Thursday, September 06, 2012

Maliki's office targets nightclubs

Again:
Owners and employees at Baghdad nightclubs and bars voiced frustration on Wednesday after their establishments were raided by troops who allegedly beat customers and staff a day earlier.

The raids, the first of their kind in several months, come as the Iraqi capital takes tentative steps to emerge from years of conflict and violence, with a limited nightlife having slowly returned.

Army special forces carried out raids of venues serving alcohol at around 8:00 pm (1700 GMT) on Tuesday "at dozens of nightclubs in Karrada and Arasat, and beat up customers with the butts of their guns and batons," said an interior ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Artists who were performing at the clubs were also beaten," the official said. The reason for the raids was not immediately clear.

Another security official, who also declined to be identified, said the raids were ordered by Lieutenant General Faruq al-Araji, the top security official in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office, but he did not say why.
More.

Every time PM Maliki wants to bolster his 'puritanical' credentials and appeal to the rising Islamic fundamentalist fervor among his Shi'ite base he comes up with this gimmick of targeting alcohol shops and bars, as if they are the main source of Iraq's internal problems. It doesn't matter that public services are still in shambles almost ten years after the war, or that insurgents are making a strong comeback in their former strongholds and are increasingly successful in staging mass car bombings and attacks against security forces, or that corruption and graft have become so rampant among governmental officials that nobody even pretends to try doing anything about it. But God forbid the trampled Iraqi people have some semblance of a normal nightlife and be allowed to keep at least a small shadow of their former secular lifestyle. Now every goon in Maliki's office has the power to shut down the city if he happens to feels like it.

May a phlegmy, pungent spit soil your filthy beards, Iraqi officials, the whole lot of you, Sunni, Shia and Kurd. May your bloody, rotten corpses be dragged through the streets of Baghdad by angry mobs for letting the Iraqi people down once again. And may you and your filthy offspring and extended families choke to death on the 750 billion dollars you have stolen from the state coffers over the last ten years.

388 comments:

1 – 200 of 388   Newer›   Newest»
Lynnette In Minnesota said...

May a phlegmy, pungent spit soil your filthy beards, Iraqi officials, the whole lot of you, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

lol!

Zeyad! You're back! :)

Army special forces carried out raids of venues serving alcohol at around 8:00 pm (1700 GMT) on Tuesday "at dozens of nightclubs in Karrada and Arasat, and beat up customers with the butts of their guns and batons," said an interior ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

At least it sounds like there is not universal agreement within the Iraqi government for this type of action. I know, I know, it's small comfort, but one must try to find it where one may.

We tried bannng alcohol here way back in the '20's and 30's. It didn't work out too well. But it did give rise to all sorts of amusing things. :)

White Lightning

American's are rather good at poking fun at silly laws.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
I'm going to have to confess that I haven't kept abreast of this particular topic.  As I recall, last I knew on the subject, sale, use or possession of ethyl alcohol was technically illegal throughout Iraq, even in Saddam's Iraq, but the ban was hardly ever enforced except when the bearded wonders were acting up.  (And even then, only enforced in fairly limited areas.)  Open defiance of the law, and non-enforcement was the rule and enforcement was the exception.  Do I remember that correctly?  Is that still the case?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

I re-read my earlier comment, Zeyad, and realized that maybe I was a little too flippant in my response(just pleased to see you back and taking an interest in something), so I gave it a little more thought and wanted to add a little more.

This is just another example of the extremes used in Iraq, or the Middle East in general, to control the populace. Until people stand up and say enough is enough there will be no change. And by that I really don't mean dragging bloody, rotten corpses through the streets. I know you're angry, but that really isn't going to solve anything. It will just perpetuate the situation, albeit in another form. Lieutenant General Faruq al-Araji should be made to answer for his actions, but within the law. Beatings of innocent people should be taken seriously and those responsible should be charged.

I sometimes think it is one step forward to normalcy and one step back.

Zeyad said...

No it wasn't illegal then or now but only members of non-Muslim communities were allowed to get a license to sell and serve alcohol or operate a nightclub. Since 2003 that changed and Muslims started selling but no laws have been passed on this subject though they make a big fuss threatening to pass a ban every now and then.

Zeyad said...

Lynnette those people are above the law. There is no power in the country that can make them answerable to anyone, which is why I think violent revolution is the only way for these punks.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "No it wasn't illegal then or now …"

I stand corrected.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
And, by the way, that talk of ‘violent revolution’ did not go unnoticed.
Arab Spring comes to Baghdad ya think?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Re:  American politics

The party conventions are over now.  Romney's convention is and will probably remain most famous for Clint Eastwood and the empty chair skit.  Republicans still haven't figured out if ol’ Clint was putting them on or not.
Obama's convention had the rain out of the stadium speech where it did not in fact rain.  (A minor contretemps over ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘God’ will almost certainly be forgotten almost immediately.)
The party hacks are out in force, both sides claiming to have decisively ‘won’ the convention competition.  (I gotta give it to the Democrats but I've already decided I can't vote for Romney on account of his embrace of the trickle down, supply-side economic theory.  So I'm not an unbiased observer.)

Probably more importantly, the September jobs numbers are out.  Only 96,000 new jobs.  Advantage Romney.  However the August jobs numbers were revised upwards to over 200,000 and the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%.  That takes some of the sting out of it for Obama.  The debates are likely to prove to be very important now.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Scipt:

There was much mention of the killing of Osama bin Laden.  I think it's bait, I think it's a trap.  They're hoping that the Republicans go ape-shit about that all over again and waste a couple of weeks bitchin’ that Obama is takin’ too much credit there.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.  Again.

chen tianai said...

Buy ffxiv gil

Buy Final Fantasy XIV Gil

Final Fantasy XIV Gil

ffxiv gil

Buy Diablo3 gold

Diablo 3 gold

Diablo III gold

Buy Diablo III gold

Aion Kinah

Buy Aion Kinah

Aion Kina

Buy Aion Kina

Aion Kinah

Buy Aion Kinah

Aion Kina

Buy Aion Kina

Buy Aion Kina

Buy ffxiv gil

cheap ffxiv gil

Buy Final Fantasy XIV Gil

ffxiv gil

Final Fantasy XIV Gil

Buy guild wars 2 gold

guild wars 2 gold

Buy GW2 Gold

GW2 Gold

guild wars2 gold

Buy runescape gold

runescape gold

Buy RS Gold

rs Gold

cheap runescape gold



Marcus said...

This is hilarious in all its importance. The Israel lobby in the US tried sort of a coup at the democratic convension. The issue: "Should the Democratic party officially recognise Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel"

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09cEwnivdr0&feature=player_embedded

Seems they pulled it off too. He's got sharp ears that guy to be sure a 2/3 majority really voted yes. Or did they? IMO: was a voting even needed since it was obviously decided in advance?

Marcus said...

As for the ban on alcohol. If that happened here in Sweden it might be one of a few things that could really rally our placant population and get people up on the barricades.

Joke aside, it's awful to hear about how Iraq slides backwards socially these days. Not only about the "right" to go out and have a drink and a good time but in so many other ways as well. I read that gays have an especially hard time now. Not that they were ever condoned but in the past (as far as I've reckoned) they were at least allowed to live their lifestyle on the quiet.

Live and let live seems to be out of fashion now.

Personally, being a strong advocate for democracy, I wonder: for the individual, isn't it better to live under a dictator that leaves you alone as long as you don't interfeer with his absolute power, than living in a "democracy" that restricts every aspect of your daily life?

Since I have no experience of neither, and since the only person here that does is Zeyad, I guess I'm looking to you Zeyad to voice your opinion on this. (I'd bet it's a hard one to answer though).

Marcus said...

Another few questions for Zeyad:

Zeyad: "No it [alkohol] wasn't illegal then or now but only members of non-Muslim communities were allowed to get a license to sell and serve alcohol or operate a nightclub."

1. Was that law adhered to? I mean did no muslim Iraqis sell booze or run bars but leave that business to others?

2. The liqour stores and bars, were they mainly run by Christians then?

3. What "status" did the people who provided that service have in the regular community?

And anything else on the matter woluld be interesting as well. I find the whole idea of a country with a large muslim majority that basically signs away a most lucrative business to some small majority very interesting. Because surely the bulk of the business would have had to come from the majority muslims, right?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "The Israel lobby in the US tried sort of a coup at
      the democratic convension.
"

If I may offer an alternative explanation (that guy's got it all wrong)…   The Israeli lobby had nothing to do with it.  The Jews are gonna vote overwhelmingly for Obama (there is some question of the margin with some of the older Jews in Florida, where Obama's already got problems with with the old white folks.)  The ruckus was actually kicked up by the Christian evangelicals who're even more sever Zionists than most Jews.  They think the Book of Revelations requires that the Jews hold on in Israel until the Apocalypse, so they can all be killed at once (save for a ‘remnant’ who will convert to Christianity at the last minute).  Obama's people stepped in and ordered that references to ‘Jerusalem’ and to ‘God’ be included in the platform to shut down what they considered might turn into a distraction from their preferred culture clash over contraception and abortion.  This was all about keepin’ the Chisters from grabbin’ too much airtime away from the preferred distraction of ‘women's health’ issues, not about the Jews nor the Israeli.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

There is no power in the country that can make them answerable to anyone, which is why I think violent revolution is the only way for these punks.

Well, in a sense, if there were a revolution then they are answerable to the people. But if Iraq were to go the way of the Arab Spring, what would be the end result? Would you really want to support a group that drags bloody bodies through the streets? Isn't that what you have spoken out against in the past? Have all avenues within the current system been tried?

My concern would be a degeneration into what Syria is experiencing now, or a return to sectarian violence such as Iraq saw after the invasion. The only thing that seemed to tamp down the violence was the presence of an outside power. If the US is not there to play that role again, wouldn't you be concerned about another power doing so? Isn't there a large risk of that power being Iran, and in their case, no desire to withdraw as the US did?

There is no utopia, Zeyad, there are only people who work hard to build something. It was a good sign that someone from the interior ministry was willing to confirm to the press the events that occurred. Now if there are people willing to stand up and voice their opposition and back it with actions such as protest votes, maybe a change can be accomplished. I know it's not as spectacular as "revolution", but it could accomplish a more lasting change within Iraq. If you ever have the time, you should look at our history. It wasn't always the big things that made for lasting change, but the little things put together.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Marcus,

...isn't it better to live under a dictator that leaves you alone...

But isn't that really a contradicton? If you are living under a dictatorship you are not being left alone. You are obliged to follow the dictates of someone else, without any recourse for change. I have read somewhere that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, but at what cost?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Script:

 
      "IMO: was a voting even needed since it was
      obviously decided in advance?
"

Yeah, the ‘voice vote’ thing was necessary as a matter of parlimentary procedure.  The chairman's mistake was that he didn't realize that he was supposed to bang the gavel and announce the measure had passed no matter what the result.  They do that all the time.  But he's never had the gavel at convention before (nor, apparently, any other proceeding under Robert's Rules and he didn't know what to do when he didn't get overwhelming shout he was expecting).  He didn't know what to do then, and he froze for a second, and then tried to go for a better result.  It took a minute or so before somebody got on the radio to his earwig and told him to bang the gavel and declare it had passed.  (That was run up on the teleprompter in front of him, but he apparently didn't realize they were serious about that.)  I'm sure he'll get it right next time, if they give him a next time.

C.H. said...

Wow...it is surprising to see this site alive! I thought I would find a skeleton page with ancient memories. Its nice to see you back, Zeyad...its also nice to some of the old commentators still here.

Marcus said...

@ Lee 2:10 PM

Thanks for straightening that out for me. The original source claimed it was a "coup" by the Israel lobby and I didn't really question that claim. Guess I should have.

Nevertheless it was a tragicomical video.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Syrian rockets strike Iraq

Four rockets fired from Syria landed across the Iraqi border in the town of al-Qaim, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said Saturday. The rockets fell on a residential area, killing a 4-year-old girl.

Al-Qaim is home to a Syrian refugee center. I will try to give the Syrians the benefit of the doubt and think it an accident.

One hopes Iraq will re-think any help it may be giving Iran in its assistance to Syria. This, and other flows of refugees to Turkey and Jordan, just shows how this crisis could easily spread.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hi C.H., nice to see you again.

I thought I would find a skeleton page with ancient memories.

lol! Understandable as so many people seemed to have moved on to social media or other pursuits. But I still like talking to the people here, sometimes they seem to be the only ones who take a serious interest in some of the topics discussed. And I like to check up on Zeyad, even if I do annoy him at times. ;) Not to say that the people in my life are shallow, exactly, just less into this type of discussion. But I fear we are a dwindling few here.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Nevertheless it was a tragicomical video."

Yeah, if you go back and look at it again, you can see where they rolled the ‘bang the gavel and declare it passed’ order up on the teleprompter for him, and he almost went for it, and then chickened out--took the guy gettin’ on the radio in his ear to convince him that they really did mean that.  He'll do better next time, if they give him a next time.
And, Romney's not lettin’ it get by unnoticed.

      "In a not-so-veiled attack on President Barack
      Obama, Romney on Saturday delivered a speech
      thick with religious overtones and heavy on promises
      to increase military spending.
"
      in Virginia Beach, Virginia

God, guns and gays (except for the gays this time).  Obama took the God and guns part off the table already, but Romney's pretending not to have noticed.  (The ‘Jerusalem’ reference was also part and parcel of where all these thing overlap.)

Also, Romney's appearing on non-Fox TV this weekend.  Unusual for him.  He's obviously not liking the way the convention competitions turned out.  He's gonna need to ramp up his performance level for the coming debates, and it's good thing for him that he's got so much more money available than Obama; he's gonna need to pile the advertising on, ‘cause he's just not closin’ the gap yet.  He's still got time and resources though, he ain't lost it yet.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Returning to the subject of alternative forms of energy:

What about a farm powered by walnuts?

Petes said...

There She Stands

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Today's entry re:  American politics

For the fourth straight month Romney has pulled in more than $100 million.  And this is just the money to the Romney campaign.  The unlimited secret money to the super-Pacs, that's a whole ‘nother thing.  The several pro-Romney super-PACs are way out-spending the one pro-Obama super-PAC.
And, even as I write this, new news:  The Obama campaign pulled on just a few dollars more, also coming in at over $100 million.  This is the first time he's done that all season.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Script:

      "Through late August, at least four out of every five
      dollars spent on television, radio and Internet ads to
      overtly back Romney came from a source other than
      his own campaign. For Obama, in contrast, nearly
      four-fifths of such spending came from his campaign.
"
      Politico.com

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

There She Stands

Beautiful. Thank you, Pete.

Our flag is more than just a pretty banner people carry in parades. It represents the hard work and adversity that have been shared by so many people to build a nation they can be proud of. I think that is why so many people raise her in times of distress. As a reminder that this too shall be overcome.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Courting the Muslim vote

As I told Marcus once long ago, we really do expect everyone to participate.

Hmmm...strange, those are the same verification words I had before.

Petes said...

Lynnette,

I worked in New York a couple of weeks after 9/11 (actually, because of 9/11). The centrality of the American flag to demonstrations of public sentiment was fascinating to see. Especially since I come from a country where the national flag is respected but also viewed suspiciously as a symbol co-opted by various groups (as evidenced in the newspapers just today). I remember Zeyad writing about the Iraqi flag before, about how Saddam introduced the Islamic lettering on it. It's interesting -- attitudes to national flags probably say quite a lot about the state of a nation.

Bruno said...

Here is an article that really encapsulates the consequences for the region of the invasion of Iraq:

"Mr. Maliki has shown more interest in reprisals against the Sunni minority than in encouraging inclusion, and he has often interfered with the court’s functioning. His blatant attempts to monopolize power have led Sunni and Kurdish politicians to try to remove him by a vote of no confidence.
[...]
Iraq’s tensions have reverberated beyond its borders. Turkey is a Sunni-majority state and its support for Mr. Hashimi, who is living there, and for the Sunni rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a member of a Shiite sect, has created bad blood with Mr. Maliki. Turkey sees Mr. Maliki as too close to Iran, Mr. Assad’s closest ally.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also backing the Syrian rebels and encouraging the Iraqi opposition. Mr. Maliki worries that he could be the next target of the forces arrayed against Mr. Assad. He is also concerned that a resurgent local Al Qaeda wing could lead to further violence.

The Obama administration is trying to calm the situation by persuading Turkey and Iraq that they share common interests, among them ensuring a cohesive, stable Syria and tamping down sectarian conflict."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/renewed-tensions-in-iraq.html?_r=1

In other words, the West (including the US) are essentially getting into bed yet again with some of the Al Qaeda types that they fought in Iraq in Syria to overthrow Assad, while trying to prop up Al Maliki who is trying to crush the "sunnis" which is doubtless going to breed more Al Qaeda types ... and the idea of a "cohesive stable Syria" means diametrically opposite things to Maliki and Turkey right now.

Does anybody else see a problem here?

All I see is the image of a little kid with a box of matches in his hand, saying "oops" as the barn burns down.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "In other words, the West (including the US) are
      essentially getting into bed yet again with some of
      the Al Qaeda types that they fought in Iraq in Syria to
      overthrow Assad.
                                ***
      "Does anybody else see a problem here?
"

I can see the problem; yes, I can most definitely help you with that.
Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran,  Saudi Arabia, and Qutar (the nations mentioned, in order of mention, from the quote you gave us), are not generally considered to be part of ‘the West (including the US)’.  Whoever lead you to that conclusion was leadin’ you on.
You can see the problem now, can't you?  (And you're welcome.)

Bruno said...

BRITAIN is drawing up plans to send body armour, laptops and satellite phones to Syrian rebels. The Government wants to help the bitter fight to topple tyrannical President Bashar al-Assad with "non-lethal aid", it emerged yesterday. The equipment would be used to help coordinate attacks on regime forces."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4123736/UK-to-help-Syrian-rebels-with-non-lethal-military-equipment.html

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.

Obama administration officials emphasized that the United States is neither supplying nor funding the lethal material, which includes antitank weaponry. Instead, they said, the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.

"We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing," said a senior State Department official

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57435177/u.s-boosts-nonlethal-help-to-syria-rebels/

"U.S. forces could move against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, President Barack Obama warned, notably if he deploys his chemical weapons against rebels trying to overthrow him. In some of his strongest language yet on Syria, on a day when U.N. observers pulled out after a fruitless bid for peace and Assad's forces mounted new attacks, the U.S. leader said Assad faced "enormous consequences" if he crossed a "red line" of even moving unconventional weapons in a threatening manner."

http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-assad-makes-rare-appearance-eid-prayers-082103290.html

... must be nice to live on the Planet of the Apes, where fantasy IS reality ...

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
You stay there cause you think it must be nice?  You gonna make it so by the sheer force of your pretending?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
What's this?  Bruno, he who's spent years now diligently pretending that he's been arguing with sentient apes, he who's been firmly squat down in his very own ‘Planet of the Apes’ fantasy land all this time, now he's suddenly decided to just fade away without further comment on the subject? 

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Pete,

It's interesting -- attitudes to national flags probably say quite a lot about the state of a nation.

Unlike Saddam, who changed the Iraqi flag to suit his thinking, the U.S. flag has changed only as states joined the union. The stripes represent the first 13 colonies and the stars the states. It is a symbol of unity that is meant to include all. Yes, even those fringe groups that we may not want to own. So I think most people feel comfortable flying it in good times, and bad.

That's probably why it can be so disheartening for moderates like myself to see the disunity in the political process at this time. Sure the opposition's job is to present dissenting ideas. But it is also the job of our elected leaders to come to an agreement on the way forward to help the country prosper, not to put their own agendas first. As far as I am concerned if they are not doing that, then they have no right to wear a flag lapel pin. They are only insulting the flag and all it stands for.

Sorry, Pete, but I couldn't help the rant. :(

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Sure do. There are too many people living in the Middle East who feel the need to be king of the hill. It they learned how to work together and tolerate differences they might be able to live in peace. But since they can't do that little thing, they feel the need to get a strong man(dictator) to look out for each group's interests. This is just a recipe for continual violence.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Seriously, Zeyad, did you get married, or what?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Every get that sinking feeling?

Petes said...

Hi Lynnette, there's something up with linking to CNN video. The last two links you posted -- the walnut farm and the "sinking feeling" were nothing to do with those topics. I think the links are just to the latest CNN rolling news.

Bruno said...

I see that the simian has returned fire with all the force of a giant fart, having nothing but hot air in reserve, as usual.

And I see that Lynnette has resorted to characterising the people of the middle east as ignorant peasants that need a strongman at the helm otherwise they will inevitably fall back to murdering each other.

(Of course, that strongman needs the Official Stamp of Approval, otherwise he's just a ruthless murderous dictator.)

All is as it should be, then, in the United States of Warmongeria.

*shakes head*

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
I see you merely returned to playin’ out your ‘Planet of the Apes’ fantasy.  ‘[H]aving nothing but hot air in reserve, as usual,¹’ you could but return to that.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Pete,

Hmmm...when I check they go to the video I wanted. Okay, how about trying the copy and paste method:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/09/08/dnt-walnut-powered-farm.kovr

&

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/09/11/dnt-co-drought-sinks-house.kusa

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Pete,

Let me know if that works and in the future, if I post a link, I'll try to remember to post the path as well, just in case.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

And I see that Lynnette has resorted to characterising the people of the middle east as ignorant peasants that need a strongman at the helm otherwise they will inevitably fall back to murdering each other.

Hey, not me, Bruno! I'm just describing the behavior that I am seeing. Note the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya, the attacking of the US Embassy in Egypt, the slaughtering of people in Syria by Assad, the killing of Iranian protesters on Iranian streets by the Iranian government, the violence plaguing Iraq by numerous factions. Need I go on?

Oh wait, maybe I will. Note also the honor killings by immigrants to my country by ignorant people who know nothing except how to force their various family members to their ways of thinking.

Somthing, btw, that Zeyad would have spoken out against.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Note the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya…"

Note also that the Libyan Interim President has wasted no time apologizing for the attack.

      "‘We extend our apology to America, the American
      people and the whole world,’ el-Megarif said.
"
      Politico.com

I'm wonderin’ what the initial investigations, as the dust clears, might reveal.  Might be al-Qaeda behind this one.  (Zeyad's disgust with blaming all things on al-Qaeda notwithstanding, this one might be them behind it.)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Note also that the Libyan Interim President has wasted no time apologizing for the attack.

Duly noted. And if the Libyan government is helpful in bringing to justice those responsible for the killing, then I will believe that there is hope for some people in the region to climb out of the morass that has been created by the likes of Al-Qaida and the Saddamists.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Muslim mobs have gone after a third American embassy; this time in Yemen.  No deaths this time, and they didn't get into the embassy building itself, although they did breach the walls of the compound.  (Yemen, one may note, is an al-Qaeda hotbed.)

Petes said...

Lynnette, when I use those links, including C&P'ing them, they always redirect to:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3

Maybe it's my geography or something.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Pete,

That's weird. Well, if you're interested, maybe just go to the CNN site and search using the descriptions, "Walnut Powered Farm" and "Drought Sinks House". That might get you to the videos.

It might have something to do with your geographical location, yes. Although you wouldn't think that would be a problem with the internet. *sigh*

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Apropos nothing in particular:

Lost in the news cycle fixation over Arab protests of an obscure, ‘independent’ anti-Muslim film entitled ‘The Innocence of Muslims’, and subsequent attacks on American embassies and against the American Ambassador to Libya, the German Constitutional Court has decided that it is constitutional under the German constitution for Germany to participate in the financial bailout of struggling Euro nations by backing ‘Eurobonds’ with Germany's credit.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Muslim mobs have gone after a third American embassy; this time in Yemen.

Kind of reminds me of the flash mobs promoted by social media.

It also seems as if Al-Qaida and its affiliates are using this film as a propaganda tool to incite masses of people into an emotional firestorm. In other words, they are being used.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

German Constitutional Court has decided that it is constitutional under the German constitution for Germany to participate in the financial bailout of struggling Euro nations by backing ‘Eurobonds’ with Germany's credit.

Another step in the right direction, psychologically speaking.

Marcus said...

OK, so it's a shitty film. I watched some of it on youtube just to see what the fuss was about and it's a piece of crap. Couldn't even be bothered to see the whole 12 minutes of it.

But what should the lesson be? That we need to be more sensitive towards muslim emotions? Or that the muslim world needs to grow up and treat these kind of provocations with a shrug and ignore them?

I think the latter. First of all I am against constraints of freedom of speach and second if there were no reactions there would be no more provocations. No one would bother making provocating films and cartoons if they got no reactions to them.

The rioters are playing right into the hands of the provocateurs, and they don't seem to even realise this.

And I don't think the apologising comments from western leaders and media are doing any good at all in the long run. They just validate the idea that muslims are incapable of a reasoned response to insults.

(and I don't need to be told it's a tiny minority of one billion muslims who riot, I know that)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "But what should the lesson be?"

I rather think that there's more than just one thing that might be learned.

      "Or that the muslim world needs to grow up…"

I'm all in favor of that; I'm not holding my breath though.

      "And I don't think the apologising comments from
      western leaders and media are doing any good at all
      in the long run.
"

I'm unaware of any apologizing going on from any ‘western leaders’ in regards to this particular film.  (And I believe the whole thing runs to around 90 minutes.)  I'm not sure what all might be found in various op-ed media pieces, but I don't know of whole lot of apologizing going on.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Re:  American politics

Just heard Shawn Hannity on the radio alleging that American Ambassador Chris Stevens was captured and tortured, including being sodomized, before he was killed and the body abandoned to be found many hours later.
He just said that on the radio.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hmmm...that's not what I heard. The cause of death was smoke inhalation. The reason the body wasn't recovered right away was because some Libyans had taken him to a hospital. I would ask Shawn Hannity for the source of that claim, I think.

What is interesting is the military elements being deployed to the region.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The rioters are playing right into the hands of the provocateurs, and they don't seem to even realise this.

They are not thinking, they are merely reacting, which is what was hoped for, I am thinking.

What's interesting is the question of who the provocateurs are. The film itself seems to have a murky history. It seemed to morph into something other than what it started out as. Yet no one really knows who was behind it at this time. A lot of rumors flying around.

For most Americans it would never even have showed up on our radar if it weren't for the over reaction of people in the ME.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I would ask Shawn Hannity for the source of that
      claim, I think.
"

Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I filed that one under the category of ‘politics’?

Bruno said...


[bruno] And I see that Lynnette has resorted to characterising the people of the middle east as ignorant peasants that need a strongman at the helm otherwise they will inevitably fall back to murdering each other.

[lynnette] "Hey, not me, Bruno! I'm just describing the behavior that I am seeing. Note the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya, the attacking of the US Embassy in Egypt, the slaughtering of people in Syria by Assad, the killing of Iranian protesters on Iranian streets by the Iranian government, the violence plaguing Iraq by numerous factions. Need I go on?"

Yet you are ignoring the fact that much of the lawlessness and anarchy stems precisely from the roots of western (often American) meddling in these countries.

Iran would probably have been a functioning democracy today if the US hadn't overthrown Mossadeq.

The violence in Syria is being stoked through western backing, as I demonstrated earlier.

Iraq wasn't in such a goddamn mess before the US decided to meddle there either.

Etc, etc.

Simply saying of the people of the middle east (the founders of civilisation on earth, I may add) that "they are like this" without taking into account that external meddling is a very big factor in their being "like this" is extremely shortsighted, if not intellectually bankrupt.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Iran would probably have been a functioning
      democracy today if the US hadn't overthrown
      Mossadeq.
"

That's highly unlikely.
  1.  There are no indicationss of a native Persian resistance to the ‘Dutch Disease’.
  2.  The nationalization of the oil industry which he spearheaded indicates a contempt for property rights inconsistent with a functioning democracy.
  3.  His suspension of elections and stacking of the Iranian Parliament indicates an attitude towards democracy fairly inconsistent with the prediction that it would survive his consolidation of power under the ‘emergency powers’ he had personally acquired.
  4.  I could go on, but that should be enough for now.

As for your references to Syria and Iraq, I can only note that you seem to have a special affinity for bloodthirsty ethnic minority dictatorships.  Something to do with you being a white South African I presume.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
I guess Friday Muslim prayers will soon let out crowds across the region, it's early afternoon in Cairo.
May prove to be an interesting day.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Re:  American politics

9:21 AM Central Daylight Time:  Glenn Beck just repeated on air the allegation that Ambassador Chris Stevens was ‘sodomized in the streets’.  Exact quote.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Bruno,

Yet you are ignoring the fact that much of the lawlessness and anarchy stems precisely from the roots of western (often American) meddling in these countries.

This statement merely shows ignorance of the history of the Middle East. Zeyad quite ably demonstrated the continual clashes within the region of the various tribes that inhabited it. America wasn't even in existence then. As for more recent history, countries that have been without our presence for years(Iran & Afghanistan) have proven to be large sources of violence throughout the ME, either because of their government's ambitions (Iran) or because of their government's collusion with terrorists(Iran & Afghanistan). That the ME would be an oasis of peace without our presence is only an illusion propogated by the delusional.

Iran would probably have been a functioning democracy today if the US hadn't overthrown Mossadeq.

When the Iranians had the chance to create their own government, without our "meddling", they created a theocracy. That does not a democracy make, no matter how many "elections" they perform.

The violence in Syria is being stoked through western backing, as I demonstrated earlier.

Any western backing is for those who wish to remove a dictator. It is the government of Syria that has been killing its own citizens because Assad is afraid for his own survival. A selfish little man who has no thought or feeling for his fellow Syrians.

Iraq wasn't in such a goddamn mess before the US decided to meddle there either.

Because it was held together by a strongman, hmmm? Are the Iraqis incapable of democracy then? Will they always fall into warring factions because no one can cede power to another faction, or because of inherent corruption within the system?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

May prove to be an interesting day.

It is proving to be a very embarrasing day...for people in the ME.

What is the world seeing? Groups of immature children throwing a temper tantrum because a film was created, apparently by a man originally from Egypt no less, denigrating an Islamic religious figure. We in the west have put up with any number of insults directed at us from the ME. We have not run off half cocked, burning diplomatic missions and killing people who are there trying to build bridges. The majority of people here would never have even heard of this film, let alone watched it, if it hadn't been for the behavior of people in the ME. And the majority of us would never have dreamed of denigrating any religion. There are crazies out there in every country. Don't give them the attention they crave.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Don't give them the attention they crave."

In case you haven't figured it out from the ‘sodomy’ allegations, we've got people of our own who're more than happy to give them all the attention that can possibly be directed to these outbursts.  They're even willing to engage in some counter-incitement of their own.¹

I've gotta think this has a lot to do with the reaction Romney's received to his recent foray into foreign policy as campaign tactic.  That hasn't worked out too well for him and they're trying to provide some sort of backup for him, I think that's it anyway.
The base thing Romney got wrong was this:
Americans were under attack from foreigners.  Romney's first move was to fire on another American, fire on the President.  The Republicans have been attacking Obama as anti-American so long they didn't even flinch at that.  To them, Romney was attacking a foreigner.  (The Democrats were, of course, outraged, but that's pretty much irrelevant to the point I'm making here.)
For the few, very few, remaining undecided, or potentially swingable voters, they've never bought into the idea that Obama is a member of the enemy camp, otherwise they'd not still be undecided voters; they'd be solid with Romney already.
So, they saw Romney take his first shot inside the circle of wagons, not at the enemy outside.  Bad move on Romney's part.
Now the right-wingers are trying to salvage something to take some of the sting outta Romney's bad move.

  ―――――――――――――
  ¹  I saw and heard the doctor who tried to revive Stevens at the Benghazi hospital, being interviewed on PBS yesterday.  "There were no bruises on his body; there were no injuries; there was only the smell of smoke."  That's the translation by PBS, voice-overed with the doctor's own Arabic output playing at a lower volume in the background.  I saw no reason to doubt the doctor.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Should have read:  ‘I saw no reason to doubt the doctor; nor the translation’.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Script:

I think that a lot of the violence across the Middle East has as much to do with internal, domestic politics as it has to do with any religious outrage.  Just as our right-wingers are playing the violence up for the advancement of their domestic agenda, a lot of the current violence has to do with Arab pols currently out of power who're trying to undermine their own governments.  Ain't seein’ this sort of stuff where the government is solid, say Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or even Morocco.  Or where the politics are otherwise occupied (the Syrians ain't takin’ a religious time out from their fighting to rail against the infidels)

Bruno said...

[lee] "The nationalization of the oil industry ... stacking of the Iranian Parliament"

Big deal. Plenty of functioning democracies have nationalised industries. We have Telkom and Eskom, for example. And cramming as many supporters into power structures is what reigning governments are wont to do. Perhaps I should then suggest that the legalised bribery within the American political system in the form of lobby groups renders it undemocratic? Or that the de facto, de jure, legalised assassination policy of the US against even its own citizens makes it undemocratic and bloodthirsty?

[lee] "As for your references to Syria and Iraq, I can only note that you seem to have a special affinity for bloodthirsty ethnic minority dictatorships. Something to do with you being a white South African I presume."

Being a South African does indeed give me a special insight into how governments can stoke violence and then characterise it an endemic to "those natives". You, being a pampered, over-caloried, murkin armchair critic, likewise find it easy to be cavalier about things you have never seen nor places you have never been to.

Bruno said...

[lynette] "As for more recent history, countries that have been without our presence for years(Iran & Afghanistan) have proven to be large sources of violence "

Afghanistan? REALLY? Try again. As for Iran being a "source of violence", perhaps you want to point out who they have invaded in, oh, say the last century?

[bruno] Iran would probably have been a functioning democracy today if the US hadn't overthrown Mossadeq.
[lynnette] "When the Iranians had the chance to create their own government, without our "meddling", they created a theocracy."

This comment is typical of the shallow, unresearched 'opinion' that is rife amongst your ilk. Need I point out that the "theocracy" occurred well after 1953? It was the only possible reaction that could depose the Shah, installed by the US/UK.

[bruno] The violence in Syria is being stoked through western backing, as I demonstrated earlier.
[lynnette] Any western backing is for those who wish to remove a dictator. It is the government of Syria that has been killing its own citizens

In other words, you are justifying stoking massive violence in another country because you do not like its political system. One could just as easily therefore say that any attacks on America are justified because it is the country that has been killing the world's citizens. I'm afraid that your position condemns you.

[bruno] Iraq wasn't in such a goddamn mess before the US decided to meddle there either.
[lynnette] Because it was held together by a strongman, hmmm?

American meddling in Iraq didn't begin in 2003. Nor in 1991. But evidently your murkin attention span only extends to the last ten minutes, despite the very issue having been debated extensively on this and other blogs that you have frequented.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "We have Telkom and Eskom, for example."

And those companies were seized from private owners, against the will of said private owners just when?  (I'll help you with the answer.)  They were not.  Your examples are irrelevant.

      "Being a South African does indeed give me a
      special insight into how governments can stoke
      violence and then characterise it an endemic to
      ‘those natives’.
"

Be that as it may…  My point was, to repeat myself, that:

      "I can only note that you seem to have a special
      affinity for bloodthirsty ethnic minority dictatorships.
      Something to do with you being a white South African
      I presume.
"
      Lee C. @ 6:26 AM

You have avoided the point.  But, I'm okay with that ending.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Need I point out that the "theocracy" occurred
      well after 1953? It was the only possible reaction that
      could depose the Shah, installed by the US/UK.
"

Not true, not even close.  The ‘theocracy’ was still in exile in France when the Shaw was deposed.  The Ayatollah Khomeini returned only later, and then managed a coup on the democracy movement before they could get their bearings.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "American meddling in Iraq didn't begin in 2003.
      Nor in 1991.
"

    Merkins!  Merkins!  Evil Merkins!
    Always Merkins; evil Merkins!
    Evil Merkins everywhere.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Re:  American politics

Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled for an appearance on Meet The Press this coming Sunday.  Given the stories of an hour-long phone call to him from Obama, and his subsequent silence about the substance of that call, one might reasonably anticipate him taking the opportunity to strike back when he's got the American cameras' attention come Sunday.  Might prove to be an interesting interview.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Lee] In case you haven't figured it out from the ‘sodomy’ allegations, we've got people of our own who're more than happy to give them all the attention that can possibly be directed to these outbursts. They're even willing to engage in some counter-incitement of their own.¹

Yes, I did figure that out. The result of which was my skeptical remark regarding asking for his source. I too see no reason to doubt the doctor.

I think that a lot of the violence across the Middle East has as much to do with internal, domestic politics as it has to do with any religious outrage.

I am guessing that there may be varying reasons for the violence in each country. The film was just an excuse for hotheads to blow off steam in one, whereas there may have been more to the attack in Libya.

I do remember reading about a demonstration in Iran, which I thought a little odd as they mentioned only about 500 people involved. Possibly the government couldn't dig up any more.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] Afghanistan? REALLY? Try again. As for Iran being a "source of violence", perhaps you want to point out who they have invaded in, oh, say the last century?

The group that attacked us on 9/11 was based in Afghanistan and allied with its government, which had everything to do with our invasion there. They have also been instrumental in attacks in other countries.

Iran uses proxies to foment violence in other countries. No need to invade anyone.

Need I point out that the "theocracy" occurred well after 1953? It was the only possible reaction that could depose the Shah, installed by the US/UK.

I think Lee answered this quite well. Even some of the Iranians who participated in the overthrow of the Shah have made the same point. The people who truly supported democracy found the revolution hijacked by the more militant Islamists.

In other words, you are justifying stoking massive violence in another country because you do not like its political system.

No, I am justifying assisting people who would put in place a system of government that would represent all the people in their country. Of course, if they succeed in removing Assad it still remains to be seen if they can accomplish what the Iranians could not.

American meddling in Iraq didn't begin in 2003. Nor in 1991.

Ahhh, back to the Cold War, Bruno?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

The maker of the film is on probation for five years for bank fraud committed in 2010. Part of that means that he can't access a computer or any device that connects to the inernect without his probation officer's permission. He was taken in for an interview, but was never under arrest.

Filmmaker questioned

For any copy and pasters out there:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

*sigh*

internect = internet

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I thought a little odd as they mentioned only
      about 500 people involved. Possibly the government
      couldn't dig up any more.
"

Or perhaps the Persian Shia see no reason to distract attention from and perhaps prematurely break up a pissin’ match between the Americans and the Arab Sunni.  They may be of a mind to do more by way of exploiting than by participating.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "…between the Americans [and the Brits and the
      Germans and maybe The West in general if they're
      lucky]…"

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
It appears that the Muslim, (Islamist?) demostrations are tapering off across the region.  That's the usual pattern.  The fuss over the Danish cartoons died down after they'd burned a few buildings and killed a few people.  The "Qu'ran burning" incident (I guess that'd be ‘incidents’; there were two) followed the same pattern.  So the fuss is probably mostly over for now.

I'd really like to figure out some way to discourage these sorts of medieval displays.  But I must admit to being at something of a loss as to what might reasonably be expected to work.  (I think we can rule out strutting and puffing and chest-thumping as being likely to produce the desired outcomes.) 
Perhaps we should turn to a different question then, like:  What should our relationship be, going forward, to a people who are prone to having irrational and violent fits?  (This assumes we give up on the notion of discouraging the fits in the first place, and just accept that as fact of life.)

lanvin bag said...

Lanvin Bag One of many hand bags I do believe in regards to the the very least yet possibly have the many utilize out there regarding will be my own beauty carrier. I take advantage of that everyday, that journeys together with myself and also, truth be told, My partner and i don’t acquire great attention than it. I will acquire far better attention than it, but instead My partner and i consider My partner and i acquire my own sweet tiny beauty carrier regarding of course. The truth is, it's really a make a difference of energy right up until My partner and i understand I must change that and also any time in which evening will come, I am going to unavoidably be used simply by big surprise and also under-prepared. As opposed to holding out right up until my own existing
Lanvin Bag carrier gnaws the particular airborne dirt and dust, I’ve made a decision to test one thing fresh and also planahead.
www.lanvinbagonline.com

Bruno said...

[lynnette] Iran uses proxies to foment violence in other countries. No need to invade anyone.

So you therefore hold Iran accountable for the actions of its proxies. Fair enough, I guess.

I suppose that you will not have any objections to hold AMERICA responsible for the violence ITS proxies have formented?

Contra atrocities, the actions of Israel, the actions of all the lovely Muj the US bankrolled and armed in Afghanistan, the actions of the death squads in Iraq, the actions of every murderous secret police that the US helped set up ... ?

Or is your famous murkin hypocrisy going to rear its head?


[bruno] Need I point out that the "theocracy" occurred well after 1953? It was the only possible reaction that could depose the Shah, installed by the US/UK.
[lynnette] I think Lee answered this quite well. [...] The people who truly supported democracy found the revolution hijacked by the more militant Islamists.

LEE answered squat. The theocrats were the only organised force left to actually fight the Shah, and they were in exile because otherwise the (CIA-trained) SAVAK would have 'disappeared' them. I repeat: the consequence of installing a murderous dictator is revolution, and the only force able to toss him out was the clergy.

[bruno] American meddling in Iraq didn't begin in 2003. Nor in 1991.
[lynnette] Ahhh, back to the Cold War, Bruno?

In other words: YES, we were responsible. We wanted the Baath in power and helped them get there. Now however, we want to disavow all responsibility for our actions, because the Soviets *made* us do it.

LMAO!

Ask Zeyad if he is grateful for US meddling in Iraq ... whether Iraq has become better or worse for it. Ask him via email, if you don't want the response to be public. I've never asked him, but in my humble opinion there can be only one honest answer to that question.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I repeat: …the only force able to toss him [the
      Shaw] out was the clergy."

The truth has absolutely no impact on you, does it?
 
Just for the record:  Nope, ‘the clergy’ didn't toss the Shaw out.  ‘The clergy’ stayed safely away from the fighting as clergy almost always does.  What the clergy did is they managed to capture the revolution others had initiated.
Likewise The Bolsheviks didn't actually topple the Czar.  The Muslim Brotherhood didn't bring down Mubarak.
It's a fairly old story.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "So you therefore hold Iran accountable for the
      actions of its proxies.
"

I believe what she said was that Iran managed to avoid any need to invade its enemies by way of the use of proxy forces.  You seem to have performed a sort of quantum leap away from the point she actually made and are now off in your own unrelated world again.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "In other words: and etc."

I'm guessin’ them words ain't bearin’ even a remote resemblance to any ‘other words’ for what she was tellin’ us.  I'm guessin’ you're just off in your unrelated babble world again.  Whacha wanna bet on that?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Script:

And, just for the record:  The CIA's earlier attempts to engineer a coup against the regime of Karim Kassim (a regime as horrid and repressive as Saddam's), those actually failed.  The one that got him, in 1963, and the subsequent Baathi coup of 1968, were put together by Iraqi forces themselves, without our ‘help’.  Saddam's subsequent rise among his fellow Baathi was also a freelance operation, totally homegrown; we were not involved.

Bruno said...

[lee] What the clergy did is they managed to capture the revolution others had initiated.

No:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_Islamic_revolution

November 27(6th Azar): Millions throughout the country celebrate "weeping" and "jumping" after seeing Khomeini's face in the moon, after rumour sweeps the land that the Imam's face will so appear on this night. Even the Tudeh Party embraces the story.[27]
December 10 and 11 (19th and 20th of Azar): Tasu'a and Ashura. As many as 17 million people "up and down the country march peacefully demanding the removal of the Shah and return of Khomeini."[28] 17-point resolution is presented during the demonstration "declaring the Ayatollah to be the leader of the Iranian people," and calling on Iranians to struggle until the Shah is overthrown.[29]
[...]
"February 1 (12th of Bahman): Khomeini returns to Iran from exile. According to BBC up to five million people line the streets of the Iran's capital, Tehran to witness the homecoming of Khomeini.[32]"

Bruno said...

[bruno] As for Iran being a "source of violence", perhaps you want to point out who they have invaded in, oh, say the last century?
[lynnette] "Iran uses proxies to foment violence in other countries. No need to invade anyone."
[bruno] "So you therefore hold Iran accountable for the actions of its proxies."

[lee] "I believe what she said was that Iran managed to avoid any need to invade its enemies by way of the use of proxy forces. You seem to have performed a sort of quantum leap away from the point she actually made and are now off in your own unrelated world again"

Ergo: You truly are an ignorant and obtuse dumbass.

Your capacity for reason is exceeded by the average amoeba. Is there anybody else that cannot make the tiny, exceedingly simple leap of reason from

this: [lynnette] "Iran uses proxies to foment violence in other countries. No need to invade anyone."

to this: [bruno] "So you therefore hold Iran accountable for the actions of its proxies."

If so, I hereby bestow upon you the "plank of the year" award.

Furthermore I know for a fact that the entire saga of the CIA and the Baath has been trotted out before, yet you seem to have learned exactly diddly squat.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them". The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often. Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

Either you are the most overt troll this site has ever seen, or you are thicker than the Iranian bunkers that America is slowly gearing itself up to bomb. Maybe both. They are not mutually exclusive.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

  
Sorry Bruno, but showing that the Ayatollah had followers among the revolutionaries, and even among the general population, (a point I would have conceded if you'd simply asked) is inadequate support for your claim that only the theocrats had the chops to bring down the Shaw.  We will await your proof of that with unbated breath.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
      "US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad
      Embassy at the time."

You realize that Akin was dismissed from the Foreign Services in the 70s on account of, shall we say, allowing his overly-active and unusually fact-resistant and free-floating imagination to begin breaking out into the real world?  (Something about an imaginary plot by Kissinger to invade the Middle East and seize the regions' oil fields for ourselves was what got his fantasy life finally noticed by his superiors I believe. And this was just as we were coming out of Vietnam. You and he may inhabit some of the same regions of the imagination.)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Lee] Perhaps we should turn to a different question then, like: What should our relationship be, going forward, to a people who are prone to having irrational and violent fits?

I think that is a fundamental question being asked at the moment.

I realize that the people demonstrating are a minority in the region. But when you have the knee jerk reaction of the Egyptian government, in the form of Morsi, calling for demonstrations against the United States because of this film, you have to re-think your relationships. I am willing to chaulk up this reaction to some of the people in the Middle East not understanding the freedoms granted to individuals in our country, because they do not have a similar governmental structure, but those in government should be knowledgable enough to know.

I was somewhat comforted by people in Libya who made an effort to say that they did not agree with what happened there and apologizing for what happened at our consulate. Those are the people I would be happy to form ties or friendships with.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I was somewhat comforted by people in Libya who
      made an effort to say that they did not agree with
      what happened there and apologizing for what
      happened at our consulate.
"

We actually get majority approval 54% from the Libyan population.  (And those who're less approving still have room to disapprove of the killing of the Ambassador.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I realize that the people demonstrating are a
      minority in the region.
"

And I also realize that the majority of people didn't take part in the demonstrations.  But I see no real indication that the majority consider this conduct to reflect poorly on Islam itself or on the Muslim majority who tolerate it.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] I suppose that you will not have any objections to hold AMERICA responsible for the violence ITS proxies have formented?

Contra atrocities,

Cold War era time period. Any fomenting was done by others. However, if we had personnel on the ground directly supervising any of these people, they are responsible. Similar to My Lai.

the actions of Israel,

Israel is a soveriegn state responsible for its own actions.

the actions of all the lovely Muj the US bankrolled and armed in Afghanistan,

Direct response to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. No problem with that during that time period.

the actions of the death squads in Iraq,

As far as I know there were no death squads that we set up.

the actions of every murderous secret police that the US helped set up ... ?

We may help set up any number of police/army, such as we tried, or are trying, to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are not there to give direct supervision or orders to them, then actions taken by them are not our responsibility. We also tried to set up an anti-corruption watch dog entitiy in Iraq before we left. A lot of good that did.

Ask Zeyad if he is grateful for US meddling in Iraq ...

Zeyad? Did you say Zeyad? Haven't seen him. I am starting to think his family have him tied up in the back bedroom and are feeding him bread and water, while they try to re-educate him.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

I believe Iraqis actually liked Saddam in the beginning too. Nobody every said Iraqis aren't charming when they want to be.

Gotta run...

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I believe Iraqis actually liked Saddam in the
      beginning too.
"

Saddam wasn't a ‘Ba'ath Party leader’ in 1963.  He was, at best, a low-level street operative, and maybe just a hanger-on, wanna-be.  I don't know that he'd even officially been admitted to the party in 1963.  (Which doesn't change the fact that Akin himself is a refugee from reality, and has been for years.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

     
I checked; Saddam joined in '57, but he was in Egypt when the '63 coup went down, having previously been designated as an expendable asset, one the guns on the street in a failed '58 attempt on Kassim's life.  When that failed he escaped to Egypt.

Marcus said...

Lee: "Saddam wasn't a ‘Ba'ath Party leader’ in 1963. He was, at best, a low-level street operative, and maybe just a hanger-on, wanna-be."

He was Baath party secretary in 1964 and was organising on the outside what imprisoned Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, a relative of Saddam, was orchestrating from jail. al-Bakr was one of twelve in the original revolutionary council of the Baath party put together in 1961, so Saddam was indeed connected to the top from the get go. In 1966 al-Bakr was freed from prison and in 1968 he led a coup and became president, Saddam became vice president. Saddam didn't get any minister post but was put in charge of Iraqs entire security portfolio and was arguably the real strongman even then. He purged the security forces of anyone he deemed unreliable and brought in dependable people - preferally fellow Tikritis to be sure of their allegiance. In 1973 Nazzim Kazzar attempted a coup which failed. In 1979 al-Bakr stepped down and named Saddam his successor. Saddam started off with the now infamous mandatory party meeting where 60 Bath party officials were named traitors and 21 of them executed, and the rest thrown in jail for long terms - the meeting Saddam presided over with a cigar in his hand feigning tears when the "traitors" names were called out. From then on there was no real opposition.

Bruno said...

[lee] "showing that the Ayatollah had followers among the revolutionaries, and even among the general population, (a point I would have conceded if you'd simply asked) is inadequate support for your claim that only the theocrats had the chops to bring down the Shaw."

My "claim" is what happened in reality. My claim is a reflection of the fact that in the end only the theocrats DID have the chops to expel the Shah. No more or less. It's clear that the revolution was religious in nature and that nothing was "hijacked". Case closed.

[lee] "You realize that Akin was dismissed from the Foreign Services in the 70s on account of [telling the truth]"

Fixed it for ya.

I could go on with a hit parade with many more sources hammering on the same point, but we've seen it all before, and we've seen your reaction as well. (They're all liars, frauds, loonies, mistaken, on drugs etc etc)

Let me save you the time and note that your voluminous objections are on the record.

Bruno said...

[Bruno] I suppose that you will not have any objections to hold AMERICA responsible for the violence ITS proxies have formented?

[bruno] "Contra atrocities"
[lynnette] Cold War era time period.

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

... gets the Lynnette stamp o' approval. Ok.

[bruno] the actions of Israel,
[lynnette] Israel is a soveriegn state responsible for its own actions.

... but people like Hezbollah are the sole responsibility of Iran? Rank hypocrisy, check.

[bruno] the actions of all the lovely Muj the US bankrolled and armed in Afghanistan,
[lynnette] Direct response to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.

We've been over this before. But you weren't paying attention. It was the US strategy to provoke the invasion. And when the Soviets invaded, THESE are the people the US chose to back:

"Hekmatyar, who still uses the honorific “Engineer” in recognition of his studies at KU, became a paragon of Islamist militancy, reportedly carrying a vial of acid to fling into the faces of coeds not veiling themselves with suitable modesty. [...] In order to improve his bargaining position, Hekmatyar engaged in several campaigns of indiscriminate shelling of Kabul over the next two years that killed 20,000 civilians but did not seal his political ascendancy."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/09/meet-gulbuddin-hekmatyar/

... and he gets the Lynnette stamp o' approval. Ok.

[bruno] the actions of the death squads in Iraq,
[lynnette] As far as I know there were no death squads that we set up.

... except for the entire armed forces drawn from the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni. I guess you missed the mountain of dead Iraqis in the rush to get to McD's, right?

[bruno] the actions of every murderous secret police that the US helped set up ... ?

[lynnette] We may help set up any number of police/army, such as we tried, or are trying, to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are not there to give direct supervision or orders to them, then actions taken by them are not our responsibility.

Yet, I notice, you attribute to IRAN the honour of being responsible for violence formented by its "proxies"? There's that odor of rank hypocrisy yet again.

You know, if you could actually see the colossal hypocrisy for just a second, you'd be stunned.

I'm not holding my breath.

On seconds thoughts, maybe I should.

Bruno said...

Marcus, hat tip.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "He was Baath party secretary in 1964…"

But, in ‘63 he was still in Egypt and was not yet a party leader…  He came home after the ‘63 coup.  (And found they suddenly had room for rapid advancement, of which opportunity he appears to have taken good advantage.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "My ‘claim’ is what happened in reality."

Your ‘claim’ cites as its authority, accepted without question, signs in heavens.  The Ayatollah in the sky.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "He came home after the ‘63 coup."

Which ‘63 coup, was by the way, coincidentally, not one of ours.  Our attempts to initiate a coup against Kassim had failed.  This one was entirely homegrown.  (Which may be part of the reason they had better luck.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Post Scipt:

The ‘68 coup wasn't one of ours either.  So, I've always been somewhat confounded by the people who so desperately want to tie us to the ‘63 coup.  Even if their fantasies in that regard were true (and they are not) then all that would prove is that the bad guys, Saddam's Ba'ath party, pulled a coup on ‘our’ guys, which is not where they want to go with it, if they'd just take a moment to think it through.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

... gets the Lynnette stamp o' approval. Ok.


Not hardly. You need to read my original statement a little more closely.

... but people like Hezbollah are the sole responsibility of Iran?

Since when has Hezbollah been a sovereign nation? Look a little closer at who is pulling their strings.

It was the US strategy to provoke the invasion. [regarding Afghanistan]

I think you really need to look more closely at your sources, Bruno. That falls into the realm of fantasy.

...the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni.

No ethnic cleansing was supported by the United States. If you had actions taken by people within Iraq, they were their own ideas.

...you attribute to IRAN the honour of being responsible for violence formented by its "proxies"?

If Iran is giving instructions on the actions to be taken by these groups, then yes, I attribute their behavior to Iran.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I think you really need to look more closely at your
      sources, Bruno. That falls into the realm of fantasy.
"

The signs in the Heavens, the Ayatollah in the Sky didn't tip you off?

Anny Choo said...

An authentic Ferragamo Handbag handbag looks well from every aspect such as proportion. Perfect proportion is the most outstanding feature of a Ferragamo Outlet handbag. The handle is a detail for you to pay attention to a handbag that is completely centered in handle is real. If not, do not consider this handbag as it is a fake.

http://www.ferragamobagsale.com

Bruno said...

[bruno] but people like Hezbollah are the sole responsibility of Iran?
[lynnette] Since when has Hezbollah been a sovereign nation? Look a little closer at who is pulling their strings.

"Sovereign nation" is a term that essentially means little, especially when the facts on the ground contradict your notion of "sovereign". The truth is that Israel and the US are linked even more tightly than Iran and Hezbollah, and cooperate on all manner of strategy when dealing with middle eastern countries. Really, you people must think that the rest of us are little children, and that we don't see these things.

[bruno] the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni.
[lynnette] No ethnic cleansing was supported by the United States. If you had actions taken by people within Iraq, they were their own ideas.

OK, so let me get this straight.

Iran sending weapons and cash to Hezbollah is "formenting violence".

America importing a bunch of rabid quasi-Iranians into Iraq, arming them, training them, transporting them around on US vehicles and conducting raids with them where Iraqi sunnis happen to "vanish" ... has nothing to do with the United States?

My dear, I suggest that you put down the crack pipe and turn on the ventilator before the enormous stinking cloud of your double standards chokes you to death.

Bruno said...

[bruno] It was the US strategy to provoke the invasion. [regarding Afghanistan]
[lynnette] I think you really need to look more closely at your sources, Bruno. That falls into the realm of fantasy.

Let me address this woeful ignorance on your part regarding knowledge of your own country's foreign policy. I know that y'all murkins are as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to your country's overseas shennanigans, but I have posted this before:


"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Ostrich sized egg to wipe off?

Or ... let me guess ... they're liars, deluded, on drugs, etc?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
The quote mentions the word ‘invasion’ not once.  Only Bruno mentions an ‘invasion’  When prompted to suggest that he thought a Soviet invasion would follow, Brezinski said, ‘It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene…

Bruno said...

Lee, grasping at straws as he slides into a bog.

Soon, only a few small bubbles will remain to mark the passing of his absurd existence

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
I have an alternative definition for ‘grasping at straws’.  It would involve making an allegation, as you have done, and then using as your supposed source for that allegation a quote from a person who, in fact, denies what you have alleged.
That's what's happened here.

Bruno said...

Hark! What's that?

Could that be the gurgle of silty swamp water sluicing down the simian's throat, as he ponders

"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap"

and slowly chokes to death in his beloved backwoods. Alas, if only he had tested for quicksand BEFORE ambling across that innocent looking clearing! (Much like he used to check for traps when pondering the mysteries of addition and subtraction posed by the wily PeteS.)

Bruno said...

1+1, LEE!

Quickly, now.

This is your chance to redeem yourself!

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Much like he used to check for traps when
      pondering the mysteries of addition and subtraction
      posed by the wily PeteS.
"

PeteS was much too impressed with his own sophistries.  I'm sure he often thought I was looking for a trap merely because I was so much less impressed with himself and with his various, often tangential ramblings than he was.
You seem to suffer somewhat similar delusions of your own adequacy.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Bruno,

The truth is that Israel and the US are linked even more tightly than Iran and Hezbollah, and cooperate on all manner of strategy when dealing with middle eastern countries.

lol! Really? Netanyahu may disagree with you.

OK, so let me get this straight.

Iran sending weapons and cash to Hezbollah is "formenting violence".


Why thank you for admitting the link between Iran and Hezbollah. For some reason people seem to always want to fudge that.

America importing a bunch of rabid quasi-Iranians into Iraq,

Quasi-Iranians? Interesting term. Either you are or you aren't.

...conducting raids with them where Iraqi sunnis happen to "vanish" ... has nothing to do with the United States?

Vanish? And who exactly were these Sunnis that vanished? If they were conducting operations against the US then I can see where they might...er...vanish. When I said the United States did not support ethnic cleansing, I was referring to the forced migration of any group of people. Anyone who was attempting to kill us, be they Sunni or Shia or whatever, would have been subject to detention.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[bruno] It was the US strategy to provoke the invasion. [regarding Afghanistan]

No, it was not.

In 1961, Nikita Khrushchev had laid out Soviet plans to gain ground worldwide by aiding leftists in wars of national liberation, and the next generations of Soviet leaders had reaffirmed his doctrine. Just as European leaders had failed to understand that Hitler meant exactly what he said when he announced in Mien Kampf that he planned to conquer his neighbors, so the United States had placed itself at risk by failing to grasp and respond to the Soviet Union's announced ambitions. The CIA's new role now, Casey said, was to demonstrate "that two can play the same game. Just as there is a classic formula for communist subversion and takeover, there also is a proven method of overthrowing repressive government that can be applied successfully in the Third World." It was in Afghanistan that he was beginning to make this "proven method" of anticommunist guerrilla war work. "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, pg. 97

It was always an attempt to stop expansion by the Soviets, whether you are talking the ME or South America.

Bruno said...

"Vanish? And who exactly were these Sunnis that vanished? If they were conducting operations against the US then I can see where they might...er...vanish."

You forget on whose blog you are writing this twaddle, Lynnette. I'm not going to go on about your deliberate disingenious approach, because frankly, it's a waste of time.

I've corresponded personally with Iraqis that had nothing to do with any resistance, yet their relatives and neighbours were detained, sometimes never to be seen again. Khalid, for one, was extremely lucky to get out of prison alive.

But you keep on with your two - faced approach.

It makes my argument better for me than I ever could.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] "It was always an attempt to stop expansion by the Soviets, whether you are talking the ME or South America. [...] [quoting] there also is a proven method of overthrowing repressive government that can be applied successfully in the Third World." It was in Afghanistan that he was beginning to make this "proven method" of anticommunist guerrilla war work."

Utter balls.

1: Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet intervention was provoked by the Americans
2: You are plain and simple, justifying revolution and terrorism, because "the other side made me do it." In that vein 911 was self defense, in order "to stop American expansion".

Have you any idea how retarded you sound?

Here's some more 'heroic' quotes for you to chew on. Like you, they justify their acts as against a global hegemony, against injustice and against dictatorships:

"This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
[...]
"What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ."
[...]
I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land
[...]
the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."


No link.

You have the fun of finding out who your ideological pals are for yourself.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

You forget on whose blog you are writing this twaddle, Lynnette.

I do not forget on whose blog I am writing. Your implication with your comment was that the US supported some kind of wholesale cleansing of a populace. That is just not the case.

I've corresponded personally with Iraqis that had nothing to do with any resistance, yet their relatives and neighbours were detained, sometimes never to be seen again.

And I have read numerous accounts of Iraqis preferring to be detained by US forces rather than their Iraqi brethren. Not something they would wish if they thought we were the ones "disappearing" them.


Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Had to run and get lunch...chili...to continue:

1: Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet intervention was provoked by the Americans.

*sigh*

What came first, Bruno, the chicken or the egg? The Soviets started their policy of expansion in '61, they were already involved in Afghanistan before the invasion. We were just responding.

I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land

They would do better by removing the forces that would mire those lands in the past without hope for a better future.

Bruno said...


[lynnette] "Your implication with your comment was that the US supported some kind of wholesale cleansing of a populace. That is just not the case."

Yet ... yet, there are MILLIONS of (mostly Sunni) Iraqis living displaced as refugees and hundreds of thousands more, dead. On AMERICA'S watch. Your facile comments are akin to a Nazi camp guard saying that he knows nothing about any ethnic cleansing within the camps, that it was actually the Jews themselves killing each other off. Innocent, I say!

Don't make me laugh.

Here is a map showing what happened to Baghdad:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2008/03/12/20234/kagan-ethnic-cleansing/?mobile=nc

From a 65% sunni city to one that is 75% shia.

This at a point where it was CRAWLING with American troops.

Yet y'all knew nothing.

Sure.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] "The Soviets started their policy of expansion in '61, they were already involved in Afghanistan before the invasion. We were just responding."

Nope. The actual, military intervention (the same sort of thing the US does for its allies when they are in danger of being overthrown by revolt) began in response the American meddling.
Besides, your argument is on the face of it, ludicrous. Essentially you are saying that a country being in the sphere of influence of another country justifies "responding" by its rivals. Sort of like saying that China could "respond" to American "expansion" in South Korea, and that they would be right to do so. *shakes head in disbelief*

[lynnette's ideological pal] "I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land"
[lynnette] They would do better by removing the forces that would mire those lands in the past without hope for a better future."

But ... but that IS what they were doing!

(Braveheart voice) Freeeedddooooooomm!

That's why they had to hit New York. See, it all makes sense, now.

They wanted to get rid of them dictators.

It's war, baby; freedom ain't free!

It was "in response", see?

It's all justified!

Isn't it?

:\

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Yet ... yet, there are MILLIONS of (mostly Sunni) Iraqis living displaced as refugees and hundreds of thousands more, dead. On AMERICA'S watch.

The displaced people of Iraq were a direct result of the sectarian violence that arose between various Iraqi factions. The United States would have had to have a larger number of troops on the ground to completely tamp down this violence. It was only after people within Iraq understood that a continuation of that violence would only rip apart the country that we were able to find people to work on building rather than destroying. It is now up to them to continue to find a way to work on that rebuilding. Or not, as the case may be.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

lynnette] The Soviets started their policy of expansion in '61, they were already involved in Afghanistan before the invasion. We were just responding.

[Bruno] Nope. The actual, military intervention (the same sort of thing the US does for its allies when they are in danger of being overthrown by revolt) began in response the American meddling.


I wasn't referring to military involvement.

For nearly two decades the KGB had secretly funded and nurtured communist leadership networks at Kabul University and in the Afghan army, training and indoctrinating some 3.275 military personnel on Soviet soil. Afghan president Mohammed Daoud played Moscow and Washington against each other during the 1970's, accepting financial aid and construction projects from each in a precarious balancing act. In April 1978, Daoud fell off his beam. He arrested communist leaders in Kabul after they staged a noisy protest. Soviet-backed consipirators seeded within the Afghan army shot him dead days later in a reception room of his tattered palace. Triumphant Afghan leftists ripped down the green-striped national flag and unfurled red banners across a rural and deeply religious nation barely acquainted with industrial technology or modernism. Hundreds of Soviet military and political advisers were barracked in Afghan cities and towns to organize secret police networks, army and militia units, small factories, and coeducational schools. Advised by the KGB, Kabul's Marxists launched a terror campaign against religious and social leaders who might have the standing to challenge communist rule. By 1979 about twelve thousand political prisoners had been jailed. Systematic exucations began behind prison walls. "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, pge. 39

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
SOP for Bruno would be to start carryin’ on ‘bout Nicaraqua or Guantánamo or some other unrelated thing right ‘bout now.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] "The displaced people of Iraq were a direct result of the sectarian violence that arose between various Iraqi factions. The United States would [waffle, waffle, excuses, excuses]"

Lest we forget, it was the USA that went into Iraq with a sectarian mindset and imposed a sectarian model through force from the top down in the form of the governing council. Who imported radical sectarian militants and made them the core of the security forces.

To distance yourself from the consequences of these actions is par for the course for your average simian warmonger.

SOP would be to point out that I was right, as usual, and that American backing of the muj in Afghanistan, (after having induced a formal intervention through shennanigans that they denied at the time) came back to bite y'all in the arse on 911.

The big hole you have in the middle of NYC is a full stop on the argument that I could not achieve through mere rhetoric.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Bruno fled Afghanistan sure ‘nuff, but he didn't make it all the way to the Caribbean, only so far as Iraq.  (Along with an attempt at a ‘Hail Mary’ pass heaved towards Ground Zero in New York City.)  He's staggering, but not yet down.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Lest we forget, it was the USA that went into Iraq with a sectarian mindset and imposed a sectarian model through force from the top down in the form of the governing council.

I think you confuse us with the British. The governing council was meant to be representative of all people within Iraq. Where we made an error, I believe, was in finding qualified people to run the government. But then I think anyone stepping into that situation would have had difficulty. After so many years of oppressive rule by Saddam and his regime the transition to any other type of government was going to be hard, to say the least.

That you don't consider the situation in Iraq under Saddam is typical of your glossing over any responsibility on the part of Iraqis for his rise to power. And it is the behavior of Iraqis then, and now, that will be the deciding factor in where Iraq ends up.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Lee at 5:48 a.m....lol!

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

P.S. for Bruno,

...the argument that I could not achieve through mere rhetoric.

Perhaps the real reason for that is that your rhetoric is incomplete, inaccurate, and skewed toward an anti-American agenda that blinds you to the realities of other people's contributions to the strife in this world. Ever thought of reading something that doesn't automatically support your way of thinking?

Bruno said...

"your rhetoric is incomplete, inaccurate, and skewed toward an anti-American agenda"

My rhetoric is accurate, factually based, and poses questions that you cannot answer other than through trying to divert the topic towards anything but admitting culpability.

I love it how Iran assisting Hezbollah is "formenting violence" ... but the US doing the same thing to an even greater degree on a much larger scale automatically becomes "the fault of the Iraqis", for example.

Clearly there are double standards at play here.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If what the US did in Iraq cannot, by your standards, be laid at the feet of the US, then neither can Iran be accused of formenting violence by aiding Hezbollah.

Conversely, if we accept the premise that aiding Hezbollah is going to lead to violence, and that Iran is responsible, then likewise we can accept that the US arming the Badrists involves US responsibility on the violence that ensued.

See how that works?

Really, it is quite simple.


Bruno said...

"The governing council was meant to be representative of all people within Iraq."

What America needs for true democracy and representation is a government that is ethnically arrayed. So many negroes, so many latinos, so many whites. They can all have their own special ethnically chosen representatives. Any politics based on issues needs to take a second place to this new, marvellous system. This will lead to greater unity and cohesion.

:|

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

...US arming the Badrists involves US responsibility on the violence that ensued.

The US armed the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is responsible for security within Iraq. If members of that government are corrupt, or acting upon sectarian motives, then there needs to be a mechanism put in place to remove those people. Unfortunately, considering the rather loud voices screaming about our infringement on Iraqi soveriegnty, our ability to put that mechanism in place and allow for oversight was limited due to the rapid turnover. So, yes, it is up to the Iraqis to police themselves.

Hezbollah is not a part of the Iraqi government. It is an outside organization that uses terror as its method of operation. It is backed by Iran, as you agreed earlier. Iran is thus contributing to the violence in various countries.

What America needs for true democracy and representation is a government that is ethnically arrayed.

Implying that is what we did in Iraq. What was set up right after the invasion was done so as a response to the situation within the country. Iraqis are free to choose whomever they please to vote for. They are also free to make changes to their government as they see fit.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Lest we forget, it was the USA that went into Iraq
      with a sectarian mindset and imposed a sectarian
      model…
"

You are a freakin’ moron.  The people on the Governing Council were seen to be ‘sectarian ’ picks because the Iraqi were already divided along sectarian lines; that's the way the viewed their political order, and viewed their leader/follower relationships within that political order.  We didn't assign them leadership positions for various constitutencies; they were already set up that way.  We had to deal with the cards that were already in the deck they already had on the table.  There were no ‘non-sectarian’ Iraqi leaders to pick from.

(And better to have what was left of the non-Ba'athi Iraqi ‘establishment’ inside the tent pissin’ out than outside the tent pissin’ in.)

Bruno said...

[bruno] ...US arming the Badrists involves US responsibility on the violence that ensued.
[lynnette] The US armed the Iraqi government

“Bremer then turned around and promised Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and commander of the fearsome Badr Brigade, that the Shiites would run things: "We hoped to draw some of his party’s 10,000-member Badr Corps militia into the New Iraqi Army…. “I promise you this, Sayyid,” I said, using his honorific title. “The commander of the first battalion will be a Shiite.” The Coalition kept that promise."

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol13/0603_dreyfuss.asp

:|

[bruno] What America needs for true democracy and representation is a government that is ethnically arrayed.
[lynnette] Implying that is what we did in Iraq.

See? When you want to understand, you manage.

Bruno said...

[lee] "The people on the Governing Council were seen to be ‘sectarian ’ picks because the Iraqi were already divided along sectarian lines;"

Bullshit, you blithering simian:

"The IGC certainly cannot be called a democratically constituted body. While Bremer did not unilaterally decree its composition, the council's 25 members were selected through negotiations between the so-called Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and a limited number of Iraqi political groups and personalities whom the US chose to recognize.
[...]
Bremer negotiated the formation of the IGC with a number of political players, but he chose to give overwhelming rimacy to the views of the main pre-war opposition parties and their allies, the so-called "Group of Seven," most of whom were outside Saddam-controlled Iraq during the last two decades of war and sanctions.
[...]
Even if the IGC can overcome these challenges, it will continue to pose a structural danger to Iraqi political stability—because of how it was created in the first place. Washington has always had an erroneous and very simplistic understanding of Iraqi politics and society, seeing it through the narrow prism of sectarianism and ethnicity. In doing so, US decision-makers have ignored the maze of socio-political identities in Iraq and the complexity of its society. Based on their misconceptions of Iraq, US officials—and the exiled Iraqi political groups they have sponsored—have advocated a political framework that would bring together representatives of the Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish populations in a federal structure reflecting the relative demographic strength of the three groups.
[...]
Bremer and the CPA may have already started Iraq on the road to Lebanonization by composing the IGC according to a sectarian and ethnic calculus. A national election may have thrown up a similar result in terms of numbers, but the CPA is blind to the subtle distinction between the outcome of a popular vote and formal, external sectarian engineering of Iraq's first post-war governing structure."

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero082003

In summary:

1:) The US chose the composition of the people it would allow in the GC
2:) They were mostly a bunch of exiles based on sect and ethnicity
3:) They were imposed as "representing" Iraqis by the US realities on the ground notwithstanding
4:) This article was published in 2003. Like looking into a crystal ball, isn't it?
5:) I am right, as usual.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Bullshit, you blithering simian:

Not bullshit.  Bitch and whine as much as they do, and as much as you like to do, it don't change things.

They claim that:

      "Already, technocratic council members less
      burdened by the baggage of exile opposition politics
      are showing signs of coming together in a coalition…
"

But, they never identified a single member of these so-called ‘technocrats’, and neither can you, on account of there wasn't any.  Neither did this imaginary coalition ever appear.  The ‘signs’ those clowns were claiming to have seen were mirages of their own imaginings.  No Jeffersonian Democrat in a kafyia ever appeared; no Hamiltonian Federalist ever raised a head up over the brink of one of the sand dunes.  They just didn't exist in Iraqi political culture.  (Hell, the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't even shown up to politic in Iraq.  At best there were a smattering of communists to whom nobody was paying any attention.  Allawi may be the closest they've come to date.)
We can all bemoan together the fact that the IGC was no less sectarian than was and is Iraqi society as a whole (or, at least, not much less so), but the authors you quote never found any non-sectarian leaders to promote.  Neither have you.  ‘Cause all the wishin’ in the world don't make it so.
May come a day when the Iraqi get tired enough of identity politics to change that, but that day ain't come yet.

             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  ¹  Speaking of your imaginings…  I see you're returning to your Planet of the Apes fantasies.

        "... must be nice to live on the Planet of the Apes,
      where fantasy IS reality ...
"
      Bruno @ 5:01 AM

Is it ‘nice’ in your imaginary world?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lynnette In Minnesota said...

"We hoped to draw some of his party’s 10,000-member Badr Corps militia into the New Iraqi Army…. “I promise you this, Sayyid,” I said, using his honorific title. “The commander of the first battalion will be a Shiite.” The Coalition kept that promise."

And why was this? Because it was a way of trying to bring these people into the political process and making them work to build a country, rather than leaving them outside of the process to work against it. Promising a position to a Shiite was done because it was important to them. And it was important to them because they had been so marginalized in the past.

Btw, your links didn't work.

Bruno said...

All I see is a lot of hot air from the tango team of Lynnette and the ape. Explaining how the Americans HAD TO choose sectarian politicians and how it was important for the Americans to bring these sectarian politicians into the process and and and ...

... but at the end of the day, it is clear as day that the Americans CHOSE to inflict these sectarian politicians on Iraq, and CHOSE to support them.

Nobody forced this decision on the US.

America CHOSE to fly thousands of miles to Iraq and to do this.

That's the bottom line.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Nobody forced this decision on the US."

That part is true enough.  The U.S. chose to work with what we found, to work within the political environment Iraq presented.  But, this is not the conclusion that the whiners, your own special self most defintely included, have been seeking to force.
Rather, the whiners would wish to pretend that somehow a non-sectarian society ages old was instantly and permanently corrupted by an 18 month exposure to a ‘sectarian’ power elite which was magicked up by J. Paul Bremmer out of thin air in the post-Saddam desert, and that's how come they vote their sect to this very day.  The proposition is preposterous on its face.
And, you seem to have abandoned it.
And so, another fantasy bites the dust.
You lose.

Anonymous said...

Well lookee here! Bruno the Afikaner gomgat has returned, still thinking he can win an argument by repeating wooden-headed propaganda that not even his spurious sources support!
Eet kak en vrek, Bruno, eet kak en vrek.

Anonymous said...

As for your references to Syria and Iraq, I can only note that you seem to have a special affinity for bloodthirsty ethnic minority dictatorships. Something to do with you being a white South African I presume.

Haha, you hit the nail on the head with that one! Bruno probably thinks the ethnic divisions in South Africa were created by the US government, and "the blicks" would have happily kept their faces under the Boer boot if it hadn't been for outside intervention!

Steve Biko said...

Lynette and Lee,

The quickest way of refuting the gomgat's nonsense is by looking at the results of the Iraqi legislative election of 2005. The overwhelming majority of votes went to parties and individuals that were represented in the Governing Council. Either the Iraqis were incredibly dumb to vote for the "sectarian stooges" the US had foisted on them, or the Governing Council members were chosen precisely because of their widespread popular support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_January_2005#Results_and_turnout

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Either the Iraqis were incredibly dumb to vote for
      the ‘sectarian stooges’ the US had foisted on
      them…
"

Roughly, that has indeed been his position; which is why we went for the longer way ‘round.

Bruno said...

[lee] "Rather, the whiners would wish to pretend that somehow a non-sectarian society ages old was instantly and permanently corrupted by an 18 month exposure to a ‘sectarian’ power elite which was magicked up by J. Paul Bremmer out of thin air in the post-Saddam desert, and that's how come they vote their sect to this very day. The proposition is preposterous on its face."

No, it isn't at all preposterous. That's exactly what the apartheid government did in South Africa, and despite the blacks having a common enemy, they fell to fighting and killing each other instead. Massacre after massacre ensued as the ANC and IFP killed each other while the apartheid guys stirred the ethnic pot.

Bruno said...

[anonymous douchebag] "Bruno the Afikaner gomgat has returned"

Uh, you spell Afrikaner with an 'r', doos. But, nice try at the local-is-lekker angle.

[anonymous douchebag] Bruno probably thinks the ethnic divisions in South Africa were created by the US government"

See comments to the simian above. And don't kid yourself that sanctions or "outside pressure" had much to do with our transformation. It was a home-grown solution, in response to home-grown problems. Nxa!

[stevie boy] "The overwhelming majority of votes went to parties and individuals that were represented in the Governing Council. Either the Iraqis were incredibly dumb to vote for the "sectarian stooges" the US had foisted on them"

... OR ... OR, the parties that the US didn't like were BARRED from the elections and were being hunted down and shot. Dumbass.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "…and despite the blacks having a common
      enemy…
"

Typical arrogant honkiness poppin’ up there.  The Zulu and the Xhosa were violently competative long before the East India Company ever thought to plant a coaling station at Capetown.
Got news for ya whiteness; I already know how that works.  The Osage and the Crow were fighting the Sioux long before they hired on as Custer's scouts.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
      "It was a home-grown solution, in response to
      home-grown problems.
"

Translation:  Honkies finally figured out they were losing and, more importantly, that they weren't gonna be able to turn it around, and so negotiated a surrender of political power in lieu of having to surrender both power and property at gunpoint.

Bruno said...

[lee] "Typical arrogant honkiness poppin’ up there. The Zulu and the Xhosa were violently competative long before"

I see. So you are adopting the Apartheid government's standpoint on this. Good company you keep. I have to wonder, however, where the Zulu and Xhosa violent "competative"ness is TODAY?? Since of course they hate each other and just want to kill each other?

LOL, you are such a dumbass, trying to argue domestic politics with me. I LIVE here.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though, given all the murkin munchkins running around the interwebz telling Iraqis what was "really" going on in Iraq during the invasion. And given your even more colossal dumbness in trying to argue about Catholicism with An Italian and PeteS, and trying to argue mathematics with PeteS ... LOL, no I'm not surprised at all.

[lee] "and so negotiated a surrender of political power in lieu of having to surrender both power and property at gunpoint."

News for you, ape. The current system was a compromise by all parties. The blacks got to inherit a working country instead of a shattered ruin, and the whites got to keep their stuff. In a nutshell. As opposed to the Amreeki solution which involves either ethnic cleansing or the backing of "the least worst guy" while he exterminates his political enemies ... eg Maliki, Saddam, the Shah etc.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "…and the whites got to keep their stuff…"

As I said. 
Here's the part you're not gettin’ whiteness:  You were always gonna lose.
Once the outside world turn on you and you weren't gonna get reinforcements nor external support it was decided; everybody knew you were gonna lose; it was just a matter of time and circumstances.
Precisely who was gonna win was still an open question though.  The long-term, most important fight wasn't you agin the blacks--it was among the blacks.

They knew that.  You, apparently, did not, still don't get it.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

OR, the parties that the US didn't like were BARRED from the elections and were being hunted down and shot.

After what the Ba'ath party did to Iraq, to allow them to continue in existence would have been like allowing the Nazi party to exist after WWII. And there were many Iraqis who would not have stood for it.

Steve Biko said...

. OR ... OR, the parties that the US didn't like were BARRED from the elections and were being hunted down and shot. Dumbass.

OR...OR, your talking out of butthole, gomgat. The turnout in the 2005 election was over 70%. Do you think all those Iraqis would have risked their lives to vote (braving your buddies in the "resistance"), if the candidates they wanted to vote for had been barred or murdered? That's like saying future elections in South Africa can't be trusted because your buddy Terre Blanche got wasted. Yeah, the kaffirs would have really been queuing up for him, eh Varkpoes? LOL!

Anonymous said...

After what the Ba'ath party did to Iraq, to allow them to continue in existence would have been like allowing the Nazi party to exist after WWII. And there were many Iraqis who would not have stood for it.

The banning of the Baath party did not disenfranchise the Sunni Arab minority because they were free to organise and vote for other parties sympathetic to their interests, but that wouldn't have changed the result, because they were only 15% of the electorate. They chose to boycott that election because they knew it put the Shias in control, whatever they did. In the last election they mostly voted for Allawi's list in spite of his strong backing for the US/UK invasion.

Steve Biko said...

The homicide rate in South Africa is now FIFTEEN times that of Iraq. FIFTEEN, people, I kid you not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Ag, sies, Broony-boy, you Boers have got a lot to answer for, creating all those racial divisions that are now causing such havoc!

Maybe the US army should have invaded South Africa and instituted a de-Boerification policy to marginalise all you gomgats, so the homocide rate would be 2 per 100,000 rather than 31!


Anonymous said...

Lynnette and Lee,

The quickest way to refute the silly propaganda about the US creating sectarian divisions in Iraq is to look at how the Shias were treated under Baathist rule. When the Baath Party came to power in 1963, 53% of their members were Shia. That fell to 6% in 1968 as they were purged and excluded from power. By the end of Sadaam's rule, there were just a few Shia Uncle Toms in his government for appearance sake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam_in_Iraq

Meanwhile, Shia festivals had been banned and the Shia clergy had been systematically eliminated, falling from 9,000 in 1972 to a few hundred by the end of Sadaam's rule. And, of course, whenever the Shias tried to protest or revolt they were wiped out in huge members.

http://www.theshiapedia.com/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Shia_Muslims#Iraq

Finally, the the ascendancy of Iraq's Sunni community began under the Ottoman Turks, who ruled Iraq for nearly 400 years. The Shia majority have had to put up with their inferior status for centuries, so it's not surprising they voted for their own people when they got the chance. As for the sectarian violence, that was initiated by the Sunnis, who supported murderous goons like Zarqawi to punish the Shias for daring to assert their rights as the majority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4750320.stm

Gorilla Bananas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

And let's not forget the role of 'The Surge' in ending most of the sectarian violence. An academic research paper called 'Testing The Surge' was published this summer in International Security. Here are some quotes from a review of it:

It is important to note that the 2007 US “surge” was a combination of 30,000 troop reinforcements and a new doctrine. This new strategy replaced a prior emphasis on large, fortified bases, mounted patrols and transition to Iraqi security forces with a pattern of smaller, dispersed bases, dismounted patrolling and direct provision of US security for threatened Iraqi civilians.

Without the surge, the Anbar Awakening would probably not have spread fast or far enough. And without the surge, sectarian violence would likely have continued for a long time to come—the pattern and distribution of the bloodshed offers little reason to believe that it had burned itself out by mid-2007.

The Iraq surge is now widely seen as one of the most remarkable military events of recent memory, and it casts a long shadow over military doctrine and planning across much of the Western world. The British army, for example, recently published a new counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine shaped by its view of the 2007 surge, and other NATO members are considering similar moves.

http://www.openbriefing.org/issuedesks/politicalviolence/testingthesurge/

http://www.princeton.edu/~jns/papers/BFS_2012_Testing_the_Surge.pdf

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "The quickest way to refute the silly propaganda
      about the US creating sectarian divisions in Iraq is…
"

Ah, yes, another ‘quickest way’.  Just what we needed, another avenue for Bruno to work on after he'd actually abandoned that argument in favor of arguing that our ‘choice’ was to topple Saddam in the first place.  (Bruno @ 10:01 AM, supra)  Nothing like giving him wiggle room to argue again after he'd been vanquished.  Well, you asked for it, I'll let you handle it.  (For now, I may come back in to put him down again if necessary.  His opening move will probably be to claim that Saddam was an aberration whom the Iraqi would not have followed would be my guess, just so's you're not surprised by it.  It's a stupid argument, but the stupidity of an argument does not generally deter him even a little bit.)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "And let's not forget the role of 'The Surge' in
      ending most of the sectarian violence.
"

Your Princeton paper is, at least, one step up from most neo-con apologist analyses of ‘the Surge’, which tend to ignore the Awakening entirely in favor or the fairly preposterous claim that ‘the Surge’ is what turned things.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
Typo correction:  ‘in favor of the fairly preposterous claim that…

Anonymous said...

or the backing of "the least worst guy" while he exterminates his political enemies ... eg Maliki, Saddam, the Shah etc.

Maliki was elected by the Iraqis, you poesdom. And his "political enemies" are far from being "exterminated". Most of them are in the Iraqi parliament.

Anonymous said...

His opening move will probably be to claim that Saddam was an aberration whom the Iraqis would not have followed would be my guess

which would ignore the fact that Sunni dominance began under the Ottoman Turks, who started ruling the place 450 years before Saddam took power.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "…which would ignore the fact that…"

Ignoring facts doesn't usually pose any significant difficulty for him.  As I'm sure you'll figure out in due course.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "As I'm sure you'll figure out in due course."

That may have been a bad guess.  It seems that Bruno may have already had quite enough of trying to advance the ‘Evil Merkins as source of Iraqi sectarianism’ fantasy.

Bruno said...

[bruno] "OR, the parties that the US didn't like were BARRED from the elections and were being hunted down and shot."
[lynnette] "After what the Ba'ath party did to Iraq to allow them to continue in existence"

QED. It is either democracy or it is not.

Bruno said...

[biko] Do you think all those Iraqis would have risked their lives to vote

1.) Your logic does not follow
2.) Many Americans don't support either Dems nor Reps yet they still vote for the least worst option
3.) Look at which person got the most votes in the last election, and which banned party was in fact supporting him.
3) "Steve Biko" ... "the kaffirs" LMAO, you piece of stinking toejam, your hypocrisy is hysterical.

[steve] "Maybe the US army should have invaded South Africa"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

No, I don't think so. The murkins are only good at picking on people that can't fight back.

[biko] "The homicide rate in South Africa is now FIFTEEN times that of Iraq."

ROTFLMAO!

[anonymous fucktard] "And let's not forget the role of 'The Surge' in ending most of the sectarian violence"

Let's not forget that I already posted a map showing how Baghdad was cleaned out of Sunni during the period ... dimwit.

[bruno] backing of "the least worst guy" while he exterminates his political enemies ... eg Maliki, Saddam, the Shah etc.
[anonymous asswipe] Maliki was elected by the Iraqis

... under occupation, while the murkins helped him kill his enemies, whom they banned and hunted down. Yes, we all saw it. Most of his enemies are refugees now. Don't be a fuckwit all your life:

"The history of emigration and of the diaspora community then drastically changed with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There are many sources claiming different amounts of displaced Iraqis. Some claim as low as 1.2 million people have left Iraq, while others claim this number to be around 4-5 million.[2] It is difficult to gauge an accurate number of how many Iraqis seek refuge in other nations because of the constant outflow of Iraqis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_diaspora

[anonymous bunghole] "Most of them are in the Iraqi parliament."

Except for the ones he's declared terrorists and killed off. How's Al-Hashemi these days?

[anonymous turd] "you poesdom"

Google translate letting you down much, retard? LOL

Bruno said...

[lee] "Ignoring facts doesn't usually pose any significant difficulty for him."

LOL, if only you presented any facts to argue with ... :)

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "It is either democracy or it is not."

The Nazi party is still banned in Germany. 

Bruno said...

Good point.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

It is either democracy or it is not.

Democracy is not something that can be created by waving a magic wand. It is something the Iraqis themselves must come to believe in. After the invasion we were lucky to get some of them to even speak to each other! To allow a party that perpetrated so many wrongs against them to participate in the elections would have only made it worse. And, despite those who were screaming about our infringement on their soveriegnty, we were trying to work with them, not without them.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] "Democracy is not something that can be created by waving a magic wand."

Democracy is a process. The point of that process is entirely to create a government representing the popular will. Your arrogance in assuming that Iraqis were not acquainted with the democratic process before *drumroll* AMERICA arrived to show them all barbarians how its done, is astounding.

[lynnette] "To allow a party that perpetrated so many wrongs against them to participate in the elections would have only made it worse."

1.) That being the opinion of somebody sitting in Minnesota, not iraq
2.) Excluding the Ba'ath and claiming democracy is purely hypocritical, and a non-sequitor.
3.) It was up to the IRAQIS to reject the Ba'ath ... NOT the Americans.
4.) Again, I draw your attention to the person that gained the single largest chunk of the vote last election, and the banned party which threw its weight behind him. Have you not yet clicked on?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "2.) Excluding the Ba'ath and claiming democracy
      is purely hypocritical, and a non-sequitor.
"

By most reckonings, Germany is considered a successful democracy.

Bruno said...

Let's forget about MOST reckonings.

What about YOUR reckoning?

Is democracy still democracy if the parties one can vote for are restricted by edict?

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Let's forget about MOST reckonings."

No, let's not.

Bruno said...

Gosh, no opinion, huh?

Bruno said...

Should I wait while you go prune yerself a long stick with which to probe the ground for them traps?

LOL

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "Should I wait…"

Suit yourself; I have no recommendations for you.

Bruno said...

Funny how ya always have a ton to say ... but no actual opinion, when it comes down to it.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
You haven't figured out the funny part yet.

Bruno said...

The fact that you're a running joke? That's old news.

Bruno said...

Looks like gramps had his cookies and warm milk ... :D

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] Democracy is a process. The point of that process is entirely to create a government representing the popular will. Your arrogance in assuming that Iraqis were not acquainted with the democratic process before *drumroll* AMERICA arrived to show them all barbarians how its done, is astounding.

It is the Iraqis themselves who stated they did not understand democracy. And given the fact that they had spent over 30 years living under a dictatorship, this should not come as a surprise. It has nothing to do with someone being a "barbarian".

[lynnette] To allow a party that perpetrated so many wrongs against them to participate in the elections would have only made it worse.

[Bruno] 1.) That being the opinion of somebody sitting in Minnesota, not iraq

On the contrary, that was the opinion of people on the ground in Iraq.

[Bruno] 2.) Excluding the Ba'ath and claiming democracy is purely hypocritical, and a non-sequitor.

Representative government does not give license for the continuation of thuggery.

[Bruno] 3.) It was up to the IRAQIS to reject the Ba'ath ... NOT the Americans.

Considering that that rejection came, in many cases, in the form of killing and shunning, I think Iraqis made it quite clear they did. Which is one reason you saw the rise of FRE's using violence to try to intimidate their way back into control.

[Bruno] 4.) Again, I draw your attention to the person that gained the single largest chunk of the vote last election, and the banned party which threw its weight behind him. Have you not yet clicked on?

I draw your attention to Egypt and the party that gained control in the last election. People do not always follow the wisest path. After the invasion our desire was to offer them a choice for a different path. Whatever the Iraqis chose to do in the last election will be on them.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] the Iraqis themselves who stated they did not understand democracy."

Tinfoil hat tight, today?

[lynnette] To allow a party that perpetrated so many wrongs against them to participate in the elections would have only made it worse.
[Bruno] 1.) That being the opinion of somebody sitting in Minnesota, not iraq
[lynnette] that was the opinion of people on the ground in Iraq.

Some people, certainly. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. What's your point? Cherrypicking opinions justifies the ends? Don't make me laugh.

[Bruno] 2.) Excluding the Ba'ath and claiming democracy is purely hypocritical, and a non-sequitor.
[lynnette] Representative government does not give license for the continuation of thuggery.

So ironic. Given American expertise in the field of "thuggery" one could well imagine several war-crimes tribunals being convened for your leaders based on their actions. On the basis of your criteria, neither of your major parties would be elegible to run.

[Bruno] 3.) It was up to the IRAQIS to reject the Ba'ath ... NOT the Americans.
[lynnette] Considering that that rejection came, in many cases, in the form of killing and shunning

Right, the : "armed forces drawn from the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni." I already mentioned that. Good thing you gave the death squads all those guns, huh?

[Bruno] 4.) Again, I draw your attention to the person that gained the single largest chunk of the vote last election, and the banned party which threw its weight behind him. Have you not yet clicked on?
[lynnette] "People do not always follow the wisest path. After the invasion our desire was to offer them a choice for a different path."

No, see what you did right there? You did not "give them a choice". America foisted a gang of sectarian exiles on the Iraqis and when that didn't work out America allowed elections ... without the parties that it didn't like, regardless of their actual support.

Very simple.

Not only is that a SHAM democracy, but it also exposes a deeper hypocrisy. That hypocrisy being, that not only did the US *not* "fight for democracy" ... but the US also FEARED true democracy. The US FEARED that its own propaganda about the Baath was false and that (God forbid) the Iraqis might actually vote for the dragon the US invaded to slay.

If there was ever a true conviction that democracy was the right way *all* parties would have been allowed, and the Iraqis themselves would have rejected the Baath. Or not.

That is what democracy is actually all about, see?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] Tinfoil hat tight, today?

Nope, just a good memory. :)

Cherrypicking opinions justifies the ends?

Sometimes one has no choice but to "cherrypick" opinions. Usually you have many ideas and thoughts to sort through and then try to pick out the ones that will fit the situation the best. In Iraq, with so many people hating the Ba'ath, I am sure it wasn't hard to decide to take them out of the equation.

On the basis of your criteria, neither of your major parties would be elegible to run.

Really? I don't recall either party oppressing Americans the way the Ba'ath did Iraqis. They may be irritants at times with their telephone polls, partisan ads, and bickering back and forth, but they are not really oppressive.

[lynnette] Considering that that rejection came, in many cases, in the form of killing and shunning

[Bruno] Right, the : "armed forces drawn from the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni."


I am referring to early on after the invasion. There were any number of reprisal killings. I also recall a prominent Iraqi blogger being dismissed from her position. Not an unusual occurrance, given the strict debaathification that was espoused by some Iraqis.

The US FEARED that its own propaganda about the Baath was false and that (God forbid) the Iraqis might actually vote for the dragon the US invaded to slay.

There was no propaganda about the Ba'ath party from the US. There were only stories that Iraqis themselves told. There was only documentation of actions taken by members of the Ba'ath. It was those stories that we listened to.













Bruno said...

[bruno] Cherrypicking opinions justifies the ends?
[lynnette] "Sometimes one has no choice but to "cherrypick" opinions [...] In Iraq, with so many people hating the Ba'ath"

Complete non-sequitor. The only way to actually know how many people "hated the Baath" is to hold an election and let them run. People "hate Obama" and "hated Bush" too, but nobody is suggesting banning the Rep/Dem parties and shooting them down.

[bruno] On the basis of your criteria, neither of your major parties would be elegible to run.
[lynnette] Really? I don't recall either party oppressing Americans the way the Ba'ath did Iraqis

Again, that being your opinion. The only way to know what Iraqis thought of the Baath would be to let them run in a democratic election and taking the outcome into consideration.

Secondly, I'm talking about American history of invading countries and overthrowing their governments, not necessarily domestic politics. The USA is the most thuggish nation in the world since the end of ww2, and any charges of "invading neighbours" such as those levelled at Saddam could be pointed back double at the US.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] Considering that that rejection came, in many cases, in the form of killing and shunning
[Bruno] Right, the : "armed forces drawn from the BADR BRIGADES and their systematic ethnic cleansing of the Sunni."
[lynnette] I am referring to early on after the invasion.

Yeah, me too:

April 9, 2003 "According to Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay, American military planes flew Chalabi and 700 troops, the newly named "First Battalion of Free Iraqi Forces," into Nasiriyah Sunday to be integrated into Gen. Tommy Franks' command. Landay reports, "Senior administration officials said that Chalabi had had difficulty recruiting enough forces to go into southern Iraq and may have tapped the discredited Badr Brigade, an Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim group, to get his 700 soldiers.""

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0409-07.htm

[lynnette] "given the strict debaathification that was espoused by some Iraqis."

Bremer, Order 1 of his 100 orders:

"On April 16, 2003 the Coalition Provisional Authority disestablished the Ba`ath Party of Iraq. This order implements the declaration by eliminating the party’s structures and removing its leadership from positions of authority and responsibility in Iraqi society. By this means, the Coalition Provisional Authority will ensure that representative government in Iraq is not threatened by Ba`athist elements returning to power ant [sic - fucking clowns] that those in positions of authority in the future are acceptable to the people of Iraq."

http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20030516_CPAORD_1_De-Ba_athification_of_Iraqi_Society_.pdf

So, Bremer is an Iraqi, now? LOL

[bruno] The US FEARED that its own propaganda about the Baath was false and that (God forbid) the Iraqis might actually vote for the dragon the US invaded to slay.
[lynnette] There was no propaganda about the Ba'ath party from the US.

ROTFLMAO!

[lynnette] "There were only stories that Iraqis themselves told."

Oh, give me a break. If you PAY a bunch of exiles to invent stories, and promise to return them to power on the basis of those lies, you are complicit. It is as simple as that.

Lots of Americans believe that the US government was complicit in 9-11, so ...
Ergo, the US government was complicit in 9-11.
Ergo, the American government has been mass-murdering its own people.
ERGO, we need to INVADE and ban the current people in power and shoot their supporters, to ensure that the people in power in America are acceptable to the people of America ...

... see how easily I can turn your nonsense on its head? The above argument is farcical, yet it is exactly what you did to Iraq.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "…see how easily I can turn your nonsense on its
      head?
"

You haven't done it yet; you're just babblin’ streams of utter nonsense   I was thinkin’ earlier that you'd decided to go for ‘stuck on stupid’, and see if sheer stubbornness wasn't enough to make you last to post.  I'm gettin’ more and more convinced that's your plan--be last to post no matter how outlandish your arguments have to get, and then lay claim to a ‘win’ by virtue of having simply exhausted and exasperated your opposition.

Bruno said...

[lee] "I'm gettin’ more and more convinced that's your plan--be last to post no matter how outlandish you have to get, and lay claim to a ‘win’ by virtue of having simply exhausted and exasperated your opposition."

But Lee! If that were my intention, I'd write a program to log on and write "I win" every couple of days. Instead of, for example, chasing down links from 2003 in order to prove Lynnette wrong. Which do ya think would be easier?

Sometimes I think that there's a flicker of intelligence behind your posts ... but then you go back to your default troll-mode. LOL, that's the hook, ain't it?

It's actually sad to see ol' Lynnette turning into a kind of a LEE.

Everytime she gets steered into the brick wall of a FACT she tries to take another (usually irrelevant) angle on the subject and swings again. Much like your post above, which is basically just the most basic form of internet "debate" ... the ad hominem.

What are you scared of?

Honestly, if there's more than 20 people that still regularly read this blog - nevermind this obscure post - I'd be surprised.

You never did answer this, by the way:

Is democracy still democracy if the parties one can vote for are restricted by edict?

(Please note, I'm not holding my breath, so any attempt to hold off on the answer and make me suffocate, will fail.)

Anyways, I'm about done, here.

Barring anything wonderous from Lynnette, I think I might just vanish into the ether for a while.

   Lee C.  ―   U.S.A.      said...

 
      "I'd write a program to log on and write ‘I win’
      every couple of days.
"

I rather doubt you're capable of that.

      "What are you scared of?"

Not you.

      "You never did answer this, by the way:"

You have managed to lay grasp to the obvious.  The question was irrelevant; worse, it was uninteresting.  So you should expect me to not bite.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] The only way to know what Iraqis thought of the Baath would be to let them run in a democratic election and taking the outcome into consideration.

Seriously? I think if you looked a little closer, which you don't want to do, you would see there are other ways to find that out.

The USA is the most thuggish nation in the world since the end of ww2, and any charges of "invading neighbours" such as those levelled at Saddam could be pointed back double at the US.

Again you only want to see that which supports your agenda.

The Soviet Union under the communists wasn't a pretty picture, yet you gloss over this as if it never existed. This is what we were intent on fighting ever since the end of WWII.

Gulag

Ghost Wars

MIG Pilot

There, I provided some links to some "light" reading for you.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

So, Bremer is an Iraqi, now? LOL

Nope. But he had to work with them.

If you PAY a bunch of exiles to invent stories, and promise to return them to power on the basis of those lies, you are complicit.

And whom did we pay, exactly?

I rather think the Iraqis were quite happy, when they were sure of their safety, to describe what life was like under Saddam.

Lots of Americans believe that the US government was complicit in 9-11

lol!! Now you found the tinfoil hats. :) Or people like you that don't want to see the forest for the trees.

The above argument is farcical, yet it is exactly what you did to Iraq.

Hardly. I think the mass graves in Iraq speak for themselves.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Honestly, if there's more than 20 people that still regularly read this blog - nevermind this obscure post - I'd be surprised.

I think you're right there. Even Zeyad is gone, for whatever reason.

Anyways, I'm about done, here.

Sure now, I'm good with that. :)

Bruno said...

[Bruno] The only way to know what Iraqis thought of the Baath would be to let them run in a democratic election
[lynnette] "you would see there are other ways to find that out. "

As in, cherrypicking opinions to guage Iraqi public sentiment? Is that all you have? I'm cool with leaving you there, it is a standpoint worthy of your arguments thus far.

[bruno] On the basis of your criteria, neither of your major parties would be elegible to run.
[lynnette] Really? I don't recall either party oppressing Americans the way the Ba'ath did Iraqis
[bruno] The USA is the most thuggish nation in the world since the end of ww2, and any charges of "invading neighbours" such as those levelled at Saddam could be pointed back double at the US.
[lynnette] The Soviet Union under the communists wasn't a pretty picture

In other words, your argument boils down to: it doesn't matter that we banned the Baath from running, and it doesn't matter that American political parties engaged in worse thuggery than even the Baath ... because the Commies were real bad. Have I got that right?

You do realise that what you are putting forward is an intellectually and morally bankrupt argument, right?

[lynnette] "given the strict debaathification that was espoused by some Iraqis."
[bruno] Bremer, Order 1 of his 100 orders: [...] So, Bremer is an Iraqi, now? LOL
[lynnette] Nope.

QED.

Bruno said...

[bruno] The US FEARED that its own propaganda about the Baath was false
[lynnette] There was no propaganda about the Ba'ath party from the US. There were only stories that Iraqis themselves told.
[bruno] If you PAY a bunch of exiles to invent stories, and promise to return them to power on the basis of those lies, you are complicit.
[lynnette] And whom did we pay, exactly?

Ahem:

"The Iraqi National Congress is an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi. It was formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the Gulf War, for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
[...]
The group received millions in covert funding in the 1990s, and then about $8 million a year in overt funding after the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. The deep involvement of the American CIA in the creation and early funding of the INC in its early years led many to consider the group a "creation of the CIA" rather than an organ of genuine Iraqi opposition.
[...]
In 1998, however, the US Congress authorized $97 million in U.S. military aid for Iraqi opposition via the Iraq Liberation Act, intended primarily for INC. (Katzman, 1998)."
[...]
In May 2004, the United States military raided the residences of Iraqi National Congress members now living in Iraq. It had been announced on May 18 that the Pentagon had stopped sending funding to INC, which had averaged about $340,000 per month for intelligence gathered by the organization."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress


[bruno] Lots of Americans believe that the US government was complicit in 9-11
[lynnette] lol!! Now you found the tinfoil hats.

Right, I tend to agree with you there. But, the fact remains that one cannot cherry pick the opinions of some people and then say that they are worthy of being the basis for foreign policy ation, much less war. Your reaction only strengthens my argument.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Still here, I see.

Okay, lets look at your argument going backwards.

In 2004 we stopped funding the INC. Saddam was gone, so they were on their own.

And why did we fund them?

In the 1990's we funded opposition groups to Saddam as a result of the Gulf War, in an effort to help Iraqis remove him. Personally I would have supported those who rose up right after the Gulf War, rather than allow Saddam to fly his helicopters and slaughter them, but I wasn't asked.

And who were those people you ask, or not, as the case may be. I'll remind you.

After the Gulf War the Shia in the south stood up to express their disapproval of Saddam(those are the ones he killed with the helicopters, if you remember). Quite a few ended up in mass graves, I believe. No need for an election to understand their feelings.

And what caused the Gulf War?

Prior to the Gulf War Saddam invaded Kuwait, under some misguided thinking that the world(and the US) would be let him, causing no end of consternation in the region and beyond. You do remember that?

Prior to that he attacked Iran. Yes, I know, we weren't in any hurry to help Iran as we saw them as the bad guy of the neighborhood. At least one Kurdish faction round about that time were quite happy to work with Iran against Saddam. No need for an election there to understand what they were saying about Saddam and his Ba'ath party. Another round of mass killings and mass graves as a result of that. And, of course, that's not to even mention the Shia that were used as cannon fodder in the war.

And no need to ask all of the Iraqis during those years that voted with their feet and left Iraq when able. There was that unfortunate husband of one of Saddam's daughters who foolishly came back and was summarily executed by his dear father-in-law. Huge mistake on his part. He believed Saddam when he said all was forgiven.

So, thuggery on a grand scale by Saddam and the Ba'ath.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 388   Newer› Newest»