Attacks outside Hospital

[Judge Hades]

I have no probelm with a democracy in Iraq or even the whole Middle East, but trying to force democracy on a region not ready for it when we ourselves, as a society, cannot fulfill every need of our own citizens is just plain stupid.

[Yrkoon]

Maybe the insurgents don't want kids to be corrupted with infidel toys and candy.  IIRC this happened at a sewage plant opening too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Toys? Heaven forbid!

 

 

I just think it's most sad how they're willing to sacrfice 40 of their own people, children too, if it means two of our guys will die. How on earth do they hope to win support that way? All that shows is that they really have no concern for their own people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes of course, Funny how this unbelievable sacrifice is adopted by both sides. We've sacrificed more than 2000 of our own men and $200 Billion of our own taxes on a war for "Iraqi freedom", after all. Despite this, those damn ungrateful Iraqis now want us out of there. In fact, their own elected government recently voted for the establishment of a US withdrawal timetable which sees us leaving in 6 months. Have our toys and candy handouts won the hearts and minds?

 

Incidently, Has anyone been following the Murtha story?

[Musopticon?]

Hmm, I recently had a talk with both my religion teacher(a lutherian military priest) and my dad(an atheist, who worked in one of the most islamic countries, Libya, for over 8 years) and they both agreed that Iraq just isn't ready for western political reign or a capitalistic democracy. When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets, much of what was a very rich tribal culture was lost to fundies and religious sects, who sadly became the governing force in most of the islamic nations. Best way to say it, would be that when the culture diminished, it left a void that was filled with violence and constant warring for power, Jihad. You see, it's not the islam that commands the Jihad, but errors in the way the religious logos is read. Couple that with the ravage that was left behind by soviets and the Gulf and you see where the problem stems from.

 

Anyway, back to today, the Iraq now is fed up with oppression, but while Americans did end Saddam, they don't understand that the iraqis don't want another reign. They're slowly getting back what was lost when the land was ravaged, but they want to do it their own way. By the muslim law. Now, you might point out how well the western system works when it's compared with theirs. True, the Middle-East and Islam never faced renaissance, or reformation which would have paved the way to democracy, but the main point is that they see Americans as just a new ruler. It's their land, now more than maybe ever, and while they may have a rather brutal way to solve who is the boss(and that's a part of the culture too), they're not ready for democracy yet. And think it like this, what if Americans would stay in the country? There'd soon be a ruling class of western educated locals, who the normal peeps and religious leaders don't trust. Then it would be the same as with Africa. Wanna repeat Kongo? Neither do I.

 

Let the iraqis discover their strength and choose their leaders in their own way.

 

Edited for typoes and some coherency.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Musopticon?]

Oh, and I will not start an argument.

 

 

Too bothersome, just throwing rocks to the pond.

[Yrkoon]

Hmm, I recently had a talk with both my religion teacher(a lutherian military priest) and my dad(an atheist, who worked in one of the most islamic countries, Libya, for over 8 years) and they both agreed that Iraq just isn't ready for western political reign or a capitalistic democracy. When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets, much of what was a very rich tribal culture was lost to fundies and religious sects, who sadly became the coverning force in most of the islamic nations. Best way to say it, would be that when the culture diminished, lieft a void that was filled with violence and constant warring for power, Jihad. You see, it's not the islam that commands the Jihad, but errors in the way the religious logos is read. Couple that with the ravage that was left behinf by soviets and gulf and you can see where the problem stems from.

 

Anyway, back to today, the Iraq now is fed up with oppression, but while Americans did end Saddam, they don't undesrtand that the iraqis don't want another reign. They're slowly getting back what was lost when the land was ravaged, but they want to do it their own way. By the muslim law. Now, you might point out how well the western sstem works when it's compared with theirs. True, the Middle-East and Islam never faced renaissance, or reformation, but the main point is that they see Americans as just a new rule. It's their land, now more than maybe ever, and while they may have a rather brutal way to solve who is the boss(and that's part of the culture), they're not ready for democracy yet. And think it like this, what if Americans would stay in the country? There's soon be ruling class of western educated locals, who the normal peeps and religious leaders don't trust. Then it would be the same as with Africa. Wanna repeat Kongo? Neither do I.

 

Let the iraqis dicover their strength and choose their leaders in their own way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^You could save yourself this whole diatribe of bizzare commentary by simply pointing out that NO-ONE, not Arabs, not Muslims, not Western Chistians, not even Jews want to be occupied by a foreign power. And all will violently resist such a thing... regardless of culture.

 

By the way, this statement cracks me up:

When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets

What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[SteveThaiBinh]

Let the iraqis dicover their strength and choose their leaders in their own way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you try to impose democracy, it may not work. It may lead to the very idea of democracy being associated with the Western invaders, and leave pro-democracy activitists branded as traitors. On the other hand, so many Iraqi people voted in the elections, many at risk to their own lives, I'm not sure this is purely an imposition of democracy any more. Iraqis have at least accepted it as a system they're prepared to work with.

 

If you don't try to impose (let's say 'foster' instead) democracy, and rely on traditional systems of government, then the traditionally voiceless - women, religious minorities and others - will remain voiceless. Mixing democracy and Islam is not an easy task - Turkey has been struggling with it for decades and still hasn't perfected it - but it's a worthwhile endeavour, one that the Iraqis will do better without too much outside meddling, I think.

Edited November 27, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[Hildegard]

By the way, this statement cracks me up:

When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets

Say What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he meant about the mujahideen who fought the soviets in Afghanistan of which a large number were/are now members of Al Qaida.....at least I think he meant that

[SteveThaiBinh]

What in the WORLD are you talking about?

For 'Islam' read 'Afghanistan'.

[Musopticon?]

I'm not very good at this, am I? :">

 

Yes, Afganistan would be a better example.

[Hildegard]

I'm not very good at this, am I?  :">

 

Yes, Afganistan would be a better example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't worry about that error, it happens......and all in all -your post about Iraq was OK

[Yrkoon]

By the way, this statement cracks me up:

When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets

Say What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he meant about the mujahideen who fought the soviets in Afghanistan of which a large number were/are now members of Al Qaida.....at least I think he meant that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if that's what he was talking about then his logic makes no sense. Especially since he doesn't mention Afghanistan at all, but instead cites Libya...and the Gulf.

 

Lets see, when did Lockerbie happen? When did the Iraq-Iran war happen? When did the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon occur? When did the Achille Lauro attack occur? When did the Munich Olympics plane hijacking occur? When did the Iran Hostage Crisis happen? When did the Yom Kippur war happen? When did all four Pakistan vs. India Wars occur?

 

Did all of the above all occur before the end of the soviet era? Um, Yep.

 

How in the *world* can anyone possibly say that there's been *any* "turn in Islam" (for better or worse) after the soviets?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Hildegard]

By the way, this statement cracks me up:

When islam took a turn for the worse after the soviets

Say What?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he meant about the mujahideen who fought the soviets in Afghanistan of which a large number were/are now members of Al Qaida.....at least I think he meant that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if that's what he was talking about then his logic makes no sense. Especially since he doesn't mention Afghanistan at all, but instead cites Libya...and the Gulf.

 

Lets see, when did Lockerbie happen? When did the Iraq-Iran war happen? When did the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon occur? When did the Achille Lauro attack occur? When did the Munich Olympics plane hijacking occur? When did the Iran Hostage Crisis happen? When did the Yom Kippur war happen? When did all four Pakistan vs. India Wars occur?

 

Did all of the above all occur before the end of the soviet era? Um, Yep.

 

How in the *world* can anyone possibly say that there's been *any* "turn in Islam" (for better or worse) after the soviets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well Muso ain't a 'regular' participant in these debates, so he made a mistake...you don't need to go ballistic on him Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

Yes, Afganistan would be a better example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Afghanistan would be a terrible example, buddy. Make no mistake about this. As heroic as we viewed the Afghanis when they battled the soviets, they STILL employed the same exact tactics then that they're employing now, including suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. Their tribal culture still saw leaders engaging in honor killings, denying women the right to an education, forcing people to adhere to strict Wahabbism, etc.

 

Again, what in the WORLD are you talking about?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[SteveThaiBinh]

How in the *world* can anyone possibly say that there's been *any* "turn in Islam"  (for better or worse) after the soviets?

I don't think you can, which is why I assumed he was talking about Afghanistan. The departure of the Soviets in 1988/9 was a pivotal moment in that country's history. I don't think the collapse of communism itself had much effect in the Muslim world other than removing the Soviet Union, obstensibly pro-Arab and anti-Israeli, as a big player in international affairs.

 

Edit:

you don't need to go ballistic on him

Agreed.

Edited November 27, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[Musopticon?]

Well, okay, I was wrong on the soviets. maybe they weren't such a big issue. But islam wasn't always the crap it's today. Muslims maybe easily led, but they didn't agree on the iron leash which rested on their necks, and now that the opression is nostly gone. There'll be change, but it must happen on their call, not ours.

 

Ehmm, what has Pakistan/India have to do with this? Isn't the political situation and history quite a bit different there?

 

And please, have I somehow offended you Yrkoon? Ease up a bit.

 

Edit: Did a bit of reading, and noticed how lost I am. The fundamentalism and living strictly by the Sharia was adopted as the main movement of islam way back during about the 17th and 18th century, predating the fall of Ottoman empire. I need to read my history better.

 

That doesn't change my point^ a bit, however.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Yrkoon]

Well, okay, I was wrong on the soviets. maybe they weren't such a big issue. But islam wasn't always the crap it's today. 

I'll ask one more time. What are you talking about? You are attempting to establish that there has been some sort of change. You will find none. As a matter of fact, most people believe that lack of change is the very explanation for the situation we're discussing

 

 

  Ehmm, what has Pakistan/India have to do with this? Isn't the political situation and history quite a bit different there?

No. Kashmir is religious land to both the Hindus and the Muslims. They've been fighting over it since the British left. This fighting has seen thousands die via suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. There are no less than 2 dozen Islamic groups engaged in "jihad" over it.

 

And please, have I somehow offended you Yrkoon? Ease up a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, I think I'll turn it up a bit, instead and ask you to explain THIS, now:

my dad(an atheist, who worked in one of the most islamic countries, Libya

^Been there. There's several phrases one can use to descibe Lybia. "One of the most Islamic countries" is certainly not one of them. Not even close. Gambling casinos, private topless beaches etc. mark Libya as one of the least islamic countries in the entire region.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Musopticon?]

"explain THIS, now"

 

Alright. Having no personal experience of it; my judgement was wrong. At least by your call.

 

Edit: Now answer this: Are you THE infamous Yrkoon? The one they titled as Foamer. Most rabid flamer and argumentoid ever in the net, And if so; can I get an autograph?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Lucius]

Not very nice is he? <_<

[Musopticon?]

Considering I have no experience of e-fights(or e-pawnings, as is the case here), I'd say that this is a nice start, brother chaplain ^_^

[Yrkoon]

Edit: Did a bit of reading, and noticed how lost I am. The fundamentalism and living strictly by the Sharia was adopted as the main movement of islam way back during about the 17th and 18th century.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<sigh>

 

Ok, you're almost 800 years off, and historically, there's never been a "main movement of Islam" (aside from the very first one), but hey, you're just breaking yourself into this internet debate thing, so I suppose I must let this one slide as well.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

Edit: Now answer this: Are you THE infamous Yrkoon?

No man, I'm obviously someone other than Yrkoon.

[Musopticon?]

You know what; I don't believe you. Islam just hasn't been an endless storm of fundies and war ever since Saladin. Heck, I'll just leave it at that. I got into an argument, I knew I wasn't going to win. I hope I have restraint next time. Or choose an opponent better.

 

And I really hate that smilie, but I'll let is slide this time.

 

 

Edit: Okay, it feels quite a bit better now. :D

Edited November 27, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Yrkoon]

You know what; I don't believe you. Islam just hasn't been an endless storm of fundies and war ever since Saladin.

I would argue that Islam hasn't been an endless storm of fundies *EVER*.

 

You've got a religion practiced by 1.2 BILLION people, just 15% of them Arabs, and a small fraction of them engaged in fundamentalism. It's asinine to speak of such a gigantic mosaic of a religion that spans the entire globe in such general terms. But here you are. first, you mistakenly interchange "Afghanistan" with "Islam" Then later you try to describe Shariah as a movement.. no, worse, a MAIN MOVEMENT

 

Stop it already!

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Musopticon?]

Heck, I'll just leave it at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dark Moth]

No man, I'm obviously someone other than Yrkoon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yrkoon, a rabid flamer and argumentoid? *checks posts*

 

Yup, he's lying. :D