Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[CLRV]

Prescisely. The present state of the middle east has more to do with the way the victors re-drew the map after WWII and the skullduggery of the Cold War. So naturally, we must discuss the Ottoman Empire, harems and the effects of colonialism.

[jbg]

Do I recall something a few years ago at the Brooklyn Museum of Art? Christ on the cross in urine? I remember Rudy raising hell about it since it was a publically funded museum.

Exactly.

[jbg]

.....like what exactly? Building the Suez?

Buildt by Muslims with plans drawn by Muslims.

[kuzadd]

Perfect.

Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

Don't hold your breath for that!

[Argus]

Installing the Taliban to fight the Russians for us?

Installing Saddam to fight Iran for us?

Maintaining the tyrranical rule of the House of Saud lo these many years?

Any of this ring a bell?

I'll take "Bizzare conspiracy theories for Six, Ed!"

The West did not install Saddam nor did it "install" or create the Taliban. As for the "tyranical" house of Saud, the only thing the people of Saudi Arabia seem to have against it is it is far too liberal. If they had their choice there would be a much more severe government in place.

[M.Dancer]

Point in fact, the Taliban did not exist during the Soviet Era. They are a product of the chaos that resulted in the Soviet departure.

[M.Dancer]

Installing the Taliban to fight the Russians for us?

Installing Saddam to fight Iran for us?

Maintaining the tyrranical rule of the House of Saud lo these many years?

Any of this ring a bell?

No. Not a ding.

[M.Dancer]

Prescisely. The present state of the middle east has more to do with the way the victors re-drew the map after WWII and the skullduggery of the Cold War. So naturally, we must discuss the Ottoman Empire, harems and the effects of colonialism.

Ummm.....preciscely how was the map re-drawn after the second world war?.

Iraq was still Iraq, Syria Syria, Egypt Egypt and Iran Iran. The only differences were the trans jordan and Palestine.

Seems that root causes are too profound and brutal so naturally we need a revised history lesson......

[M.Dancer]

Well, the child in my analogy was not any individual but a stand in for what we like to call "western civilization." One can debate the extent of which western colonialism and intervention is responsible for the messy state of affairs in that region, but one cannot deny it. Yet, starngely, many here do just that.

And Palestine. And Iraq. And Afghanistan (though not technically part of Arabia; but then, neither are Lebanon and Egypt). And, actually come to think of it, the whole freaking place. In fact, it could be that the colonial model-fer instance arbitrarily creating and disposing of states regardles sof the wishes of their residnts-is actually the root of alot of the problems.

When did we colonize Afghanistan or Iraq? When did the residents of any where is the region ever have a say?

[CLRV]

When did we colonize Afghanistan or Iraq? When did the residents of any where is the region ever have a say?

Which begs the question of why colonialism keeps raising its head in a discussion of the wars in those nations, and why irresponsible westerners continue to try and pin all the blame on the dirty, scheming, naturally violent Ay-rabs, with we in the west highlighted as innocent victims. But that question is rhetorical, because we all know the answer.

Point in fact, the Taliban did not exist during the Soviet Era. They are a product of the chaos that resulted in the Soviet departure.

More accurately, they did exist as one of the groups who formed the mujahideen, our proxy army that fought the Soviets for us. Afterwards, they were left in power to brutalize and terrorize the population under their religious zealotry with the full support of the west, with weapons and money pouring in right up to May 2001, when they got $43 million from G.W. Bush for their efforts in the War on Drugs, despite the well-known beheadings, amputations, subjugation of women and soccer stadium executions -- things that only became bad after 9/11.

Similarly, Saddam rose to power internally but anyone who tries to claim he stayed there on his own is surely revising history. Saddam would have been overthrown half a dozen times without constant influx of money and weapons from the west, despite the now famous rape-rooms, etc. One particularly nauseating example was the Reagan administration's dutiful hushing up of the Halabja massacre. Again, that atrocity only became officially "bad" after Saddam stopped following western orders. Then we were suddenly outraged about it.

Hope this little fact lesson helps give you a bit of a ding. Quibble all you want about the semantics of the word "install", but the reality is they were puppets of the west, kept in place for our purposes against the wills and interests of the local people. You and others may not realize it, but you can bet your ass the locals remember and it fuels their fury.

The only differences were the trans jordan and Palestine.

And of course those areas aren't points of contention in the middle east today, are they? We must look elsewhere for the root causes. Let's get back to your enlightening "we fight them over there so they won't make our sons into harem attendants over here" theory. That was great.

[M.Dancer]

Hope this little fact lesson helps give you a bit of a ding.

Sorry, no ding no dong.

Which begs the question of why colonialism keeps raising its head in a discussion .....

The sing a lings keep raising it, incorrectly.....

More accurately, they did exist as one of the groups who formed the mujahideen, our proxy army that fought the Soviets for us

Ummm...more accurately, no. The Taliban didn't emerge until 1994

Similarly, Saddam rose to power internally but anyone who tries to claim he stayed there on his own is surely revising history. Saddam would have been overthrown half a dozen times without constant influx of money and weapons from the west.......

Despite the rolls of tinfoil in this statement, I will ask, what weapons? Saddams weapons were primarily Soviet. Nonetheless, The west had nopthing to do with his ascension, which was your initial tinfoil hat claim which like the others, are ludicrous.

[CLRV]

As I said, you're quibbling over the semantics of the world "install". I'm not hearing the Halbja and anti-drug money issues discussed.

So Saddam had no western help? It was all the Russkies. And what I've insanely termed the "skullduggery of the Cold War" certainly had nothing to do with Soviet activity or weapons sales.

Moreover, the Taliban magically appeared out of thin air in 1994. Despite the sources that clearly say they were "one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89)."

Oh yeah. I forgot the Saudis are a bunch of liberals thing.

Got it. Guess I've been making it all up. I'm glad I'm dealing with sincere, mature people capable of having a factual discussion without attacking with smartassed crap about how insane the other person is. I'm also sure glad nobody's revising history around here.

Edited August 22, 2007 by CLRV

[M.Dancer]

As I said, you're quibbling over the semantics of the world "install". I'm not hearing the Halbja and anti-drug money issues discussed.

I'm not quibbling at all about the word. Try and find a quibble.....I say thy didn't instal or even set up Saddam.

Moreover, the Taliban magically appeared out of thin air in 1994. Despite the sources that clearly say they were "one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89)."

You can find source that say 9.11 was a US plot, doesn't make it so.

The Soviets departed in defeat but left Afghanistan in shambles. The Afghan society, which has always been tribalistic and historically held together by traditional loyalty to monarchy, had no acceptable symbol of legitimacy any more. Even during the insurgency and at the height of Jihad against the Soviets, no Afghan Khomeini emerged to unite the various tribal strands that were engaged in combat against the foreigner. Consequently, on the departure of the Soviets, and once their surrogate, Najibullah, had been dislodged, Afghanistan was faced with a political vacuum. This vacuum was made worse by the fighting between the contending forces of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani, tribal leaders vying for exclusive control. Kabul suffered a great deal of damage as a result of bombardment and the rather cruel treatment of the population by the contending warlords.

In this environment of war entered the Taliban, supported by Pakistan, and promising peace and stability. By 1996, the Taliban succeeded in establishing themselves as the rulers of most of Afghanistan. Though harsh and very restrictive, the Taliban rule succeeded in providing peace and security to the Afghans under their control.

*snip*

Dr. Saleem Qureshi is a professor emeritus of Middle East politics in the University of Alberta Department of Political Science.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/meas/news.cfm?story=32625

Definition:

The Taliban ("the Seekers") was originally organized in September, 1994, in Kandahar, a southern province of Afghanistan. The principle members were all graduates of Pakistani Islamic schools (madrassas) which were controlled by the fundamentalist organization Jamiat-e-Ulema.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/...an.htm?terms=go

In reaction to the anarchy and warlordism prevalent in the country, and the lack of Pashtun representation in the Kabul government, a movement arose called the Taliban. Many Taliban had been educated in madrassas in Pakistan and were largely from rural Pashtun backgrounds. This group was made up of mostly Pashtuns that dedicated itself to removing the warlords, providing law and order, and imposing the strict Islamic Sharia law on the country. In 1994 it developed enough strength to capture the city of Kandahar from a local warlord and proceeded to expand its control throughout Afghanistan, occupying Herat in September 1995, then Kabul in September 1996, and declaring the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (although there was no Emir).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Af..._of_the_Taliban

Now a brief list of weapons sold to Iraq by the west.

USSR accounts for 68.9%.....yet some say the west kept Saddam in power......more Tinfoil please!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to...90.2C_by_source

[CLRV]

Why should I believe that site? I could find a site that says Elvis killed JFK.

God that is lame. They give a general diss of internet citation in general to avoid addressing a point, then invariably follow up with a net cite of their own pressing THEIR point.

Well I've already been told in here Wikipedia is uncool, but if you figure the Russians and others supplying arms to Iraq somehow gets the US off the hook for the weapons THEY laid on him, you go right ahead with that.

[marcinmoka]

More accurately, they did exist as one of the groups who formed the mujahideen, our proxy army that fought the Soviets for us

Be careful about falling into this trap. The Muj would of been fighting the Soviets regardless of American Intervention. Brzezinski's calls to come to their aid are largely responsible for making the Soviets grow tired of the Afghan campaign, but in no way are they purely responsible for their creation.

Edited August 22, 2007 by marcinmoka

[M.Dancer]

Why should I believe that site? I could find a site that says Elvis killed JFK.

God that is lame. They give a general diss of internet citation in general to avoid addressing a point, then invariably follow up with a net cite of their own pressing THEIR point.

Well I've already been told in here Wikipedia is uncool, but if you figure the Russians and others supplying arms to Iraq somehow gets the US off the hook for the weapons THEY laid on him, you go right ahead with that.

Tell you what then, if it ,makes you feel better, proclaim victory. We will agree then that the MiGs, the T72s, the Scuds, the Silkworms, the AK-47s, the RPGs, the Froggers, the FACs were all sold to Iraq by the west.

by the way, if you think wiki is "uncool" what on earth do you think "infoplease is?

[Black Dog]

When did we colonize Afghanistan or Iraq?

Britain tried to turn Afghanistan into a vassal state (with mixed results) throughout the 19th Century, while Messopatamia was occupied by British troops after WW1. The state of Iraq is itself a British creation; I'm not sure if one can get much more colonial than that.

Despite the rolls of tinfoil in this statement, I will ask, what weapons? Saddams weapons were primarily Soviet. Nonetheless, The west had nopthing to do with his ascension, which was your initial tinfoil hat claim which like the others, are ludicrous.

According to Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the CIA played an extensive role in engineering the 1968 coup that put the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.

As for the weapons, you're really ot to lunch there. Both the Soviets and western nations backed Iraq during his war with Iran. The French supplied jets and pilot training, the Germans chemical weapons material and the United States exported $1.5 billion worth of "dual-use" (nudge nudge, wink wink) items to Iraq between 1985 and 1990 alone.

From your wiki link:

Soviet-Iraqi relations suffered strains in the late 1970s. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982. During the war, the People's Republic of China became a major new source of weapons for Iraq, with increasing sales from France, the United Kingdom, and Egypt. At this point the United States also began assisting Iraq through its CIA maintained Bear Spares military aid program, which arranged for Soviet-made spare parts and ammunition to be sent to Baghdad.

Direct support aside, the west backed Saddam indirectly on a number of occassions-for instance, by shipping arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that eventualy wound up in Iraq or by by standing by and alowing him to crush the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings inthe aftermath of the first Gulf War.

[M.Dancer]

The state of Iraq is itself a British creation; I'm not sure if one can get much more colonial than that.

Nonsense. It existed as ottoman and mamaluk provinces and it's independance was a result of rebellion against the ottomans during the first world war.

According to Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the CIA played an extensive role in engineering the 1968 coup that put the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.

Source

As for the weapons, you're really ot to lunch there. Both the Soviets and western nations backed Iraq during his war with Iran. The French supplied jets and pilot training, the Germans chemical weapons material and the United States exported $1.5 billion worth of "dual-use" (nudge nudge, wink wink) items to Iraq between 1985 and 1990 alone.

None the less the vast majority of weapons (1973-1990)particularly offensive weapons (not dual use, poke poke) came from China (11.8%)and the Soviets (68.9%) totaling over 80% of his arms...yet the tinfoil brigade believes he was a darling of the west......

From your wiki link:

Direct support aside, the west backed Saddam indirectly on a number of occassions-for instance, by shipping arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that eventualy wound up in Iraq or by by standing by and alowing him to crush the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings inthe aftermath of the first Gulf War.

Which is not the same as saying the kept him in power no matter how tight the tin foil is, nor can anyone take seriously that the west "allowed" Saddam to crush the rebellions. Hello? Ever hear of the no-fly zones? Please.....time to check on the Alcan stock.......

[Black Dog]

Nonsense. It existed as ottoman and mamaluk provinces and it's independance was a result of rebellion against the ottomans during the first world war.

Nope. Iraq as we know it is wholly a British creation. The Brits drove the Ottoman Turks out and were awarded the British Mandate of Mesopotamia (which consisted of the former Ottoman states of Baghdad and Basra) by the League of Nations after the war. That entity, the borders of which correspond more or less with those of "modern" Iraq, was directly ruled by the British until 1921, when they installed the Hashemite king Faisal ibn Husayn to rule as their puppet. It wasn't until 1932 that Britain formally granted Iraq its independence, though they continued to exert a strong influence until they reoccupied Iraq during the Second World War. That occupation lasted until 1947, then they turned things back over to their Hashemite puppets, who were subsequently overthrown by a military coup in 1958 (iirc).

Source?

reuters

None the less the vast majority of weapons (1973-1990)particularly offensive weapons (not dual use, poke poke) came from China (11.8%)and the Soviets (68.9%) totaling over 80% of his arms...yet the tinfoil brigade believes he was a darling of the west......

He was the darling of the west, particularily during his war against Iran. Sorry to break it to you. Hell, the U.S. and U.K. even fought on his side during the "tanker war" portion of that conflict.

Which is not the same as saying the kept him in power no matter how tight the tin foil is, nor can anyone take seriously that the west "allowed" Saddam to crush the rebellions. Hello? Ever hear of the no-fly zones? Please.....time to check on the Alcan stock.......

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

The Ghosts of 1991

On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

Perhaps you should try on a tin foil hat: it would be an improvement over your current choice of headgear.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

Nope. Iraq as we know it is wholly a British creation. The Brits drove the Ottoman Turks out and were awarded the British Mandate of Mesopotamia (which consisted of the former Ottoman states of Baghdad and Basra) by the League of Nations after the war. That entity, the borders of which correspond more or less with those of "modern" Iraq, was directly ruled by the British until 1921, when they installed the Hashemite king Faisal ibn Husayn to rule as their puppet. It wasn't until 1932 that Britain formally granted Iraq its independence, though they continued to exert a strong influence until they reoccupied Iraq during the Second World War. That occupation lasted until 1947, then they turned things back over to their Hashemite puppets, who were subsequently overthrown by a military coup in 1958 (iirc).

Gotch....just a complete coincidence that the present borders are almost exactly like they were when the ottomans ruled.....but what ever turns your crank as long as you can get you hate on.

reuters

A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the claims of CIA involvement in the Iraqi coups but said Morris' assertion that Saddam once received payments from the CIA is "utterly ridiculous."

Pretty much sums this up including the rest of the tinfoil nonsense.

The Ghosts of 1991

Yeah, being caught unprepared is the same as permitting. and decisions not made by politicoians are well....the sins of the west.......the lengths the anti west haters will go to smear with falsehoods are hilarious

Perhaps you should try on a tin foil hat: it would be an improvement over your current choice of headgear.

How very nice and effeminate....but an opinion piece still doesn't prove what you claim....and if you want to call me an asshat, don't be a pussy, just do it.

[M.Dancer]

So what were the tinfoil claims?

Installing the Taliban to fight the Russians for us? BUSTED

Installing Saddam to fight Iran for us? BUSTED

Maintaining the tyrranical rule of the House of Saud lo these many years? BUSTED

But my favourite is definately the less the 20% (dual use) arms sales from the west (mainly France and Germany) that kept Saddam as the US puppet....

[Black Dog]

Gotch....just a complete coincidence that the present borders are almost exactly like they were when the ottomans ruled.....but what ever turns your crank as long as you can get you hate on.

I already stated that the British Mandate of Mesopatamia consisted of the former Ottoman states of Baghdad and Basra. What's your point?

Pretty much sums this up including the rest of the tinfoil nonsense.

Very clever rebuttal. Honestly, I'm not sure why the notion of the CIA backing a coup is so outlandish, give their track record in that regard.

Yeah, being caught unprepared is the same as permitting. and decisions not made by politicoians are well....the sins of the west.......the lengths the anti west haters will go to smear with falsehoods are hilarious

I see your sputtering has reached its apex, destroying what little semblance of coherence you possesed. Fact is, however, it was not a question of being unprepared. The U.S. led coalition allowed Iraqi trops to operate against the insurgency and allowed the use of helicopter gunships to supress the rebellion. They were also ordered not to intervene or support the rebels (U.S. troops at the time reported turning away Shiite rebels who came to them asking for access to Iraqi army weapons). This is all well documented by multiple sources, not some obscure conspiracy theory. Look it up.

How very nice and effeminate....but an opinion piece still doesn't prove what you claim....and if you want to call me an asshat, don't be a pussy, just do it.

I'd rather not stoop to your level, thanks. There's rules donchewknow.

But my favourite is definately the less the 20% (dual use) arms sales from the west (mainly France and Germany) that kept Saddam as the US puppet....

The 20 per cent figure would not include so-called dual use equipment (for example, the Bell helicopters Saddam bought from the U.S. for "crop dusting"- the "crops" turning out to be Iranian trops and Kurds, but hey...). So it would be more accurate to say the west supplied Iraq with 20 per cent of its arms in addition to several billion dollars worth of "dual use" equipment. Of course the very fact that the west was providing Hussein with weapons at all undermines your position.

[CLRV]

Well I certainly regret the use of the word "install". It wasn't an installation so much as regularly scheduled maintenance. I stand corrected.

But really. Tinfoil tinfoil tinfoil. Talk about rubbing shit into the ground. I wonder, Dancie-poo, since ad homenim attacks are so necessary to your discussing these matters, would it be possible for you to stick a crowbar in your imagination and pry loose a new one today?

[CLRV]

How about moonbat? I haven't heard that one in ages.

[M.Dancer]

I'd rather not stoop to your level, thanks. There's rules donchewknow.

But you have no problem bending them like you bend the truth........There's a word to describe someone like you