Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 9/26/2005 12:20:57 AM EDT

September 23, 2005

The Times

Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam

By Richard Beeston

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1793148_1,00.html

Iraq’s old enemy has not been slow to capitalise on continuing confusion across the border
THROUGH a combination of arms, money and political influence, Iran has established itself as one of the most powerful forces in postwar Iraq, where its Shia allies dominate local governments, the security services and parts of the economy.

More than two years after the US-led invasion of its neighbour, Iran is fast emerging as the only clear beneficiary of the war that overthrew its enemy, Saddam Hussein, and allowed its allies to rise to power.

After a series of attacks against British troops this summer, culminating in this week’s stand-off in Basra, there are fears that Iran is beginning to exert its new-found authority.

Iraqi and British officials interviewed this week said Iran’s growing influence is being felt from Basra in the south to Baghdad in the north, where Iranians are blamed for stoking sectarian tension, undermining the coalition and trying to create a breakaway Islamic state in southern Iraq.

Responding to the clashes in Basra this week, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, accused Tehran of being “interested”, “involved” and “not helpful”.

Tougher language is being heard in the Arab world, where Iran has been a foe from the time of the Persians. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, said: “We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.”

Iran claims that it is being blamed for America’s failures in Iraq and says that it is behaving as a responsible neighbour should. But an investigation by The Times suggests otherwise.

Last month, for instance, 36 Sunni Muslim men were kidnapped from Baghdad, murdered, and their bodies dumped near the Iranian border. Sunni leaders in Iraq blamed Iran and its Iraqi allies.

The incident occurred not far from where Iraqi border guards were involved in an exchange of fire in July with gunmen who had crossed from Iran. The guards found a cache of explosives, timers and detonators.

The discovery appeared to confirm suspicions that Iran, or at least elements in the regime, are encouraging attacks against American and British forces. Six British troops and two British security guards have been killed in the past two months in bombings blamed on Iraqi Shias equipped with sophisticated explosives supplied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In the British area of operations in southern Iraq there are at least a dozen active Islamic groups linked to Tehran. They are blamed for orchestrating a campaign of terror that includes attacks on the British, imposing Islamic laws by force and intimidating and killing opponents such as journalists and former members of the regime.

The most recent group targeted were former Iraqi pilots who flew missions against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. A resident of Basra said: “Once these people were heroes for us. Who else would want them dead?” Iraqis claim that it is now impossible to get a government job without the sponsorship of one of these groups, dominated by Iraqis who spent years in exile in Iran.

Locals also complain that Iranian goods are flooding local markets and that in many places Farsi has become a second language.

Those complaints are also directed against members of the Shia-dominated Government of Iraq, including Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister, and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is Iraq’s largest Shia party. Both lived for several years in Tehran during the Saddam era and maintain close contacts there.

Under the provisions of Iraq’s federal constitution, which will go before a referendum on October 15, provinces will be allowed to create regional authorities. That has given rise to fears that the Shias in the south, with the support of Iran, will seek to create a mini Shia Islamic state, as Mr al-Hakim has already stated he wants.

Much of what happens could depend on events in Tehran, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President, is hardening Iran’s policy towards the West.

Mr Ahmadinejad, a former special forces commando who served during the Iran-Iraq war, gave notice at a military parade commemorating the war yesterday that Iran would show no mercy towards its enemies.

“If some want to test what they have tested before, the flame of the Iranian nation will be very destructive and fiery,” he said. “Relying on our armed forces, we will make the aggressor regret its actions.”

CROSS-BORDER INFLUENCE

Badr Brigades

A Shia militia force of 12,000 trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and blamed for a spate of recent killings of Sunni Muslims. Thought to control several cities in southern Iraq

Islamic Dawaa Party

Shia party that has strong links to Iran. Its leader, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the present Prime Minister, has vowed to improve ties between the two neighbours

Mahdi Army

Received arms and volunteers from Iran during its battle against US and British troops last year. Ahmed al-Fartusi, its commander in Basra, was arrested by British forces last weekend

Mujahidin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq

Tehran-backed militia blamed for the murder of six British Royal Military Police soldiers in Majar el-Kabir in 2003

Thar Allah (Vengeance of God)

Iranian-backed terror group blamed for killing former members of the ruling Baath party and enforcing strict Islamic law

Jamaat al-Fudalah (Group of the Virtuous)

Paramilitary group that imposes Islamic rules on Shia areas; attacks shops selling alcohol and music

Al-Fadilah (Morality)

Secret political movement financed by Iran. Thought to have many members among provincial officials

Al-Quawaid al-Islamiya (Islamic Bases)

Iranian-backed Islamic movement that uses force to impose Islamic law

Posted: 9/26/2005 3:50:09 AM EDT

[#1]

bump

Posted: 9/26/2005 9:32:32 PM EDT

[#2]

Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure. They want to talk about how tough GWB is, and how we must win the WOT, which is, of course, defined as whatever mess we're in right now, by the people that got us there.

WOT is now a term of political expedience used to cover the asses of those in charge. There are efforts on a global scale, which have been hamstrung by our involvement in Iraq. The administration conveniently lumps them together interchangeably as the WOT.

Posted: 9/27/2005 2:42:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure. They want to talk about how tough GWB is, and how we must win the WOT, which is, of course, defined as whatever mess we're in right now, by the people that got us there.

WOT is now a term of political expedience used to cover the asses of those in charge. There are efforts on a global scale, which have been hamstrung by our involvement in Iraq. The administration conveniently lumps them together interchangeably as the WOT.

How do you suggest it be fought? This is a war that has to and will be fought one way or another. Or do you advocate pullout and surrender and become an islamic state (which is their ultimate goal which OBL said himself)?

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:09:55 AM EDT

[#4]

What a load of bullshit. I am unsurprised to see you quoting it. And believing it.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:17:06 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure. They want to talk about how tough GWB is, and how we must win the WOT, which is, of course, defined as whatever mess we're in right now, by the people that got us there.

WOT is now a term of political expedience used to cover the asses of those in charge. There are efforts on a global scale, which have been hamstrung by our involvement in Iraq. The administration conveniently lumps them together interchangeably as the WOT.

How do you suggest it be fought? This is a war that has to and will be fought one way or another. Or do you advocate pullout and surrender and become an islamic state (which is their ultimate goal which OBL said himself)?

Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam. They wish to get us out of their region, so they can take down the current Middle Eastern regimes and establish an islamic state which encompasses the whole of the middle east. They could care less about us or the rest of the world. They simply wish to take their region back to the 7th century and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle east.

And to those who have the urge to post the pic of the guy with a sign that says islam will dominate the world.... you are taking that too literally. People like him do not mean that the religion itself will be forced upon us... but that they will create an Pan-Islamic state, which unites the lands of the middle east, and that that state will become the dominate force in the world..... not that that is much better.

It would be the end of freedom as we know it..... and that is why we must stop their ideology.

The problem is, this isn't a conflict that can be won with military force alone. It is a battle of ideas....

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:19:31 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
What a load of bullshit. I am unsurprised to see you quoting it. And believing it.

If you are speaking to me... and referring to the article... then you are dillusional.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:29:03 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
[Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam. They wish to get us out of their region, so they can take down the current Middle Eastern regimes and establish an islamic state which encompasses the whole of the middle east. They could care less about us or the rest of the world. They simply wish to take their region back to the 7th century and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle east.

And to those who have the urge to post the pic of the guy with a sign that says islam will dominate the world.... you are taking that too literally. People like him do not mean that the religion itself will be forced upon us... but that they will create an Pan-Islamic state, which unites the lands of the middle east, and that that state will become the dominate force in the world..... not that that is much better. It would be the end of freedom as we know it..... and that is why we must stop their ideology.

Someone seems unaware of the ever-increasing muslim populations in Europe and the United States, or of the existence of Madrassas in Europe and the United States. When this breed of fanatic says:

they happen to MEAN:

The problem is, this isn't a conflict that can be won with military force alone. It is a battle of ideas....

The fight has to be joined somewhere, or else this guy:

is going to be in charge. I don't think we want that.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:30:19 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure.

Beautiful - you denigrate the military and show your ignorance with a single sentence.

There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:32:13 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam. They wish to get us out of their region, so they can take down the current Middle Eastern regimes and establish an islamic state which encompasses the whole of the middle east. They could care less about us or the rest of the world. They simply wish to take their region back to the 7th century and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle east.

That is their immediate SHORT TERM goal, which you seem to admit below...

And to those who have the urge to post the pic of the guy with a sign that says islam will dominate the world.... you are taking that too literally. People like him do not mean that the religion itself will be forced upon us... but that they will create an Pan-Islamic state, which unites the lands of the middle east, and that that state will become the dominate force in the world..... not that that is much better. It would be the end of freedom as we know it..... and that is why we must stop their ideology.

The problem is, this isn't a conflict that can be won with military force alone. It is a battle of ideas....

Islam demands itself be forced upon all non-believers, under penality of death. If you think otherwise, you are naive. Personally I think the problem is with HOW we're fighting this war. We are trying to be as careful as possible to fight a precision war, with minmum collateral damage. I think if we fought it more like the way we went after the Nazi's and just completely destroyed things in a wide swath, it would do more to reduce their will to fight. Take Falujah for example: Instead of going house to house, street by street, we could have (and I think should have) just levelled the entire city all the way down to dirt.

As far as I'm concerned, we are being way too nice to these animals.

JMHO, of course.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:42:20 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure. They want to talk about how tough GWB is, and how we must win the WOT, which is, of course, defined as whatever mess we're in right now, by the people that got us there.

WOT is now a term of political expedience used to cover the asses of those in charge. There are efforts on a global scale, which have been hamstrung by our involvement in Iraq. The administration conveniently lumps them together interchangeably as the WOT.

How do you suggest it be fought? This is a war that has to and will be fought one way or another. Or do you advocate pullout and surrender and become an islamic state (which is their ultimate goal which OBL said himself)?

Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam. They wish to get us out of their region, so they can take down the current Middle Eastern regimes and establish an islamic state which encompasses the whole of the middle east. They could care less about us or the rest of the world. They simply wish to take their region back to the 7th century and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle east.

And to those who have the urge to post the pic of the guy with a sign that says islam will dominate the world.... you are taking that too literally. People like him do not mean that the religion itself will be forced upon us... but that they will create an Pan-Islamic state, which unites the lands of the middle east, and that that state will become the dominate force in the world..... not that that is much better. It would be the end of freedom as we know it..... and that is why we must stop their ideology.

The problem is, this isn't a conflict that can be won with military force alone. It is a battle of ideas....

I agree one of their goals is to get us out of their region but they have also said that they want the world (inlcuding the US) to convert to Islam. This is a stated goal of theirs though I believe even the radical extremists believe it will not happen. And I do believe they will try to force it on the world but will eventually have their asses handed to them.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:44:42 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam. They wish to get us out of their region, so they can take down the current Middle Eastern regimes and establish an islamic state which encompasses the whole of the middle east. They could care less about us or the rest of the world. They simply wish to take their region back to the 7th century and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle east.

That is their immediate SHORT TERM goal, which you seem to admit below...

And to those who have the urge to post the pic of the guy with a sign that says islam will dominate the world.... you are taking that too literally. People like him do not mean that the religion itself will be forced upon us... but that they will create an Pan-Islamic state, which unites the lands of the middle east, and that that state will become the dominate force in the world..... not that that is much better. It would be the end of freedom as we know it..... and that is why we must stop their ideology.

The problem is, this isn't a conflict that can be won with military force alone. It is a battle of ideas....

Islam demands itself be forced upon all non-believers, under penality of death. If you think otherwise, you are naive. Personally I think the problem is with HOW we're fighting this war. We are trying to be as careful as possible to fight a precision war, with minmum collateral damage. I think if we fought it more like the way we went after the Nazi's and just completely destroyed things in a wide swath, it would do more to reduce their will to fight. Take Falujah for example: Instead of going house to house, street by street, we could have (and I think should have) just levelled the entire city all the way down to dirt.

As far as I'm concerned, we are being way too nice to these animals.

JMHO, of course.

You are wrong... Islam doesn't demand that people convert. If you research Islam's history, you will find that people were given the choice of converting to Islam, or paying a tribute to the Caliphate. If they choose to forego both those options, then they were put to death. You had a choice to convert and thereby avoid paying tribute, or pay tribute and not convert. This is backed up by fact and history. Many people converted back in the early days of islam just because they didn't want to be taxed.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:45:24 AM EDT

[#12]

Gus- you have expressed exactly the way I feel about this. For me- I'm not against this war; I think it needs to be fought. I am concerned over the way it's being fought. I think a total war effort much like WW2 will be necessary, along with utter ruthlessness, to end this favorably and quicker.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:49:36 AM EDT

[#13]

targeting who??? If you try to kill terrorists by targeting the entire muslim population of the middle east you will not reduce the number of terrorists, you will create more. Those who wouldn't have been terrorists otherwise will then take up arms against you because you killed people they care about who have nothing to do with terrorism. That won't drain the swamp, and will only give them more reason to want to fight and get involved in terrorism. Your strategy is totally counter-productive.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:51:53 AM EDT

[#14]

Glockguy40- the prior history of Islam may be as you say (I have doubts though) but that is not the way the extreme leaders/teachers are preaching it today. They ARE calling for death for those who will not convert.

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:54:39 AM EDT

[#15]

Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

Sure, lets stop the war on terror because we can not give you the big parade in times sqaure proving we won on a time frame that suit your selfish, liberal needs. Instead, lets stop fighting the enemy where they are at, and bring it back home here. Lets get islam in our country to grow to near 40% as Europe has. Because despite the fact that Islam has been attacking us since the late 60's, if GWB was not president we would not be involved in this mess.

Glockguy40, I know you already think I am an idiot...So I do not really think you will care or agree with me or will even make the notion that you anti's are wrong. It is not in your nature to be open

Posted: 9/27/2005 3:56:38 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Glockguy40- the prior history of Islam may be as you say (I have doubts though) but that is not the way the extreme leaders/teachers are preaching it today. They ARE calling for death for those who will not convert.

Maybe some fundamentalists hold that view... but not the mainstream of islam. Just because some wacko says "Islam says you must convert" doesn't mean he is correct or that the Koran really says that. It is just his wacko interpretation. Islam is not the problem.... islam doesn't say people must convert or be put to death.

People sometimes pull up quotes from the koran which state that unbelievers must be put to death... but unbelievers do not describe christians and jews... who are considered people of the book (and therefore believers... just not believers of islam).

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:00:41 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

Sure, lets stop the war on terror because we can not give you the big parade in times sqaure proving we won on a time frame that suit your selfish, liberal needs. Instead, lets stop fighting the enemy where they are at, and bring it back home here. Lets get islam in our country to grow to near 40% as Europe has. Because despite the fact that Islam has been attacking us since the late 60's, if GWB was not president we would not be involved in this mess.

Glockguy40, I know you already think I am an idiot...So I do not really think you will care or agree with me or will even make the notion that you anti's are wrong. It is not in your nature to be open

That's because I'm not wrong. And I didn't say that we shouldn't be fighting these people... I said we should be fighting those that would do us harm. The whole of the muslim world isn't doing us harm, it is a small percentage of wackos that are involved in terrorism and those are the ones we should be targeting. Others stated that we should widen the war and make it indiscriminate, killing muslims in general, regardless of them being terrorists. That is what I refuted as being counter-productive and illogical.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:01:52 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

I don't need to google it... I have read the koran.... you are wrong.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:06:20 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

I don't need to google it... I have read the koran.

Reading something once through is much different than studying, learning the theology behind and the litary context of of the work.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:07:48 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

I don't need to google it... I have read the koran.

Reading something once through is much different than studying, learning the theology behind and the litary context of of the work.

Done that too.... tho I doubt you have

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:08:19 AM EDT

[#21]

Of course you have.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:09:57 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Of course you have.

I'm sure you have much more expertise than me.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:21:00 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course you have.

I'm sure you have much more expertise than me.

You'll never know.

Good luck in your efforts.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:22:32 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Their goal is to get us out of their region... not to convert the whole world to islam.

You're delusional.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:23:22 AM EDT

[#25]

.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:36:07 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
People sometimes pull up quotes from the koran which state that unbelievers must be put to death... but unbelievers do not describe christians and jews... who are considered people of the book (and therefore believers... just not believers of islam).

Sweet, we can use Islam to rid ourselves of atheists, hindus, buddhists, etc, etc.

Where do I send my tribute?

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:53:02 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Islam doesn't demand that people convert

You are wrong. Better google Islam better in your search to make your self look smarter.

I don't need to google it... I have ~~read the koran~~ drunk the kool-aid, and it is good.... you are wrong.

Posted: 9/27/2005 4:53:03 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
People sometimes pull up quotes from the koran which state that unbelievers must be put to death... but unbelievers do not describe christians and jews... who are considered people of the book (and therefore believers... just not believers of islam).

And yet the Worldwide Islamic Council won't condemn those who are murdering MUSLIMS with terrorism, much less the murder of Christians and Jews....

If it is wrong, why can't the world's muslim leaders stand up and say that?

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:02:42 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
People sometimes pull up quotes from the koran which state that unbelievers must be put to death... but unbelievers do not describe christians and jews... who are considered people of the book (and therefore believers... just not believers of islam).

And yet the Worldwide Islamic Council won't condemn those who are murdering MUSLIMS with terrorism, much less the murder of Christians and Jews....

If it is wrong, why can't the world's muslim leaders stand up and say that?

I believe they have... apparently just not to your satisfaction.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:05:54 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I believe they have... apparently just not to your satisfaction.

I recall an article not too long ago where a large international body of muslims refused to condemn terrorism and said that violence against even fellow muslims was acceptable.

Now who am I to believe?

The few voices who say terrorism is unacceptable, or the large international muslim organizations who won't condemn terrorism and even go so far as to say that criticizing the terrorists is wrong?

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:11:09 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe they have... apparently just not to your satisfaction.

I recall an article not too long ago where a large international body of muslims refused to condemn terrorism and said that violence against even fellow muslims was acceptable.

Now who am I to believe?

The few voices who say terrorism is unacceptable, or the large international muslim organizations who won't condemn terrorism and even go so far as to say that criticizing the terrorists is wrong?

If you are asking me to solve the internal battle taking place within Islam right now and iron out all muslims differences, and then get a concensus opinion for you... I think I'll have to get back to you... I left my magic wand at home

My point is that there have been and continues to be groups of muslims (official councils) that have denounced terrorism and said it is not a legitmate act no matter what the reason (Most recently in Britain). Now, have there been other muslim groups that have said otherwise... I'm sure there have... but those groups don't represent the mainstream.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:19:01 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
If you are asking me to solve the internal battle taking place within Islam right now and iron out all muslims differences, and then get a concensus opinion for you... I think I'll have to get back to you... I left my magic wand at home

My point is that there have been and continues to be groups of muslims (official councils) that have denounced terrorism and said it is not a legitmate act no matter what the reason (Most recently in Britain). Now, have there been other muslim groups that have said otherwise... I'm sure there have... but those groups don't represent the mainstream.

Who is the "mainstream" of Islam? Is it the folks in the UK you cite, or is it the international council that is better attended and represents Muslims around the world?

My point is that muslim condemnation of the terrorist actions is the exception rather than the rule.

Thus when I see a guy running around with a sign saying Islam will dominate the world, I am forced to take him seriously, as it seems that a great number of muslims won't tell him to sit down and shutup.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:22:25 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If you are asking me to solve the internal battle taking place within Islam right now and iron out all muslims differences, and then get a concensus opinion for you... I think I'll have to get back to you... I left my magic wand at home

My point is that there have been and continues to be groups of muslims (official councils) that have denounced terrorism and said it is not a legitmate act no matter what the reason (Most recently in Britain). Now, have there been other muslim groups that have said otherwise... I'm sure there have... but those groups don't represent the mainstream.

Who is the "mainstream" of Islam? Is it the folks in the UK you cite, or is it the international council that is better attended and represents Muslims around the world?

My point is that muslim condemnation of the terrorist actions is the exception rather than the rule.

Thus when I see a guy running around with a sign saying Islam will dominate the world, I am forced to take him seriously, as it seems that a great number of muslims won't tell him to sit down and shutup.

Well... if I had the photoshop skills... I would edit that picture so as to show that guy with the sign gettin' bitch-slapped and being told to stfu.

Edit to add: Seriously tho... all the muslims I have talked to, both those from here and those that have come from abroad, have denouced terrorism in its totality. I have never spoken to a pakistani living in the border region of Afghanistan... but I seriously doubt that he would represent the mainstream of Islam.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:32:18 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Edit to add: Seriously tho... all the muslims I have talked to, both those from here and those that have come from abroad, have denouced terrorism in its totality. I have never spoken to a pakistani living in the border region of Afghanistan... but I seriously doubt that he would represent the mainstream of Islam.

I work with dozens of Muslim students every day.

The simple fact is that when I listen to what lots of people say about islam, I hear that it is peaceful and that it isn't an ideology that condones violence.

But when I hear muslim councils speak, they tell me the exact opposite by saying that even murdering fellow muslims is acceptable.

Now some can claim that a worldwide council on Islam with atendees from all over the world doesn't speak for all of Islam.

But if they don't, who does?

My point is that if Islam is peaceful and benign, then the peaceful folks had better yell a hell of a lot louder, because their message is not the dominant message coming from the islamic faith.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:35:51 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Posted: 9/27/2005 5:40:10 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Edit to add: Seriously tho... all the muslims I have talked to, both those from here and those that have come from abroad, have denouced terrorism in its totality. I have never spoken to a pakistani living in the border region of Afghanistan... but I seriously doubt that he would represent the mainstream of Islam.

I work with dozens of Muslim students every day.

The simple fact is that when I listen to what lots of people say about islam, I hear that it is peaceful and that it isn't an ideology that condones violence.

But when I hear muslim councils speak, they tell me the exact opposite by saying that even murdering fellow muslims is acceptable.

Now some can claim that a worldwide council on Islam with atendees from all over the world doesn't speak for all of Islam.

But if they don't, who does?

My point is that if Islam is peaceful and benign, then the peaceful folks had better yell a hell of a lot louder, because their message is not the dominant message coming from the islamic faith.

Which council are you speaking of??? Any specific references you can point to??? You sure this council isn't an organization that has been labeled a terrorist group? Because if so, terrorist organizations can't claim to represent Islam. There are two groups in Britain in particular that have been banned by the British govt for inciting terrorism. They are extremist groups and rife with terrorists. A Terrorist organization cannot claim to represent Islam. These groups are composed of muslims from all over the world... because Britain accepts immigrants from many muslim countries... however, all of the members of that group were British.... receiving instruction from the same person... the guy with the hooks for hands that is now sitting in a British jail cell.

Your problem is you take any group as being credible and as speaking for Islam. If a group of Catholics got together, and said that they believe it is ok for priests to molest children, you wouldn't take them as credibly speaking for all Catholics.

Posted: 9/27/2005 6:00:41 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Which council are you speaking of???

There was a big furor over their pronouncement a couple of months ago. It was a huge gathering of muslim leaders and clerics from all over the world, and they said that killing fellow muslims was acceptable under Jihad.

There were a couple of threads on this site about it.

Any specific references you can point to??? You sure this council isn't an organization that has been labeled a terrorist group?

Yeah.

It wasn't a few guys sitting around wearing tinfoil and ranting. It was a major international meeting.

Your problem is you take any group as being credible and as speaking for Islam. If a group of Catholics got together, and said that they believe it is ok for priests to molest children, you wouldn't take them as credibly speaking for all Catholics.

No, I do NOT take any group as being credible.

But the one to which I refer was harldly a few people. It was a major international conference with attendees from all over the world.

Posted: 9/27/2005 6:25:58 AM EDT

[#38]

Just a random thought here.

2005 kinda reminds me of the late 1930's. We're trying to do a very small part to win the WOT, but not really trying anywhere near hard enough. The funny thing is, we've already had our "Pearl Harbor."

In the late 30's we used to laugh at Hitler, Tojo, & Mussolini in Bugs Bunny cartoons and refused to realize the threat to the world that they were.

America is repeating itself. Since the destruction of the WTC and partial destruction of the Pentagon wasn't enough, what will it take for a realistic response?

Scott

Posted: 9/27/2005 6:48:25 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What a load of bullshit. I am unsurprised to see you quoting it. And believing it.

If you are speaking to me... and referring to the article... then you are dillusional.

Possibly, although I don't know what that might mean.
If you meant to say DELUSIONAL, however, I think you're more accurately describing yourself.

Posted: 9/27/2005 7:53:25 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What a load of bullshit. I am unsurprised to see you quoting it. And believing it.

If you are speaking to me... and referring to the article... then you are dillusional.

Possibly, although I don't know what that might mean.
If you meant to say DELUSIONAL, however, I think you're more accurately describing yourself.

Got it all wrong, he meant to say you were really into Kosher pickles.

Posted: 9/27/2005 8:17:57 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
People sometimes pull up quotes from the koran which state that unbelievers must be put to death... but unbelievers do not describe christians and jews... who are considered people of the book (and therefore believers... just not believers of islam).

And yet the Worldwide Islamic Council won't condemn those who are murdering MUSLIMS with terrorism, much less the murder of Christians and Jews....

If it is wrong, why can't the world's muslim leaders stand up and say that?

There is no such thing as Muslim Leadership - there is no consistency.
They are divided and no muslim leader really has any authority, other then that he claims for himself.
Islam has no structure, unlike Christianity.

Posted: 9/27/2005 8:23:10 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Many here don't want to hear about the unintended consequences of this misadventure. They want to talk about how tough GWB is, and how we must win the WOT, which is, of course, defined as whatever mess we're in right now, by the people that got us there.

WOT is now a term of political expedience used to cover the asses of those in charge. There are efforts on a global scale, which have been hamstrung by our involvement in Iraq. The administration conveniently lumps them together interchangeably as the WOT.

Many here don't listen to what liberal UK newspapers have to say. Of course, you would.....anything liberal is fine with you.

I know, you are an expert on all things military and/or global. You know sooooooooooooo much more than everyone else.

Posted: 9/27/2005 8:26:55 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Really? Where. The only "solution" I have heard from the likes of you is to tuck tail and run.

Posted: 9/27/2005 10:43:20 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Islam demands itself be forced upon all non-believers, under penality of death. If you think otherwise, you are naive. Personally I think the problem is with HOW we're fighting this war. We are trying to be as careful as possible to fight a precision war, with minmum collateral damage. I think if we fought it more like the way we went after the Nazi's and just completely destroyed things in a wide swath, it would do more to reduce their will to fight. Take Falujah for example: Instead of going house to house, street by street, we could have (and I think should have) just levelled the entire city all the way down to dirt.

As far as I'm concerned, we are being way too nice to these animals.

JMHO, of course.

You are wrong... Islam doesn't demand that people convert. If you research Islam's history, you will find that people were given the choice of converting to Islam, or paying a tribute to the Caliphate. If they choose to forego both those options, then they were put to death. You had a choice to convert and thereby avoid paying tribute, or pay tribute and not convert. This is backed up by fact and history. Many people converted back in the early days of islam just because they didn't want to be taxed.

So I have a choice between paying them money or what ever a "tribute" is (and having no rights to speak of either BTW), joining their little cult, or being executed. Nice folks aren't they? Fuck that.

I stand behind my eariler comment. I won't pay a tax to ANY religion. And if offered a choice to convert or die, well, I'd try to take a few with me.

Posted: 9/27/2005 10:44:34 AM EDT

[#45]

Iran will not be so happy when we use Iraq to invade them...

Posted: 9/27/2005 10:47:47 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
There is no such thing as Muslim Leadership - there is no consistency.
They are divided and no muslim leader really has any authority, other then that he claims for himself.
Islam has no structure, unlike Christianity.

The council I mentioned was a meeting of Muslim clerics from all over the world who couldn't muster enough votes to condemn terrorism.

That's what I call a problem.

Posted: 9/27/2005 10:50:06 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Really? Where. The only "solution" I have heard from the likes of you is to tuck tail and run.

Train the Iraqi forces as fast as possible then get the hell out. What was your solution?

ETA: Ah yes, I remember. Uh, uh, uh, WAR ON TERROR THEY HATE FREEDOM!

Posted: 9/27/2005 11:37:17 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Really? Where. The only "solution" I have heard from the likes of you is to tuck tail and run.

Train the Iraqi forces as fast as possible then get the hell out. What was your solution?

ETA: Ah yes, I remember. Uh, uh, uh, WAR ON TERROR THEY HATE FREEDOM!

Should we get the hell out before the Iraqis are able to stand on their own? Or should we just show them a few things and let them try to deal with insurgants, terrorists, fanatics, etc. unassisted? Wouldn't it be a huge waste to leave knowing that the job isn't finished and that Iraq can't yet stand on its own? Maybe you should ask a few guys that have actually been over there what they think? Or better yet, ask a few Iraqi's!

Posted: 9/27/2005 11:38:09 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Really? Where. The only "solution" I have heard from the likes of you is to tuck tail and run.

Train the Iraqi forces as fast as possible then get the hell out. What was your solution?

ETA: Ah yes, I remember. Uh, uh, uh, WAR ON TERROR THEY HATE FREEDOM!

Well, duh, what do you think they are trying to do?????

Wars do not run on a timetable to suit all you "quick fix" types. It takes a while. Gee, how long have we been in Germany and Japan after WWII?

The ETA of yours in red is about as cognizant as the rest of your thoughts, which ain't saying much.

My solution is to stay as long as it takes to get the job done, none of this halfassed bullshit that libs so seem to love.

Posted: 9/27/2005 11:47:39 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are always unintended consequences to war. Why don't you whiners start offering up solutions instead of just running your traps with the same old tired complaints every day.

This is awesome. I believe the "whiners" offer up solutions everyday. It's the people running the war and blindly supporting it that have no solution at all.

Really? Where. The only "solution" I have heard from the likes of you is to tuck tail and run.

Train the Iraqi forces as fast as possible then get the hell out. What was your solution?

ETA: Ah yes, I remember. Uh, uh, uh, WAR ON TERROR THEY HATE FREEDOM!

Should we get the hell out before the Iraqis are able to stand on their own? Or should we just show them a few things and let them try to deal with insurgants, terrorists, fanatics, etc. unassisted? Wouldn't it be a huge waste to leave knowing that the job isn't finished and that Iraq can't yet stand on its own? Maybe you should ask a few guys that have actually been over there what they think? Or better yet, ask a few Iraqi's!

Gee gus, if he did that, he might realize that his precious media is full of shit. The guys that have been there will tell a completely different story than what the fucking media is telling him.

I guess the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, thanking the US for what we have done means nothing to him. I suppose the endless murders carried out by Saddam were just fine with him.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Two years on, Iran is the only clear winner of war on Saddam (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us