Iraq

[George]

Islamism has existed as an academic term way before Fox news and the fuck bunch perverted its usage. There has always been an incredibly unfaultered stance made by factions of the Muslim world (such as Wahibism - presently the ruling Islamic sect in Saudi Arabia)  and sadly, you give Islam the benefit of the doubt, whereas the vast majority of the Muslim world would not do the same for you I'm afraid (normal cultural sympathy notwithstanding).

Regardless of the dire trite the Fox News Network throw at the average American voter, there is something about Islam that holds such a counter point to western liberalisation that does make it a threat to what we consider to be our liberty. At it's core there lays an utter reverance that is disturbing on the grounds that it just isn't co-existent with democratic values (the lack of division between church and state being an example of this). There is a true lack of self criticism that any questions we (non-muslims) put to it become redundant. I'd say the same thing if the bible belt of America were to go on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims, but funnily enough Christianity isn't the dogmatic religion here, whereas many people like you presume it still is.

So there are elements to it that are incredibly fascistic and if this makes me racist then so be it. I have lived (on/off) in a Muslim country for the past 8 years and have seen a sea change happen ever since 11/9, a sense that victimisation or ignorance of our civilisation is par for the course these days. In summary it shits on all the liberalised opinions you give this faith.

[Blumf]

Wikipedia to the rescue!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Islamists are people who follow the political doctrine of Islamism (on the extreme end you have the likes of the Taliban, but it doesn't have to be quite that nasty).

Next time you hear some Fox news a-like reporter shouting 'Islamist!' think of the Young Ones shouting 'Fascist!', the happy memories can help save your TV from having your foot kicked through it.

[Sovereign]

Well fuck my old boots, Islamism is a real word after all! I had assumed it was something that was made up, but apparently not. Still, I'm still not happy with the way it gets thrown around by the mainstream media, the impression I had (and I'm probably not alone) is that adding an ism to it makes the word Islam sound that little bit more threatening. When you hear it on Fox thats definitely the intention, I'm pretty sure the majority of viewers in the US have never heard of Islamism and its academic definition.  

Islamism has existed as an academic term way before Fox news and the fuck bunch perverted its usage. There has always been an incredibly unfaultered stance made by factions of the Muslim world (such as Wahibism - presently the ruling Islamic sect in Saudi Arabia)  and sadly, you give Islam the benefit of the doubt, whereas the vast majority of the Muslim world would not do the same for you I'm afraid (normal cultural sympathy notwithstanding).

Regardless of the dire trite the Fox News Network throw at the average American voter, there is something about Islam that holds such a counter point to western liberalisation that does make it a threat to what we consider to be our liberty. At it's core there lays an utter reverance that is disturbing on the grounds that it just isn't co-existent with democratic values (the lack of division between church and state being an example of this). There is a true lack of self criticism that any questions we (non-muslims) put to it become redundant. I'd say the same thing if the bible belt of America were to go on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims, but funnily enough Christianity isn't the dogmatic religion here, whereas many people like you presume it still is.

So there are elements to it that are incredibly fascistic and if this makes me racist then so be it. I have lived (on/off) in a Muslim country for the past 8 years and have seen a sea change happen ever since 11/9, a sense that victimisation or ignorance of our civilisation is par for the course these days. In summary it shits on all the liberalised opinions you give this faith.

I won't defend Islam, or any religion for that matter. I didn't say anything about the religion of Islam in the first post, It was just me whinging about the US media if anything. I've always believed that Islam has more in common with Christianity than it has differences, at the end of the day they're both medievil superstitions that have been used to keep people obedient. There are elements with all religions that are anti-rational and inherently authoritarian, and Islam is no different. I have no liberalised opinions regarding any faith, other than the fact that people have the right to believe whatever bullshit they want to if it makes them happy. As long as this country's government remains secular I can tolerate people having whatever belief's they want.

What I object to is Islam being associated with Fascism as a great evil that needs to be conquered for the good of western civilisation. I won't have that one bit, I think that making that association is pretty much a racist slur. I know plenty of muslims who are good honest decent folk, to have them even tacticly associated with Fascism just because of their religious beliefs pisses me off a great deal. The fact that Islam is being held up as the next Great Enemy that we must face is even worse.

The enemy isn't Islam, its orthodoxy and dogma, which is something the Western Civilisation you cherish so much was built on. There are many elements of Christianity that fascistic, but we don't hear the word Christo-fascist on TV very often. The people in the White House as we speak call themselves conservatives, but they're a bit too close to fascism for my liking.  

I'd say the same thing if the bible belt of America were to go on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims

Buddy, incase you've not had chance to see the last two US elections, I just thought I'd let you know that they have gone on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims. The word Islamo-fascist is designed by those very people as a weapon in the conversion process, a tool needed to marshall support against a common enemy and to united for a common cause. Hence the use of fascism, so that the US can draw parallels with the crusade against Fascism which united the western world.

Your not one of those people who believes in the enevitable Clash of Civilisations and stuff are you? I want no part of a war with Islam, and if some crazy fundamentalist wants to kill me for not believing we can track 'em down and kill like the other twisted criminals who try and kill innocent folk.

[zozman]

I thought it's more threatening to  remove the "ism".  This isn't a war on terrorism.  Terrorists are people who we could theoretically catch or kill.  Nope, this is a "War On Terror".  You try hunting down and killing an emotion in the slums of Baghdad.  Easier said than done.

And if Islamist is someone who adheres to Islam, does a fascist adhere to fasc?

[George]

Buddy

Hi there.

Your not one of those people who believes in the enevitable Clash of Civilisations and stuff are you?

Not really no, and I'm not one of those people that thinks Bush Inc wants to Americanize the earth either. I'm also not one of barrymore's kind of people thankyouverymuch.

in case you've not had chance to see the last two US elections, I just thought I'd let you know that they have gone on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims.

Now you're not one of those people that thinks the Bush administration is hell bent on a modern day crusade are you, that they want to turn everyone into tub thumping bible bashers are you?

The point I'd like to clarify is that Islam is a very conservative religion (way more so than wholesale christianity is at present) and is on the rise, becoming mobilized (and yes, Bush has helped immeasurably in doing this). It's therefore a case of uncertain variables - perhaps like the 'china Threat' too, but at least with the latter, it isn't a case of ideological warfare, it's a case of new market forces and gubbins. My point is that the 'other' (islamic) side is actually a greater threat than a Dubya admin on its way out because of this religion's knack of instilling insidious dogma in the devoutly faithfull - and on such a massive scale compared with those darn yankees wrapped up in their insular Sunday schools.

[Wilbur]

I can see no benefit at all of staying in Iraq. Absolutey none.

They don't want us there.

Ii seems to me that a UN force may be a way out but that will have to exclude the UK . If I was running a UN Nation I would run scared. They said "NO" why the hell should they sort out our mess?

So welcome to another ten years of chaos.

I hope our leaders are happy.

[Sovereign]

Buddy

Hi there.

Your not one of those people who believes in the enevitable Clash of Civilisations and stuff are you?

Not really no, and I'm not one of those people that thinks Bush Inc wants to Americanize the earth either. I'm also not one of barrymore's kind of people thankyouverymuch.

in case you've not had chance to see the last two US elections, I just thought I'd let you know that they have gone on a worldwide conversion of its conservative aims.

Now you're not one of those people that thinks the Bush administration is hell bent on a modern day crusade are you, that they want to turn everyone into tub thumping bible bashers are you?

The point I'd like to clarify is that Islam is a very conservative religion (way more so than wholesale christianity is at present) and is on the rise, becoming mobilized (and yes, Bush has helped immeasurably in doing this). It's therefore a case of uncertain variables - perhaps like the 'china Threat' too, but at least with the latter, it isn't a case of ideological warfare, it's a case of new market forces and gubbins. My point is that the 'other' (islamic) side is actually a greater threat than a Dubya admin on its way out because of this religion's knack of instilling insidious dogma in the devoutly faithfull - and on such a massive scale compared with those darn yankees wrapped up in their insular Sunday schools.

I'd say most religious groups are pretty conservative, apart from the odd exception (Branch Davidians for example) they all tend to be dogmatic, anti-rational and anti-progess, depending on what you mean by progress that is.

I think were gonna disagree on a few things here, but you seem like a rational bloke and not some crazy ideological zealot so I can live with that.

To be honest, although I naturally keep away from things that sound too scaremongerish and far-fetched, I do think the Bush administration is waging a crusade of some kind. OK crusade really isn't a perfect word, but isn't it obvious that the scope of their foreign ambitions is pretty wide? These people are pretty ruthless and unilateralist, they're openly "America first" and hostile to diplomacy. They're militaristic, aggressive and quasi-fascist in some respects.

Just for starters they're trying to push "democracy" and market capitalism into the parts of the Middle-East where previously there were US backed dictators. An improvement, but not one thats borne out of any altruism, for altruism just doesn't exist in politics. I think they're trying to set up pro-west governments with just enough democratic legitimacy to bypass any accusations of supporting tyrants so they have a strong position and foothold in the region when China and Russia come hunting for oil. Judging by Iraq I think the plan will blow up in their faces.

I think in Europe they're putting pressure on the UK to force the EU to abandom the social-democratic model of capitalism and move towards US style free-market capitalism. Thats what the US crusade in Europe is. The UK, who's job in 21st Century politics seems to have been reduced to the USA's representative in Europe, is leading the assault on the European model. This is because having a rival superpower with a version of Capitalism that redistributes income could provide an alternative, not a threat but an alternative, to the current US system. An alternative cannot be tolerated, because if it turns out that it could work as well, if not better than, the US model it could challenge US Hegemony. They've destroyed Soviet Communism, now they want to destory Social-Democracy, finally eradicating any worldwide alternative to US style capitalism.

Thats what I believe Bush's mission is, its not quite turning the world into tub-thumping  bible bashers as you put it, but its what I think he wants to do. Not only that, he genuinely believes it his divine mission from God to do so. He persues it with religious fervour. Its one thing to have a nutball terrorist like Bin Laden killing people out of religious fundamentalism, its another thing entirely when the leader of the free world is doing the same thing,

I can't see how you can call the Islamic fundamentalism more dangerous than Dubya. This is man who has at his disposal the most powerful military force ever known to man. If Chairman Mao got it right when he said "all power derives from the barrell of a gun" then George W. Bush is the most powerful man who's ever lived. The American Military of today, in historical terms, rivals the Roman Empire and Ghengis Khan when it comes to sheer muscle. The disparity between it and its nearest competitors is massive. They spend much more than the rest of the world combined on the military, its pure hegemony bordering on omnipotence. Nope, I'm sorry, George W Bush is the one who keeps me awake at nights, not Osama Bin Laden.

Islam may be more conservative and oppressive than Christianity, but that depends because there's more than one interpretation of both religions. I really don't have the effort nor the inclination to score points between them, so I'll just generalise and say I think mainstream Islam is more conservative than Christianity. However some Christian groups in the US are pretty scary and extreme, they haven't resorted to guerilla warfare, but thats because they have a major foothold in the mainstream political process. If they were frozen out of power like the original "islamists" who went on to become Al-Queada were then I reckon there's a chance they'd have resorted to acts of violence too. They're no less crazy.

I also think your underestimating the strength of the religious right in the US. They may not be as extreme as their muslim counterparts, but they're dogmatic enough to jump when the president says jump. Western Christianity is just as capable of instilling dogma as Islam, George W Bush owes both of his election victories to it. This religious fundamentalism hasn't manifested itself as terrorism, but its still there and its a much more powerful force in world affairs than its Islamic counterpart. Also, in terms of numbers the religious right in the US far exceeds any alternative in the Middle-East. Just take a look at attendences for Church in the US, membership of The Moral Majority and The Christian Co-alition too, they're truly massive.

Anyway thats enough of that, all the best George.

[George]

some Christian groups in the US are pretty scary and extreme, they haven't resorted to guerilla warfare, but thats because they have a major foothold in the mainstream political process.

Let's just say that you're not a Christian group but that you're the leader of Iran, and let's just say that this leader spoke to ''the Muslim world'' in a conference entitled The World without Zionism shall we? Let's also stretch this hypothesis to something that the leader of Iran might of said.

Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world

nah, not in the slightest bit fascist is it?. Well this actually happened yesterday and shock horror, it didn't involve an idiotic American who to use your words has ''a major foothold in the mainstream political process'', it involves none other than Mr Ahmadinejad himself. Whether you can excuse this as simple posturing or not can you please convince me that these remarks don't smack of utter hatred lest they be called ''fasc'' without the ism?

Anyway thats enough of that, all the best George.

and all the George Best to you too.

[George]

info that will NEVER be shown on "Western" (= US-controlled) media

So what do you make of this then Mr. Ball?

"It is acknowledged that their presence has contributed to the building of freedoms now enjoyed by their citizens. We believe this will be a lasting legacy."

The BBC has previously entered the Arabic television market, in conjunction with the Saudi-owned company Orbit, but it foundered in 1996 following issues of editorial control.

Just how much slant (either way) would the Arabic Beeb make of the Iraq situation I wonder?

[Pinball]

[slim]

That must be a really talented publication to pass off shit email jokes as their own work.

[zozman]

That's not shit.  I posted it in the "best jokes" thread about a week ago.

Well, it is a bit shit.  And I did get it by e-mail.

[Pinball]

:-)

[Wilbur]

with todays Panorama.

[mayer]

Just to check. "The insurgency" isn't really an insurgency, is it?

If the Americans left tomorrow the bombing patterns would be more or less identical, perhaps slightly more vehement, and that's about it, no?

It's a civil war, yup?

In which case the Americans can't "win", because, despite what some of them like to think, it's not their country.


They should get the hell out, and let the UN sort out the civil war, if it wants to. They'll get a lot of hassle, some of it deserved, but they're getting hassle *and* dead soldiers now. Get out, asap I say.

[Wilbur]

I agree.

We have invaded a country which posed us no threat. We  have a war criminal as a PM under EVERY definiton from the Nuremberg tribunals. Well maybe not every one there are page loads but under the most  important ones.

[Pinball]

I believe "we" should stay until the mess is sorted out because:

1. We caused the mess; and

2. By tying up US troops in Iraq, they won't be able to rape Iran.

[Wilbur]

I sort of agree with that Pinball. If we were squeaky  clean it might work. Torturing , humiliation and killing innocents kinda makes that difficult to deliver and examples are appearing every day. I expect the  UN will be called in  but it will mean Bush and Blair  doing some sorries first.

[mayer]

I believe "we" should stay until the mess is sorted out because:

1. We caused the mess; and

2. By tying up US troops in Iraq, they won't be able to rape Iran.

1. We merely hastened the coming of the mess. That country was a civil war timebomb. We removed the one thing keeping the place together was all. When nature did that itself the war wouldn've kicked in anyway.

2. If any country deserves a big hard dick in its arse, it's Iran.

[All Surrogate]

2. If any country deserves a big hard dick in its arse, it's Iran.

They really wouldn't like that.

Execution of two teenagers accused of homosexual acts

"... a choice of four deathstyles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch."



The leadership of Iran is despicable, but it is a religious one; how will taking them on militarily change that?  Surely Iranis would cling tighter to their religion and culture with yankee patrolling the streets.

Would gay people be better under a post-Faqih government anyway?  After the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany, gay people continued to suffer.  The West could do more for the gays in Iran and other repressive regimes, starting with ending repression within their own borders.

[Mister Cairo]

I agree with mayer, UN peacekeepers should be sent in. Which no-one seemed to even consider on Panorama.

That Iraqi Minister was  saying something like "it's all your fault, you British". As if the people of Britain were asked at all or had any power.

It would be nice if the UN focused some effort on making sure all Iraqis have clean water and electric, which many don't have according to a report which I'm too tired to locate but will soon.

[Blumf]

The trouble with UN peacekeepers is they tend to be utterly worthless when faced with opposing groups set on hurting each other (as Iraq is likely to be sooner or later), I suspect that's why nobodies rushing to suggest them.

[Pinball]

I believe "we" should stay until the mess is sorted out because:

1. We caused the mess; and

2. By tying up US troops in Iraq, they won't be able to rape Iran.

1. We merely hastened the coming of the mess. That country was a civil war timebomb. We removed the one thing keeping the place together was all. When nature did that itself the war wouldn've kicked in anyway.

2. If any country deserves a big hard dick in its arse, it's Iran.

If we merely brought on the inevitable, then that provides yet another reason against the invasion. As for Iran, well the latest statements about Israel are despicable, and will force a harder line from Europe. But what will be the end result? More suffering for ordinary people in Iran (and every other country involved in future conflicts). And that's the bottomline. 200,000 dead Iraqis, and 2,000 dead US soldiers (and tens of thousands injured). It's ordinary people who suffer, and that's what upsets me the most.

The likes of Bush and his corporate chums are doing just fine, and have met their objectives - irrevocable contracts to privatise Iraqi infrastructure and acquire its oil. NO Iraqi government, as currently envisaged, could reverse those contracts, which were finalised BEFORE the current Iraqi government was in place.

Follow the money, and you see what this war was really about. It's incredibly obvious.

[slim]

Where's that 200000 figure from? I thought the more conservative ~100000 was based on potentially unsound methodology. Have there been fresh studies?

[Pinball]

It's an update of the previously well accepted 150,000 figure, taking into account the continuing slaughter of the Iraqi people. I heard it on BBC News.

[slim]

Ah, well... "Well accepted" doesn't necessarily mean accurate. If I remember correctly, the methodology for that study was pretty unsound.

Not that I'm suggesting counting civilian death tolls is easy or anything, I just take these things with a pinch of salt.

[zozman]

I came across this ace little story the other day

AN RAF officer could be jailed for refusing to serve in Iraq because he believes that the war there was illegal.

Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith is to be court-martialled for "refusing to obey a lawful command" after he told his commanding officer that he would not go to Basra.

He is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of war.

Kendall-Smith, 37, unit medical officer for RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, has been decorated for his role in support of military operations in Afghanistan and for two previous tours in support of the RAF in Iraq.

However, after studying the legal position, including the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, he decided this year that the war was unlawful and it would therefore be wrong for him to return.

Full story here

[zozman]

What does everyone reckon about this gagging order on the British press then?  I'm sure you've all seen it, but in case you haven't The Mirror claim to have a memo stating that Blair had to dissuade Bush from bombing Al-Jazeera's HQ in Qatar during the US assault on Falluja.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Unverified_document_alleges_Bush_talked_of_bombing_Al-Jazeera_headquarters
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1649351,00.html

There are calls to publish the document, although the Attorney General has stated that any media outlet would be liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. I hope someone's got the balls to publish.

I'm assuming that the fact they are blocking publication indicates that the Mirror is right, although they have been famously caught out with dodgy forgeries in the past.  Why they continue to take notes of these meetings, I don't know....

[slim]

I realise it's contentious for Bush, but how the hell can they justify that being secret under the OSA? Surely it's in the public interest? I'd be interested to know if there was anything that jeopardises national security in that; I bet there isn't.

It should be called the Clean Up Embarrassing Leaks Act. Pft.

[Alberon]

It does seem a stupid ham-fisted way to procede. It's only The Mirror for fucks sake, not a real newspaper.

Downing Street would have been better laughing this one off, now they've made it look like it's true.