'Islamising' the war ?

[pascal]

Will it happens?
Now Syria and Iran are being treated by US http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2901689.stm

Powell warns Syria and Iran

Jihad is sending its suicide bombers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,926333,00.html

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad group yesterday issued a statement announcing "the good news" that the first of its suicide bombers had arrived in Baghdad. Because of the extremely tight security in Israel, American and British troops in Iraq are likely to become an easier and more attractive target for the foreseeable future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2901495.stm

Iraqi resistance 'restores Arab honour'

By Martin Asser
BBC News Online Correspondent in Jordan

It pains them as they watch the latest shocking images of bloodshed from Iraq, beamed to their homes without hesitation or censorship by Arabic satellite TV.

I really worry that this war will turn in some "WAR on Islam", the consequences will be tragic.

edited, one more link: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1678842

 

[chavvdarrr]

IMHO

unfortunately this could happen, and the possibility rises with every day of war in Iraq. Right now the only hopes for escaping such development are:
1) SH dead and riot in Baghdad
2) very fast victory for US army
3) withdrawal of US forces
IMHO 3 is impossible and undesirable, maybe even worst scenario
2 is questionable, and I hardly believe possible.
1 is best scenario (SH dead), although his death can make him "holy victim" and symbol for arabs.

 

[Sxotty]

Well the islamic countries are trying to turn it into a war on islam, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.

When I say that of course not all countries are trying to do it, the middle east makes its money selling oil to the West so the leaders want the west to stil be doing business with the west to pad their pockets, they just want the west to be knocked off their high horse so that they can do what they want w/o worry of intervention.

 

[pascal]

More Islam coming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926960,00.html

No precise figures are available about the number of foreign Arabs or Muslims seeking to fight in Iraq.

But 36 Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians left Beirut yesterday en route for Syria to take up arms in Iraq. Hundreds more have applied for visas. "We are going to fight the Americans, the British and the Zionists who want to take over our land - Arab and Muslim land," Nourredine al-Sayyed, a 24-year-old shopkeeper, told Reuters.

Last week Iraq's embassy in Algeria said more than 100 volunteers had offered to go into battle.

"This is a war for oil and Zionism. We want to help Iraqis, not Saddam," said Amr, a student volunteer from Cairo. "I know I might die. I don't want to kill people but I will if I have to, to protect people like those children with their heads missing."

 

[pax]

I was amazed at how quickly the US has started to make dangerous decalrations towards Syria and Iran. Its already such a problem trying to keep peoples form other muslim nations from getting involved and making this thing more complicated.

I dont see why Syria has to be warned off because it morally supports the Iraqi people (carefully worded to avoid offering moral support to Saddam). The night vision stuff found on the ground in Iraq was made in Japan and the US. Its obviously grey\black market. Syria isnt so stupid as to blatantly offer military support to Iraq with the US army knocking at its door. Im having even more serious doubts about the US administrations ability to deal with this issue at any level.

Syria and Iran both fought Saddam in the past. Why the US now thinks they would help him is beyond me. Oh I suppose more secret intelligence we cant know about???

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

The administration probably knows far more than it's letting on. It wouldn't be the first time either.

 

[Sxotty]

Syria and Iran are not against making money by selling to Iraq, and the countries in the middle east are desperate that we fail, because if we actuallly suceeded in creating a democratic country that spread the incredible oil wealth around, what do you think the people in other arab countries would suddenly want?

And then all the super rich princes and such would have to share their billions, which would be a real shame.

 

[chavvdarrr]

And then all the super rich princes and such would have to share their billions, which would be a real shame.

Huh, you think USA will enforce "socialism-alike" democracy?

 

[Sharkfood]

"I don't want to kill people but I will if I have to, to protect people like those children with their heads missing."

That tells the whole story right there.

It goes to show who the real victims are- it's not the Iraqi people or even the Coalition forces.. it's the folks in Beirut/Syria that are getting media blitzed with propaganda of reports of marines running around chopping off the heads of poor, helpless children... and actually believing it.

Heck, if I was bombarded with fictional and constant reports of marines running around chopping off the heads of Iraqi children, I'd probably do the same. Thus lies the benefit of an open and free press to allow the extremist and propaganda houses be counter-checked with realistic reports.

 

[Sabastian]

Well the islamic countries are trying to turn it into a war on islam, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.

Exactly.. but it is more then that. This has been building up for years. The Jihad is a war against western culture and the US is seen as the "head of a snake" and the embodiment of evil. Islam has gone too far with its accusations of the west. Years ago while attending a university anthropology class I learned of the Islamic Jihad movement, it was then I realized that some day this would come to a head. How and when I did not know. Their hatred of western culture is the drive behind their wanting to turn this into a war on Islam. Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result. I am one to think that it also springs from the fact that their once very esteemed culture which is now playing a very much less desirable place in the world then it used to, much of their hatred is incited via cultural jealousy.

 

[pascal]

Well the islamic countries are trying to turn it into a war on islam, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen.

Exactly.. but it is more then that. This has been building up for years. The Jihad is a war against western culture and the US is seen as the "head of a snake" and the embodiment of evil. Islam has gone too far with its accusations of the west. Years ago while attending a university anthropology class I learned of the Islamic Jihad movement, it was then I realized that some day this would come to a head. How and when I did not know. Their hatred of western culture is the drive behind their wanting to turn this into a war on Islam. Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result. I am one to think that it also springs from the fact that their once very esteemed culture which is now playing a very much less desirable place in the world then it used to, much of their hatred is incited via cultural jealousy.

Very enlighting Sabastian

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Certainly more enlightening than your "solutions" presented to date, pascal, which, if my memory serves, amounts completely to:

"let's learn to be friends!"

Very....very insightful.



I find it ironic that you, the preacher of friendship, to make posts like your last one that do little more than personally insult, where no insult was thrown your own way.

With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

 

[pascal]

Certainoly more enlightening than your "solutions" presented to date, pascal, which, if my memory serves, amounts completely to:

"let's learn to be friends!"

Very....very insightful.

First, to be a friend is not agree with everything someone say.

I find it ironic that you, the preacher of firnedship, to make posts like your last one that do little more than personally insult, where no insult was thrown your own way.

Yes it is ironic, but things like "Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result." doesnt sound right in many senses to me. My initial intention was not to personally insult him, if Sabastian feels that way then my apologies.

With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

Joe, you are very direct and I like that, but if you have more to say than say now. Probably this is not because what I said to Sabastian but because you probably dont like my general position. Tell me how I am your "friend"? Because I dont agree? Because I keep remind you that there is a WAR with people dieng there? Because I keep remind you the many dangers of the actions in course? Because I keep trying to break your rose coloured glasses?

No, you want a silent pseudofriend, just ask and I can do that for you because I know you since 1998, and I still consider you a friend.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

First, to be a friend is not agree with everything someone say.

Point? To be friendly means not insulting others by posting sarcastic comments that have no other substance behind it. You are always preaching how we should all just "learn to be friends", yet you don't take courses of action that indicate you are serious about it.

You're hypocritical.

Yes it is ironic, but things like "Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result." doesnt sound right in many senses to me. My initial intention was not to personally insult him, if Sabastian feels that way then my apologies.

You didn't think making sarcastic comments about his "elightening" comments was insulting?

Joe, you are very direct and I like that, but if you have more to say than say now. Probably this is not because what I said to Sabastian but because you probably dont like my general position.

Both.

Tell me how I am your "friend"? Because I dont agree? Because I keep remind you that there is a WAR with people dieng there?

No, because you insulted him at the same time that you are preaching "friends'.

The fact that you feel the need to post every propaganda link and photo from the guardian you can think of...the fact that you feel some need to "remind" us all of what we already know, is just annoying and frankly, childish.

Because I keep remind you the many dangers of the actions in course?

Because we aren't well aware of them?

Because I keep trying to break your rose coloured glasses?

What rose colored glasses are those, pascal? The ones that believe that loss of life is unfortunate, but war is sometimes justified? That we can believe that THIS specific war is justified?

Seems to me, those who believe that war is sometimes necessary, are the last people to be wearing rose colored glasses.

On the other hand, I'd love to wear those rose colored glasses of yours where we (nations of the world) can just "learn to be friends" and that's considered a "solution." And I'd like to wear whatever goggles you are donning that actually thinks people such as myself are not aware of the casualties of war.

 

[Sabastian]

I moved this post from the other thread. It seems more appropriate here.

Funny how you must attack the US at every turn on this. You f*cking hypocrite. When the US is responsible for something you crucify them when it is someone else you are mostly ... indifferent. Its all attached to your political bias Pascal, isn't it?

What do you know about me? Is this about me or the war?
This is what I call a VERY DIRECT PERSONALL INSULT.

I am not indifferent. Nobody said that Sadam is a saint here. I was showing a picture and YOU come with comments then I had to react.

The reason I made my comments is because I precieved hypocrisy in your constant critique of the coalition action in Iraq. I am not wrong with that preception AFAICT.

We also can't have the pictures of all the people that would have died at the hands of Saddam in the future can we? To point out this one poor sole as if the US did it on purpose. Lets talk about the millions of people of Iraq whom died under Saddams regime intensionally. You seem to make some sort of pathetic moral equivalence between the millions of people whom have died under his rule and the hundreds of civilians that will die in the Liberation of Iraq. Further the deaths of civilians is being avoided as much as possible by the US and UK the same cannot be said about Saddams efforts.

No I dont do any moral equivalence. You are completelly wrong.

Nice rebuttal, how insightful. I would like to pick a little harder here. If this is the case then if they are not morally equivalent then how, may I ask, are they different? Meaning which is worse in your judgement? Are the protestors justified in their support of the Saddam regime? If so why is it that Iraq is better off with Saddam in control rather then the coalition?

If you don't draw a moral equivalence then in your opinion whom is the better choice for the Iraqi people, the coalition and a new government or the continuance of Saddams socialist Baath party?

You ignore the atrocities committed by Saddam and focus on the liberators of Iraq to the point where you are suggesting they are worse and that the Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam.

Now lets see you tear a rip out of Saddams oppressive regime and point out all the wrongs committed by him. You won't though because you think the Iraqi were better off with him or what? lol ... hypocrisy.

I am not suggesting anything. Are you disturbed by the picture of the man above? Maybe you still have hope.

Yes you are saying things with your picture and comments about liberation. It is antagonistic. Now I want to know why it is that you think that I am the one who needs "hope" when you are the one whom is convently forgetting the massive incursions on the people of Iraq by Saddam..

Hypocrisy is saying you are going there to liberate Iraq.

How so? While they are liberating the people of Iraq they are also acheiving other objectives. To say that this is the only reason is hypocrisy. I nore have anyone else made such a claim. Hypocrisy is to defend Saddam and his oppressive regime over the coalition even though he is a far worse destiny for the people of Iraq.

Hypocrisy is say that all possible peacefull means were used to disarm him.

This is not hypocrisy. While they have let Iraq get away with throwing the UN inspectors out of Iraq multiple times and mislead the inspectors for 12 years no less it is not hypocritical to say that all possible peaceful diplomatic means, that actually had a chance of working, were actually exhausted. AFAIK there has never been such an exception ever. Saddam would just keep playing his games in order to stay in power till the day he died. Further the removal of such a bad government and its military is a great thing. There are plenty of good arguments for his removal and very few good arguments to salvage the SOB.

Hypocrisy is say "Poor sole..... " for the human tragedy.

I don't understand. The real human tragedy was to let him rule for so long and terrorize his own country with torture, chemical weapons terroristic death squads. That is the real human tragedy that you and the people whom are protesting the war should be worried about. Not the US and UK taking action and this BTW is where you are hypocritical. Type it out " the US and the UK are doing a good thing by removing Saddam and his regime".... then expalian why they are doing the right thing and you bloody well know it. What is even more shameful is that the UN lead by France, Germany, Russia and China was perfectly willing to let the dictator continue his rule and favor yet the continuance of the oil for food program that impoverishes the country.

Hypocrisy is other things...

Hypocrisy is defending an unjust government such as Saddams regime is over something that will clearly be a better thing for the Iraqi people simply because the US is involved. That is hypocrisy.

 

[Sabastian]

In referance to the cultural disparities between the West and Islam .. I would like you to point out just where it is exactly that they are not hateful of the West.... I can find plenty of information to say that indeed they are hostile towards the Western culture. Islam and Western culture are like oil and water. They don't mix well.

 

[kyleb]

The administration probably knows far more than it's letting on. It wouldn't be the first time either.

or it is sletting on far more than it's knows. it wouldn't be the first time either.

 

[jvd]

unless of course the u.s wants them to attack or break laws set by the u.n to let us attack. It can all be a ruse . We have such a small force in iraq , Its taking a very long time to win. We are still letting them use tvs and letting saddam speak to the people . We may just be playing with iraq waiting for other arab nations to make mistakes so we can go in and liberate them.

 

[pascal]

First, to be a friend is not agree with everything someone say.

Point? To be friendly means not insulting others by posting sarcastic comments that have no other substance behind it. You are always preaching how we should all just "learn to be friends", yet you don't take courses of action that indicate you are serious about it.

You're hypocritical.

Yes I am serious about it, the fact that I was sarcastic with Sabastian was a mistake. I did because I was tired yesterday to write something significative, then I wrote this quick sarcastic reply.

But then call me hypocritical is too much and THAT is insulting. The fact is you disagree with my "courses of action" as I can see below.

Yes it is ironic, but things like "Islamic cultures absolutely hate our culture and they seem to be a very incompatible mix as a result." doesnt sound right in many senses to me. My initial intention was not to personally insult him, if Sabastian feels that way then my apologies.

You didn't think making sarcastic comments about his "elightening" comments was insulting?

No, just sarcastic but not insulting. It is insulting for people who read it as insulting. Looks like you do. Insulting is "You f*cking hypocrite".

Joe, you are very direct and I like that, but if you have more to say than say now. Probably this is not because what I said to Sabastian but because you probably dont like my general position.

Both.

Then my reply to Sabastian act like a trigger for you.

Tell me how I am your "friend"? Because I dont agree? Because I keep remind you that there is a WAR with people dieng there?

No, because you insulted him at the same time that you are preaching "friends'.

The fact that you feel the need to post every propaganda link and photo from the guardian you can think of...the fact that you feel some need to "remind" us all of what we already know, is just annoying and frankly, childish.

So how are things I post propaganda? And the other post are not? Then you are using double standard here. The photos were from guardian, stopwar, BBC and CNN. Did I showed mutilated people? No just a crying child, some pacific demonstration and a poor man desesperete and crying.
Those are pictures of war, not propaganda.

If I were posting propaganda then it could be very different. epicstruggle
posted the picture of a injured child, do you think it is propaganda?

The war is annoying, hiding from it is childish.

Because I keep remind you the many dangers of the actions in course?

Because we aren't well aware of them?

Are you sure?

Because I keep trying to break your rose coloured glasses?

What rose colored glasses are those, pascal? The ones that believe that loss of life is unfortunate, but war is sometimes justified? That we can believe that THIS specific war is justified?

Seems to me, those who believe that war is sometimes necessary, are the last people to be wearing rose colored glasses.

On the other hand, I'd love to wear those rose colored glasses of yours where we (nations of the world) can just "learn to be friends" and that's considered a "solution." And I'd like to wear whatever goggles you are donning that actually thinks people such as myself are not aware of the casualties of war.

No, the one that believe that this specific premptive war without international consensus is the way to go.

See the consequences of war now. As example look Sabastian post and how he probably think in some way that the Muslin world is the enemy. See how the Arab and Muslim world internally react to what is happening. See how Russia and other countries are suspicious about US actions. See how the transatlantic relations deteriorated and the possible consequences of your actions. See how the world relations already deteriorated.

Now I ask you, do you want me to be your friend or to be friendlly? Probably you know they are different positions. The multibillion bribed Turkey is your friend but the long old French are not anymore?

The human tragedy that comes with war is inevtable and we cannot negate that. I could have mentioned some disturbing causalities incidents but I didnt, I just posted the picture of an incredbilly poor man.

 

[Sxotty]

The french are as much our friend as they ever were pascal, you should use Germany for an example instead, but that situation will clear up.