All Comments (60)

Hadia ...

I would like to remind you that Saddam Hussein killed a million Muslims. Last year 16,782 Iraqis died in violence. Of those, 271 were killed BY ACCIDENT by American troops. The rest were killed by bombs, kidnappings, honor killings and vengeance killings, mostly by Sunni Al Qaeda (not local Sunni insurgence) and radicals with Moqtader Al-Sadr, whose initial claim to fame was that he KILLED ANOTHER IMAM IN COLD BLOOD IN THE DOORWAY TO A MOSQUE, and when another cleric burst into tears of grief and disbelief was told by Al-Sadr: "Get over it. He's dead."

Now I was against this war, too, but if we leave before there is real, established Iraqi security presence, there can be a million Muslims dead before the end of 2008. And that violence will have been stoked by the 26 Saudi imams who delivered the fatawa that have already sent more than 2,000 Saudi kids into Iraq, dead now of their own suicide bombings -- to the deep rage of their parents who are now demanding action by the Al Saud against these hate-preachers.

In fact, the Shi'a community in the USA lobbied the government to take out Saddam for TWENTY-FIVE years, and if you want to play fair (I have my doubts about that), why don't you talk about the line of BS shoveled by Ahmad Chalabi? The one that said: The Iraqis will welcome you, help you, and be grateful for this.

And BTR, while you're at it why don't you tell the people here about the convoy of 1,800 tractor trailers that left Iraq in November 2002 while Saddam Hussein and that little sleaze Kofi Annan declared the no-fly zone monitoring to be illegal — just for the three weeks that it took for that stuff to cross the border into Syria — and then recanted. But then Saddam Hussein "gave permission" for the flights to resume, "but not until next Tuesday." The last convey crossed the border on Monday.

The killing going on in Iraq is MUSLIM KILLING. And any collateral deaths, which we tremendously grieve (unlike the Muslism there all too willing to exterminate themselves over tribal rights and extremist religion), would stop immediately if we didn't have to police a whole country of maniacs only too happy kill each other off.

BTW, if you really want the killing to stop, please ask the Iraqis to stop firing weapons into the air in celebration of everything from soccer wins to Eid. Last week these idiots killed five kids hit from descending bullets.

The very idea that you could lecture Americans on their foreign policy when radical Islamic "foreign policy" is the complete "wiping off the map" of Israel, the declaration that all Sufis are apostates to be killed, that all non-Muslims are infidels to be forced to convert or killed, that it's halal to kill innocent civilians as long as they aren't Muslims.

Perhaps that's the kind of foreign policy that needs to be addressed.

The reason the United States must stay in Iraq now is that having made this egregious mistake it is now our responsibility to make sure we do not leave these people in the position of having to try to live through a complete overrun of the country by Al Qaeda from Syria and Saudi borders and Iranians from the East, with a war that comes down in the City of Baghdad and kills a million people.

And please stop using this board for your political rants. It's a forum about religion.

And then why don't you tell them abou

Frank:

"BEN
we invaded iraq to take out saddam. unlike islamics we then turned the country over to a civilian government and provided the method for 3 FREE elections.
that is more free elections than were in syria, saudi arabia and iran, in the last 25 years - combined.
we pump billions into the country to help rebuild it. we build schools, hospitals, rebuild water and power plants, and help try to keep terrorists down.
if we were the aggressors we would just destroy the place and take the oil for free.

and i say islam is vile and evil because what the koran demands in islams relations with others not islamic is vile and evil."

Frank, are you are saying that we helped the Iraqis? Are you saying that Saddam was a great threat?

I would say that the US is very good at invading and destabilizing countries, but very poor at running them afterwards (the British were much better at that).

Also, no amount of "islam is vile and evil" can eliminate these truths:
1) We have destabilized Iraq,
2) large oil and industrial companies have benefited,
3) the outcome might be a competitive advantage for the US economy as a whole,
4) the outcome includes a lot of suffering in Iraq, and
5) we are left with a new set of security problems

I'll leave it at that.

frank youre funny

Jihadist:
Vere scire est per causas scire. LOL

Anonymous:
Shame.
Bacon is prohibited to all Muslims.

Jihadist was quoting:

Vere scire est per causas scire.
(to know truly is to know through causes)

-Francis Bacon

I agree with BEN. No amount of "Islam is evil" therefore we must invade Iraq and bring "civilization" to a place that WAS THE START of civilization (Babylon) would gloss over the murderous disaster that has been the invasion of Iraq.

Finally Americans are waking up to that sad reality. I hope such patriotism was alive and well when the Bush administration was lying to the world (Remember Powell and Tenet). I guess better late than never.

To Frank Collins and Co.,
The US is the aggressor in Iraq. Stop pointing fingers at Muslims - it only reveals your insecurity. Absolute condemnation of an entire people is not going to win over anyone of wisdom - especially Muslims, obviously. Stop trying to intimidate people that you actually know little about. They might ultimately return the favor.

all the talk talk talk in the world doesnt cover up the actions of our government-

what has been obvious from the start is now on public record for all-

so tell yourself that we are there to "liberate" the iraqis- or any other pseudo-noble sentiment you want-

i get no pleasure being the bearer of bad news- the families of our soldiers need to believe their children, sons husbands and wives died for a noble cause-

but it isnt so and never was.Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

June Caldwell
May 6, 2007

In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).

The clause that Iraq must privatize ownership of its oil was in the original Bill presented by Congress, although it was not mentioned publicly. It was stated as a benchmark to be met by Iraq, and if it was not met, the US would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. That means the Iraqis would not own their own oil, but instead International oil companies, primarily US oil companies, would instead divide ownership of the oil.

This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil. These same oil companies are still resolute about keeping the oil prices high at the pumps for US citizens (while refraining refinery capacity), so that they alone retain record-breaking profits. Kucinich explained he requested on the Congress floor that clause be removed from the Bill, and was finally assured it would be. He found it was not, and again demanded it be removed, and was then accused of ‘not being a loyal Democrat’.

Kucinich went on to explain that last November, the citizens of the US voted for a ‘change of direction in Iraq’ but as of yet have only gotten a bait and switch.

American Chronicle | California Chronicle | Los Angeles Chronicle

Thank you Hadia for this.

I'm proud bacon is prohibited. As a Muslim, what is commanded as a prohibition or commanded as instruction (circumcision) are both part of sacred law. There are divine benefits that some just can not fathom.

Jihadist your very talented in Latin.

As the author says, Iraqis got a raw deal for way too long, and when they fight back and hate the US as a result of what their policies did to them (Ron Paul) they are vilified.

Just compare/contrast the reaction of the populace in Muslim Albania (whose Kosovo province the US-led NATO under Clinton help free legitimately) to the unjust oppression meted out to the Iraqi people by 1) War 2) starvation of the UN oil-for-food program for 10 years and 3) War and occupation for 3rd time.

That's should answer any lingering doubts on, WHY DO "THEY" HATE "US?"

Shame.

Bacon is prohibited to all Muslims.

CB,

Well I agree with you that the majority of violence today in present day Iraq is being led by al-Qaeda, militias and motivated by revenge killings, power-jocking, civil war....you CANNOT forgo and acquit the US invasion and occupation for unleashing such forces.

The reality is Al-Qaeda WASN'T EXISTENT in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign, neither WAS al-Sadr such a powerful force of militias.

They all formed to fill the power vacuum that was left after the fall of Iraq thanks to US bombs meant "for Saddam."

As for all Iraqis "hell bent of violence," that's the neocon logic, blame the Iraqis for the failure of their own shortsighted interventionist, deadly, and inhuman occupation of a Muslim country.

The argument goes, "We freed them, but THEY didn't want freedom." NO, freedom is not given through a barrel of a gun and forced down people's throat. Thus THERE IS ONLY ONE FORCE to be blamed as Ms. Mubarak RIGHTLY puts it, on the inhuman policies of the consecutive Bush, Clinton, and Bush W.'s administration in Iraq for the appeasement and security of Israel, who continued to portray Iraq's Saddam as the "new Hitler."

Now can you guess whose the new villain for the Israeli lobby? Ira-?

Vere scire est per causas scire. LOL

Jihadus
(suspendens omnia naso)

I think the best thing in the whole wide world that we could be doing now is refitting cars to be ethanol-compatible, and start making our own ethanol in large volume. Turn Jack Daniels Distillery into a school, and teach people how to brew their own backyard hootch that's good enough to where you could use it instead of gasoline, Brazil's been doing this for 30 years, they were a lot smarter than a lot of other countries, including the United States, waaaay back in 1973.
Speaking of 1973, how about that original Honda Civic? There was an awesome car, it got great mileage before mileage was cool, and if everyone drove something a lot more fuel efficient, chances are that there'd be no war in the middle east today. Instead, we saw Iraq get invaded, and, as it turns out, it's not about democracy, it's about the stupid oil. Moral of the story?
People will kill for money, there's a lot of money wrapped up in the oil business, and curiously enough, there's people getting killed in Iraq. Hmmm...so, you connect the dots, there,
and you can see that the oil, and the money from the oil, have really wrenched peoples' ethics around quite a bit, and then the Difficult Questions start, like 'how do we stop using so much of this stuff', 'what was Henry Ford smoking when he went along with the whole gasoline thing', 'how did Exxon get in the White House'? etc.

So, my take on the whole thing is, if you don't support the war, then what are you willing to do to counter the economic dynamics of continued and increasing oil dependency? Why ask questions like that? Becuase, you can moralize and condemn the war all day long, but until we figure out how to change the insatiable global demand for petroleum, this won't be the last resource war for oil in our lifetimes.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the role of organized religion in society. There've been a lot of people dumping a lot of money into various religious institutions around the world, got half the world on its' knees, when frankly instead they should be trying to build schools and educate people, because frankly ignorance is a really weak position from which to start addressing resource dependency. And, it's also one of those things where a quick trip through the history books takes you back to the whole Dark Ages thing, when the Church and its' cousins did a fairly decent job of jumping up and down on science, intimidating people through violence, all that good public ignorance stuff. And, that's taking place again today, a sinister manifestation of something ostensibly good, fairly intelligent people being deliberately misdirected AND ROBBED, and the monies derived from same directed toward this or that political subversive(and sometimes violent) social movement.

So, it's quite the Gordian knot of a global problem, and probably the best way to deal with it is to chop it in half by removing the demand for oil. Old Jimmy Carter looks like a pretty smart cookie in the light of world events today,
hats off to the man that had the audacity to promote conservation, and brickbats to his detractors. Funny, that, because Jimmy was a democrat, and the Big Money lined up with the republicans, who dub themselves 'conservative' but really aren't too terribly interested in conserving anything, by all appearances.
Ah, the allure of profit over principle, power over public accountability, and of course, money. Not just 15 dollars, BILLIONS. Tens of billions.
Enough money to start your own country, or burn down someone else's.

Honesty may be the best policy, but it sure doesn't seem to manifest itself very much these days, and people with no money will go along with
what they're told by people that have a lot of it, willingly, or otherwise. Kind of makes you wonder...but such is the world of the 21st century, with its' billions of people, vanishing resources, poverty, greed, incompetence, and abandonment of basic principles. Makes you wish you had a place up in the Himalayas, doesn't it? LOL

I think the best thing in the whole wide world that we could be doing now is refitting cars to be ethanol-compatible, and start making our own ethanol in large volume. Turn Jack Daniels Distillery into a school, and teach people how to brew their own backyard hootch that's good enough to where you could use it instead of gasoline, Brazil's been doing this for 30 years, they were a lot smarter than a lot of other countries, including the United States, waaaay back in 1973.
Speaking of 1973, how about that original Honda Civic? There was an awesome car, it got great mileage before mileage was cool, and if everyone drove something a lot more fuel efficient, chances are that there'd be no war in the middle east today. Instead, we saw Iraq get invaded, and, as it turns out, it's not about democracy, it's about the stupid oil. Moral of the story?
People will kill for money, there's a lot of money wrapped up in the oil business, and curiously enough, there's people getting killed in Iraq. Hmmm...so, you connect the dots, there,
and you can see that the oil, and the money from the oil, have really wrenched peoples' ethics around quite a bit, and then the Difficult Questions start, like 'how do we stop using so much of this stuff', 'what was Henry Ford smoking when he went along with the whole gasoline thing', 'how did Exxon get in the White House'? etc.

So, my take on the whole thing is, if you don't support the war, then what are you willing to do to counter the economic dynamics of continued and increasing oil dependency? Why ask questions like that? Becuase, you can moralize and condemn the war all day long, but until we figure out how to change the insatiable global demand for petroleum, this won't be the last resource war for oil in our lifetimes.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the role of organized religion in society. There've been a lot of people dumping a lot of money into various religious institutions around the world, got half the world on its' knees, when frankly instead they should be trying to build schools and educate people, because frankly ignorance is a really weak position from which to start addressing resource dependency. And, it's also one of those things where a quick trip through the history books takes you back to the whole Dark Ages thing, when the Church and its' cousins did a fairly decent job of jumping up and down on science, intimidating people through violence, all that good public ignorance stuff. And, that's taking place again today, a sinister manifestation of something ostensibly good, fairly intelligent people being deliberately misdirected AND ROBBED, and the monies derived from same directed toward this or that political subversive(and sometimes violent) social movement.

So, it's quite the Gordian knot of a global problem, and probably the best way to deal with it is to chop it in half by removing the demand for oil. Old Jimmy Carter looks like a pretty smart cookie in the light of world events today,
hats off to the man that had the audacity to promote conservation, and brickbats to his detractors. Funny, that, because Jimmy was a democrat, and the Big Money lined up with the republicans, who dub themselves 'conservative' but really aren't too terribly interested in conserving anything, by all appearances.
Ah, the allure of profit over principle, power over public accountability, and of course, money. Not just 15 dollars, BILLIONS. Tens of billions.
Enough money to start your own country, or burn down someone else's.

Honesty may be the best policy, but it sure doesn't seem to manifest itself very much these days, and people with no money will go along with
what they're told by people that have a lot of it, willingly, or otherwise. Kind of makes you wonder...but such is the world of the 21st century, with its' billions of people, vanishing resources, poverty, greed, incompetence, and abandonment of basic principles. Makes you wish you had a place up in the Himalayas, doesn't it? LOL

Of course it is wrong to stop when in error. But it is right to continue when one is right. We have yet to decide the question of right or wrong in Iraq for many people. Some like to remain confused so they can be critical of the President without explaining why. "He lied" they complain while ignoring the history of inspectors and deception. Others are more confident and persistent.

V.O.T.E. ((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Rap, Mitt-ROMNEY, for Prez. YES in 2008 ))))))))))))

looks like jihadist has the illiterati's guide to latin maxims, mottoes, and sayings..

CB

Cantilenam eandem canis. Frustra laborat qui omnibus placere studet.

Confused? Exactly and of course if one is weaned in a certain mindset and long held beliefs and assumptions and presumptions.

You stated : "There are many good people in Iraq fighting for their country to be free, not from US influence, but from the influence of people who will car bomb markets and police stations and behead civilians. God willing that they be the victors."

I can agree with that except for the part to be free but not from US influence.

Now, surely you would have realised to be seen to be free from US influence gives credibility to leaders in the Middle East.

As for me, God willing, all the Iraqi people will be completely of internal conflicts, free from all outside inteference, free of external intervention by anyone, any groups any governments, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, in their quest for true sovereignty and self-determination as a people and nation - patria cara, carior libertas. Paritur pax bello.

Res domesticas noli tangere. Fugere est triumphus?

To Anonymous,posted June 26,2007 9.14 PM

'What does it mean to be Muslim in America?'

Very simple.It means to be 'Trojan Horse'.

Jihadist writes, among many confused things:

"And besides, the people and country of Iraq is being raped. In rape, it is the always convenient to blame the victim."

Aside from well-documented, limited, and fully prosecuted abuses of a fraction of coalition troops, the primary abuses against the Iraqi people are being perpetrated by Al-Queda affiliates, Al-Sadrites, and Sunni insurgents.

How many marketplaces has the US bombed with the intent of sowing terror? How many lines of job-seeking policemen? How many civilian beheadings? How many villages terrorized for voting? How many workers tortured and mutilated for attempting to work with the current government? How many justly elected officals assassinated?

How long will people pretend that the xenophobic strains of terrorists and radicals tearing Iraq apart are inconsequential compared to the the US occupation? The U.S. remains in Iraq because evil people want to see Iraq's people under their sovreignty or dead. Civilans and troops die each day because these evil people plot and act to make it so.

Somehow though, it's all the U.S.'s fault, even as US military personnel die near daily in an effort to stop the murderers.

The darkest day in the Iraqi war hasn't come yet. That day will be the day America decides that it truly isn't worth it any more, that those who justify terror and murder and turn their backs on liberty are no longer worth the sacrifice of our best and brightest. It hasn't come yet. There are many good people in Iraq fighting for their country to be free, not from US influence, but from the influence of people who will car bomb markets and police stations and behead civilians. God willing that they be the victors.

Ms. Mubarak's post is a classic example of a one-sided argument.

She begins by blaming the U.S. for the prolonged war between Iraq and Iran, without noting that the while the U.S. did send support to Iraq during the war, it was to counterbalance the Soviet's influence in Iraq and their desires to establish extensive partnerships there. While the U.S. actions were a strategic and moral error, the war itself was not the product of U.S. action, nor were the tactics of the participants - Iraqi use of chemical weapons, or Iranian human wave attacks and using children as human minesweepers.

She continues by laying the Gulf War at the feet of the U.S., mentioning how she and others anguished over the "reckless loss of innocent life" yet not offering a single word to recognize that the US and a vast multinational coalition of forces were there because Iraqi brutally invaded Kuwait, and because Iraq's neighbors to the south (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) and the north (Turkey) wanted us there, fearful that Hussein would extend his reach to their territory. Not a word for the suffering of Kuwaitis.

She continues by laying the humanitarian crisis in Iraq after the war at U.S. feet, as many left-wing analysts have done, ignoring that medicines and food were allowed under the initial sanctions, but that among other abuses of the sanctions by Hussein (Oil for Food and UN corruption - reserving foodstuffs for the military and elite [see http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/921123-254872.htm], etc.) Saddam refused to allow US made medicines to enter the country. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31728-2004Mar4?language=printer)

Time and time again, we have heard the cry of US brutality regarding the sanctions, despite the clear intent to allow medicines and foodstuffs, and rarely do such critics have the honesty to point out that Saddam's regime regularly diverted critical supplies from the people. The much vaunted rationing of food was simply a way for Hussein's government to control the supplies and make sure that they went where they wanted them to.

Contrary to Ms. Mubarak's claims, there are many Iraqis who want the US and UK to remain until their elected government is strong enough to resist the violent internal factions seeking control over the country. Certainly there are Iraqis who would like us to leave, particularly those who support Al-Sadr or the Sunni insurgents, or even worse Al Queda. If Ms. Mubarak is desirous of peace in Iraq, this is not the answer. There was no peace in Iraq before the invasion, as numerous human rights reports reveal, and there will be no peace in Iraq for the forseeable future if the US and it's coalition allies leave before a stable government is in place, one that represents the interests of all Iraqis, not just the tyrants and theocrats.

The US has paid a high price for freedom over its existence. Now American soldiers and their families are paying a high price for Iraqi freedom. Short-sighted viewpoints like Ms. Mubarak's that gloss over decades of tribal and political violence and genocide in order to castigate U.S. intervention in any form do not leave us with any real answers. Contrary to Ms. Mubarak's pretentions, the violence in Iraq did not begin with US involvement. If the US pulls out of Iraq prematurely, that violence may never end.

Muslims Must Take Action in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geRM4AlFBOU

“On Faith” panelist John L. Esposito is professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University.

(2005) Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud Donates $40 Million to Harvard, Georgetown Universities Funds to Help Teach 'Understanding' Between East And West

"Is it true that the Al Saud family is directly involved in funding the Wahabbi movement, which calls for the destruction of the U.S.?

Yes. But the Wahhabi movement is not specifically about calling for the destruction of the US. It's a reading of Islam that is deeply intolerant to non-Wahhabis, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. The Saudi government sponsors Wahhabi mosques, preachers and schools across the world, including in the US. They do however try to police the most militant of clerics and scholars. It doesn't always work."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57224-2005Feb2?language=printer

A recent symposium in Washington, D.C. examined "What does it mean to be Muslim in America?" Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding hosted the event, along with On Faith, an interactive conversation on religion sponsored by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post newspaper.

Muslims in America are a microcosm of Muslims in the world. They come from more than 60 nations in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, as well as the United States. For both immigrants and American converts, the task of formulating their sense of identity is crucial. Muslim Americans often struggle with what it means to be Muslim in America and the perception non-Muslims can have about them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJRI4mh7G6s

The Book of John 4:16 tells us: "God is love, and whosoever lives in love, lives in God and he in him." What does this have to do with George W. Bush, who told Bob Woodward he thinks he is "the messenger of God's will", and the half million dead Iraqis, the two million refugees, the countless ruined lives, whose nation has paid dearly for the fantasies and delusions of the Bush Çrime Family over the years. Polls show 80 percent of Iraqis want us gone, 50 percent want us killed. That's no recipe for "victory", surge or no surge. It's time to protect the troops, bring them home, arrange a truce, make amends, heal what wounds we can in the fabric of history, and indict the vile neocons and Cheney who didn't see 9/ll coming and who invaded a country not connected in any way with what hit us.

here is what happened to a woman poet - as she was breast feeding.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, pages 30-31.

SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah.

`Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina.

The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

so much for freedom of speech in islam

"You gotta love people who love you
so much they explode themselves all over
the world Trade Center for you,
and burn thousands of infidels
while they're at it.
Without their Faith in their maker,
they never would have had the courage
for such an mind boggling assignment"

I'd suggest reading the part of the UC political scientist Mr. Pape all over again.
Dr. Pape argues that it is NOT faith but occupation, humiliation, honor (Kamikazee) and revenge that causes people to commit 'suicide' bombings. As a factoid: the #1 people to commit suicide attacks was an atheist, secular, rebel group known as the Tamil Tigers fighting for their homeland in Northern Sri Lanka. They killed and committed more suicide bombings in the past 15 years than all Middle Eastern suicide bombings combined!

I don't know about you, but I'd be a little pissed off if you come to my country and drop bombs over me to get to my 'leader' which you supported and financed only to ditch him because he stop obeying your dictates.

The best course as the author says is offer Iraqis their country and dignity back and leave them alone. Whether the US stays 2, 10, or 20 years...when the troops come home there will be revenge killings, sectarian warfare, and massacre that didn't exist previously.

Excellent post...this SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR EVERYONE.

Someone says, what about Saddam gassing his own people. First the "gas" was given to Saddam as any reasonable person of history knows by the French and US to contain Iran.

Second, The "Kurds" are not his OWN people, neither the Shi'a whom he killed for treason, siding with Iran. Guess who gave "our boy" Saddam with Satellite Photographs to pinpoint their and Iranian location: The neocon icon: Reagen.

As for the deranged and sociopath named, "Frank Collins" "Concerned Christian now liberated" and his neocon, blood-thirsty ilk...lets put him in Iraq and see how "liberated" that pro-Israeli fascist would feel once bombs are dropped on him warmongering ass. After all, THERE'S NOTHING FRANK COLLINS loves more than war.

Remember Frank Collins, the Golden Rule (no matter how venomous and permeous your all-encompassing hate is: "Do unto others what you want done to you."

I bet Allah is proud of His Martyrs.
You gotta love people who love you
so much they explode themselves all over
the world Trade Center for you,
and burn thousands of infidels
while they're at it.
Without their Faith in their maker,
they never would have had the courage
for such an mind boggling assignment.
Everybody should have such Faith.
It's what God would want us to have;the ability
to believe so powerfully, that we can just
switch our brains off and go into Faithmode,
where nothing makes sense but is right anyhow.
Momma always said we should do what God
wants us to do.And God knows I try.
But somehow I can't help being a little
skeptical about the whole thing.Know what I mean?

Ms. Hadia Mubarak raises many points that Muslims held on Iraq. It is most unfortunate that there is a widening and divergent narrarives between US/West and the Muslim world on the Middle East. More so after 9/11.

Take religion out of the equation and under international law, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq under Saddam was illegal. Put religion in the equation, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq under Saddam was illegal.

Take international law and religion into account, the killings perpetrated by Saddam against his own people is illegal and immoral.

Yes, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq since 1990 is terrible, terrible, terrible and worsening, worsening, worsening as I have seen myself. The Iraqis tells me what is reported in the western media is barely the tip of the iceberg of what really goes on in Iraq under current US occupation. They also felt that it is most pointless for them to speak to the western media on their predicaments as they widely believe it will be censored by the US military/government.

Muslims the world over, during the Hajj season, in between performing the rites of the Hajj, also speak to Iraqis and got to know on what really went on in Iraq under US occupation. During the Hajj, the most widely spoken language after Arabic among the pilgrims is English.

Muslims the world over also get a different picture of what really goes on in Iraq through Muslim blogs and sites. We hear and read stories of US soldiers behaving culturally insensitively and reacting jumpily causing irritations among Iraqi civilians, and innocent deaths of civilians. I could go on and on, but that is not the point here.

As Hitchens the know all English wanker stated, and was quoted by someone here that there is "generalized self-pity and self-righteousness (as well as a lot of self-hatred) in the Muslim world."

I had thought self-pity, self-righteousness and self-hatred is publicly manifested by Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ummm... They are former Muslims, and how they felt is not the benchmark of how the Muslim world felt. Judging by the violence so despaired and despised by many in the west among Muslims and by Muslims against others, that does not sound like self-pity or self-hatred, but self-righeousness in asserting their rights.

Perhaps Hitchens is not too well-versed on foreign history, cultures and current affairs. Nor is he seriously considering Britain's and US foreign policy in the 19th and 20th century and current millenium.

And besides, the people and country of Iraq is being raped. In rape, it is the always convenient to blame the victim.

As for those who love to read and quote Christopher Hitchens, please, as a start, read also the works of John Gray, one of the other English writers. The one whose books include Straw Dogs Two Faces of Liberalism, Heresies etc, for a more sober, considered and challenging view on the state of western thought that seem to shape the thinking and beliefs of the west on religion, secular humanism, and man as "homo rapiens" among others.

Then we can go on to other western authors besides Christopher Hitchens regarded as the sage, seer, prophet or final word by some here.

Accept, tolerate, respect and/or accomodate the diversity of views and beliefs within your own country, peoples, culture and civilization before lecturing others on it.

Leadership by example from those wishing to export democracy, secularism, secular humanism, human rights (including freedom of religion/freedom of beliefs, freedom of expression/freedom of speech) to others, especially the Muslim world, is naturally expected in the marketplace of ideas and beliefs.

Yes! "Good" will, not just "can still emerge" but will. This is the laws of natures attitude or character. And IT (Eclat + "i") goes like this;

"Do the thing, then you will have power, if not then you will never have power"!

This is what Eclat + "i" is all about.

If you do no not understand this innate character of nature , they you will always loose, and eclat wins. Not & never a Humate like Mohammad [pbuh], Jesus [pbuh], Moses [pbuh], includes Vyasa, Mazda, gutama, budha et al!

Praise the lord/Eclat + "i". nothing more, nothing less. just "Eternal LIFE in Photons"!

I tend to agree with the previous post.

The first sentence of her article is clearly a fallacy. We can not possibly begin to comprehend the various moral or amoral paths that any action can take, no matter what the intent.

The problem with this board is that everyone is so self righteous. I'm going to round some numbers here so nobody take offense.

If we just look at the last 50-60 years of mid-east history i think that a fair conclusion would be that the status-quo was hopeless. There was no opportunity for change. Say what you will for removing Saddam from power, right or wrong. An objective person should be able to recognize that it has created opportunities for change. Good or bad, the cards have been reshuffled, and when the dust settles it is possible that good can still emerge.

Supprt ALL "SUNNI" Brother(s) & Sistar(s) against "Radical" Shiats. not all good shiats NOW! Ya!

You're right about one thing a civil war was almost certainly inevitable Saddm not being immortal and all.

so to be clear,

when the US treated the Iraqi government as friendly that was immoral.

when the US took no action after the Iraqi government slaughtered its own people that was immoral.

when the US took action to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait but did not invade Iraq that was immoral.

when the US took action to enforce a no-fly zone so that the Iraqi government couldn't attack its own citizens that was immoral.

when the US enforced the UN sanctions on Iraq justified on Iraqi nuclear intent that was immoral.

when the US removed the Iraqi government that was immoral.

when the US remained in Iraq in an attempt to bring stability that is immoral.

does anyone want to guess what writer's like this will call it if the US leaves Iraq to undergo the inevitable civil war? anyone? anyone?

The chief problem I have with some of the followers of Islam isn't that they think I'm going to hell. For my money ninety per cent of the Human race (would be all of God didn't choose to save a few for reasons that at times wholely escape me) is going to the Hell they justly deserve.

What bother me is that as a Christian it isn't my job to send any one there except as necessary to defend myself, my family, or others but all together too many followers of Islam seem to think it is there job to send as many unbelievers as possible to hell.

Let's just get one thing out front right now. Any God who requires you to point a gun at some one to convert them isn't much of a God or He'd convert them Himself.

"The Islamists are as unconcerned about this as the Nazis were about the downfall of Germany. As the avant-garde of death, they have no regard for the lives of their fellow believers. In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves. After all, the aim of the radical loser is to make as many other people into losers as possible. As the Islamists see it, the fact that they are in the minority can only be because they are the chosen few."

So true, No wonder they are called Sand Nazis..

http://www.signandsight.com/features/493.html

During Saddam's massacre operation called "Enfal" againist Kurds in 80's, more than 180.000 kurdish people slayed with various methods including chemical weapons.

To be fair and factual, maximum figure of 5000 kurds died as a rsult of the poison attack on Halabja not hundreds of thousands.

My question for you Hadia is what were the Iraqi people doing when their leader encouraged the gasing and killing of hundreds of thousands of kurds in the north and then again when Iraq invaded Kuwait killing thousands more people? You hold Iraqis as being pure victims of war, innocent in every aspect. You all are no more innocent then the german people who stood by with the knowledge of millions of jews being murdered.

Thats is the problem with you muslims, you never acknowledge your own mistakes, and whats even worse is the cause of you misfortunes are so obviously stemmed from your actions. I hate to say it but you are all of a primitive culture, its like you all peaked in 1000 A.D. when the middle east was ahead of the rest of the world in mathematical thinking along with other sciences, but ever since then you maniacs have just been on the war path.

GROW UP ALREADY!!!! If you do read this Hadia you are probably going to write it off as some dimwitted "blind" american who knows nothing of the atroscities you've seen. Thats the thing, I don't know about the atroscities you've seen because we don't have those kind of problems in America. Don't you see that our country has no real violence in it? Of course there is crime and murder just like every country, but no one is gonig to kill you because you don't believe in the same god or because you believe a slightly different interpretation of a base religion. Why do you think so many people come here? Because they can escape religious persecution, thats what the first settlers were doing.

All I am trying to say is you reap what you sow, and now Iraqis are reaping.

Thank you Ali. Although Hadia goes to great lengths to hide her AGENDA. You are refreshingly open and honest about her affliation with Saudi/Wahhabis.

This is in response to NORRIE HOYT:

Alright, 1st off, we should not have provided Saddam with the funds that he received from us and used to produce chemical weapons and fight a horrific war against Iran. By supporting this dictator financially, we strengthened his regime. Also, since we aided him when he was fighting Iran, we likely made the idea of invading Kuwait seem less risky to him. Now, in response to the invasion of Kuwait:

It was morally right to help the citizens of Kuwait, but it should be pointed out that we engage in immoral national foreign policy quite often. We did the right thing by getting (actual) international support for the 1st Gulf War. Now, we should have used limited sanctions after the war--prevent trade of armaments & military aid.
However, it was despicable to block food and medicine for normal Iraqis. After the 1st Gulf War, Kuwait was no longer in direct or immediate danger. Also, this war proved that the Iraqi military was not particularly loyal to Saddam (he ordered them to fight to the death at first rather than surrender) and that Iraq's military could be defeated quite easily by U.S. or U.N. forces.

I would suggest that you read the book Overblown on overreaction to terrorism and other threats by the U.S. Madeleine Albright publicly called the deaths of an estimated half million innocent Iraqi children "worth it." Unless you absurdly believe that Saddam's Iraq was or ever was capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Americans or other citizens of near by countries, the idea that the sanctions caused deaths were "worth it" contains the inherent assertion that innocent Iraqi lives are worth less than American lives. This is simply wrong and horrifying. In any case, these sanctions were, frankly mass murder.

Also, there is an unfortunate tendency on all sides of these types of arguments to compare people you see as a threat to the Nazis. This is a knee jerk emotional response that can seriously exaggerate the risks posed by peoply like Saddam--although he may have been equally willing to commit heinous crimes, he had no where near the same terrible capability to carry out such crimes.

Also, to understand how America failed Iraqis during and after the 1991 war, you should know that we gave encouragement to Kurds and Shiites who wanted to revolt against Saddam. They were led to believe that America would support them, but we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and then allowed Saddam to remain in power. He used this power (and armaments like armed helicopters that U.S. negotiators allowed him to keep) he killed many of the Shiites and Kurds who rebelled against his regime. U.S. pilots actually saw this and were told not to interfere.

I welcome comments or responses to this post.

This is in response to NORRIE HOYT:

Alright, 1st off, we should not have provided Saddam with the funds that he received from us and used to produce chemical weapons and fight a horrific war against Iran. By supporting this dictator financially, we strengthened his regime. Also, since we aided him when he was fighting Iran, we likely made the idea of invading Kuwait seem less risky to him. Now, in response to the invasion of Kuwait:

It was morally right to help the citizens of Kuwait, but it should be pointed out that we engage in immoral national foreign policy quite often. We did the right thing by getting (actual) international support for the 1st Gulf War. Now, we should have used limited sanctions after the war--prevent trade of armaments & military aid.
However, it was despicable to block food and medicine for normal Iraqis. After the 1st Gulf War, Kuwait was no longer in direct or immediate danger. Also, this war proved that the Iraqi military was not particularly loyal to Saddam (he ordered them to fight to the death at first rather than surrender) and that Iraq's military could be defeated quite easily by U.S. or U.N. forces.

I would suggest that you read the book Overblown on overreaction to terrorism and other threats by the U.S. Madeleine Albright publicly called the deaths of an estimated half million innocent Iraqi children "worth it." Unless you absurdly believe that Saddam's Iraq was or ever was capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Americans or other citizens of near by countries, the idea that the sanctions caused deaths were "worth it" contains the inherent assertion that innocent Iraqi lives are worth less than American lives. This is simply wrong and horrifying. In any case, these sanctions were, frankly mass murder.

Also, there is an unfortunate tendency on all sides of these types of arguments to compare people you see as a threat to the Nazis. This is a knee jerk emotional response that can seriously exaggerate the risks posed by peoply like Saddam--although he may have been equally willing to commit heinous crimes, he had no where near the same terrible capability to carry out such crimes.

Also, to understand how America failed Iraqis during and after the 1991 war, you should know that we gave encouragement to Kurds and Shiites who wanted to revolt against Saddam. They were led to believe that America would support them, but we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and then allowed Saddam to remain in power. He used this power (and armaments like armed helicopters that U.S. negotiators allowed him to keep) he killed many of the Shiites and Kurds who rebelled against his regime. U.S. pilots actually saw this and were told not to interfere.

I welcome comments or responses to this post.

Mike has this exactly right. A very selective memory that only sees afront without seeing ones own actions which contributed to that afront is insanity. Complaining about our attack in Desert Storm without noticing the invasion of Kuwait which precipitated it is insane. The same thing can be true of those who cry foul when we attack extremists and terrorists and blame us for the violence. If the extremists and terrorists would stop setting of IED's, assassinating Iraqi's and all the other atrocities, we would very quickly demobilize and gladly rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. After we leave them a rebuilt nation, then they can kill each other if that is REALLY what they want to do.

Ali,

I would be happy to stop killing the extremists once they stop killing everyone else. When they stop bombing, hijacking, assassinating, and behave in a civilized way, I would gladly allow them to live in peace. The problem is that they and you fail to see your own actions contributing to the problem. They in their actions, and you in not recognizing it. Right now it is simply a matter of "you first".

Only 1 mention of Kuwait on this entire page. Ms. Mubarak ignores that country altogether as she ignores the fact that the majority of Iraq's Muslim neighbors fought with the US to free Kuwait.

Her entire argument about Desert Storm fails as a result.

As for the sanctions, again it would have only taken Saddam to have changed his mind and given full cooperation to the UN to end the sanctions. What was her solution - allow Saddam to continue as he was? Again, her argument fails because she describes Iraq as only a victim not as the lead actor it really was in this tragedy.

Killing of radical Imams would only result in them being replaced by angrier and more radical imams.

Extremism is a human problem and it exists in all societies. Its not gonna go away.

You wanna at least contain extremism? STOP BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF PEOPLE!

Good post hadia.

Anonymous,

The saudi wahabi regime was supported at inception by the british and till now is sustained by the US.

Name is not American.
Religion is not American.
Culture is not American.
Dress is not American.
But,one can speak in the name of USA.
Yes,this is 'Freedom' and this is the greatness of USA.

John Abrami,
I couldnt exactly understand 'Our appeal to God must be international'
Do you mean 'national appeal' is not enough? so shall be create an 'International God' ?

"Let us then examine Ms. Mubarak and her double, or multiple, or consecutive memberships.From MSA to CAIR to CMCU is a predictable path seen by those of us who understand how each of these efforts has benefited from Saudi-Wahhabi backing.But the spin seemingly put on her associations by Ms. Mubarak is troubling, to say the very least."

My Hadia, you are a VERY BUSY girl. I guess you thought it best not to include all your work in various associations in your bio. No one wants to appear funded by the Wahhabis.