaths.

"Bases" in Iraq are meant for other future purposes. Not for permanent American stay. Careful what you think you know or what you got fomr politicians. Know any honest ones? Honesty is a luxury the leader of the free world doesn't always have. The American government has no intentions of staying in Iraq. You speculations are just that.

Damn, this is desperate. This is why war protesters are seen as morally feeble and lacking integrity. The definition of "genocide" has nothing to do with American actions abroad. You may as well accuse us of genocide in Afghanistan, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, etc. There is no plan to "destroy national, ethnic, racial or religious groups." The goal is to destroy the Radical Islamists who pervert their religion into a tool for destruction and murder. Much like we destroyed the fanatical German that perverted his sense of nationalism. If Nazis are to be seen as a seperate entity from the peaceful German people, then so is the Fanatics of Islam to be seperated from the vast majority of Muslims who are victim to their perversions. And your strength is merely to preserve their domination and oppression by accusing our actions as "genocide?" You dismiss the overwhelming attrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims and Al-Jazeera's careful broadcasting, and the attrocities of centuries of Muslim culture towards itself just for the sake of bashing the ones that fight the very thing that so threatens their world and utlimately affects our securities? You may as well ask what the difference was between Hitler and Roosevelt.

The fact that you genuinely ask what the difference is between Bush and Saddam after passing off lies, exxagerations, and erronious and spinned information shows a lot. This looks awful personal to me. If you are Muslim, then stand up to your Radical element that would deny your fellow Muslims their freedom and basic human rights. If you aren't Muslim, stop supporting those that would cut your head off for merely defying their beliefs (Something the Qu'ran forbids).

 

[MSgt]

After thouroughly searching the internet I cannot find one single instance of Al Qaida or Zaraqawi bombing or taking credit for bombing a mosque. Maybe you will have better luck than I.

So Zarqawi and Al-Queda was and is the Peace Corps for Muslims? Fallujah alone had IED factories built by Al-Queda and their Mosques were storage places. Until the Sunni Radical element decided that a partnership with Al-Queda was not in the best interest of Muslims (last Fall) they targetted Shi'ite Mosques and schools under the leadership of Al-Zarqawi. Life does exist outside of the Internet. You will always find more proof in reality than you will through an Internet link.

Well, if the US coalition and its actions while in Iraq are the cause of sectarian violence, then I really don't think more troops is going to solve the problem. They did a pretty good job of creating the violence and chaos with what they had. More troops would only make it worse.

Do you know anything about what is going on at all? If we had the amount of troop strength that was asked for, then none of this would be happening. They began to act up and take revenge out upon each other because their was the complete absence of the rule of law. We simply did not have enough troops to place "beat cops" on every corner. Furthermore countless Saddam loyalists simply layed their weapons down and faded into the population only to fight another day with the insurgency, because we didn't have the troop strength to cover the ground we wanted during the assault. Of course, then there is the grotesque spending on contractors who are not efficient. If we had spent the money on local Muslim contractors and their workiers, then we would have countless youth employed instead of bored and no way to earn a living. Blame the violence on the OSD, but at least know what to blame him for.

More troops today is not the answer, because it is too late. Iraq's future is largely in the hands of the Iraqi government and military. The larger favorable repercussions around the region has been revealing itself if we took the time to look.

But let just me just add this.... I don't blame the troops or our military for anything that has happened in Iraq. The US troops were trained for combat, not reconstruction and winning hearts and minds of civilians in a foreign country. No sir. I totally blame the US political leadership for the entire travesty from its very inception and everything since that has transpired since. May they rot in hell for what they have done.

Yeah.......along with the religious fantatics and their terrorists who you claim are victims of our "genocide"...right? Hate Bush all day, but you are only allowing it to interfere with your reasoning and understanding of things beyond our borders.

You say the above after saying this....

Under the leadership of Bush, US soldiers have "murdered and slaughtered" all those that defied Bush's ideology of what the ME should be.

and...

Perhaps it was Abu Graib; or Mossad and British soldiers disguised as Arabs blowing up crowded markets and mosques; or the rape and murders in Haidatha; or throwing Iraqi teenagers off a dam; or killing hundreds of innocent civilians at check points; or rolling over pedistrians with tanks; or raiding Iraqi homes and touching their women and taking their men; or perhaps it is the US training and oversight of the Iraqi police death squads.

Sorry, but you have severly trumped your hand. Not only have you dragged the U.S. military through the mud with regurgitated lies, innuendos, and isolated incidents by attempting to portray 99 percent of us as those civilians in military clothing during the frat party in Abu-Ghraib, but you have shown to not understand a thing about the Middle Eastern world and what is going on there. You remind me of that Republican politician on the "Daily Show" who said he didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite and why religions feud.

 

[oldreliable67]

When the Sects and the Islamic leaders are saying the root cause of the sectarian violence is the US occupation, then who are we to believe?

You believe whomever you wish. However, you would do well to consider the example of the interminable meetings of the civilian leadership of Fallujah and the CPA and the US military in which the Fallujah leadership adamantly refused to admit there were foreign fighters in Fallujah. Their story was "no foreign fighters here, you leave and we gurantee peace". Of course, later, when the Marines took Fallujah, the discovery of torture rooms and dismembered victims, prisons, IED and suicide vehicle factories, and mosques heavy with weapons caches were abundant evidence of the lie. Such discoveries included the room in which Nicholas Berg was beheaded - on video - by Zarqawi. So much for the myth.

Moreover, many of the mosques had very loud speaker systems, over which the imams continuously exhorted the populace to kill the infidels and apostates. They considered anyone of any other Islamic sect as "takfir" and worthy only of killing - you seem to like Wikipedia - look it up. Absent the urging of the imams to violence against not only US soldiers and Marines butother Iraqis of different sects as well, there would have been a much greater chance for a peaceful outcome. As it was, we tried, but there was never a chance for anything other than boots on the ground. So much for the the root cause of the sectarian violence

You really need to move beyond so much reliance on the internet for your research. One factual source is "No True Glory: Fallujah and the Struggle in Iraq : A Frontline Account" by Bing West. Another is "Cobra II" by Gordon and Trainor.

 

[Moot]

This is a thread about why Sunni and Shi'ites are killing each other. This is all factual information based on studies conducted by social engineers, Middle Eastern experts, Islamic studies, Muslim scientists, and historical evidence. Not your hatreds for U.S. service men/women of which you know very little about. Nor is it about your hatreds for this current administration and your "guesses" about what is going on. And it certainly isn't about your spins and desires to paint as evil picture as possible on the people who protect you. The reason they are fighting is well known and has something to do with why the world chose to leave Iraqis to the misery of Saddam after the Gulf War.

Great. So you shouldn't have a problem providing the sources to all those impressive people so that we may all judge for ourselves the validity of their studies and their conclusions. Otherwise, its just your unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.

I would also appreciate it if you didn't make this personal. We can have a civil discussion and still disagree without the personal attacks and insults, can't we?

I wonder why Sunni slaughter other Muslims and Christians in Sudan? I wonder why Radical Muslims in Pakistan hold moderate Muslim villages hostage? I wonder why Islamic militants in Somalia slaughter other tribesman of other sects? I wonder why so many African countries are wrecked with feuding Muslim ideals? I wonder why Indonesian Radicals target fellow Muslims who seek a better life by cooperating with the religiously tolerant government? There is no American presence here, but according to you Iraqis slaughter because Americans breath their air and have committed a few stupid acts for which the offenders have been punished. I guess if we simply installed more Saddams across the third world, they would all behave and we could call it "peace." History is a hell of a teacher. Check it out.

Well, like I said in my very first post, I agree with the bulk of what you originally said. It's true, there is racism and bigotry among Muslims. But check it out, there is also bigotry and racism among Christians and Jews. But this is where we differ. Iraq was secular. Saddam did not encourage religion. This is how the Sunnis and the Shiia lived peacefully as neighbors and even inter-married.

Your need to lump the very extreme handful (dozens) of renegades (that are Court Martialed) into the hundreds of thousands of men/women that have deployed abroad shows more about your issues than your deflections. Your accusations are ludicrous. How many Americans have "raped women and murdered their fathers?" How many have "torured?" Count them out for us. Let's see how horribly exxagerated your views are. Casting aside lies, unsubstantiated facts, and unproven innuendos, how many can you produce?

Far be it for me to pop your bubble. Read what this Iraqi woman has to say....

"You raped the country, why not its people?"

"Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. ..... Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?...
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

"Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them." You can add that to the cause of the violence as well.

The fact that Bush via Bremmer decided to give US troops and contractors immunity from justice was like a letting loose all the demons of hell on an unwitting population. This is the very basis of the resentment against the US troops by the Iraqis. They have no justice. There is very little or no accountabilty.

You claim to know a bit about the Iraqi culture, so you must know that they believe in an eye for an eye? Their culture does not suffer disrespect, insults or injustice lightly. Their culture is ingrained with a strong sense of revenge.

Your "evidence" is "moot."

:roll: So is yours, my friend. But then you didn't provide any evidence, did you? So I don't think you have much room to talk.

Polls are meant to produce a specific result that hasn't anything to do with the reailty of the situation.

People only disagree with polls if the polls disagree with their agenda. Apparently the Iraqis overwhelming desire for the US to leave disagrees with the US agenda....and yours.

Sunni Iraqis want America gone, because we ruined their party. Shi'ite Iraqis want America out, because they hope that Sunni violence will stop, despite the Shi'ite militias that target Sunni. Kurdish Iraqis want American bases in their lands.

Quite the contrary. While originally the Sunnis did want the US to leave. But because the US has made them vulnerable and unable to defend themselves, they want them to stay to protect them from the Shiite militas and the Iraqi government that the US help to set up.

In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/w...tml?ex=1162530000&en=e94e53fa513ff1ab&ei=5070

But that was in July and the US didn't protect them. Now there may not be enough Sunnis left alive in Baghdad to care whether the US leaves or not. But that's usually the goal of genocide, isn't it?

It all comes down to people not knowing what is good for their country during desperate times.

Pure arrogance. Who are you to decide what is best for others? I sure wouldn't want you to decide my fate and I certainly don't want Bush to do it either. Nuh uh. No siree.

We have committed very few civilian deaths.

Thats not true.

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
A Week in Iraq - What war looks like
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial/weekiniraq/
Is Iraq's Civilian Death Toll 'Horrible' -- Or Worse?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html

"Bases" in Iraq are meant for other future purposes. Not for permanent American stay.

Really? What "other future purposes" would a permanent US military base serve?

Careful what you think you know or what you got fomr politicians. Know any honest ones? Honesty is a luxury the leader of the free world doesn't always have. The American government has no intentions of staying in Iraq. You speculations are just that.

Well, if the truth be known, I think the average blogger knows more than our politicians. No contest. Maybe that's why Chertoff is trying to shut down the internet, eh?

Damn, this is desperate. This is why war protesters are seen as morally feeble and lacking integrity. .... There is no plan to "destroy national, ethnic, racial or religious groups." The goal is to destroy the Radical Islamists who pervert their religion into a tool for destruction and murder.

But, but according to "born-again Bush, that's the entire Middle East you just described. Thats what genocide is. Don't tell me you're going to try and distuinguish what is in peoples hearts and minds? Puulease.

Much like we destroyed the fanatical German that perverted his sense of nationalism. ...., then so is the Fanatics of Islam to be seperated from the vast majority of Muslims who are victim to their perversions. And your strength is merely to preserve their domination and oppression by accusing our actions as "genocide?"

Since when did our US military turn into God's army fighting a holy crusade against Islam? You're getting scary, dude.

You dismiss the overwhelming attrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims and Al-Jazeera's careful broadcasting, and the attrocities of centuries of Muslim culture towards itself just for the sake of bashing the ones that fight the very thing that so threatens their world and utlimately affects our securities? You may as well ask what the difference was between Hitler and Roosevelt.

No. Just a simple difference between Bush and Saddam will suffice. But it doesn't appear you can, so ...

Lets see now, according to Bush, Saddam killed over 300,000 Iraqis over a period of 24 years and now according to the latest study, Bush has killed over 600,000 Iraqis over a period of 3 years. So, who is the worst offender against humanity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777092/

The fact that you genuinely ask what the difference is between Bush and Saddam after passing off lies, exxagerations, and erronious and spinned information shows a lot. This looks awful personal to me.....

Now, now, don't get huffy. Just try and defend your argument with a little bit of reason, logic, intellect and evidence is all I ask. I have a Constitutional right to criticize our president. He is an elected leader...not a diety or a king. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you're not really fighting for our freedom.

 

[Moot]

You believe whomever you wish. However, you would do well to consider the example of the interminable meetings of the civilian leadership of Fallujah and the CPA and the US military in which the Fallujah leadership adamantly refused to admit there were foreign fighters in Fallujah. Their story was "no foreign fighters here, you leave and we gurantee peace". Of course, later, when the Marines took Fallujah, the discovery of torture rooms and dismembered victims, prisons, IED and suicide vehicle factories, and mosques heavy with weapons caches were abundant evidence of the lie. Such discoveries included the room in which Nicholas Berg was beheaded - on video - by Zarqawi. So much for the myth.

Really? Torture rooms and everything? Wow. That's incredible since there is nothing in these articles or film footage to support your claims.

Falluja April 2004 -
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12665.htm
Warning: Graphic video showing US used cluster bombs on civilians. Mostly women and children.

Americans Slaughtering Civilians in Falluja
http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000162.html

Firebombing Falluja
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6772

“Falluja-The day After”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9010.htm
Warning: film footage shows victims covered in white phospherous and napalm. Mostly women, children and elderly.

Dead-Check in Falluja - Embedded with the Marines in Iraq
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0447,wright,58644,1.html

Journalists tell of US Falluja killings
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6890A8DA-AF79-45AD-BB4F-42C060978A07.htm

Moreover, many of the mosques had very loud speaker systems, over which the imams continuously exhorted the populace to kill the infidels and apostates. They considered anyone of any other Islamic sect as "takfir" and worthy only of killing - you seem to like Wikipedia - look it up. Absent the urging of the imams to violence against not only US soldiers and Marines but other Iraqis of different sects as well, there would have been a much greater chance for a peaceful outcome. As it was, we tried, but there was never a chance for anything other than boots on the ground. So much for the the root cause of the sectarian violence.

Its true, I do like Wikipedia. So according to it the mayor of Fallujah was staunchly pro-American and Fallujah was a peaceful resort town before the liberators came.

Fallujah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah

You really need to move beyond so much reliance on the internet for your research. One factual source is "No True Glory: Fallujah and the Struggle in Iraq : A Frontline Account" by Bing West. Another is "Cobra II" by Gordon and Trainor.

I will read the books you recommend. But my reading list is quite long and I might not get to them before the war is over. But until then, you should really check out those links I provided. A picture is worth a thousand words and first hand accounts lend even more credibilty. Especially when you can see the agony in their faces.

 

[Moot]

So Zarqawi and Al-Queda was and is the Peace Corps for Muslims? Fallujah alone had IED factories built by Al-Queda and their Mosques were storage places. Until the Sunni Radical element decided that a partnership with Al-Queda was not in the best interest of Muslims (last Fall) they targetted Shi'ite Mosques and schools under the leadership of Al-Zarqawi. Life does exist outside of the Internet. You will always find more proof in reality than you will through an Internet link.

Don't make me laugh. This is a serious subject you brought up and you have made many claims that you can't back up. Did you really believe that everyone in etherland would just take you at face value because of that good lookin' soldier in your avatar?

I think you better get crackin' and do your internet homework, because Tweety Pie is making you look bad. :2razz:

Do you know anything about what is going on at all? If we had the amount of troop strength that was asked for, then none of this would be happening. They began to act up and take revenge out upon each other because their was the complete absence of the rule of law. We simply did not have enough troops to place "beat cops" on every corner.

You had the hearts and minds of the Iraqis when you first rolled into Baghdad. They cheered you on and believed in you. There was absolutely no resistance from the border all the way into Baghdad.

But when you guys got into Baghdad and stood around with your thumbs up your arses and did nothing to stop the looting or protect the cache of weapons left behind by the fleeing Saddam army and just let the chaos created by the criminals let of Abu Graib take over, that was the first sign that things were not as they appeared to be. You had the troops to control Baghdad and did nothing. And you could have let the civilian Iraqis keep their weapons so they could defend their homes and familys. There are so many things you guys did wrong. But I can't blame the troops. They were just taking orders. Nope, I blame the entire pathetic ordeal on the inept military command and the political leadership in Washington. That is the only thing this war and Vietnam have in common.

Furthermore countless Saddam loyalists simply layed their weapons down and faded into the population only to fight another day with the insurgency, because we didn't have the troop strength to cover the ground we wanted during the assault.

One question. If the fleeing Saddam loyalists were intent on fighting another day, then why did they lay down their weapons? Isn't the laying down of arms a sign of surrender?

Of course, then there is the grotesque spending on contractors who are not efficient. If we had spent the money on local Muslim contractors and their workiers, then we would have countless youth employed instead of bored and no way to earn a living. Blame the violence on the OSD, but at least know what to blame him for.

Man, do I agree with everything you just said. And I do blame the OSD more than you will ever know. At least we are on the same page there.

More troops today is not the answer, because it is too late. Iraq's future is largely in the hands of the Iraqi government and military. The larger favorable repercussions around the region has been revealing itself if we took the time to look.

What do you mean? What larger favorable repercussions? Is it Al-Maliki finally showing some control?

Where are you anyway? Are you stateside or still in Iraq?

Yeah.......along with the religious fantatics and their terrorists who you claim are victims of our "genocide"...right? Hate Bush all day, but you are only allowing it to interfere with your reasoning and understanding of things beyond our borders.

You say the above after saying this....

Under the leadership of Bush, US soldiers have "murdered and slaughtered" all those that defied Bush's ideology of what the ME should be.

and...

Perhaps it was Abu Graib; or Mossad and British soldiers disguised as Arabs blowing up crowded markets and mosques; or the rape and murders in Haidatha; or throwing Iraqi teenagers off a dam; or killing hundreds of innocent civilians at check points; or rolling over pedistrians with tanks; or raiding Iraqi homes and touching their women and taking their men; or perhaps it is the US training and oversight of the Iraqi police death squads.

I said that because you are still buying the US boogy man propaganda. Ooo, Saddam was a baddie, so we had to take him out. Well, you know what, Saddam never attacked or was a threat to the US. The only threat he posed was to Israel and without WMD he wasn't much of a threat at all. But he did support the Palestinian cause. So in essence, our military is now Israels proxy army and fighting their battles with our American kids and our US tax dollars. And I find that extremely offensive. EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE indeed.

And what makes it even more offensive are the war profiteers who got rich off the sacrifices and lives of our troops and all those Iraqis who have died and lost loved ones. It's people like Richard Perle and Wolfowitz and Hayden and Feith...and dang if they aren't all Zionist Neocons whose first loyalty is to Israel. What a frickin' coincidence. I think not. Of course I'm not letting Halliburton and its subsidiaries off the hook either. ***** em all.

Sorry, but you have severly trumped your hand. Not only have you dragged the U.S. military through the mud with regurgitated lies, innuendos, and isolated incidents by attempting to portray 99 percent of us as those civilians in military clothing during the frat party in Abu-Ghraib, but you have shown to not understand a thing about the Middle Eastern world and what is going on there. You remind me of that Republican politician on the "Daily Show" who said he didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite and why religions feud.

I'm going to ignore that because I think deep in your heart you know I don't believe that. I have already said I do not blame the troops. Not even the ones who commited atrocities. Because they wouldn't even be there if not for Bush. So I've told you who I hold responsible. That is why said in 'HIS NAME'. But I had to point out examples because apparently you needed reminding WHY the violence is escalating and WHY the Iraqi people hate the US occupation with a vengence.

 

[MSgt]

Great. So you shouldn't have a problem providing the sources to all those impressive people so that we may all judge for ourselves the validity of their studies and their conclusions. Otherwise, its just your unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.

Do your own study. I am tired of providing books and essays for common sense issues to those who simply haven't the ability nor the interest in recognizing the world they liove in.

Far be it for me to pop your bubble. Read what this Iraqi woman has to say....

"You raped the country, why not its people?"

"Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. ..... Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?...
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

"Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them." You can add that to the cause of the violence as well.

The fact that Bush via Bremmer decided to give US troops and contractors immunity from justice was like a letting loose all the demons of hell on an unwitting population. This is the very basis of the resentment against the US troops by the Iraqis. They have no justice. There is very little or no accountabilty.

You claim to know a bit about the Iraqi culture, so you must know that they believe in an eye for an eye? Their culture does not suffer disrespect, insults or injustice lightly. Their culture is ingrained with a strong sense of revenge.

So you accuse the military of being rapists (as you commplain about this getting personal) and then you produce a single woman's opinion (amongst over 20 million) that her country was raped and therefore we should rape her people as some sort of proof that your accusations are accurate that we are rapists?

Let me guess...the woman is a Sunni loyalist. Revenge is something that goes deep amongst the Middle East. The Iraqi Sunni want revenge for their spoiled party. Spinning doesn't work with me.

:roll: So is yours, my friend. But then you didn't provide any evidence, did you? So I don't think you have much room to talk.

Evidence of reality versus your opinionated "evidence?" This also doesn't work. I am my source. If you want something you can read....crack some books rather than select internet links focused on what you are trying to sell.

Quite the contrary. While originally the Sunnis did want the US to leave. But because the US has made them vulnerable and unable to defend themselves, they want them to stay to protect them from the Shiite militas and the Iraqi government that the US help to set up.

In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/w...tml?ex=1162530000&en=e94e53fa513ff1ab&ei=5070

But that was in July and the US didn't protect them. Now there may not be enough Sunnis left alive in Baghdad to care whether the US leaves or not. But that's usually the goal of genocide, isn't it?

So accusations of military rape got spinned completely and now you imply that we are on a mission to slaughter all the Sunni in Baghdad. Our goal is to commit genocide? Unbelievable.

Your little article is an opinionated piece. What it should have said, (which would have been more accurate) is that they haven't any safety against their own Muslim people. They are victims of their own culture and they are reaping what they have spent decades perfecting. The Iraqi government was elected by the people. The Sunni boycotted the first election ansd they learned a lesson. Next time they will vote.

Pure arrogance. Who are you to decide what is best for others? I sure wouldn't want you to decide my fate and I certainly don't want Bush to do it either. Nuh uh. No siree.

Pure truth. The government decides what is best for you. You give them that right by voting. They act behind the scenes to protect you while you complain about things you don't understand. It's been gong on for centuries. Of course...there are other countries to live in. The problem is that citizens in every country do not know what is best for them. They allow "morallity" to get in the way of the "necessary" things that Governments must do.

Thats not true.

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
A Week in Iraq - What war looks like
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial/weekiniraq/
Is Iraq's Civilian Death Toll 'Horrible' -- Or Worse?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html

Unbvelievable. To the heart of it. You may as well be a righty parading around proof of WMD in Iraq. Merely a protestor, bush hater needing to spin everything and cling to desperate inaccuracies. "655,000" is grossy exxagerated and the poll taken to achieve this number has been dismissed by other independant agencies. The number acording to Bush is 50,000. He is also wrong. The military places this number towards 70,000. However, the fraction of this number that have actually died from American weaponry is very small. Of course, this doesn't fit into the protester's needs so they cast integrity to the side and embellish as much as possible to exhonerate a lack of morality against evil. And yes...evil does exist. Ask the women of the Middle East who can't even imagine the basic human rights you enjoy while you look for ways to unwittingly support the Radicals who oppress them and wreck their societies.)

Really? What "other future purposes" would a permanent US military base serve?

Unbelievable. Shall I produce a few classified documents for you too? Figure it out.

Well, if the truth be known, I think the average blogger knows more than our politicians. No contest. Maybe that's why Chertoff is trying to shut down the internet, eh?

So....the militray as rapists and murderes and genocide criminals.....to exxagerated desperations of exhonerating Mulsim violence and contribuiting their civilian detahs to the military.......to blogger wisdom. Getting the picture yet?

But, but according to "born-again Bush, that's the entire Middle East you just described. Thats what genocide is. Don't tell me you're going to try and distuinguish what is in peoples hearts and minds? Puulease.

So...Bush is a wise old man when you need him to be? From accusations of military rape, genocide to Christian bashing. Unbelievable. Set your personal crusade to hate and spin and crack some books. The Middle Eastern culture is written for all to read. The majority of the Middle east has succombed to a narcotic of blame. The vast majority of the Middle east is not Radical, but are victims of their Radical element who praise their terrorists. All have the capacity to become religious terrorists, becuase that is the product of their environment.

Since when did our US military turn into God's army fighting a holy crusade against Islam? You're getting scary, dude.

Since when did I declare this at all? More spinning I see. This is a fight against religious terrorists and their Radical supporters. This is not a fight against Islam.

No. Just a simple difference between Bush and Saddam will suffice. But it doesn't appear you can, so ...

Lets see now, according to Bush, Saddam killed over 300,000 Iraqis over a period of 24 years and now according to the latest study, Bush has killed over 600,000 Iraqis over a period of 3 years. So, who is the worst offender against humanity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777092/

So..instead of parading the lie of 655,000 you are now backing down to 600,000 as truth? Even with this false number you are declaring that Bush has killed them and you choose to ignore the truth of who is killing who? Where's your integrity? Unbelievable.

Now, now, don't get huffy. Just try and defend your argument with a little bit of reason, logic, intellect and evidence is all I ask. I have a Constitutional right to criticize our president. He is an elected leader...not a diety or a king. If you don't understand that, then perhaps you're not really fighting for our freedom.

You demand "wisdom" and "logic" while passing off blogger information, opinionated articles, and fantasies? Criticizing involves a measure of honesty. Your posts are lacking. Critical opinions backed up by iognorance of the situation isn't constructive. The very first post in this thread was all fact. What you wrote was merely opinion. Let's not whine about your Constitutional Right to be "free." It's overly dramatic.

 

[MSgt]

I think you better get crackin' and do your internet homework, because Tweety Pie is making you look bad.

......and this would be the entire joke about your posts. "Internet homework." You are only managing to look foolish. I don't live in the Internet. I live in the real world.

 

[Moot]

Do your own study. I am tired of providing books and essays for common sense issues to those who simply haven't the ability nor the interest in recognizing the world they liove in.





So you accuse the military of being rapists (as you commplain about this getting personal) and then you produce a single woman's opinion (amongst over 20 million) that her country was raped and therefore we should rape her people as some sort of proof that your accusations are accurate that we are rapists?

Let me guess...the woman is a Sunni loyalist. Revenge is something that goes deep amongst the Middle East. The Iraqi Sunni want revenge for their spoiled party. Spinning doesn't work with me.



Evidence of reality versus your opinionated "evidence?" This also doesn't work. I am my source. If you want something you can read....crack some books rather than select internet links focused on what you are trying to sell.


So accusations of military rape got spinned completely and now you imply that we are on a mission to slaughter all the Sunni in Baghdad. Our goal is to commit genocide? Unbelievable.

Your little article is an opinionated piece. What it should have said, (which would have been more accurate) is that they haven't any safety against their own Muslim people. They are victims of their own culture and they are reaping what they have spent decades perfecting. The Iraqi government was elected by the people. The Sunni boycotted the first election ansd they learned a lesson. Next time they will vote.


Pure truth. The government decides what is best for you. You give them that right by voting. They act behind the scenes to protect you while you complain about things you don't understand. It's been gong on for centuries. Of course...there are other countries to live in. The problem is that citizens in every country do not know what is best for them. They allow "morallity" to get in the way of the "necessary" things that Governments must do.


Unbvelievable. To the heart of it. You may as well be a righty parading around proof of WMD in Iraq. Merely a protestor, bush hater needing to spin everything and cling to desperate inaccuracies. "655,000" is grossy exxagerated and the poll taken to achieve this number has been dismissed by other independant agencies. The number acording to Bush is 50,000. He is also wrong. The military places this number towards 70,000. However, the fraction of this number that have actually died from American weaponry is very small. Of course, this doesn't fit into the protester's needs so they cast integrity to the side and embellish as much as possible to exhonerate a lack of morality against evil. And yes...evil does exist. Ask the women of the Middle East who can't even imagine the basic human rights you enjoy while you look for ways to unwittingly support the Radicals who oppress them and wreck their societies.)



Unbelievable. Shall I produce a few classified documents for you too? Figure it out.



So....the militray as rapists and murderes and genocide criminals.....to exxagerated desperations of exhonerating Mulsim violence and contribuiting their civilian detahs to the military.......to blogger wisdom. Getting the picture yet?


So...Bush is a wise old man when you need him to be? From accusations of military rape, genocide to Christian bashing. Unbelievable. Set your personal crusade to hate and spin and crack some books. The Middle Eastern culture is written for all to read. The majority of the Middle east has succombed to a narcotic of blame. The vast majority of the Middle east is not Radical, but are victims of their Radical element who praise their terrorists. All have the capacity to become religious terrorists, becuase that is the product of their environment.



Since when did I declare this at all? More spinning I see. This is a fight against religious terrorists and their Radical supporters. This is not a fight against Islam.



So..instead of parading the lie of 655,000 you are now backing down to 600,000 as truth? Even with this false number you are declaring that Bush has killed them and you choose to ignore the truth of who is killing who? Where's your integrity? Unbelievable.



You demand "wisdom" and "logic" while passing off blogger information, opinionated articles, and fantasies? Criticizing involves a measure of honesty. Your posts are lacking. Critical opinions backed up by iognorance of the situation isn't constructive. The very first post in this thread was all fact. What you wrote was merely opinion. Let's not whine about your Constitutional Right to be "free." It's overly dramatic.

Okay. Okay, I can see you are not interested in debating the topic that you brought up and are only looking for a belly rub and to place blame on the victims of the US illegal act of aggression. Okay, good job, well done, thank you for helping to make the biggest mistake in US history. I know you were only following orders and I completely place blame on the US political leaders and the military commanders. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits. Good luck to you sir, because you are going to need it if Bush invades Iran.

 

[oldreliable67]

Really? Torture rooms and everything? Wow. That's incredible since there is nothing in these articles or film footage to support your claims.
[...]
Its true, I do like Wikipedia. So according to it the mayor of Fallujah was staunchly pro-American and Fallujah was a peaceful resort town before the liberators came.

Just take another look at the sources of your film footage. Examine their record for reporting accuracy. Check their political proclivities. And read about what happened to the Fallujah mayor who was supposedly "staunchly pro-American". You really need to avail yourself of more scholarly, serious sources to balance the "pop" sources on which you seem to be spending most of your time and effort. Read about Janabi, Suleiman and other principal actors in Fallujah.

Since you like internet stuff, what about CBS News? Do you think they are reasonably unbiased? From their internet archives...

U.S. commanders say their door to door patrols have uncovered nearly two dozen houses of horror in the back streets of Fallujah, reports CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan.

"The face of Satan was here in Fallujah, and I'm absolutely convinced that that was true," said Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, with the U.S. Marines.

The rooms were found by Marines following trails of dried blood, or the smell of death. Some rooms were hidden behind fake walls, or concealed in basements.

Residents told troops they only knew the torture chambers were there because they could hear the screams at night.

"We found numerous houses, also, where people were just chained to a wall for extended periods of time," said U.S. military intelligence officer Major Jim West.

Marines believe they found the place where British hostage Kenneth Bigley was caged before being beheaded, and others where American hostages could have been held.

How about the AP story carried by many news outlets?

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Down a steep staircase littered with glass shards and rubble, U.S. Marines descended Thursday to a dark basement believed to have been one of Fallujah's torture chambers. They found bloodstains and a single bloody hand print on the wall — evidence of the horrors once carried out in this former insurgent stronghold.

"We had sensed that there was a pure streak of evil in this town, ever since the first days of engagement here," said Maj. Wade Weems.

The basement, discovered while Marines fought fierce battles with Fallujah insurgents last month, is part of the Islamic Resistance Center, a three-story building in the heart of this city 40 miles west of Baghdad.

Maj. Alex Ray, an operations officer with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said all evidence indicates the 15-foot-by-20-foot space was used by insurgents to imprison and torture their captives.

"Based on the evidence we have found here, we believe people were held here and possibly tortured — we have found enough blood to surmise that," Ray told reporters shown the basement Thursday.

On the wall adjacent to the hand print, human fingernails were found dug deep into the porous gravel around a hole in the wall — evidence, the Marines say, of a tunnel-digging attempt.

Although most of the evidence had been taken away, there was enough to suggest "they tried to dig their way out," Ray said. No bodies or human remains — except for the fingernails — were found when the Marines discovered the underground chamber on Nov. 11, but they found "plenty of blood," he said. Marine experts have collected samples for forensic and DNA testing.

"This is tangible proof how horrific they were," Weems, of Washington, D.C., said of the insurgents, shuddering as he gazed at the bloody hand print.

There are more, but since they don't fit with your preconceived notions, I'm guessing that you will not be likely to examine them.