Log in

View Full Version : The freakin cowards are trying the same thing yet again ...



Pages : 1 [2]

Melonie
06-24-2004, 02:25 AM
Adina, what you say is of course true. However, it appears to me that, since the fall of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the vast majority of muslim countries with Sunni rule are "worldly" (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait etc.), while those muslim countries with Shiite rule are "fundamentalist" (Iran, Yemen etc.). Wahabis now represent a wild card in the situation, and pragmatically speaking they have much more in common with Shiite rulers than the remaining Sunnis. Perhaps a modern day analogy to the WW2 US/UK/USSR alliance, where hatred of a common enemy was more influential than any ideological differences (at least until the common enemy was defeated).

Djoser
06-24-2004, 02:34 AM
Djoser,

This discussion devolved and gone off topic. I have no interest in continuing it anymore. I did post a reply but have now deleted it as it had just become a petty argument.


Yeah, I think we have gotten carried away with it, and off-topic. Let's just agree to disagree, and more politely, in future. No hard feelings on my part.

Tell you what, we'll both have some fun--let Bridgette take over the Strategic Air Command for, say, twenty minutes...

Melonie
06-24-2004, 03:56 AM
Here's some "professional" analysis of the Iran situation ...

U.S. and Iran: Beneath the Roiled Surface

By George Friedman

We are in a pattern of escalating confrontation between Iran and the United
States and its allies. Two issues have surfaced. There is the question of
Iran's nuclear program. And there is the more urgent question of Iran's
capture of three British patrol boats along the Iraq-Iran frontier. Neither
of these surface issues is trivial, but the underlying issues are far more
significant. The fact that they have surfaced indicates how serious the
underlying questions are, and points to serious tensions between the Iranians
and the United States.

Iran has historically faced two threats. Russia has pressed it from the
north; during and after World War II, the Soviets occupied a substantial part
of Iran, as did the British. The other threat has come from the west -- from
Iraq, from its predecessor states or from states that have occupied Iraq,
including Britain. The collapse of the Soviet Union has gone a long way
toward securing Iran's northern frontier. In fact, the instability to Iran's
north has created opportunities for it to extend its influence in that
direction.

Iraq, however, has remained a threat. Iraq's defeat in Desert Storm decreased
the threat, with the weakening of Iraq's armed forces and constant patrolling
of Iraqi skies by U.S. and British warplanes. But what Iran wanted most to
see -- the collapse of the hated Saddam Hussein regime and its replacement by
a government at least neutral toward Iran and preferably under Iranian
influence -- did not materialize. One of the primary reasons the United
States did not advance to Baghdad in 1991 was the fear that an Iraqi collapse
would increase Iran's power and make it the dominant force in the Persian
Gulf.

Iran Develops a Strategy

Subsequently, Iran's goals were simple: First, Iraq should never pose a
threat to Iran; it never wanted to be invaded again by Iraq. Second, Iran
should be in a position to shape Iraqi behavior in order to guarantee that it
would not be a threat. Iran was not in a position to act on this goal itself.
What it needed was to induce outside powers -- the United States in
particular -- to act in a manner that furthered Iranian national interests.
Put somewhat differently, Iran expected the United States to invade Iraq or
topple Hussein by other means. It intended to position itself to achieve its
primary national security goals when that happened.

From the end of Desert Storm to the fall of Baghdad, Iran systematically and
patiently pursued its goal. Following Desert Storm, Iran began a program
designed both to covertly weaken Hussein's regime and to strengthen Iranian
influence in Iraq -- focusing on Iraq's Shiite population. If Hussein fell
under his own weight, if he were overthrown in a U.S.-sponsored coup or if
the United States invaded Iraq, Iran intended to be in a position to
neutralize the Iraqi threat.

There were three parts to the Iranian strategy:

1. Do nothing to discourage the United States from taking action against
Iraq. In other words: Mitigate threats from Iran so the United States would
not leave Hussein in place again because it feared the consequences of a
power vacuum that Iran could fill.

2. Create an information environment that would persuade the United States to
topple Hussein. The Iranians understood the analytic methods of U.S. policy
makers and the intelligence processes of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Iran created a program designed to strengthen the position of those in the
United States who believed that Iraq was a primary threat, while providing
the United States with intelligence that maximized the perception of Hussein
as a threat. This program preceded the 2003 invasion and the Bush
administration as well. Desert Fox -- the air campaign launched by the
Clinton administration in December 1998 -- was shaped by the same information
environment as the 2003 invasion. The Iranians understood the nature of the
intelligence channels the United States used, and fed information through
those that intensified the American threat perception.

3. Prepare for the fall of Hussein by creating an alternative force in Iraq
whose primary loyalty was to Iran. The Shiite community -- long oppressed by
Hussein and sharing religious values with the Iranian government -- had many
of the same interests as Iran. Iranian intelligence services had conducted a
long, patient program to organize the Iraqi Shiite community and prepare the
Shia to be the dominant political force after the fall of Hussein.

As it became increasingly apparent in 2002 that the United States was
searching for a follow-on strategy after Afghanistan, the Iranians recognized
their opportunity. They knew they could not manipulate the United States into
invading Iraq -- or provide justification for it -- but they also knew they
could do two things. The first was to reduce the threat the United States
felt from Iran. The second was to increase, to the extent possible, the
intelligence available to those in the Bush administration who supported the
invasion.

They accomplished the first with formal meetings in Geneva and back-channel
discussions around the world. The message they sent was that Iran would do
nothing to hinder a U.S. invasion, nor would it seek to take advantage of it
on a direct state basis. The second process was facilitated by filling the
channels between Iraqi Shiite exiles and the United States with apparently
solid information -- much of it true -- about conditions in Iraq. This is
where Ahmed Chalabi played a role.

In our opinion, Iranian intelligence knew two things that it left out of the
channels. The first was that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
programs had been abandoned. The United States did not invade Iraq because of
WMD, but used them as a justification. The Iranians knew none would be found,
but were pleased that the United States would use this as a justification.
The second thing Iran kept from the United States was that Hussein and his
key aides did not expect to defeat the United States in a conventional war,
but had planned a guerrilla war to follow the fall of Baghdad.

The Iranians had a specific reason for leaving these things out. They knew
the Americans would win the conventional war. They did not want the United
States to have an easy time occupying Iraq. The failure to find WMD would
create a crisis in the United States. The failure to anticipate a Baathist
guerrilla war would create a crisis in Iraq. Iran wanted both to happen.

The worse the situation became in Iraq, the less the United States prepared
for the real postwar environment -- and the more the credibility of President
George W. Bush was questioned, the more eager the United States would be in
seeking allies in Iraq. The only ally available -- apart from the marginal
Kurds -- was the Shiite majority. As the situation deteriorated in the summer
and fall of 2003, the United States urgently needed an accommodation with
Iraq's Shia. The idea of a Shiite rising cutting lines of supply to Kuwait
while there was a Sunni rising drove all U.S. thinking. It also pushed the
United States toward an accommodation with the Shia -- and that meant an
accommodation with Iran.

Such an accommodation was reached in the fall of 2003. The United States
accepted that the government would be dominated by the Shia, and that the
government would have substantial Iranian influence. During the Ramadan
offensive, when the lid appeared to be flying off in Iraq, the United States
was prepared to accommodate almost any proposal. The Iranians agreed to
back-burner -- but not to shut down -- their nuclear proposal, and quiet
exchanges of prisoners were carried out. Iran swapped al Qaeda prisoners for
anti-Iranian prisoners held by the United States.

Things Fall Apart

Two things happened after the capture of Hussein in mid-December 2003. The
first was that the Iranians started to make clear that they -- not the
Americans -- were defining the depth of the relationship. When the United
States offered to send representatives to Iran after an earthquake later in
December, the Iranians rejected the offer, saying it was too early in the
relationship. On many levels, the Iranians believed they had the Americans
where they wanted them and slowly increased pressure for concessions.

Paradoxically, the United States started to suffer buyer's remorse on the
deal it made. As the guerrilla threat subsided in January and February, the
Americans realized that the deal did not make nearly as much sense in January
as it had in November. Rather than moving directly toward a Shiite
government, the United States began talking to the Sunni sheikhs and thinking
of an interim government in which Kurds or Sunnis would have veto power.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani -- who is an Iranian -- began to signal the
United States that trouble was brewing in Iraq. He staged major
demonstrations in January, calling for direct elections -- his code words for
a Shiite government. The United States, no longer pressured and growing
uneasy about the enormous power of the Iranians, did two things: They pressed
ahead with plans for the interim government, and started leaking that they
knew the game the Iranians were playing. The release of the news that Chalabi
was an Iranian agent was part of this process.

The Iranians and al-Sistani -- seeing the situation slipping out of control
-- tried to convince the Americans that they were willing to send Iraq up in
flames. During the Sunni rising in Al Fallujah, they permitted Muqtada
al-Sadr to rise as well. The United States went to al-Sistani for help, but
he refused to lift a finger for days. Al-Sistani figured the United States
would reverse its political plans and make concessions to buy Shiite support.

Just the opposite happened. The United States came to the conclusion that the
Shia and Iran were completely unreliable -- and that they were no longer
necessary. Rather than negotiate with the Shia, the Americans negotiated with
the Sunni guerrillas in Al Fallujah and reached an agreement with them. The
United States also pressed ahead with a political solution for the interim
government that left the Shia on the margins.

The breakdown in U.S.-Iranian relations dates to this moment. The United
States essentially moved to reverse alliances. In addition, it made clear to
al-Sistani and others that they could be included in the coalition -- in a
favored position. In other words, the United States reversed the process by
trying to drive a wedge between the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia. And it
appeared to be working, with al-Sistani and al-Sadr seeming to shift
positions so as not to be excluded.

Iran Roils the Surface

It was at that moment that the Iranians saw more than a decade of patient
strategy going out the window. They took two steps. First, they created a
crisis with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear
weapons that was certain to draw U.S. attention. Second, they seized the
British patrol boats. Their point? To let the United States know that it is
on the verge of a major crisis with Iran.

The United States knows this, of course. Military planners are updating plans
on Iran as we speak. The crisis is avoidable -- and we would expect it to wax
and wane. But the fundamental question is this: Are American and Iranian
national interests compatible and, if they are not, is either country in a
position at this moment to engage in a crisis or a war? Iran is calculating
that it can engage in a crisis more effectively than the United States. The
United States does not want a crisis with Iran before the elections -- and
certainly not over WMD.

But there is another problem. The Americans cannot let Iran get nuclear
weapons, and the Iranians know it. They assume that U.S. intelligence has a
clear picture of how far weapons development has gone. But following the U.S.
intelligence failure on WMD in Iraq -- ironically aided by Iran -- will any
policy maker trust the judgment of U.S. intelligence on how far Iran's
development has gone? Is the U.S. level of sensitivity much lower than Iran
thinks? And since Israel is in the game -- and it certainly cannot accept an
Iranian nuclear capability -- and threatens a pre-emptive strike with its own
nuclear weapons, will the United States be forced to act when it does not
want to?

Like other major crises in history, the situation is not really under
anyone's control. It can rapidly spin out of control and -- even if it is in
control -- it can become a very nasty crisis. This is not a minor
misunderstanding, but a clash of fundamental national interests that will not
be easy to reconcile.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

commando
06-25-2004, 04:13 PM
Pumpkin Pie- just a small correction to your second post on this thread: Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq, not Iran.

RYAN
06-25-2004, 04:19 PM
... this time threatening to behead a South Korean hostage in response to South Korea sending troops to Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123198,00.html

IMHO these Islamic extremist bastards are making a huge mistake by expecting the same reaction they managed to get out of socialist Spain to withdraw troops from the "semi-right wing" government like South Korea. These highly publicized beheadings are not only forcing virtually every non middle eastern country in the world to acknowledge and view the Islamic extremists as butchers, murderers and thugs.

But they are also starting to alienate the base of support the Fundamentalist Fanatics desparately need from "regular folks" living in the middle east. Even more importantly, these atrocities are starting to force the hand of so far "neutral" islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Algeria to take strong action against the Islamic fundamentalist fanatics themselves for fear of losing control of their own countries and being perceived by the rest of the world as openly supporting terrorism.

Middle east countries that persist in supporting Islamic terrorists are beginning to get the message that a "paper border" is not going to protect them from retaliation. Today's news story about israelis crossing the Lebanese border to root out terrorists lobbing shells into Israel sent a pretty clear message.

What worries me the most is actually Iran - who was proven to have "disappeared" a nuclear weapons facility a few days before UN inspectors were due to make a sweep (a pretty good indication that Iran now has nuclear capability), and who is massing thousands and thousands of troops on the Iran/Iraq border. If the terrorists start really taking a beating, it's distinctly possible that Iran will turn these troops loose into Iraq where they will vastly outnumber coalition forces.



Melonie, can you really blame them. What would you do it you had another country killing you family members and bombing your churches, houses and jobs. Iraq did nothing wrong and got dragged into this war for political reasons. If outsiders came in and starting killing my family, I would behead and kill every single one of them I could get my hands on.

Additionally, why should Iran not be allowed to harvest nuclear weapons? Almose every other civilized country has them, to be without would make them very vunerable to attack. Even if you "fake" you have nukes just for protection it is better than being without them and being open for attack. How are you suppoesd to protect yourself from the us with sticks and stones ?

Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes. If some do and some don't, this world will continue to be very unfair. Let's pass an international law to do away with all wepons of mass destructrion. I hate how we tell people they can't have them yet we continue to manufacture them ourselves. It's all or none.

Look, nobody want's to destroy the world because that serves nobody, but that's exactly the capibility we have, and we know damn well we don't want to (or ever will) use it. If two countries have a beef let them draw straws to see who wins. In the long run does it really need to be more complicated than that. I mean look how many people died in iraq (citizens and americans) for nothing. We have prooved nothing by being there except that we are not as powerful as we thought we are. Thousands died for nothing except political gain. It's time for more civil mediation, too many lives are being taken, and the world is becoming more polluted with every bomb. Humans are supposed to be more civilized than animals, I just don't see it.....

Pumpkin Pie
06-25-2004, 04:50 PM
Pumpkin Pie- just a small correction to your second post on this thread: Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq, not Iran.

Thanks for catching that error. And I don't think it would change Israel's response if it felt that Iran was close to finishing its uranium enrichment program. Israel will never seek UN approval to do what it thinks is in its best interests as far as its national security is concerned. That's well established.

Bridgette
06-26-2004, 01:37 PM
HERE's an idea: Put up the biggest Wal-Marts in the world in every Middle Eastern country. HAHAHAHA! Just pave over any trouble spots and put up either a Wal-Mart store or a distribution center. Yes that's what they need over there. Wal-Mart. I think that's what all the commotion is about anyway, they just want :sing: "low prices everyday, that's the wal-mart way!" :biggrin:

Djoser
06-26-2004, 04:43 PM
HERE's an idea: Put up the biggest Wal-Marts in the world in every Middle Eastern country. :sing: "low prices everyday, that's the wal-mart way!" :biggrin:


LOLOLOLOLOL, Bridgette!!!

And as Melonie so aptly pointed out elsewhere, it is SO true that this is probably the best way to beat the fuckers. Like the Russian youth with blue jeans a few years back, those among our enemies who experience the benefits of the western way of life, are much harder to control afterwards.

I'm still not trusting you anywhere near a B-1 bomber, though.

Rhiannon
06-26-2004, 04:59 PM
HERE's an idea: Put up the biggest Wal-Marts in the world in every Middle Eastern country. HAHAHAHA! Just pave over any trouble spots and put up either a Wal-Mart store or a distribution center. Yes that's what they need over there. Wal-Mart. I think that's what all the commotion is about anyway, they just want :sing: "low prices everyday, that's the wal-mart way!" :biggrin:


LMFAO B!

:sing:Workin on the rollback prices goin down down :sing:

We have found the key to world peace, and that my friends, is Wal*Mart. Heh

Melonie
06-26-2004, 09:15 PM
We have found the key to world peace, and that my friends, is Wal*Mart. Heh

Actually, the everyday things of American life which are available at WalMart i.e. blue jeans, makeup, American music and video, would be in extremely high demand by young people throughout the middle east. The intrusion of such aspects of the American lifestyle to the young people in Islamic fundamentalist societies carries the seeds of its destruction. The Islamic fundamentalist leaders know this, and it is one of the basic reasons that Islamic fundamentalists are fighting so hard against the US and the 'west'.

Since WalMart and K-Mart stopped selling Ammo after the last Michael Moore movie, WalMart stores would be of absolutely no use whatsoever to Islamic fundamentalist leaders.

Melonie
06-26-2004, 09:40 PM
Melonie, can you really blame them. What would you do it you had another country killing you family members and bombing your churches, houses and jobs.

I'd probably stop supporting the family members and other terrorists who were out killing US & coalition forces, provisional Iraqi government officials, Iraqi police etc. and then taking refuge in those churches and houses - and tell them to go hole up somewhere else so they wouldn't draw return fire.


Iraq did nothing wrong and got dragged into this war for political reasons

This is only true if you don't consider an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait as wrong, if you don't consider shooting at US aircraft overflying iraqi airspace to enforce the UN settlement as wrong, if you don't consider pursuing a WMD program and refusing to allow UN inspectors to monitor it as wrong, if you don't consider the development of longer range missles in violation of the UN settlement and capable of attacking 'peaceful' neighboring countries as wrong, and if you don't consider providing aid and support to terrorist organizations as wrong ...


Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes. If some do and some don't, this world will continue to be very unfair. Let's pass an international law to do away with all wepons of mass destructrion

Yeah right, as if this international law would be followed any better than the rest of international laws which have been flagrantly violated. And who is going to try and enforce international law, when the violator has nuclear technology ? Another 32 UN resolutions, each one similarly ignored ?


I mean look how many people died in iraq (citizens and americans) for nothing

Are you talking about the 50,000 Iraqi Kurds that Saddam poison gassed in a single day, the 100,000 Iraqis thrown into mass graves after the purge, or simply the couple of thousand Iraqis routinely executed every month in Saddam's prisons ? Oh, you meant the 900 coalition soldiers !


It's time for more civil mediation, too many lives are being taken, and the world is becoming more polluted with every bomb. Humans are supposed to be more civilized than animals, I just don't see it.....

I just don't see it either - unfortunately. But this is the reality of the situation when trying to deal with fanatics. The world learned this lesson the hard way with Hitler - that negotiated agreements with fanatics aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Deogol
06-26-2004, 09:46 PM
... this time threatening to behead a South Korean hostage in response to South Korea sending troops to Iraq.

IMHO these Islamic extremist bastards are making a huge mistake by expecting the same reaction they managed to get out of socialist Spain to withdraw troops from the "semi-right wing" government like South Korea. These highly publicized beheadings are not only forcing virtually every non middle eastern country in the world to acknowledge and view the Islamic extremists as butchers, murderers and thugs.

But they are also starting to alienate the base of support the Fundamentalist Fanatics desparately need from "regular folks" living in the middle east. Even more importantly, these atrocities are starting to force the hand of so far "neutral" islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Algeria to take strong action against the Islamic fundamentalist fanatics themselves for fear of losing control of their own countries and being perceived by the rest of the world as openly supporting terrorism.

Middle east countries that persist in supporting Islamic terrorists are beginning to get the message that a "paper border" is not going to protect them from retaliation. Today's news story about israelis crossing the Lebanese border to root out terrorists lobbing shells into Israel sent a pretty clear message.

What worries me the most is actually Iran - who was proven to have "disappeared" a nuclear weapons facility a few days before UN inspectors were due to make a sweep (a pretty good indication that Iran now has nuclear capability), and who is massing thousands and thousands of troops on the Iran/Iraq border. If the terrorists start really taking a beating, it's distinctly possible that Iran will turn these troops loose into Iraq where they will vastly outnumber coalition forces.



Melonie, can you really blame them. What would you do it you had another country killing you family members and bombing your churches, houses and jobs. Iraq did nothing wrong and got dragged into this war for political reasons. If outsiders came in and starting killing my family, I would behead and kill every single one of them I could get my hands on.

Additionally, why should Iran not be allowed to harvest nuclear weapons? Almose every other civilized country has them, to be without would make them very vunerable to attack. Even if you "fake" you have nukes just for protection it is better than being without them and being open for attack. How are you suppoesd to protect yourself from the us with sticks and stones ?

Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes. If some do and some don't, this world will continue to be very unfair. Let's pass an international law to do away with all wepons of mass destructrion. I hate how we tell people they can't have them yet we continue to manufacture them ourselves. It's all or none.

Look, nobody want's to destroy the world because that serves nobody, but that's exactly the capibility we have, and we know damn well we don't want to (or ever will) use it. If two countries have a beef let them draw straws to see who wins. In the long run does it really need to be more complicated than that. I mean look how many people died in iraq (citizens and americans) for nothing. We have prooved nothing by being there except that we are not as powerful as we thought we are. Thousands died for nothing except political gain. It's time for more civil mediation, too many lives are being taken, and the world is becoming more polluted with every bomb. Humans are supposed to be more civilized than animals, I just don't see it.....


Oh dude... pick up a newspaper.

There are a whole lot of foreigners in Iraq doing the head chopping these days. They are also blowing up Iraqi's. Guess what? They ain't americans doing it.

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? Did you just fall off the back of the potato truck? Here is a clue - their idea of fair is not your idea of fair.

The US hasn't "manufactured" nukes for ten years now. In fact we are destroying our chemical weapons in incinerators as we speak.

Put down the marxist drabble from the local college "thinks they know it all" and find some better sources of information.

Do you realize that muslim radicals have started nearly 14 wars around the world and are fighting them RIGHT NOW? That is pretty peaceful.

They want you to grow a beard son, and the women on this board would be lucky if all they got was acid thrown on them...

"Over 2000 women a year are victims of fatal or disfiguring acid attacks for alleged improper behaviour." -- )

or worse, stoned to death for sex outside of marriage

"Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside of marriage. (A number of lovers have been stoned to death under this rule.)
Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off.)" --

You might have the "live and let live" attitude on life, but they don't.

Rhiannon
06-26-2004, 09:51 PM
Great post, Deogol. It got me thinking of a site I visit regularly, to check up on the women of Afganistan. They have some very heartbreaking stuff on here..

Deogol
06-27-2004, 07:35 AM
The US has the most sophisticated and powerfull weapons in the world. Iran and Iraq have no chance against them. However, how do you keep from killing all the innocent civilians when using such force? I hope the Iraqii people start to wake up and appreciate all the soldiers dying for there future freedom!


We are killing far less civilians and innocents than back in WW II, or even Viet Nam. Thosands and thousands less.

I think, once it is all done and finished with, people will be glad of the change. Right now there is a lot of change going on and people are worried about what the future is going to be like.

samart
06-27-2004, 07:54 AM
Ya know, I got to thinking. I wonder how many people in our country would be in 'outrage' with Civilian casualties from WWII, IF we had the media coverage then that we do now. I am sure that it would be huge from our vantage point. But remember, we are not the ones looking out, we are looking in.

From what I have read in newspapers and Iraqi Blogs, I would say 80% of the people over there are glad the US is there in Iraq, however the other percentage that are extremists are getting their views slanted towards them. Almost like the mentality of "One bad apple spoils the whole bushel."

It's sad....because you never hear of the good things going on in the world anymore.....it's always the shitty. God Bless our 'unbiased' media coverage!

Melonie
06-27-2004, 08:58 AM
Ya know, I got to thinking. I wonder how many people in our country would be in 'outrage' with Civilian casualties from WWII, IF we had the media coverage then that we do now. I am sure that it would be huge from our vantage point. But remember, we are not the ones looking out, we are looking in.

Ain't that the truth ! And many of these civilian casualties were targeted without much of a strategic military objective.

Dresden firebombing, probably 70,000 ( )

Tokyo firebombing, probably 100,000 ( )

Both of these events were deliberately kept under wraps in regard to the movietone newsreels of the time !

but even these numbers pale in comparison to other events ...




It would be highly interesting to see how Iraqi civilian casualties which have occurred over the past year compare to the average yearly total of Iraqi casualties under Saddam ! I would take a wild guess that even with civilian "fallout" from coalition military operations and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks, that the Iraqi civilian casualties this year are 10 times less than they typically were under Saddam's regime. Of course Saddam's own targeted attacks against Kurdish and Shiite civilians certainly bumps up the average !

Adina
06-27-2004, 02:11 PM
the vast majority of muslim countries with Sunni rule are "worldly" (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait etc.), while those muslim countries with Shiite rule are "fundamentalist" (Iran, Yemen etc.). Wahabis now represent a wild card in the situation, and pragmatically speaking they have much more in common with Shiite rulers than the remaining Sunnis.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Saudi Arabia is so "worldly" that women must observe full hijab, can't drive, can't vote, and can't even leave the house without being escorted by a male relative, where political dissent is suffocated and Shi'ite Muslims are treated like second-class citizens. Ditto for Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Egypt is so worldly that homosexuality is a capital offense, and like Algeria, has to devote much of its budget to maintaining a police state to ward off the influence of fundamentalist Sunni Muslim fanatics bent on taking over. Everywhere in the (predominantly Sunni) Muslim world, more women are wearing the burkah than 30 years ago.

As for Yemen, please refer to the CIA World Factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ym.html#Govt

And as for the patently absurd implication that Wahabbism equates Shi'ism, please educate yourself more about the history of Islam:

www.al-islam.org

Melonie
06-27-2004, 02:49 PM
Saudi Arabia is so "worldly" that women must observe full hijab, can't drive, can't vote, and can't even leave the house without being escorted by a male relative, where political dissent is suffocated and Shi'ite Muslims are treated like second-class citizens. Ditto for Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates

I meant worldly in the sense that these governments do have significant political and business dealings with the rest of the world. The fact that women are treated as second class citizens goes with the territory, Sunni or Shiite, and is based on religion not on national politics.


And as for the patently absurd implication that Wahabbism equates Shi'ism, please educate yourself more about the history of Islam

Again my comments were not based on religious aspects but political aspects, where former Wahabbist government supporters and Shiite government supporters find themselves fighting a common enemy - namely US, as opposed to Sunni governments which are avoiding direct involvement in any conflict or are supportive of 'our side'.