Saddam Hussein Executed...

[Brent Burns]

While googling to learn a little more about the Shi'ia version of the 12th Imam, I came upon this article called, "Speech filled with references to prohecy--not politics--experts says" based on Iranian President Ahmadinejad issuing 'troubling' greeting to Christians (date: 12-20-06) from http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003486.cfm. On the second page of the print out, Emir Caner, who was rasied a Muslim before he converted to Christianity at age 18 had to say about this (Emir came to the US from Turkey when his family moved here when he was young):

"We constantly run into people in the American republic, who think that this is a political issue, he said, "that there is negotiation is involved. You cannot negotiate with those who see this as eschatology."

"For the Muslim, especially for those in Iran, and especially for the Shi'ia, this is prophecy. And it is incumbent upon them to prepare the Earth for the coming of Allah, and Jesus."

"There are words of Mohammed in the Qu'ran which teach that there is going to be a 'great fire,' Caner said. "So the nuclear component for this for them has a prophetic dimension. Muslims see nuclear holocaust, nuclear warfare, as the bringing about of the end days- 'Glorious Days,' that Muslims refer to."

"They are not in this for negotiation, they are in this for the long haul-- and it is incumbent for us to either take it up now, or it will come back to haunt us later."

It is worth noting to read about the concepts of dar-al-Islam (house of submission) and dar al-Harb (house of war) which are interestingly not directly mentioned in the Qu'ran or in the Hadith. We all know that the ultimate aim of islam is to bring the whole world under the dominion of Islam. You can check this out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam

We should be more concerned not only about Iraq, but also about Iran and for me, Syria. What do you think Iran will do once the American and British soliders pull out of Iraq? Eventhough the Shiites and the Sunnis are theologically apart, they are willing to be united to box in Israel. That is what I see what they are doing out there in the Middle East.

[Beta]

By Radical Islam.

Exactly. It's not one nation as a whole we're fighting. It's individual radical sects of a religion.

[Brent Burns]

By Radical Islam.

Exactly. It's not one nation as a whole we're fighting. It's individual radical sects of a religion.

Yes, and those are the ones who will not buckle down and will not negotiate.

[devildog0351]

By Radical Islam.

Exactly. It's not one nation as a whole we're fighting. It's individual radical sects of a religion.

Thats another reason we are having so many problems. We aren't fighting uniformed soldiers who have pride and will fight face to face. We are fighting radicals who run and hide among civilians because they know we are the better man who tries to avoid civilian casualties. Brent makes a good point. I second his reccomendation on reading those articles.

[Brent Burns]

I know that the Palestinians have been employing that tactic for many years in their war of attrition against Israel. It looks like the Hizabullah have been doing that, too.

[Beta]

Yeah that's exactly what Im sayin. Instead of a nation of 1,000,000 people whom are the enemy...we're fighting 1,000,000 people across 10 nations. THe can 'o worms that this has turned into is going to last for a loooooooooong time.

[Zeuslax]

Beta wrote:

Instead of a nation of 1,000,000 people whom are the enemy...we're fighting 1,000,000 people across 10 nations. THe can 'o worms that this has turned into is going to last for a loooooooooong time.

Are we actually fighting that many, really? Possibly from a philosphical standpoint?

[Beta]

Beta wrote:

Instead of a nation of 1,000,000 people whom are the enemy...we're fighting 1,000,000 people across 10 nations. THe can 'o worms that this has turned into is going to last for a loooooooooong time.

Are we actually fighting that many, really? Possibly from a philosphical standpoint?

Yeah I just put 1,000,000 because I have no clue how many. Could be more, could be less. Could be none? Could have put "10 people across a million nations" but that'd be sheer ridiculousness.

[Adam Gamradt]

Beta wrote:

Instead of a nation of 1,000,000 people whom are the enemy...we're fighting 1,000,000 people across 10 nations. THe can 'o worms that this has turned into is going to last for a loooooooooong time.

Are we actually fighting that many, really? Possibly from a philosophical standpoint?

Yeah I just put 1,000,000 because I have no clue how many. Could be more, could be less. Could be none? Could have put "10 people across a million nations" but that'd be sheer ridiculousness.

Does anyone else find it curious that five years after September 11th, 2001, we still don't know who "the terrorists" are? Isn't this something we should know by now? How does what we believe matter?

Ed Koch is a fool for idolizing Bush and his inflexible ideological zealotry. I'm not sure you can win an ideological war with more religious dogma, and that seems to be all President Bush has going for him. Curious about understanding the world around him, he is not. Lack of curiosity is a fatal flaw for any high level leader, much less a President. This is just my humble opinion of course.
Sonny, if we are already in WW3, then it's too bad more people didn't speak out, and demand a real debate about going to war in Iraq. Because if we are in WW3, then we escalated it without good reason. Clearly this war was a mistake. Saddams rather ungraceful removal from the world not withstanding (rather stunning, if you think of how far back America's relationship with him goes), this war has had produced a more dangerous world. If we are in WW3 already as Sonny asserts, then I think he just helped me prove my point. Thank you Sonny! I aruge that this isn't a clash of cultures, and by making it one, you're leveling the playing field for guys like Bin Laden. Who cares who hates America? I don't want to sound like an isolationist, but what happened to deciding things by taking in to account our nations interest? When did President Bush become a nation builder? I'll tell you when, only after it's use fell in line with political expediency. He may be a courageous man, but courage without understanding, without curiosity, is not a virtue.

Our nations military focus should have been kept in Afganistan. President Ford was absolutely correct in his statements to Woodward. It's shameful President Bush used the lingering fear to his advantage, and used that fear to squash any debate about his war. He is the decider after all. And he likes Chuck Norris movies, but that's a topic for another post.

After all, he stated from the beginning, we are going it alone if we have to. He effectively removed any military and political burden from our fence sitting allies. Why would anyone help if we were going alone regardless?

He saw his war Iraq as an opportunity to finish a job his cronies started long ago, Rumsfield, Cheney, Wolfowitz. If he didn't get this war done, he would not be conforming to his beliefs, whether or not reality actually necessitated a war. This is why strong beliefs are not enough to lead effectively. The same group of ideologically rigid, politically inbred right wing wackos have been mucking up the country for 30 years now, trying to make the world fit their world view. Their approach to power is simply lustful and never ending, and just like Nascar, the same five guys seem to win every time.

I agree, we do have ideological extremists to fight abroad. I'm not sure how exactly to do so, and am willing to discuss all the alternatives. I'm not sure President Bush can alter his beliefs to coincide with reality. Its seem clear that bombs will only play a small role, for either side.

I agree we have ideological extremists to fight abroad, but I could name a few right here at home who could use a little dose of American curiosity.

[laxfan25]

I echo your sentiments Adam.
Several points here;
I was suprised to read that we are in WW3! So we are at war with Islam, with it's 1.4 Billion adherents around the globe? Perhaps GWB wasn't misspoken when he referred to the mission in Iraq as a Crusade, because that is the feeling we are instilling in many Muslims around the globe. If we are at war with Islam, why did we choose as a first major target one of the non-religious states in the Mideast? It would seem that rather than fostering democracy, we have created a new Islamic state that will be very beholden to Iran, and not very friendly towards the US.

No, the enemy was Osama and his band of followers, and has been stated many times, we completely took our eye off the mission to finish him off, and have instead created tacit support for him throughout the global Islamic community. The world is a far more dangerous place now than it was five years ago, and a lot of the credit falls to Washington.

There have been terrorist attacks here in the US - think of Oklahoma City and the Olympic bombings. Just because the terrorists involved there claimed Christian underpinnings for their actions - are all Christians bad, and do they all support McVeigh and Eric Rudolph? Some may appreciate Rudolph's strong belief against abortion, but I don't believe they all endorse his methods. The same distinction has to be drawn between the religion of Islam and the radical jihadists that are the core of our problem.

You can also look to the history of religious strife in Northern Ireland. Lots of terrorist activity has occurred there, but we don't place the blame on Catholicism or the Anglican faith, although that is the root of the issue.

We have done very little to reassure Muslims that we are not at war with their religion - our actions speak much louder than any words.

[Brent Burns]

How many years did the Soviet Union had to struggle with the mahjadeens in Afghanistan before they decided to withdraw?

[Sonny]

We have done very little to reassure Muslims that we are not at war with their religion - our actions speak much louder than any words.

And Muslims have done nothing to reassure non-Muslims around the world that they are not at war with everyone else. Their actions speak MUCH louder then our words & actions. Hell, their "silence" about the constant Muslim violence around the world speaks louder then anything else.

[Brent Burns]

We have done very little to reassure Muslims that we are not at war with their religion - our actions speak much louder than any words.

And Muslims have done nothing to reassure non-Muslims around the world that they are not at war with everyone else. Their actions speak MUCH louder then our words & actions. Hell, their "silence" about the constant Muslim violence around the world speaks louder then anything else.

From the advent of Islam founded by Muhammed, there were numerous Muslim military conquests and there were a lot of forced conversions. As we all know, the radical Muslims (from theological and political standpoint), they tend to use "hudna" (time-out) to re-collect themselves and to re-arm themselves before embarking on their next mission. When there is a lull for the moment, we better know that they would be preparing for the next one. Some people would call this religion, "religion of fear."

[sohotrightnow]

Little surprised to see that nobody has voiced concern over the reaction of Hussein's executioners and their behavior as they watched him die. These individuals are the ones we installed to take over Iraq? Wonderful. Things are looking great in Iraq. Justice has now been served and all is well in the world...again.

[StrykerFSU]

Little surprised to see that nobody has voiced concern over the reaction of Hussein's executioners and their behavior as they watched him die. These individuals are the ones we installed to take over Iraq?

That's just incorrect. The Iraqi courts were responsible for selecting the executioners and for better or worse they selected Shias from the southern regions. The NYT reported that those who had mocked Hussein were reprimanded. It was also stated that the executioners were no strangers to Hussein's brutality and probably had lost family members to his regime. Perhaps some harsh words might be expected from men who had lost so much.

I've stayed silent on this thread because I felt that we were rehashing the same debates that dominated this board all year but I have become a bit frustrated. Can the U.S. government do nothing right?

-We remove a brutal dictator but then he's the wrong one.

-We liberate a nation but it's only because they have oil.

-The dictator is convicted by a court of his countrymen but we picked the court.

-He is sentenced to die but the death penalty is bad.

-He is executed but the executioners act inappropriately.

It just seems to me that even in the face of success (the removal of a genocidal dictator), blind political hate dominates the discourse. I have to say it makes for juicy blogging and message board posts but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere in the real world, i.e. the whole "impeach Bush" mumbo jumbo and the "withdraw our troops now" rants.