http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/19/2630/

You are picking up bad habits, Rick. When someone just posts a link, I don't bother clicking on it and reading unless I am highly interested in the subject. It shows they are too lazy to copy the article for us

The problem is this is a religious war and they want to kill us all.

"The problem is this is a religious war and they want to kill us all."

"they"? who is they? Don't tell me you fell for right wing's baloney about how all arabs are our enemy.

What da...!

Before 'communism' and now its religious. I read the article it does not propagate
that the war is religious, but I am keen to hear who you are referring to as they.
I am sure that the everyday chap in Iraq shares your view.

Wars are invariably religious, but sure seems that the US have been on an extended
crusade for the past 50 years.

I prefer not to duplicate entire articles here, as that defeats the purpose of the Web. Often times, copied articles are more difficult to read as the formatting doesn't transfer well. Copyright is not generally an issue, as any excerpts I may choose to paste in here are fair use for educational purposes.

Maybe not the whole article, maybe just the parts you thought were relevant. Too many times I've seen people say "this disproves your argument" and give a link which may go to a long long text, a book, a website, or even a 200 post thread somewhere. It's like when someone says "it's in here" and lays down a bible. That is not an argument, it's a reference to higher authority or maybe just a bluff. Maybe the book does not prove what the person said. No one is going to bother reading all that.

If you copy the parts that you believe support your position and give a link to the full text, then you are saying something. If what you copied does support your argument then they can go see if you copied it correctly and verify other things. Just saying "it's in here" is only a statement of belief. It's no better than saying "I don't think so"

Citations of authoritative articles and personal opinions are valuable in BrainMeta. But if posting the latter, be prepared for a possible thrashing!

OK.

"So Iraq is over. But Iraq has not yet begun. Not yet begun in terms of the consequences for Iraq itself, the Middle East, the United States’ own foreign policy and its reputation in the world. The most probable consequence of rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in its present condition is a further bloodbath, with even larger refugee flows and the effective dismemberment of the country. Already, about 2 million Iraqis have fled across the borders, and more than 2 million are internally displaced.

"Now a pained and painstaking study from the Brookings Institution argues that what its authors call “soft partition� - the peaceful, voluntary transfer of an estimated 2 million to 5 million Iraqis into distinct Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions, under close U.S. military supervision - would be the lesser evil. The lesser evil, that is, assuming that all goes according to plan and that Americans are prepared to allow their troops to stay in sufficient numbers to accomplish that thankless job - two implausible assumptions. A greater evil is more likely."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/19/2630/

Some people complain about Bush's supposedly premature "mission accomplished" announcement from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier near San Diego. One needs to understand what the mission really was to see that Bush was absolutely correct.

Our true goal for invading Iraq was to get us stuck there. And we really are stuck, so mission accomplished.

As long as we remain stuck in Iraq we will have:

1. The oil. The second largest proven reserve in the world, 90% untapped. As long as we control the country (our stuckedness), nobody else gets it. Notice that the neocons don't seem too upset that the pumping rate hasn't really picked up as anticipated. That's because, as the oil peak is near in time, the longer the oil stays untapped, the more valuable it becomes.

2. Forward air bases. That's to keep Iran and other upstart countries intimidated. Maybe they'll even come in handy if the neocons decide to invade other countries in the neighborhood. We could have hegemony from Syria to Pakistan, in some deluded visions.

3. Continual state of war. You see, the neocons play dumb to get you to relax, then they spring the trap. All the executive orders are now in place for an emergency military police state.

Terrorism is spun not from political goals but from religious ones. Terrorists views stem from the interpretations of the Koran and that they must kill all the infidels aka All of Us.

Anyone who is not of Muslim faith can be interpreted as an infidel and the Koran orders its followers to kill all non believers.

Osama Bin Laden actually obtained a letter from a Muslim monk authorizing him to and I quote "Kill all the infidels".

The scariest thing is Iran is getting ahold of Nuclear Parts which can be assembled into Nuclear Weapons. If a radical Muslim should get ahold of the presidency in Iran, we could be in a nuclear holocaust. By the way, Osama Bin Laden has a 60% approval rating in Iran, not too good for us.

"Anyone who is not of Muslim faith can be interpreted as an infidel and the Koran orders its followers to kill all non believers."

The koran orders no such thing. Show me where it says that. There is lots of crap in the bible like stoning adulterers and so on that are not done. Are all christians violent nuts who kill anyone who doesn't believe the same way? No, most are not, same with muslims.

No, just nuts.

From: http://www.genericcrap.com/archives/2006/1...uotes-part-one/

"When you meet unbelievers on the battle field, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly� Koran, 47:4

This is actually an incomplete quote of 47:4. The full verse goes more like this:

[This is one of the three translations found on the side I’m using, they’re all essentially the same]

047.004 SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

However, it is the interpretation of the Qur'an by mentally ill criminals such as Mansour Dadullah that causes all of the problems. Below is a recent article ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017368.php ). And it is of no value quoting historical Christianity-related events in an attempt to justify the interpretations of the Qur'an made by madmen. Present day horrific mass murder, whatever the source or whoever the perpetrator, is a demonstration of debase and warped minds.

Taliban military commander Mansour Dadullah, in an interview broadcast on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson," said the London attacks were "not enough" and that bigger attacks were coming.

"You will, God willing, be witness to more attacks," he told a Pakistani journalist in an interview conducted just four days ago.

If humans could accept these religious documents for what they are - fairystories from a pre-intelligence era - and stored them clearly in the fiction section of libraries, it would remove these excuses for murder from the armoury of the insane, subnormal and subverted. Whilst there are believers in this rubbish, however meek many might be, there will always be room for the nutters to claim their interpretation is the right one.

Maximus, now you are starting to sound quite ignorant. Have a look/read at the Koran and you will see that
that misconception of yours is something that has arisen from plain ignorance, Terrorism is on the increase directly because of politics. I am aghast that you seem to equate Islam and terrorists as exclusive.






Evidence please, you cannot just spout information like this without some proof. And what has this to do with the Korna or Islam anyway? Your argument is paper thin. Hitler considered himself a Christian and massacred many many people therefore Christians are murderous, racist bastrds. See the logic?




Let me get this straight, its okay for the US to HAVE nuclear weapons (not parts, actual weapons) but not for other countries? Give me a break, what kind of dictatorship are you supporting.
Oh yes and not a word about Pakistan (Islam) having nuclear power.

Regarding our (the USA's) stuckedness in Iraq, this just in:

... AP reported on July 14, “the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.�

... the AP article cited key information: “Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq.�

This kind of development fits a historic pattern — one that had horrific consequences during the war in Vietnam and, unless stopped, will persist for many years to come in Iraq.

... The presence of large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq during the next years is a likelihood fogged up by fanciful media stories asserting — without tangible evidence — that American troops will “pull out� and the U.S. military will “leave� Iraq. The spin routinely glides past such matters as the hugely militarized U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the numerous permanent-mode U.S. bases in Iraq, and the vast array of private-and-often-paramilitary contractors at work there courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. And there’s the rarely mentioned prize of massive oil reserves that top officials in Washington keep their eyes on.

See

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2779/

for the full story.

Ugh u dummy, im talking about a misinterpretation by radical fundamentalists. Osama Bin Laden is using this to justify his actions. Your comments are rediculous, if anyone is ignorant it is you for such a blatant over exaggeration. Im not generalizing that all Islamic believers are terrorists, rather that THE terrorists do this out of blind faith in a cult like form. They are using religion to justify terrorist actions.

Man, I have never seen a comment by anyone, even the worst of flamers on this forum that I felt was more rediculous than what you just posted. Even Datta Swami has posted more intelligent things.

Im not in support of any nuclear arms, but when a country is obtaining nuclear arms and they are politically unstable and when 60% of the country supports terrorism on innocent civilians, that is something to worry about.

Further more, you have risks of invasion by more unstable countries. The thing is not the government but the risk of terrorists obtaining control of these weapons. If a radical fundamentalist should obtain control of the country and be in support of terrorism, then they could be used by terrorist cells to start a nuclear holocaust.

It's not the government that you have to worry about, it's the possibility of terrorist infiltration to cause an attack with nuclear arms. And when 60% of the population supports the worlds most wanted man, that possibility of infiltration is much greater.

If you have any clue about the types of posts I make you should know that I feel religion as a whole is rather detremental to society. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn't matter which religion it is.

The real risks of terrorism do not come from Iraq or Afghanistan but on our own soil. Ever notice how so many of these terrorists are educated Muslim men? I don't really see any Jewish people trying to blow us up.

Why is this? Why is it that the majority of the terrorist attacks all come from the same demographic and psychographic profiles? Coincidence? I think not.

Now muslims as a whole are peaceful people, but there are sub-genres which are in support of terrorism. There are certain muslim monks who have supported Osama Bin Laden's terrorism and there has been documents recovered proving this.

Now im not a muslim obviously, but I remember parts of how the whole terrorism thinking goes. It is supposed to be about how there is no Islam, rather this is Jihad and they must kill the non believers to bring about paradise, or something along those lines. I really don't care to be honest with you, my main concern is that religion is being distorted to support terrorism.

As I said before, there have been plenty of incidences involving the manipulation of Christianity to promote wars and greed, the pope at one point even had his own army for goodness sake. The problem with religion is it is so easily used to manipulate people.

Again, the Muslim faith as a whole is fine and the leaders are against terrorism, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a subgroup which has beliefs different than those mainstream views which can be used to distort interpretations and justify terrorism.

Forgive me if it sounded harsh but what I read
"Terrorism is spun not from political goals but from religious ones. Terrorists views stem from the interpretations of the Koran and that they must kill all the infidels aka All of Us" still seems to making this an exclusive Islamic phenomena. Whilst I agree that this is the current situation, it has in history shifted between various religions. I think on this we agree. However where we differ is that I still do not see why this is a religious issue. The cause of terrorism is a reaction to some flawed political decisions, which are directed at an Islamic country (this time)



:-) that would be 'ridiculous' <pedantic I know>



Seriously did not come across this way in your post, it seemed anti-Iran and not anti-Nuclear. Political stability is a concern, but why do you imply that Iran is not politically stable? And again could you give the details of where 60% of the country supports terrorism.



Agreed, which I why I am confused why many other countries are not highlighted and the sole focus is falling on Iran.



Much clearer now thanks. Still I think we are missing each other on some points. I am in the same camp as you with regard to religion. What I am trying to point out is that people react to an invasion and this is further agitated by cloak and dagger politics. As it happens this time round there is an escalation in terrorism from Islam countries, which I believe has stemmed from politics. The demographics of terrorism shifts with time, and it needs to be pointed out now and then to prevent an indoctrinated stereotypical view of Islam in this case, coming to the fore. Its usually these same newly indoctrinated views that give birth to the next opposing movement of terrorism/fundamentalism. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

terrorism (link)

1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
3. the calculated use of violence or threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Terrorist Groups - - A List of Terrorist Groups by Type (link)

Iraq is about to become a lot worse. From AlterNet:

"The war in Iraq is about to get worse -- much worse. The Democrats' decision to let the war run its course, while they frantically wash their hands of responsibility, means that it will sputter and stagger forward until the mission collapses. This will be sudden. The security of the Green Zone, our imperial city, will be increasingly breached. Command and control will disintegrate. And we will back out of Iraq humiliated and defeated. But this will not be the end of the conflict. It will, in fact, signal a phase of the war far deadlier and more dangerous to American interests."

See

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58944/?page=1

for the full story.