Free Thoughts on Iran
Front Page | About FToI | Authors | Archives | Comment Policy | Disclaimer
e-mail

bra.gif When MPs find their balls | Main | They deserve it! ket.gif

February 04, 2004

Ad Inferna per Aspera: Part II
Kaveh Khodjasteh  [info|posts]

drain.jpg
The coming year is expected to be a trying year for the Iranian government, in both of elected and non-elected parts. I wanted to document and list some of the most important challenges that the Iranian government shall face in the coming year here. Here is part I.

5. Presidential Elections in the US: Ironically the presidential election in the US might prove to be more important for Iranians, than their own. An election with an outcome that many now find as fixed, but with a very important uncertainty factor: With G. W. Bush as the president, will the neo-conservatives still rule? Or will it be the middle of the way conservatives that take over again. For Iranian conservatives [hardliners, fundamentalists, you name it... ] either case shall be a very important sign: These are the people who can easily ride the waves: either war or diplomacy and they seem to be prepared for both. Projecting a majority in the parliament and the president in their hands, they are expected to show a unified approach to Iranian foreign policy towards the US.

6. Egyptian Visit: During Khatami's rule[?], Iranian foreign policy enjoyed a better relationship with the Arab countries, especially the fiefdoms of the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan. The latest change came when finally, the conservative [that says a lot!] city council in Tehran, decided to change the name of "Khalid Eslambuli" [Assasinator of Sadat, late Egyptian president] street in Tehran to Intifada! [ People in Tehran are already predicting that the name of this street might change to "Jerusalem" in the near future, while people would still go about and call it by its old name Vozara!] Many are contemplating this to be a part of a more general trend in which Iran wants to be considered in league with Arabs when it comes to the peace process in the Middle East. The usual stance up to now, has been that of a lone third voice reiterating the illegetimacy of the Israeli state as a matter of principle. The first big challenge along this path is the expected visit of the Egyptian president Mobarak: A figure subject to the continual ideological damnations in Iran since he came to power. [Apparently the Egyptian side has already postponed it.]

7. Al-Qaede members: What is going to happen to all those al-Qaeda "captives" now being held in Iran, with their estimated number ranging between 300 and 600? The Americans decided to keep all the al-Qaeda prisoners of war from Afghanistan in the Guantanamo Bay prison, in a very secluded manner. That caused international and internal criticism of US in violation of the International law, however apparently the al-Qaeda captives in Iran have failed to find such good attorneys and have simply become a wild card for the Iranian Military to play every now and then. There is also sporadic news of high ranking al-Qaeda officials travelling in Iran, seeming to be causally connected to terror attacks in Iraq.

8. Nuclear Programme and the Iran-EU relationship: Iran's declaration of violation of its promises on its nuclear programme came synchronized with the stabilization of the occupation of Iraq. After a period of internal struggle [which many projected to be pointless, in fact in these matters according to constitution, the leader has the final say] Iran finally accepted to allow for tougher and random inspections of its nuclear facilities, inspections that could possibly cover everywhere in Iran. This time European Union started the aggressive dialogue, which was a sign that, EU despite being soft on human rights issues in Iran, is very concerned about her safety when it comes to nuclear weapons and possible use of them by terrorist groups. It still remains to be seen what actually comes of these inspections and dialogues, an ongoing story for some time...

9. Iraq's situation: Unfortunately for the Iranian government many of the elements that they believed first that would support them, including major Iraqi Shi'e clergy have turned their backs to them. The Iranian influence in Iraq is still very strong, and many fear that this influence can still affect the election results and the new constitution. Many Iraqis are optimistic about how their country is going to be governed in the near future. Some even expect a modern constitution and a free election supervised by the occupation forces. Challenged already on all borders by the American presence in Afgahnistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Persian gulf, the conservatives in Iran would never risk direct actions but their intrigues shall continue for some time.

I should also apologize for the disconnected nature of this post. Half of it is not my fault anyway!

Comments
Daanaa at February 4, 2004 10:49 AM [permalink]:

I like very much the picture you have chosen for your post.

Ali at February 4, 2004 11:00 AM [permalink]:

All the challenges that you mentioned are in a way external. The government will also have big challenges inside the country, as public discontent and demand for change is very high.

Kaveh Kh. at February 4, 2004 11:47 AM [permalink]:

I agree with you Ali. I dropped the internal challenges such as dissent among the poor and the workers, but those are not specific to the coming year. Do you think they will become more significant in the coming year?

JFTDMaster at February 4, 2004 12:26 PM [permalink]:

I just wanted to make some comments on your points.

5) Neo-conservatives are not "ruling", none in Bush's cabinet are neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives have a strong influence because they come up with new ideas that make sense. Here's a very good article about the neo-conservatives.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2426

7) My guess is that people like Imad Mughniye (or whatever his name is) will continue to use them to do terrorist attacks.

8) It is good that EU took initiative here so far, but that wouldn't have gone anywhere at all if there was no implicit credible threat of force, by USA. And yes, we'll see what happens with these inspections..

9) Extremist groups like the Dawa party are under Iran's dictatorship influence, but Sistani is a more major force in Iraq. Sistani seems to have actually accepted democracy, though as representative of Shi'ites in Iraq he's afraid of getting betrayed again and wants Shi'ite power guaranteed by elections now.. on the positive side, he seems to have accepted democracy, more or less, and that's a good thing.

King Kong at February 4, 2004 12:37 PM [permalink]:

There have been reports that Colin Powell and Richard Armitage will be leaving after the elections are over. They have run the State Department and have been the two loudest "realist" voices within Bush's administration, and have called for more engagement with Iran. I think a lot will depend on who Bush replaces these people with.

An Iranian Student (AIS) at February 5, 2004 03:19 AM [permalink]:

I really do hope for Bush to win this election and Powell and Armitage to leave afterwards. The best interests of Iran lies with evermore Neo-con influence in the US policy. As JFTDMaster said, and I agree, they are the ones that really make sense, and compared with the traditional conservatives, with the example of Wessie as their extreme case,especially in regard to their the-rest-of-the-world-should-be-left-all-by-themselves-why-should we-care attitude, and the lefties who have never been this low as far as common sense or simple human decency is concerned, I think it is obvious that neo-cons are also the most humanist and moral force in todays politics around the world.

(I'm finished here so now all of you can start shouting with outrage, which would of course prove absolute nothing!)

Wessie at February 5, 2004 09:26 AM [permalink]:

"I really do hope for Bush to win this election and Powell and Armitage to leave afterwards."

Well, thanks a lot! No one I know hopes Bush will win. And if more comes out about the WMD lies then he may not. Indeed, we all hope someone will go to trial for the Iraq war debacle. I, along with hundreds of other people, waited for 1 1/2 hours in freezing weather and a snow storm (1/2 hour outside) to vote the other day. The turn out was phenomenal. They even ran out of ballots and had to have more delivered. We were all waiting to vote AGAINST Bush!

It is just amazing what you read into my posts, AIS. First, I am not a conservative—never have been. I am not even a republican. Second, the leave "the-rest-of-the-world-should-be-left-all-by-themselves" is a rhetorical question! One which I have asked numerous times on this website. One which none of you have bothered to answer.

Do you understand what rhetorical is, AIS? Apparently not.

"I think it is obvious that neo-cons are also the most humanist and moral force in todays politics around the world."

Now, if that is not the BIGGEST bunch of BS I have ever heard! Americans do not approve of Bush, as the latest polls show. Additionally, we are much more concerned with our economy, health care, child-care, the environment, etc. than this perpetual paranoia and war mentality that the neo-cons are promoting. Unlike the Bushies, most Americans believe we need our allies. That means we believe we need to engage with the rest of the world.

Do you know what a "con" is? That is what many think of when we hear neo-con.

It is really disheartening to see so many bright people on this website who simply have no common sense and cannot connect anything at all and don't understand the difference between rhetorical questions and humorus posts vs. a position based in reality. No wonder your part of the world is falling apart. No one can think creatively. One step forward, two steps back.

Some of you should stop studying so much math and go for some art, literature and philosophy. Try law! ;-)

Wessie

King Kong at February 5, 2004 09:42 AM [permalink]:

The neo-cons can sometimes have good ideas, but they aren't good at implementing them. Look at what's happened in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam and creating an Iraqi democracy wasn't a bad idea. But they've messed things up badly in a lot of ways, both for American and for Iraq. If they gain control of America's Iran policies, will they come up with a way to strengthen the opposition to the akhunds, or will they just strengthen the akhunds themselves?

Wessie at February 5, 2004 10:09 AM [permalink]:

Sigh—do none of you read the American or world papers?

There is a great deal (that means LOTS) of opposition in the U.S., even among republicans and ultra conservatives, to the Bush administration policies. Even IF Bush wins the election the Congress will no longer simply go along— and it is only a matter of four more years.

However, by then, the U.S. deficit will be so high that the world will have to worry about the international economies going down the tube. Iran et al. will have to worry about where their next meal is coming from and less about the opposition.

The neo-cons can't con us forever. We have a democracy that works—more or less.

Wessie

JFTDMaster at February 5, 2004 01:30 PM [permalink]:

Some comments to Wessie

"And if more comes out about the WMD lies then he may not."
- What is truth, what are lies? What do you base your opinion on, facts? dislikes? What did David Kay say?
"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president (an apology), rather than the president owing the American people."

""I think it is obvious that neo-cons are also the most humanist and moral force in todays politics around the world."
Now, if that is not the BIGGEST bunch of BS I have ever heard!"
- The reason he says that is because we want to help the Iranian people become a democracy, and remove the threat to global stability emanating from Iran's government. That would be a good thing for Iranian people, and for our security, and for the world's long-term trade. If possible, we would like to do that peacefully.

"Additionally, we are much more concerned with our economy, health care, child-care, the environment, etc. than this perpetual paranoia and war mentality that the neo-cons are promoting."
- Majority of Republican voters are very worried about the war, and that's not "promoted" or "imposed upon" them, by the 'evil neo-cons'. Majority of Democrats apparently don't realize that there IS a real threat.. you do realize that over 100 terorist attacks have been averted on American soil since 9-11?

Wessie at February 5, 2004 02:19 PM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster, David Kay was chosen for his pit-bull like mentality with respect to finding those WMDs. He did not find them—and will not either because they don't exist. Certainly Khidhir Hamza, "Saddam's Bomb Maker" said that a long time ago in Newsweek as did many other people.

Many in the intelligence community as well as the scientific community were silenced by the administration. As the build up to war escalated the spin got bigger. Kay is still spinning. I watched him on C-Span the other day during the hearings. His nose is brown—kissing up to the Bushies trying to place the blame for the war on the CIA et al.— when it was the CIA who objected to the intelligence data being blown out of proportion.

"The reason he says that is because we want to help the Iranian people become a democracy, and remove the threat to global stability emanating from Iran's government. That would be a good thing for Iranian people, and for our security, and for the world's long-term trade. If possible, we would like to do that peacefully."

Do you really believe that anyone can help the Iranians or any ME people "become a democracy"? I don't! Besides, the best way to teach people is by example. And right now, the U.S. is a piss-poor example.

As for the threat of global stability. There are still ways to take care of that. The EU is getting pretty aggressive in their stance now regarding atomic issues. I believe in international pressure—not unilateral war. A war which in this case solved nothing and made things worse.

Majority of Republican voters are very worried about the war, and that's not "promoted" or "imposed upon" them, by the 'evil neo-cons'. Majority of Democrats apparently don't realize that there IS a real threat.. you do realize that over 100 terorist attacks have been averted on American soil since 9-11?

What makes you think that people are all so stupid—whether republicans or democrats or independents? Of course people realize there is a threat. However, they are also smart enough to understand that there is an even greater threat from within—that of a lack of jobs, health care, environmental issues, corporate-criminal rule, etc.

Perhaps "over 100 terorist attacks have been averted on American soil since 9-11"— perhaps not. One gets the feeling that many of these "threats" are made up to benefit the current administration. Freak the people out enough and they'll all vote for the Bushies again— or maybe not.

OTOH—good, that they were averted IF they were averted. Better to err on the side of caution as well as photograph and fingerprint all who come to the West. Certainly overly tight security is better than going to war for revenge and erronous intelligence—which is what GW Bush did.


Wessie


King Kong at February 5, 2004 02:32 PM [permalink]:

"OTOH—good, that they were averted IF they were averted. Better to err on the side of caution as well as photograph and fingerprint all who come to the West. Certainly overly tight security is better than going to war for revenge and erronous intelligence—which is what GW Bush did."

That's an interesting opinion. As I understand, it's the liberals in America who care more about these civil liberties issues. If all you pay attention to is "overly tight security", you'll soon lose most of your freedoms.

Which doesn't mean that the neo-cons strategy is right or wrong. What it means is that if you want to stop terrorism without losing your freedoms, you'll have to get rid of the terrorists and their supporters before they can plan attacks against you.

JFTDMaster at February 5, 2004 03:18 PM [permalink]:

"David Kay was chosen for his pit-bull like mentality with respect to finding those WMDs."
- Is insulting people you disagree with a Democrat thing?

"Many in the intelligence community as well as the scientific community were silenced by the administration. "
- Do you have some facts or information about that? According to david kay's testimony to the congress, out of numerous intelligence officers he talked to, not a single one felt pressured to "spin" intelligence. So let me get this straight, you will ignore his testimony because you don't like him?

"Do you really believe that anyone can help the Iranians or any ME people "become a democracy"?"
- Yep. And I think in 2-4 years you'll see a relatively good, stable democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Iranians need help, they should know who is willing to help them, and obviously in USA that's NOT the Democratic party. Removing a dictator like Saddam from power was the responsible thing to do.

"As I understand, it's the liberals in America who care more about these civil liberties issues."
- Liberal doesn't really apply properly to America: almost all political debate is bounded somewhat close to the political center, and that is the traditional definition of a liberal.. Republicans would also be 'liberal'. However today in America, liberal is just a term for left-wingers.

And in my opinion, in general Republicans are more worried about civil liberties and individual's rights and freedoms. That is why Republicans support privatization, tax reform, educational reform to reduce bureacracy and inefficiency of the nanny state, and general initiatives that reduce state control over the citizens. However Republicans tend to worry more about national security, counter-terrorism, etc, yes.

"Certainly overly tight security is better than going to war for revenge and erronous intelligence—which is what GW Bush did."
- So are you in favour of tight security or not?

So tell me Wessie: has your personal freedom in any way been affected by tighter counter-terrorism and security? Ok, maybe longer delays on flights: anything else?

It seems that you are opposing counter-terrorism, and in fact any use of force by the American government, as a principle. That's the "liberal" thing to believe nowdays, huh?

There has never been a war among two liberal democracies. However, the world is still a dangerous place, with conflict, threats, and dangers. The world has violent groups and violent ideologies. In such a world, weakness invites an attack, and force brings peace.

JFTDMaster at February 5, 2004 03:22 PM [permalink]:

And by the way, they did find WMDs, and illegal-range missiles, etc. however (so far) they did not find as much as they expected.

JFTDMaster at February 5, 2004 03:56 PM [permalink]:

one more tidbit... ask yourself:
Which candidate do you think the Iranian dictatorship would rather deal with, Bush or say Howard Dean? What about the dictatorship in Syria? Or how about al-qaida?
Now ask yourself, why?

Vahid at February 5, 2004 05:04 PM [permalink]:

Wessie:
"Perhaps "over 100 terorist attacks have been averted on American soil since 9-11"— perhaps not. One gets the feeling that many of these "threats" are made up to benefit the current administration. Freak the people out enough and they'll all vote for the Bushies again— or maybe not."

I think I told you something like this, while ago and you got mad. It is good that you have changed your mind ;)

Wessie at February 5, 2004 11:12 PM [permalink]:
"If all you pay attention to is "overly tight security", you'll soon lose most of your freedoms." I don't believe securing our places of entry and checking everything that comes into our ports of entry will result in the loss of our freedoms, King Kong. Why do you? --- JFTDMaster, what does your name mean? "David Kay was chosen for his pit-bull like mentality with respect to finding those WMDs." " '- Is insulting people you disagree with a Democrat thing?' " That happens to be a fact. Kay was chosen for his aggressive posture in this regard. It's been all over the news. " Do you have some facts or information about that? According to david kay's testimony to the congress, out of numerous intelligence officers he talked to, not a single one felt pressured to "spin" intelligence. So let me get this straight, you will ignore his testimony because you don't like him?" LOL—I don't know Kay personally, so I really cannot dislike him. I simply have paid attention to the hearings: "It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment," Kay stammered before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "And that is most disturbing." With perhaps 85 percent of the Survey Group's work done, Kay said it was likely that no WMD would be uncovered. . . " in Kay's mind, the absence of evidence should not obscure a larger fact: Iraq was a monumental intelligence failure." Here is from a recent poll: Did the White House knowingly misrepresent intelligence on Iraq? * 48359 responses No. The administration was misled, too 24% Yes. Bush and Cheney knew the intelligence was wrong 69% I don't know 7% Fully 67% of the people polled believe that the intel was wrong and that they Bushies knew it was wrong! We have not even seen the tip of the iceberg. If they can try to impeach Clinton for being indiscrete, something should happen here for this debacle. --- " Yep. And I think in 2-4 years you'll see a relatively good, stable democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Iranians need help, they should know who is willing to help them, and obviously in USA that's NOT the Democratic party. Removing a dictator like Saddam from power was the responsible thing to do." I don't. I believe that it was irresponsible to have gone it alone. So does the rest of the world. As I said, international pressure with the backing of U.S. military power would have been wiser. Besides, security is the responsibility of the whole world including the Arab world—they should all help pay for that. Iraq was a "secular" nation. It is a far cry from Iran. Iranians want their freedom because the Islamic revolution has failed—and failed miserably. While the Iraqis may just be at the beginning of yet another Islamic "republic" experiment. I'll wait and see. I don't have much faith in democracies under Islam. It took Japan and Europe decades to get where they are today and they started out from defeat. That is not the case in Iraq or Iran. "And in my opinion, in general Republicans are more worried about civil liberties and individual's rights and freedoms. That is why Republicans support privatization, tax reform, educational reform to reduce bureacracy and inefficiency of the nanny state, and general initiatives that reduce state control over the citizens. However Republicans tend to worry more about national security, counter-terrorism, etc, yes." Yes, indeed! That is why the republicans have taken so many of our civil liberties away and they have produced corp ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 6, 2004 01:56 AM [permalink]:
Never trust a Muslim: Musharraf pardons disgraced nuclear scientist http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20040205/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistan_nuclear_khan_040205142133&e=1 "I give him pardon," President Pervez Musharraf told a news conference on Thursday, a day after Abdul Qadeer Khan's dramatic televised confession. . . " He also said that Pakistan will not allow the United Nations to inspect its nuclear facilities. "This is a sovereign country, no document, no independent investigation and we will not allow any UN supervision," he said. . ." ------------ From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=56867 " Shoebat has related his extraordinary journey over the airwaves and before audiences across North America, encouraging people to “wake up and smell the hummus” before Islam succeeds in implementing its program of global Jihad. . . " . . . “I was not only a terrorist, but I was terrorized by my beliefs,” Shoebat recalled, “since I had to gain enough merit and good deeds to go to heaven but never was sure if my good deeds would outweigh my bad deeds in the scale when I would be judged by God, it was taught to us that to die fighting the Jews [would] ease Allah's anger towards my sin and I [would] be secured a good spot in heaven with beautiful wide eyed women to fulfill my most intimate desires, so either way [through actual attacks on Jews, or if I were to be killed in the attempt –ed.] I would win – terror was the only way.” ". . .Determined to let his people know what he knows, he soon began speaking to Muslim groups – demanding that they confront what Islam either always was – or has become. When confronted with what has become somewhat of a mantra since September 11th – that “true Islam is a religion of peace,” Shoebat responds, “I grew up there – I was there at the mosques, the ummahs and the religious schools. I know what is still being taught today in the textbooks and by the religious leaders – so my challenge to those who claim Islam is not the religion of terror we see today, is what have you done to stand against it and say ‘this is wrong’?” . . ." . . .‘Jihad’ represents an inner struggle and not the genocidal slaughter of infidels called for by Osama bin Ladin. Shoebat unblinkingly refuted the cleric’c claims, reciting verse after verse of Koranic scripture in its original Arabic and translating into English. “There are over one hundred quotes by Mohammad regarding Jihad – I could recite each one of them but we would be here all day. Every single one refers specifically to Jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners – with only one quote referring to an internal struggle – called for by Mohammad after the complete conquest and occupation of Arabia.” He said that such claims were typical of the Islamic leadership in America, and are consumed eagerly by western audiences who do not want to believe that one of the major world religions poses such a danger to humanity. ". . .“Afghans in the U.S. and Iranians who left Iran are predominately peaceful people. The Arabic speaking communities in America, however, do indeed support Osama bin Ladin and Hamas.” He cites a direct correlation between adherence to Islam and support of terrorism. “The less they know about Islam the more peaceful they are,” he said. . . " ~~~~~~~~~~~ This is precisely what I have been saying all along. That the Islamofascists are the ones who are true Muslims and the ones who believe "I ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
JFTDMaster at February 6, 2004 08:56 AM [permalink]:
"JFTDMaster, what does your name mean?" - *coughs* well ahem.. you see its a bit of a joke.. you know how according to far-right, far-left and islamic conspiracy theories, the jews are in charge of EVERYTHING? well TADA: we finally admit it, the Jews For World Domination ARE in charge of everything. And YOU can join, too! :> "I simply have paid attention to the hearings" - a) you ignored most of what he said, which is that according to all intelligence america and other nations (britain etc) had for years, Saddam still had WMDs. He basically cleared Bush of any wrong-doing, he said based on the intelligence given he would've made the decision to go to war, as well. > b) On December 16, 1998, President Clinton ordered attacks on Iraq. In informing the nation, Clinton said, "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs" and that "without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years." c) It is clear Saddam was not respecting authority, and did not prove he disarmed as the relevant UN resolutions demanded. The responsible people (blair, bush, aznar, etc) decided that there must be a credible threat of force, and allowing the 10-year charade with Saddam to continue was destroying that w.r.t. arab and islamic regimes. c) There's lots of intelligence suggesting Kay is in fact wrong, and that there will be more WMDs found beyond what is already found. Rumsfeld etc maintain this view, and "its not over until its over". The point is: you are telling us the entire Bush administration lied, with no evidence: that is a sign of bias. "Fully 67% of the people polled believe that the intel was wrong and that they Bushies knew it was wrong! We have not even seen the tip of the iceberg. " - There is a much bigger problem out there, decreasing trust in government and institutions in general. Because of this trend, Democrats and their institutions are mis-trusted much more. "I believe that it was irresponsible to have gone it alone. So does the rest of the world." - Who's the "majority"? In the UN, muslim nations have an automatic majority. Within EU, majority of the members signed a "support Bush and war in Iraq" statement, remember that? The "majority" apparently are china, muslims, france, germany, belgium and russia. Riiiiight.. "I am NOT a liberal nor a conservative. I am a centrist. " - You understand that islamo-fascism is a real threat. If you were a centrist also, you would have no psychological aversion to the use of force or to either political party, and you would be a "neo-conservative" by supporting Bush's policies... "Nice spin, JFTDMaster ! Those were really, really WORTH going to war over." - Yes they were. Ricin, anthrax, butolin.. and the pre-emptive war was about more than WMDs if you remember: it was also about a credible threat of force, and removing a brutal oppressive dictatorship, and building an example of a democracy to follow for the Middle East. "Do you really think that the other candidates, including screamin' Dean, would not defend the country if it needed defending? " - Yes. It needs pre-emptive defending now. The whole campaign of the majority of Democratic candidates is based on bashing the war on terror. "You can't kill 1.5 billion Muslims, JFTDMaster." - The "evil centrist neo-conservatives" want the Bush administration to spend billions of dollars to build a be ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Daanaa at February 6, 2004 09:21 AM [permalink]:

I would say "never trust politicians" instead of saying "never trust Muslims". It seems that Musharraf has started a negotiation with other stats to acquire more benefit.

I think that we all, as intellectual and scientists ;), should express our deepest concern both about the attempts of developing couturiers to get atomic powers as well as the attempts by super power and "World NuclearClub" to modernize their aggressive nuclear equipments.

someone at February 6, 2004 11:07 AM [permalink]:

“you know how according to far-right, far-left and islamic conspiracy theories, the jews are in charge of EVERYTHING? well TADA: we finally admit it, the Jews For World Domination ARE in charge of everything. And YOU can join, too! :>”

JFTDMaster,

I think It was Ariel Sharon who said something in that effect! Apparently in response to Shimon Perez who was then his foreign minister and was warning him about a possible American reaction to his policies, Sharon said “stop telling me if we do this the Americans will do this and that! I want to tell you something that we the Jewish people run America and the Americans know it!” and this was published in some Israeli and European newspapers at the time (Fall 2001) long before Mahatimir repeated things to this effect.

Wessie at February 6, 2004 11:22 AM [permalink]:
" we finally admit it, the Jews For World Domination ARE in charge of everything. And YOU can join, too! :>" LOL.JFTDMaster, for years, I have said that I am so glad that the Jews are in charge of everything! Because if the Muslims were in charge of everything we'd all be living in the 7th century just like most of them. ;-) "He basically cleared Bush of any wrong-doing, he said based on the intelligence given he would've made the decision to go to war, as well." Well now, we all know that Bush is intellectually challenged. The whole world warned against it. There was no plan for after the Blitz to secure the nation and there still is no plan for anything from security to democracy worth a damn. They did this by the seat of their pants and that is certainly very evident. Bush won't take the fall—but someone should. ". . .There's lots of intelligence suggesting Kay is in fact wrong, and that there will be more WMDs found beyond what is already found. Rumsfeld etc maintain this view, and "its not over until its over". I imagine they may be "found" just in time for the election. ;-) "The point is: you are telling us the entire Bush administration lied, with no evidence: that is a sign of bias." I am going by what has come out, what people more in the know than I are saying—like Newsweek. And no, I don't believe the entire administration lied. But, I do believe that people like Cheney are culpable. Let's face it this administration has its own agenda and it does not have much to do with the American public or the rest of the world. Regarding mistrust of one party or another—all one has to do is look at the evidence. The deficit, etc. The republicans have done much damage. BTW—the only reason I am registered with any party is that I want to vote in the primaries. You sound like and "old" republican. You can dismiss the rest of humanity, but it won't make them go away. I believe in the U.N. And have a hard place in my heart for the Germans and the French right now. "You understand that islamo-fascism is a real threat. If you were a centrist also, you would have no psychological aversion to the use of force or to either political party, and you would be a "neo-conservative" by supporting Bush's policies..." Well, my personal convictions did not change on 9/11 although at one time I believe that Islam could be reformed. I no longer believe that. I DO NOT support Bush's policies. I believe that force must sometimes be used—but, this was not the time and not alone! The force used in Afganistan was justified, IMHO. But, AGAIN, we did not finish the job. " . . .it was also about a credible threat of force, and removing a brutal oppressive dictatorship, and building an example of a democracy to follow for the Middle East." That is an unmitigated LIE! The quotes of why we went to war are written down and can be retrieved—it had to do with WMD. The Bushies are trying to spin out of this. I do not believe it was about oil either. I believe it was about revenge and bad intelligence. I remember Bush saying after 9/11 something to the effect that he had found his "focus" or "purpose" and that he would dedicate his whole term to fighting terror. Too bad he forgot that people have to eat and have health insurance too. Bush doesn't have to worry and neither do the Congress—they have jobs and insurance and retirement packages. The "War on Terror" has made enemies of the world instead of allies. We should all be working together. ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 6, 2004 11:27 AM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster

Ah—shouldn't the acronym read: JFWD (Jews For World Domination)?

King Kong at February 6, 2004 12:42 PM [permalink]:

"Ah—shouldn't the acronym read: JFWD (Jews For World Domination)?"

So you're an anti-semite, think Islam is an evil religion, and support "overly tight security". Are you sure that you are a liberal?

King Kong at February 6, 2004 01:42 PM [permalink]:

By the way, no one can deny that there's a strong pro-Israel lobby inside America. But you have to be blind not to see that the Saudi Arabian government and the oil companies have strong lobbies too. And their interests are opposed to Israel's. And from what I can see, much of the pro-Israel lobby is made up of Christian fanatics like Pat Robertson.

I usually don't think much of people who think that a country as big as America can be run by some kind of conspiracy. Whether it's the Jews, the Freemasons, the oil companies, the Illuminati, etc.

Wessie at February 6, 2004 02:34 PM [permalink]:

"So you're an anti-semite, think Islam is an evil religion, and support "overly tight security". Are you sure that you are a liberal?"

Ah, no. LOL

I am very fond of the Jews and think they have done more to move civilization forward than virtually any group given their small numbers—especially Muslims who have produced nothing for 1000 years. However, I am critical of Israel's policies.

For the record: I don't believe that Islam is a religion at all. As I have said many times, Islam is a social, cultural and political system dreamed up by Mohammed to secure his Islamic empire. And I am not a liberal. I support realistic security measures-not "overly tight" ones.

Amazing this need for people on this website to put people into little, one dimensional boxes.

For some I am an "extreme" conservative who loves Jews and "hates" Muslims, for others an extreme liberal who is an anti-semite. All of that is silly BS!

I am a centrist who believes in live and let live. I do have a problem with extremists of any stripe—especially those who are trying to take over the world with violent means, like the Islamofascists. And I don't cotton to anyone who wants to force their brand of "religion" on anyone else like Islam

So, King Kong (what a name. I'm getting this vision—do you have hair all over your body?) what sort of security measures do you think are realistic for the world to put into place given Islamic terrorism and Islamic imperialism—the stated goal, in the Qur'an, of Islam to rule the world?

Wessie

Wessie at February 6, 2004 02:40 PM [permalink]:

" And from what I can see, much of the pro-Israel lobby is made up of Christian fanatics like Pat Robertson."

Well, isn't it a good thing that in the U.S. mainstream pat Robertson et al. are considered nut cases. Whereas, in the Muslim world the Saudis are pretty influential.

Again, I'd rather have the Jews running everything than the backward, bigoted Muslims. The Saudis could not run their "oil empire" without expatriates. When the oil runs out what will they do given that their economy is a one-trick pony?


Irrelevant at February 6, 2004 03:59 PM [permalink]:

Comment Removed: Respect the comment policy please!

Totally Relevant! at February 6, 2004 05:31 PM [permalink]:

The Rubaiyat

By Omar Khayyam

"Think, in this batter'd Caravanserai
Whose Portals are alternate Night and Day,
How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp
Abode his destined Hour, and went his way. . .

Ah, my Belov'ed fill the Cup that clears
To-day Past Regrets and Future Fears:
To-morrow!--Why, To-morrow I may be
Myself with Yesterday's Sev'n Thousand Years. . .

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End! . . .

Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing. . .

There was the Door to which I found no Key;
There was the Veil through which I might not see:
Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee
There was--and then no more of Thee and Me. . .

Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute;
Better be jocund with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit. . .

Oh, threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain--This Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. . .

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. . .

Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

Yon rising Moon that looks for us again--
How oft hereafter will she wax and wane;
How oft hereafter rising look for us
Through this same Garden--and for one in vain!

And when like her, oh, Saki, you shall pass
Among the Guests Star-scatter'd on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
Where I made One--turn down an empty Glass!

---

Full Rubaiyat:
http://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html

=========

Now, if this were the voice of Islam, we could talk. ;-)

Wessie

Wessie at February 6, 2004 09:53 PM [permalink]:

The Arabs should have called this cartoon,"Justifications of Saddam's atrocities"

instead of

"Justifications for war in Iraq." http://www.arabnews.com/cartoon/

After all, they looked the other way for decades —and "saw no evil, heard no evil, spoke no evil"— while Saddam put people through paper shredders—feet first and worse.

Why is it that even the cartoon figures wear the "un-Islamic" clothing of the hated West? If they hate us so much why do Muslims wear and use what we produce?

Wessie

Gagfly at February 6, 2004 11:08 PM [permalink]:

Wessie,
Your dear west has done the same thing for more tha a decade when it came to Saddam atrocities, you probably have seen those infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hand with 'evil' Saddam, when he was busy gassing others. Exactly ( and by it I mean exactly) at the time when he was gassing his own people in Halabcheh, your goverment was offering him intelligence, logistic and arms, and looked the other way or may I say give a green light to his atrocity. Your Frankenstein was busy with his horrific atrocities and US, France, Britain and then USSR, were busy helping their dear Frankenstein at the time. So please take your moral boasting somewhere else to those who don't know history.

Wessie at February 6, 2004 11:41 PM [permalink]:

Sorry, Gagfly, it is NOT the responsibility of the West to save the Muslims from themselves—even though we have numerous times. You all seem to forget who saved Islam's bacon when uncle Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Every nation makes alliances that suit its national interests. National interests change and so do alliances. Tough!

Let Muslims FIX THEIR OWN *&%$ PROBLEMS and stop blaming everyone else for the mess that Islam has made!

And frankly, Gagfly (gagfly???) give me one good reason why we should care? Just One!

Today another murderous Islamic bomb in Russia—dozens of innocents dead. What the HELL is wrong with Muslims??? We don't give a rats a** if they all want to go to paradise and 72 raisins as quickly as possible, but stop taking innocents along.

Like AIS said, "Islam is a curse!" as Putin put it today,"a 21st century plague."

Shame, shame, shame on Islam and all who support this murderous 7th century death cult.

"Praise God (Alhamdulillah!), we are dreaming of dying in Jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn Paradise and Mercy of Allah. Our dead are in Paradise, and your dead are in Hell. And our victors will also be in Paradise, and your losers will be humiliated and aggrieved. . . "

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2266

DISGUSTING bunch of barbarian psychos!

Wessie


Azad at February 7, 2004 12:19 PM [permalink]:

“Every nation makes alliances that suit its national interests. National interests change and so do alliances”

But I thought it was all about humanity, democracy, freedom, human right, etc. which never change. So what is the governing factor in the U.S. policy- its national interests or moral principles? These two can not be simultaneous since as you said national interests vary but as we know, the moral principles (such as humanity, freedom, and so on) are permanent.
From the moral principles stand point, gassing the people, no matter when, where or by whom is a crime.

It absolutely makes sense if any government alters its policies based on its own national interests but the problem starts if it tries to justify them based on humanity, freedom and other moral principles.

“give me one good reason why we should care? Just One!“

Wessie, you have already given your answer. Your “national interests” dictate you to be concerned about what is happening in other parts of the world including ME.

“it is NOT the responsibility of the West to save the Muslims from themselves—even though we have numerous times.”

Actually many of radical Moslems want to be left alone and the West not to interfere in their affairs. They also wish the U.S. militarily bases in the region to be abandoned but of course this is not along with the West policies.

JFTDMaster at February 7, 2004 01:12 PM [permalink]:
Wessie, T=Total, sorry heh BUSH ULTIMATUM - 18/03/03 "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. ... Recognising the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace. In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will. Last September, I went to the UN General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's long-standing demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. ... Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbours, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. ... We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new an ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 7, 2004 01:12 PM [permalink]:

Azad, the U.S. supported Saddam against the Iranian regime—which is still considered an enemy. That was probably not a good idea, as has been admitted by U.S. politicians. However, it was expedient and thoroughly appropriate at the time. Not supporting the Iraqi insurgents was because of the fear that religious radicals would take over. That threat is certainly very real now in Iraq. The radicals are murdering the opposition and intellectuals with impunity. They have already voted to take the rights of women away. The radicals want sharia law with majority Shiite rule. That does not bode well for the oxymoron: "Islamic democracy."

Assassinations Tear Into Iraq's Educated Class


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/international/middleeast/07ASSA.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1076163290-B3XiER6nrdmxMnU4c+hxpw


The U.S. has already pulled out of Saudi Arabia and will leave Iraq as soon as possible. I am all for offering democracy, but it is up to Muslims to make a go of it. If they don't want it, then I am also for leaving them to allah!

If Muslims want to be left alone, then they should just keep up what they are doing and it will happen—very soon. The world will ship them out, innocent and guilty alike—and build a virtual fence, just as the Israelis are doing, to keep Muslims contained and away from civilization.

Here is what the mayor of Moscow had to say on this issue after yesterday's subway bombing that left dozens dead and hundreds injured or maimed, ' "All people who look suspicious must be sent away from Moscow," said Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party.'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110730,00.html

And still you don't give a reason why the world should care about a people who follow a religion that mandates genocide of all non-Muslims in its so-called "holy" book the Qur'an.

Wessie

Wessie at February 7, 2004 01:21 PM [permalink]:

" . . .In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbours, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

A new tyrant—or many new ones—is emerging. That tyrant is radical Islam. A that tyrant will not only threaten its neighbors but the whole world.

". . . we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. . . "

I shall happily eat my hat if this happens. However, as I said above, "Islamic democracy" is an oxymoron.

. . .Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility."

What Bush did was very foolish precisely because he did it without allies! The world will pay for decades for this terrible, arrogant error while Bush is enjoying retirement in Crawford on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Wessie


JFTDMaster at February 7, 2004 03:46 PM [permalink]:

"A new tyrant—or many new ones—is emerging. That tyrant is radical Islam."
- Its not that 'new'. And you yourself said we as civilized people can't just kill off Muslims, nor are we going to try to convert them all out of their religion, that wouldn't be very tolerant either. What's your solution? Muslims abandoning Islam totally? Isolating all Muslims? You offer no practical solutions, the 'solutions' you offer are based on absolutes, just like ideology of communism, islamism etc.

Is there such a thing as moderate Muslims, and why can't moderate Islam be one solution to radical Islam? Identifying them isn't impossible: find out if they think hizbullah and hezb-el-tahrir and al-qaida and hamas and MILF etc are terrorists or not. If they are immersed in islamic supremacism over others more than in the real world of today, then they're a problem.

"as I said above, "Islamic democracy" is an oxymoron. "
- Sharia law as espoused by khomeneists or by wahabists is incompatible with democracy. A nation with a large Muslim majority operating by democratic standards OTOH is possible.

"What Bush did was very foolish precisely because he did it without allies! "
- And the 50 member "coalition of the willing" is what?

Who did you want Bush to also take as allies? France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and the Muslim nations?

Vahid at February 7, 2004 03:51 PM [permalink]:

Wessie, I hope you learn to become a bit more tolerant and stop saying things like "DISGUSTING bunch of barbarian psychos!" to whoever say something that you do not like. If you think Moslems should be left alone, that's great, that is what we are hoping for. I do not think Sept 11 was done by US, but I think US motivated those terorrist to do such a horrible thing. If US leaves the moslems alone and do not support Israel and do not support suppressive regimes and Coups in middle east, there is no reason that some crasy moselm fundametalist do those things. Don't get me wrong, I do not support them and I resent them. But I am just saying what US got on 9/11 was the consequence of their actions in ME. If you put some person under pressure, he could go crazy and do strange things. You do not need to be a moslem to be suiside bomber. Japanese pilots were doing so in WWII, and I do not believe they were moslem.

US also going to suffer, because the government as you pointed out acts on their pure interest. While I as an iranian, have 3 month visa delay, and can not attend my conference. Citizens of Saudi Arabia are free to travel to US. Saudie Arabia is not considered as one of the states supporitng the terorrism! This is because "Every nation makes alliances that suit its national interests.". It seems it is true. or is it ?!
CIA had some inteligence about Al-quade before 9-11 and did not do anything. If ME nations blame others for their problems, they are not alone. You do too. Instead of making wars everywhere, keep your effort to themself and leave the world alone. The world is a much better place if you stop selling weopons to one side (sometimes 2 side) of every conflict. You have a great country and you have a lot of money. I do not understand, why don't you find better ways to spend your money and keep yourself occupied.

I hope I have not made you mad. It seems to me you agree with a lot of things that I said, but you kind of like to keep hating and blaiming "ALL moslems" and "ISLAM" as the source of all evil in the world.

Wessie at February 7, 2004 05:03 PM [permalink]:
JFTDMaster I suggest you read the Qur'an and the hadith. Islam is NOT tolerant. Islam is imperialist and misanthropic. "Is there such a thing as moderate Muslims, and why can't moderate Islam be one solution to radical Islam?" Any Muslim who is a "moderate" is not a true Muslim and is not following his religion as set down by pedophile Muhammad. Additionally, where do you see these so called "moderate" Muslims marching and protesting against Islamic terror? Yesterday another Islamic atrocity against innocents. Have we heard from those "moderate" Muslims? I have stated before that education is the answer. That means educating their ignorant masses. "Sharia law as espoused by khomeneists or by wahabists is incompatible with democracy. A nation with a large Muslim majority operating by democratic standards OTOH is possible." Sharia IS islam! You need to brush up. Any Muslim will tell you that Islam is a TOTAL system for living— including and especially sharia jurisprudence. Again I say, "Islamic democracy" is an oxymoron—it does not exist—cannot exist. Not even Turkey has an Islamic democracy. The only reason the Islamists are kept at bay is because of the military. As to allies, the WHOLE world should be allied against islamic terror in particular the rich Western democracies and the Arab states. The BILLIONS the Arabs/Muslims spend on supporting Islamic terror could go to development and anti-terror programs. --- " I hope you learn to become a bit more tolerant and stop saying things like "DISGUSTING bunch of barbarian psychos! to whoever say something that you do not like." Show me where I have ever said such a thing to anyone with whom I disagree. Vahid, there is a language barrier here. You have misunderstood—again! The comment refers to Islamic terrorists whom I consider psychos. I am not and NEVER will be tolerant of Islamic terrorists! Why you insinuate I should be is beyond me, Vahid. " I think US motivated those terorrist to do such a horrible thing." Vahid, Islam motivated those terrorist. Not the U.S.!!! Why are other oppressed peoples not making suicide jihad against their oppressors? The Japanese were motivated to become kamikazes because of their totalitarian ideology. They themselves have understood this. Suicide is still accepted in Japan today, but murder of innocents is not. Neither is such incitement to murder written in Buddhist or Shinto holy books as they are in the Qur'an. 'The Arabs: A Japanese Point of View,' by Japanese researcher Nobuaki Notohara. "'And if they are told that the Japanese entered the new age because they changed the political patterns and social behavior to which they were accustomed and because they adopted new ideas, some Arabs respond to this with amazement and denial…' "The author compares Japan to the Arabs: 'The Japanese had to deal with the bitter and difficult experience of the Japanese military taking control of the emperor, the government, and the people and leading the country to war… But we recognized our mistake and decided to correct it. We expelled the military and decided to rebuild what was destroyed by the military oppression. We learned that oppression leads to destruction of national resources and the murder of innocents... Self-criticism is a great value in the life of every people, and people need domestic and external criticism.'" Why Don't the Japanese Hate America (While the Arabs Do)? "The author says that several times his Arab friend ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 7, 2004 05:16 PM [permalink]:

"Identifying them isn't impossible: find out if they think hizbullah and hezb-el-tahrir and al-qaida and hamas and MILF etc are terrorists or not. If they are immersed in islamic supremacism over others more than in the real world of today, then they're a problem.""taqiyya," or the art of dissimulation, a typical Islamic practice on enemy soil."

Tariq Ramadan's Two-Faced Islam. The West Is the Land of Conquest

http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42025,00.htm

". . .Beginning from the statement that the fulcrum of historical movement is now constituted by the Europe-North America combination, with the Muslim countries relegated to the periphery, Ramadan notes how there are nonetheless many Muslims, especially intellectuals, who have succeeded in becoming part of the nucleus. He thus invites them to refashion it and, little by little, islamicize it: “References to Judaism and Christianity are being diluted, if not disappearing altogether” (“Les musulmans d’occident e l’avenir de l’islam,” Actes Sud-Sinbad, 2003). “Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West” (“Islam, le face à face des civilisations,” Tawhid, 2001).

And again: “The Koran confirms, completes, and corrects the messages that preceded it” (“Les messages musulmans d’occident”). Some Christian personalities whose charitable works cannot be misconstrued – Mother Teresa, Sister Emanuelle, Abbé Pierre, Fr. Helder Camara – are exceptions who show only that all good people are implicitly Muslims, because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelation. Thus, both directly and through this humanism, the “Muslim City” can be founded upon the earth. “Today the Muslims who live in the West must unite themselves to the revolution of the antiestablishment groups from the moment when the neoliberal capitalist system becomes, for Islam, a theater of war […] The revelation of the Koran is explicit: whoever engages in speculation or cultivates financial interests eneters into war against the transcendent” (“Pouvoirs,” 2003, n. 164). . ."

---

Like Ramadan, they will tell you to your face that they "believe in democracy" while working against it. Therefore, you can't trust them. That puts Muslim "moderates" and apostates into a very tight spot. Because, ultimately, they are suspect.

Wessie

JFTDMaster at February 7, 2004 10:20 PM [permalink]:

"JFTDMaster I suggest you read the Qur'an and the hadith."
- I read enough, and yes I do realize there's a whole chapter devoted to pillaging the infidels, but that still doesn't describe or explain the entirety of Islam and its various traditions. The koran by itself isn't enough anyways, you have to understand the context, read the history as well, to see why it developed as it did.

"Additionally, where do you see these so called "moderate" Muslims marching and protesting against Islamic terror?"
- Well a 100000 were killed in Algeria over the past 10 years. According to scholars like Daniel Pipes, the "jihadi" muslims are approximately only 10% of the Muslim population worldwide, and they try to speak in the name of the entire population, and try to intimidate the rest..

"I have stated before that education is the answer."
- If education is the answer, what is the problem? If you cannot identify exactly what the problem is, how can you "know" the answer? Because it sounds simple and true?

"Sharia IS islam!"
- That's what the wahabists say, and they are the loudest, so? Majority of muslim nations are not under sharia law: the ones that are are under wahabi influence: nigeria, sudan, taliban..

"Tariq Ramadan's Two-Faced Islam."
- Tariq Ramadan would be one of the extremists, and he represents the Muslim Brotherhood, which IS a radical wahabist organization. His grandfather incidently is the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, out of which all sunni terrorist groups sprang (hamas, al-qaida, etc). And yes they are in charge of the mosques in france...

"Have you protested against islamic terror since yesterday's horrific attack Vahid? No? Then YOU are culpable for their crimes!"
- Yes I do think moderate Muslims should speak out more, but when they do, you should support them, and I'll try to support them too. Deal? :)

JFTDMaster at February 7, 2004 10:35 PM [permalink]:

by the way, Vahid, you said
"If US leaves the moslems alone and do not support Israel and do not support suppressive regimes and Coups in middle east, there is no reason that some crasy moselm fundametalist do those things."
- Thank you for calling them crazy muslim fundamentalists, which is what they are.
But terrorism can't be justified. They're not doing terrorism because of what America did: they're doing terrorism because America is stronger, while they believe they should be stronger, and to look stronger they're willing to kill innocent people, as simple as that. Just accept that they are doing criminal deeds.

Vahid at February 8, 2004 03:25 AM [permalink]:

JFTDMaster,
Terrorist actions are not justified. But I think what they do has something to do with how US acts. Europe is also stronger than Moslems but there is no terorrism against them. Why do you think that is?

Wessie at February 8, 2004 12:00 PM [permalink]:
I read enough, and yes I do realize there's a whole chapter devoted to pillaging the infidels, but that still doesn't describe or explain the entirety of Islam and its various traditions. The koran by itself isn't enough anyways, you have to understand the context, read the history as well, to see why it developed as it did. Clearly, JFTDMaster , you have NOT read enough about Islam or you would not hold that position. There are 114 sura (chapters) in the Qur'an many, many of which are violent against "unbelievers." The hadith are what Islamic jurisprudence is based upon. There are over 100 quotes by Muhammad about jihad and violence against "unbelievers." Here is what former Islamic terrorist, Walid Shoebat, has to say about Islam and terror: “I was not only a terrorist, but I was terrorized by my beliefs,” Shoebat recalled, “since I had to gain enough merit and good deeds to go to heaven but never was sure if my good deeds would outweigh my bad deeds in the scale when I would be judged by God, it was taught to us that to die fighting the Jews [would] ease Allah's anger towards my sin and I [would] be secured a good spot in heaven with beautiful wide eyed women to fulfill my most intimate desires, so either way [through actual attacks on Jews, or if I were to be killed in the attempt –ed.] I would win – terror was the only way.” "When confronted with what has become somewhat of a mantra since September 11th – that “true Islam is a religion of peace,” Shoebat responds, “I grew up there – I was there at the mosques, the ummahs and the religious schools. I know what is still being taught today in the textbooks and by the religious leaders – so my challenge to those who claim Islam is not the religion of terror we see today, is what have you done to stand against it and say ‘this is wrong’?” . . . “What the West does not understand about Islam,” Shoebat said on Tovia Singer’s radio broadcast, “is that Jihad has stages. If Muslims have the upper hand then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslim’s don’t have the upper hand then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in America or Europe, they talk about peace while supporting Hamas and Hezballah. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad." . . ." From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=56867 "If education is the answer, what is the problem? If you cannot identify exactly what the problem is, how can you "know" the answer? Because it sounds simple and true?" The problem is Islam. The Qur'an and the hadith which are misanthropic and mostly violent. Daniel Pipes is WRONG, and many a Muslim apostate such as Ali Sina, says so. Daniel Pipes claims Islam can have a reformation. I used to believe that too. But, if you really study Islam you realize it cannot be done. If they really did have a reformation, then most of the Qur'an and the hadith would have to be thrown out. Then, it would no longer be Islam. Here is a rebuttal from Ali Sina regarding Pipe's article: "Study the Kuran?" "The Islamic violence is a direct result of the Islamic theology. It is naïve to believe the Wahhabi movement, the Khomeini revolution, and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with the hatemongering teachings of the Quran. History, also includes the history of Muhammad and his terrorizing wars." "I agree with Mr. Pipes that the Quran is a confused book, that many verses are abrogat ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Wessie at February 8, 2004 12:09 PM [permalink]:
Islam cannot be reformed. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. Islam is militant! Islam is fascist! Islam, in its true form, wants to conquer the world. Any Muslim who is a so-called "moderate" has picked and chosen the passages to follow in the Qur'an. According to Muhammad, that is a no, no. You have to swallow Islam hook, line and sinker or you are not a Muslim. "Tariq Ramadan would be one of the extremists" Tariq Ramadan is being feted as one of the "moderates" one of the "reformers" in both Europe and the U.S. by ignorant people who claim "Islam is peace." He just got an appointment to a U.S. university. He will be the Henry Luce Professor at the Joan B. Kroc Center for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Ramadan is a MASTER of taqiyya, the Muslim Disinformation Campaign http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5502 You had better read up, JFTDMaster, you are wrong and still very naive. The Wahhabists are also in charge of the mosques in the U.S. not just in France. --- "Europe is also stronger than Moslems but there is no terorrism against them. Why do you think that is?" More erroneous information from Vahid. There have been bombs in France for decades. The whole of Europe has arrested dozens and dozens of Islamic terrorists over the last two years, many of whom are based in Europe. There have been attacks against Germans and French in other countries as well. What do you call the terror attack in Turkey? (Yes, I know they are not part of the EU yet, but that is what bothers the Islamists that Turkey wants to be seen as part of Europe and not the backward ME.) It is well known that al-Qaeda et al. are planning terror attacks across Europe. Russia may not be part of Europe, but it sure wants to be associated with the West and has suffered numerous Islamofascist attacks. Additionally, Europe has done just about the same as the U.S. in Muslim states, including sold weapons AND supported the dictators. The Islamofascist constantly call for jihad against ALL that is Western. Now, that al-Qaeda has been weakened other p*** backwater groups are springing up and planning world wide Islamic terror: Regional Terror Groups Seen as Growing Threat http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/international/asia/08TERR.html?8br --- Vahid, don't take this as an insult but rather a statement of fact from someone who is probably old enough to be your parent. You are the perfect example of an educated Middle Easterner who cannot think for himself. You, like the blind men and the elephant, can only "see" the tail (rope) and not the whole creature. You need to do some real thinking and checking of facts. You also need to stop hiding your head in the sand like an Ostrich, only seeing what you want to see and ignoring the truth about why the ME is in such a state—and always has been. Islam and the culture it breeds makes people submissive sheep! According to Ali Sina: ". . .It is possible to veer Islamic world towards moderation again. This can happen ONLY if Islam is weakened. Quran need not be reinterpreted, it must be denounced, scraped and rejected. Scholars and politicians in Islamic countries must join force and challenge the authority of the Quran, the infallibility of its author and the legitimacy of his claim. They must secularize Islamic countries and stand strong against the Islamists. Islam must be attacked both on political and ideological grounds. It is insane that a billio ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
Señor Græd at February 8, 2004 04:02 PM [permalink]:

I suppose it's time to clean up the comments room and update the long dormant WessLog.

Wessie at February 8, 2004 04:10 PM [permalink]:

Oh, goody, yet another irrelevant comment from the Senior. ;-)

Let's see if they move all of yours to "Senior Log."

JFTDMaster at February 8, 2004 04:14 PM [permalink]:

"Clearly, JFTDMaster , you have NOT read enough about Islam or you would not hold that position."
- Clearly you've read about Islam more than Daniel Pipes, who has been studying Islam for more than 20 years? riiight..

"Here is what former Islamic terrorist, Walid Shoebat, has to say about Islam and terror"
- Thanks, I read what he has to say before, and I've read lots of things on his website too. I agree with much of what he has to say, but not all of it. He knows what's taught in palestinian schools and mosques, but that is not what all mosques and schools in all muslim countries teach.. In fact, a club I'm in is going to invite him to our campus to talk about what he has to say. We're also inviting Irshit Manji, who is a Muslim denouncing the fascist aspects of Islam.

"Tariq Ramadan is being feted as one of the "moderates" one of the "reformers" in both Europe and the U.S. by ignorant people who claim "Islam is peace." "
- Yes, and these people who pretend to be moderate and speak in the name of the rest are the most dangerous ones.

"You had better read up, JFTDMaster, you are wrong and still very naive. The Wahhabists are also in charge of the mosques in the U.S. not just in France."
- You say the same thing as me, that Tariq Ramadan is a closet extremist, and yet you still manage to insult me for mostly agreeing with you. Yes, I know wahabists are in charge of the majority of mosques in USA, and I know CAIR was formed by a Hamas front organization, and MSA was formed by Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc.
On the other hand, there are other muslim groups trying to speak out against this, and they are largely silenced by the wahabists and ignored by the media.

"Islam, in its true form, wants to conquer the world. "
- And Christianity, in its "true" form, wants to convert everyone, and yet the majority of christians today are "moderate" live normal lives.

"Daniel Pipes claims Islam can have a reformation."
- uh-huh... and what do you think reformation means? that the same dictatorial powers will stay in charge? obviously reformation means a change. also you're talking to shi'ites here, who have a somewhat different tradition, and historically they already know how oppressive some muslim "leaders" can be. Many in Iran want the dictators overthrown, and they want a modern state, and yet they want to keep Islam as cultural tradition.
Al-Sistani in Iraq for example is the last of the great aytollahs, and his version of Shi'ite theology is on the opposite spectrum from Khomenei: he advises, in the best interest of the community he represents. He has accepted democracy.

It is a complex issue, and if it takes force to achieve a change then I support that, however you won't get anywhere trying to destroy Islam in its entirety. And fascist dictators need to be exposed for what they are, and defeated, peacefully or not. But getting Islam to reform, and to accept its place among other world religions by agreement, should be the goal.

Señor Græd (aka Irrelavant) at February 8, 2004 04:42 PM [permalink]:

I wouldn't recomment making a "Senior Log" for my irrelevant comments. I predict that my comments will be short from now on and far and few between.

Typo at February 8, 2004 04:43 PM [permalink]:

Recommend, NOT recomment!

Wessie at February 8, 2004 08:22 PM [permalink]:

"- Clearly you've read about Islam more than Daniel Pipes, who has been studying Islam for more than 20 years? riiight.."

Actually, JFTDMaster, I have studied Islam longer than Pipes because I have studied comparative religions all of my adult life. But, I am not a public figure like Pipes who has to make PC comments or he'd be run out of town on a rail—or murdered by some Islamist.

As I said, there are many, many Muslim apostates who vehemently disagree with Pipes that Islam can be reformed. Some even post on this site. Read Ali Sina he can explain it too you. I am tired of the game:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

"The movement of ex-Muslim secularists and humanists to lead Muslims out of faith of hate and into the fold of humanity

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to he extent of the difference, is nodemocracy." Abraham Lincoln

"Thereupon I concluded: As I would not be a dhimmi, so I would not be a Muslim." Ali Sina.
---
"And Christianity, in its "true" form, wants to convert everyone, and yet the majority of christians today are "moderate" live normal lives."

Ah, but that's the difference. Converting or telling people the "good news" is not violent jihad. Jesus, after all, is billed as the prince of peace. He did not fight battles as did Muhammad. Jesus did not tell his followers to murder the "unbelievers." Jesus did not say women are less than men–and on and on.

"and what do you think reformation means? that the same dictatorial powers will stay in charge? obviously reformation means a change. also you're talking to shi'ites here, who have a somewhat different tradition, and historically they already know how oppressive some muslim "leaders" can be."

A reformation in the Western sense CANNOT happen in Islam. It is FORBIDDEN!!! Islam is considered immutable because what is written in the Qur'an is the LITERAL word of Allah. Why you can't understand that is beyond me. Shiites are considered apostates by the Muslim MAJORITY who are Sunnis. They have been murdering each other for hundreds of years. Reformations have been tried. All the reformers through the ages were murdered as apostates. The ayatollah Sistani has not left his house for years. he is on a hit list. They tried to murder him again just last week.

"however you won't get anywhere trying to destroy Islam in its entirety."

I could care less. I am simply saying that a true Reformation with a capital "R" as happened to Judaism and Christianity will NEVER happen in Islam because they would have to throw most of the Qur'anic passages out—because these are misanthropic and misogynistic. So, my theory is that as people become more educated (if the planet lasts that long) Islam will simply fade away and become another religion on the dustbin of history. Like the Greek and Roman gods, allah will no longer be worshiped because he will be seen for what he is—bloodthirsty, vengeful and unforgiving.
---
"I wouldn't recomment [sic] making a "Senior Log" for my irrelevant comments. I predict that my comments will be short from now on and far and few between."

Maybe they would be more "interesting" in a Mr. Google log than they are now. ;-)

It helps to go from website to website, you encounter a different group of people, Senior. I recommend cooking or gardening. Much more productive than politics—which is always the same old crap.

Wessie

JFTDMaster at February 8, 2004 10:31 PM [permalink]:

"As I said, there are many, many Muslim apostates who vehemently disagree with Pipes that Islam can be reformed."
- An apostate by definition leaves the religion because he/she thinks it is unreformable.. the question is, are there muslims who believe in Islam as a general guide but are for modernity, democracy, people's rights? And if yes, how can we help them and protect them from being murdered?

Wessie at February 8, 2004 11:35 PM [permalink]:
"- An apostate by definition leaves the religion because he/she thinks it is unreformable.. the question is, are there muslims who believe in Islam as a general guide but are for modernity, democracy, people's rights? And if yes, how can we help them and protect them from being murdered? You can't! Islam MANDATES the murder of apostates.When they renounce some or all of Islam they are "unbelievers" who, according to the Qur'an should be killed. Don't you see what you have said above? " the question is, are there muslims who believe in Islam as a general guide but are for modernity, democracy, people's rights? And if yes, how can we help them and protect them from being murdered?" Islam rules the ummah through fear. You should read this: Islamic Apostates' Tales "All the testimonies here are witnesses to the authors' courage, for a free discussion of Islam remains rare and dangerous, certainly in the Islamic world and even in our politically correct times in the West. A surprising number of the apostates decided to write under their real names, a triumphant gesture of defiance and freedom. Many, on the other hand have chosen to write pseudonymously, and since this is a fact that seems to irritate many in the secular West, I shall briefly indicate the reasons why. Apostasy is still punishable by long prison sentences and even death in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Iran, and as many of our authors have relatives in those countries, whom they regularly visit, it is common sense and simple prudence not to use their real names. " . . .You had the period of the Inquisition – the Muslim Inquisition, the Minha, under al Mahdi, that’s the 8th century Christian era or Common Era, when many people were executed. There was a great intolerance in general of various kinds of Sufism, because Sufis were considered really beyond the pale. “I hope that (the history of apostasy in Islam) does somehow add to – it might sound paradoxical – to the climate of tolerance, to show that Islamic culture wasn’t always so monolithic and so on, that there were periods when people spoke up and defended their rights to question and to doubt. The poet Almari, or the poems of Omar Khayyam, one hopes that believing Muslims will also accept these freethinkers as part of their culture." . . .“I saw a well-equipped invading army indiscriminately killing millions of civilians and raping 200,000 women. Eight million uprooted people walked barefoot to take refuge in a neighboring country. The institution of Islamic leadership supported the invading army actively, in capturing and killing freedom fighters and non-Muslims, and raping women on a massive scale. Each of 4,000 mosques became the ideological powerhouses of the mass killers and mass rapists, and these killers and rapists – these Islamists – were the same people of the same land as the freedom fighters and raped women. That was the civilians of Bangladesh and the killer army of Pakistan in 1971. All the Muslim countries and communities of the world either stood idle, or actively sided with the killers and rapists in the name of Islam…The message was clear: something was very wrong – either with all the Islamic leaders, or with Islam itself . . . . . . ”Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership, while the rest of the Muslim world only said “this is not real Islam…All those sweet peace talks of Islam relate to the time and place of weak Islam in early years. But w ["Toooo long!" editors say, "Here: click to read the whole thing!"]
JFTDMaster at February 9, 2004 12:12 PM [permalink]:

So on one hand, you think islam has to be erased. On the other hand, you don't accept use of force by Western countries against threats in the Muslim world i.e. war on Iraq. Then you go on, talk about "education" being the solution: oh yes, that's great, and how do you control education in another nation? Oh yeah, you need to take over and defeat the islamists, i.e. through the use of force. Hmm seems like you should be a neo-conservative after all. :p

JFTDMaster at February 9, 2004 04:07 PM [permalink]:

The fact is, there are muslims who are being intimidated into silence and are being killed once in a while. To me, the fact is that the most immediate enemies are the Muslim Brotherhood (and their 'offspring', hamas, islamic jihad, al-qaida etc), PLO, and Iranian dictatorship (and its proxy, hizbullah).

They are actual terrorists.

If we do not make clear who our enemy is, we will play into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian dictatorship, who talk about a global conspiracy to destroy Islam, and America being the great Satan. So like I said, the enemy to the West now are the Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO and the Iranian dictatorship: not the vast majority of Muslims.

JFTDMaster at February 9, 2004 04:14 PM [permalink]:

And I make a distinction between organizations and people: Nazi Germany could not be isolated, and the German people did not need to be wiped out either: what needed to be done was a defeat of Nazi Germany. Same way, the fascist-like islamic regimes and movements need to be decisively defeated.

They use terrorist tactics because they think these tactics work: but now that we know they are terrorists, the organizations using the tactics need to be targeted for elimination, so that these tactics are known to be "counter-productive".

Wars happen not simply due to conflict: they happen because two sides disagree about their relative strength. They (islamists) fight because they believe they can win, and your (and Western 'left-wing') refusal to use force makes them think they are winning.

Wessie at February 10, 2004 12:11 PM [permalink]:

You know, JFTDMaster, your LGF type parroting and posturing is rather amusing. ;-)

First you accuse me of being a neo-con, now I am a leftie. LOL

Education of Muslims means educating them about the world via the media. Radio Free Europe did a great deal to educate the dark of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Today we have the net. Things move much faster. The reason Iranians are so well "educated" about the West is because they are wired.

I have confidence that in the digital age things will move much faster. Even in the most remote village in the 3rd world the reach of the media is noted.

" there are muslims who are being intimidated into silence and are being killed once in a while."

Hardly, Muslims are being murdered by the millions in Islamic lands. Saddam alone killed 2 million, the mullahs in Iran are not much better and so on.

" . . . the enemy to the West now are the Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO and the Iranian dictatorship: not the vast majority of Muslims. . . "

You are WRONG! Islamic terrorism is being funded by ordinary Muslims via zakat donations. Even in the U.S. terror is being funded by mosque donations. The Saudis are not the only ones who fund terror, it is ordinary Muslims and even the E.U. who, it is well known, is funding Palestinian terror.

"Nazi Germany could not be isolated, and the German people did not need to be wiped out either: what needed to be done was a defeat of Nazi Germany. "

What was needed was the defeat of the German people who SUPPORTED Nazism wholeheartedly.

As to my "refusal to force" where did you get that erroneous notion? I have never said such a thing! I just said that Iraq was handled poorly. We should have gone in with allies. We should have had a plan for securing and stabilizing the nation "after" the war.

I have no problem using force against terrorists of any stripe. I believe ALL terrorists should be either put into prison for life or preferably—killed. That way the SOBs can't breed.

Wessie

JFTDMaster at February 10, 2004 12:36 PM [permalink]:

"Education of Muslims means educating them about the world via the media."
- Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that educated sunni arabs are the ones doing the terrorism? al-qaida leaders are engineers, doctors

Look, german people were well-educated and well-informed, and yet they were nazis. Lack of education is not what causes war and violence. You do not understand the causes of fascist-nationalism. Its pretty simple: sense of superiority over everyone else. It is also what causes them to over-estimate their power, and get involved in more wars than any other people.

"Islamic terrorism is being funded by ordinary Muslims via zakat donations. "
- And how many of them know CAIR was founded by Hamas terrorist group? How many of them know if the money goes to a terrorsit group?

"I just said that Iraq was handled poorly. We should have gone in with allies. "
- The countries which were allies for the duration of the war did go in: coalition of the willing consists of over 50 nations, and the majority of european nations supported Bush. The fact is france and germany were not acting like allies: they were acting like anti-american competitors, insulting and accusing america of attempts to steal oil. France promised to veto any resolution authorizing force, even though they promised to powell earlier to authorize it if America delays for 3 months.

"We should have had a plan for securing and stabilizing the nation "after" the war."
- The reason I accuse you of being a "leftie" is because this is "leftie" mantra: the fact is there was a plan for securing and stabilizing the nation, however plans in war are often foiled: Iraqi resistance lasted weeks less than expected. All those things ppl predicted, millions of refugees, all the oil-fields burning, etc were considered and prevented.

"I have no problem using force against terrorists of any stripe."
- Then you should realize that Bush would use force against terrorists, and Democratic candidates (the majority anyways) would not.

Wessie at February 11, 2004 10:39 AM [permalink]:

"You do not understand the causes of fascist-nationalism. Its pretty simple: sense of superiority over everyone else."

LOL That's pretty funny, JFTDMaster. I have seen fascism up close. Have you? When was the last time you were out of the U.S.? Do you speak any foreign language fluently? Have you ever lived abroad? Have you ever spoken at length to people abroad in their own language? If not—then you haven't got a clue how much we are disdained in this world right now.

Islam's doctrine is one of superiority. "You are the best of peoples."Says the Qur'an. ALL unbelievers are lesser peoples under Islam. Islam is fascist—7th century fascist! It cannot be reformed— only dumped or ignored.

"And how many of them know CAIR was founded by Hamas terrorist group? How many of them know if the money goes to a terrorsit group?"

Give me a break! Muslims know that Muslims fund Islamic terrorism. The clerics solicit funds in the mosques for terrorism. Other religions don't fund Islamic terror—Muslims do that and they do it deliberately.

" the majority of european nations supported Bush."

Not true! The whole world, with the exception of a few nations that were getting U.S. "bribes," was against this war.

Now, I am not happy about the duplicity of France and Germany, but, that does not negate the FACT that Bush had already planned this war before 9/11 as a UNILATERAL U.S. action.

"there was a plan for securing and stabilizing the nation, however plans in war are often foiled: "

There was NO plan. They expected to come in after a "little" war and that the Iraqis greet them with sweets and flowers and go back to work the next day like nothing ever happened.

"Then you should realize that Bush would use force against terrorists, and Democratic candidates (the majority anyways) would not."

Bush, has used force in the wrong way. It was not necessary to go to war with Iraq alone. He has created enemies for the U.S. all around the world when he should have made friends. Bush has squandered the good will of 9/11 and made us less safe. He has over extended the U.S. military.

The Iraqis believe that they are being used as "cannon fodder" for the U.S. They don't trust us and who can blame them?

We have the largest deficit EVER under this administration. Bush is in deep sh**! Lots of people want him GONE! It's about time the truth comes out. Bush is an arrogant, ignorant unilateralists who has misused America's power and the office of the president.

And yes, I believe that the Dems would do a better job. Indeed, I believe that almost anyone would do a better job than the Bushies. It will take a long long time for the U.S. to get its prestige back.

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1

Wessie


Señor Græd at February 11, 2004 11:37 AM [permalink]:

All Roads Lead To Rome.

The FToI project has shown that no matter where you start in a conversation about Iran the talk will sooner or later gravitate towards a limited number of questions. One notorious example is: Is Islam compatible with democracy? It would be an interesting project in itself if someone does a research on what exactly these "black holes" are.

Whether the fact that no matter where we start we tend to end up in certain fixed destinations is a healthy thing and a good sign is another story.

Señor Græd at February 11, 2004 12:23 PM [permalink]:

Whatever happened to WessLog?!