It's All Israel's (and Bush's, and Harper's) fault&#33

[jbg]

Asu usual, everything bad that happens is Israel's, Bush's, and Harper's fault. The despair caused by them is so deep that these people are forced to kill each other.

On a serious note, I believe you could show many people enemy concentration camps and people today would be convinced that somehow the US government, Zionists, take your pick, is responsible, rather than the actual perpetrators of serious evil.

===================================================================

Full story here

January 29, 2007

Shiite Cult Aimed to Kill Top Clerics in Iraq

By DAMIEN CAVE and JOHN O’NEIL

BAGHDAD, Jan. 29 — The gunmen who battled Iraqi and American forces near Najaf on Sunday were members of a Shiite cult that planned to storm the city during a religious festival and kill the nation’s top Shiite clerics, Iraqi officials said today.

About 200 members of the group, which called itself “Soldiers From Heaven,” died in the fighting, which lasted until about 4 a.m. today. Iraqi officials said that 60 others were wounded and as many as 120 were captured.

Two American soldiers died in the fighting when their helicopter was shot down, and about 10 Iraqi soldiers and police officers were killed.

Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf province, gave an interview to Iraqi television from the battlefield, saying he was standing next to the dead body of the group’s leader. Mr. Abtan said the dead man had claimed to be the Imam Mahdi — the missing spiritual leader whom many Shiites believe will return someday to restore justice.

*snip*

Iraq’s national security minister, Sherwan al-Waeli, told reporters that the group’s followers were told that the killing of the clerics would be a sign that the Imam Mahdi was returning.

“No sane person could believe it,” Mr. Waeli said.

[Remiel]

Well, JBG, there are a number of people here who would seek to blame everything bad happening on immigrants, Muslims in particular. No matter what it is. Of course, I won't name names, .

Never have I said that everything was Harper's fault. Sure, I think lots of stuff is Bush's fault, at least indirectly. However, crazy Shiite cultists is not one one of them. If they want to follow some fake Imam Mahdi to their demise, well, they're probably isn't much more that could do for them than could be done for their cultist counterparts here in North America.

Maybe you'd do better in finding less polarized responses if you would stop posting one-sided stories and trying to prove something from it that just isn't there. If you can't do better, why do you keep posting here? It's a shame, really. I've always had the feeling that you're a smart guy, and probably a likeable fellow to if one were to meet you on the street. For all your bluster about the absolute superiority of our " side " , you don't seem any more interested in using superior arguments than most of the people here.

[jbg]

Maybe you'd do better in finding less polarized responses if you would stop posting one-sided stories and trying to prove something from it that just isn't there.

That story ran in the New York Times, if anything, an anti-Western paper. Are you denying the sickening violence that they perpetrate against each other?

If you can't do better, why do you keep posting here? It's a shame, really. I've always had the feeling that you're a smart guy, and probably a likeable fellow to if one were to meet you on the street. For all your bluster about the absolute superiority of our " side " , you don't seem any more interested in using superior arguments than most of the people here.

Thanks for the mildly back-handed compliment. In fact, I am to the left on many issues. I don't post on boards on the positions that almost everyone agrees on, since that does not stimulate discussion. The "warm puppy story" is for other kinds of media, not discussion boards. in other words, I don't post on the topics where my views are on the left, though there are many.

[Remiel]

Why don't you post on issues where you views on are the left though?

[Black Dog]

Asu usual, everything bad that happens is Israel's, Bush's, and Harper's fault. The despair caused by them is so deep that these people are forced to kill each other.

Read the article, and found no reference to anyone blaming Bush et al. So why are you making shit up?

That story ran in the New York Times, if anything, an anti-Western paper.

Oh that's why: you're a crackpot. I'm curious as to why an "anti-western" paper like the Times (a member in good-standing of the Global Jewish Islamo-leftist Media Conspiracy) would publish a story about 200 of their buddies getting killed. The fact that war doodz like you bleat about the veracity of reportage that reflects badly on the Great Crusade, while unquestioningly swallowing stories like this, is a testament to the power of the human mind to simultaneously hold two contradictary ideas without bursting into flames.

Are you denying the sickening violence that they perpetrate against each other?

Who is?

Why don't you post on issues where you views on are the left though?

Because he doesn't have any.

[kimmy]

Asu usual, everything bad that happens is Israel's, Bush's, and Harper's fault. The despair caused by them is so deep that these people are forced to kill each other.

Read the article, and found no reference to anyone blaming Bush et al. So why are you making shit up?

I think he is referring to the mentality amongst some on the left (not all, and certainly not yourself) that peace will break out in Iraq just as soon as the Western Imperialist Invaders get out of Iraq.

I too think that peace will break out in Iraq after the Western Running Dog Imperialists leave. But only after a horrifically violent conflict between the various religious and ethnic factions.

Are you denying the sickening violence that they perpetrate against each other?

Who is?

I think he is referring to the element that holds all the deaths in Iraq to be America's fault, based on the belief that it's all essentially a result of justified resistance to an unjust occupation.

I do think there is an element on the left that is in denial of the intense hate between the factions in Iraq and the kind of savagery will surely occur without the US presence.

When I see protest signs reading expressing the sentiment that the US must "Pull out of Iraq NOW!" I find myself wondering:

Does this person not realize how much carnage will break out if the US withdraws immediately?

Or does this person simply not care?

-k

[Black Dog]

I think he is referring to the mentality amongst some on the left (not all, and certainly not yourself) that peace will break out in Iraq just as soon as the Western Imperialist Invaders get out of Iraq.

I'm not sure anybody thinks that. It's a strawman. If it as widespread as jbg and his ilk would have me beilive, they sure are stingy with the evidence.

I too think that peace will break out in Iraq after the Western Running Dog Imperialists leave. But only after a horrifically violent conflict between the various religious and ethnic factions.

I think that conflict will occur regardless of how many foreign fighters in BDUs are there. The first clue is that fact that it's already underway.

I think he is referring to the element that holds all the deaths in Iraq to be America's fault, based on the belief that it's all essentially a result of justified resistance to an unjust occupation.

There's probably a few who think that. A small few.

I do think there is an element on the left that is in denial of the intense hate between the factions in Iraq and the kind of savagery will surely occur without the US presence.

There's probably a few who think that. A small few.

When I see protest signs reading expressing the sentiment that the US must "Pull out of Iraq NOW!" I find myself wondering:

Does this person not realize how much carnage will break out if the US withdraws immediately?

Or does this person simply not care?

Why should they care? Really? Ninety per cent of Americans didn't give a tinker's cuss about Iraq and its people before this war. Most still don't. To them, the issue is (whether they'd cop to it or not) they don't want U.S. boys and girls getting killed in the futile attempt to preempt a civil war between the various Iraqi sects (which 90 per cent of Americans never heard of before the war). Americans love war when they are winning and hate it when they aren't. They aren't winning this one. The only question is how bad the conflict will be and how many Americans will die Frankly, the American view (and this informs the Michael Moore left's view as well as the suddenly anti-war right) is that Americans shouldn't be dying for the sake of a losing cause.

[jbg]

Why don't you post on issues where you views on are the left though?

Link to my left of center post earlier today

[Catchme]

... stop posting one-sided stories and trying to prove something from it that just isn't there. If you can't do better, why do you keep posting here?

Apparently, posting erroneous thread titles and commentary about the articles content furthers some kinfd of agenda. Its walking a fine line.

[blackascoal]

WTF?

How does the title of this thread reconcile with the article posted?

If you're so set on defending Israel, Bush, and Harper, why not do it in your own words rather than trying to contort someone else's words into something not said, implied, or inferred?

I suspect that using your own words only gets you tripped up by things like logic, evidence, and common sense. However, I do understand. Defending the indefensible ain't easy.

[kimmy]

I think he is referring to the element that holds all the deaths in Iraq to be America's fault, based on the belief that it's all essentially a result of justified resistance to an unjust occupation.

There's probably a few who think that. A small few.

Are you sure? It seems to me that I've seen more than just a few who bandy about figures of the civilian death toll in Iraq since the start of the invasion and make the charge that these deaths are America's fault. Without mention of whether they were killed by a stray US bomb or by the insurgency.

When I see protest signs reading expressing the sentiment that the US must "Pull out of Iraq NOW!" I find myself wondering:

Does this person not realize how much carnage will break out if the US withdraws immediately?

Or does this person simply not care?

Why should they care? Really? Ninety per cent of Americans didn't give a tinker's cuss about Iraq and its people before this war. Most still don't. To them, the issue is (whether they'd cop to it or not) they don't want U.S. boys and girls getting killed in the futile attempt to preempt a civil war between the various Iraqi sects (which 90 per cent of Americans never heard of before the war). Americans love war when they are winning and hate it when they aren't. They aren't winning this one. The only question is how bad the conflict will be and how many Americans will die Frankly, the American view (and this informs the Michael Moore left's view as well as the suddenly anti-war right) is that Americans shouldn't be dying for the sake of a losing cause.

While I do agree that there's a growing number who believe that may want to just let them kill each other and settle their own shit, I believe that a great many-- the same sorts of people who believe there's a moral duty to intervene in Darfur, for instance-- would feel that pulling out suddenly and allowing a slaughter to ensue would be utterly irresponsible. Perhaps it is naive of me, but I believe that most of the people who want the US troops out of Iraq would not hold that view if they believed that carnage will break out in the absense of the US troops.

During the 2004 election, Kerry quoted Bush Sr more than once as saying this was the reason he did not unseat Saddam from power: there's no exit strategy. Once you create the power vacuum, you're morally obligated to maintain security. I suppose that the extent to which the US has met that moral obligation is quite debateable at this point, but I do think the obligation is there. And I think that if they pull out unexpectedly, they'll be widely blamed for the horror that results afterward-- and justifiably so. People might be angry at them for being there, but they'll be angrier at them for what happens if they pull out. I believe that remaining until some sort of adequate local authority is capable of maintaining security is really the best of a lousy set of options.

-k

[Black Dog]

Are you sure? It seems to me that I've seen more than just a few who bandy about figures of the civilian death toll in Iraq since the start of the invasion and make the charge that these deaths are America's fault. Without mention of whether they were killed by a stray US bomb or by the insurgency.

Who are these people and where are they? It just seems as though people are mighty comfortable using anecdotal information to support their "Left" strawman. For the record I do know such people exist, I simply question whether their existence is representative of "the Left". Actually, I'll go even further and state the term "the Left" as it is deployed here is so broad as to be analytically and categorically useless.

While I do agree that there's a growing number who believe that may want to just let them kill each other and settle their own shit, I believe that a great many-- the same sorts of people who believe there's a moral duty to intervene in Darfur, for instance-- would feel that pulling out suddenly and allowing a slaughter to ensue would be utterly irresponsible. Perhaps it is naive of me, but I believe that most of the people who want the US troops out of Iraq would not hold that view if they believed that carnage will break out in the absense of the US troops.

Maybe I'm being naive in assuming people are making a rational calculation on the probability of carnage and the utility of an American prescence. If I've noticed one thing that unites left and right, it's their unflagging faith in the western power's ability to influence and effect positive outcomes regardless of the circumstances.

During the 2004 election, Kerry quoted Bush Sr more than once as saying this was the reason he did not unseat Saddam from power: there's no exit strategy. Once you create the power vacuum, you're morally obligated to maintain security. I suppose that the extent to which the US has met that moral obligation is quite debateable at this point, but I do think the obligation is there. And I think that if they pull out unexpectedly, they'll be widely blamed for the horror that results afterward-- and justifiably so. People might be angry at them for being there, but they'll be angrier at them for what happens if they pull out. I believe that remaining until some sort of adequate local authority is capable of maintaining security is really the best of a lousy set of options.

I dunno, kimmy. I don't think good intentions or wishful thinking can stand against other factors. It certainly does not make a good base for policy.

[jbg]

I chose my thread topic carefully. The slaughters that are occurring are the result of ancient and perpetual hatreds that make the old West feuds of the "Hatfields and McCoys" look tame. Saddam was no beter. He was simply carrying out the Sunni agenda of slaughtering Shi'ites and Kurds at will. Not putting the Shi'ites and Kurds in a position to fight back would have been immoral.

At the same time, Western countries get blamed for internecine carnage among non-Western people. I remember an expression, from the Shatilla and Sabra massacres in Lebanon, "Lebanese kill Lebanese, and Israel gets blamed. I think its time to dump this politically correct cr@pola and recognize that all peoples are not alike, and that the West is superior in its freedom, standards of living and overall decency. Not perfect, just better.

[Black Dog]

I remember an expression, from the Shatilla and Sabra massacres in Lebanon, "Lebanese kill Lebanese, and Israel gets blamed.

And all Israel did was train and arm the Phalangists, surrounded and sealed of the camps, and, according to some Christian militiamen involved, actively participated in the massacre.

----------------------------------------

I am curious about one thing: let's acknowledge that the bulk of ME violence is Muslim on Muslim kind (which makes sense, given the demographics). What's you fucking point? The idea that people think that, without Bush, the place would be a peaceful paradise is a fantasy, a strawman of the sort that gets tossed around far too often. Indeed, among people with any knowledge of the region, the prospect of sectarian violence was considered a damn good reasopn not to get involved in Iraq (for example). The only reason I can think of for why jbg is riding this "Arabs/Muslims are inherently brutish and violent" train is that it's a neccesary precondition of the "exterminate the brutes" policy that gets some people all tingly and tumescent. Of course, I'm sure jbg, being such a friend of all most races, would balk at the obvious parrallells with the African American population of the U.S., what with their chronic poverty and widespread internecine violence and all....

At the end of the day, all the chest beating about the superiority of the Jewish people over everybody else matters not a whit because it offers nothing in the way of solutions. Well, actually, as I indicate above, it does offer a sort of a solution, albeit a particularily, uh, final one.

-------------------------------------------

ANYwhoo....back to Najaf.

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

...

This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman. But it would explain the disparity between the government casualties - less than 25 by one account - and the great number of their opponents killed and wounded. The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded.

[jbg]

Blackdog -

Can you deny that people that build are superior to people that destroy, blow up and kill?

[Remiel]

You are treading on very dangeous ground, JBG.

[Black Dog]

Can you deny that people that build are superior to people that destroy, blow up and kill?

What i deny is that there a people who destory blow up and kill. There individuals are destructive. But you're extremely loose with your generalizations. Like I said: if you changed your "Arabs/Muslims" to "blacks", you'd have a pretty good Stormfront post going on.

[jbg]

Can you deny that people that build are superior to people that destroy, blow up and kill?

What i deny is that there a people who destory blow up and kill. There individuals are destructive. But you're extremely loose with your generalizations. Like I said: if you changed your "Arabs/Muslims" to "blacks", you'd have a pretty good Stormfront post going on.

There's nothing progressive about denying the obvious. What is obvious and sad is that a minority of Muslims have given people with a great religion and great tradition a very bad name. What's also obvious is that the good people among them, with some shining exceptions (later I will post a story, if I can find it, of Arabs who risked their lives to shelter Jews from the Nazis), are afraid to speak up, because their acts of courage in speaking up could be fatal.

[Black Dog]

There's nothing progressive about denying the obvious.

Who is? "Muslims sure do whale on other Muslims" is a factual statement. I just don't think it's an, um, categorical statement about Muslim character. Just as "black on black violence is a serious problem in many U.S. urban areas" is a factual statement, saying the inter-Muslim violence is a widespread problem is, itself, fairly innocuous. Where things get hazy is where you're going with it. In another thread, you went on and on about the historical perversion and villany of Arab/Muslim people and cultures. To hear you tell it, no other group in history can match the Muslims record for violence, subjugation and backwardness. Which even if it were true, still raises the question of wher eare you going with this? What are you hoping to accomplish by casting these people as history's greatest villains?

[jbg]

Which even if it were true, still raises the question of wher eare you going with this? What are you hoping to accomplish by casting these people as history's greatest villains?

I want the constructive majority of the Muslim community, and the Christian and Jewish communities, to recognize that there is a serious problem, and tackle it, head on. Even the constructive majority of the Muslim community hides behind their emnity towards Israel in refusing to face their own peoples' serious problem.

[Rue]

I am sorry JBG I can not embrace a thought process that generalizes all Muslims or Arabs as evil or in negative terms. I can't because I detest it when people do it in regards to Israelis or Jews and I detest it when they do it in regards to women, aboriginals or any other social group, etc.

I think when you get into a thought space where you generalize a whole social group or ethnnic group in a negative way, you in effect dehumanize them or demonize them.

I am 100% sure that's what Remiel and Black Dog are getting at.

I think its important you know you can support Israel, be a Zionist but not hate Arabs or think they are all bad.

I believe the vast majority of Muslims are no different then Jews, Israelis, Christians or anyone else.

We all bleed red. We all want a steady job, a clean home, a place to bring up children in a safe environment, clean environment, etc.

I just can not embrace this us and them catagorization.

Peace can only come about when we stop looking at what is different or what we fear in others and instead see what we find similiar and what we can embrace or share joy in.

[jbg]

Rue, a beautiful dream. Peace takes two to tango. Rabin shook hands with Arafat on the White House lawn in 1993. The jihadis followed with bombs every time Israel made a concession. The PLO never honored its obligation to delete from its Charter, in Arabic, the calls for Israel's destruction.

[Catchme]

Arafat was hardly all Muslims, and he is dead.

Your superior to comments are really questionable.

[jbg]

Arafat was hardly all Muslims, and he is dead.

Your superior to comments are really questionable.

If he didn't speak for the Palestinians what was the point of a "peace process" with him?

[jdobbin]

There's nothing progressive about denying the obvious. What is obvious and sad is that a minority of Muslims have given people with a great religion and great tradition a very bad name. What's also obvious is that the good people among them, with some shining exceptions (later I will post a story, if I can find it, of Arabs who risked their lives to shelter Jews from the Nazis), are afraid to speak up, because their acts of courage in speaking up could be fatal.

A minority of Jewish people give other Jews a bad name too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Ms. Shear, a 50-year-old Toronto-area resident who was in Israel that November day for religious study, refused politely when he demanded her seat, pointing to several others nearby. He yelled and spat on her. Incensed, she spat back. In the 20-minute scuffle that followed, which was joined by four other men, she was slapped, pushed out of her seat and onto the floor, beaten and kicked; her hair covering fell off, a great shame for a married religious woman, and she suffered bruising to her cheek.