This post has been removed by the author.

i second that

"Sistani and Harith al-Dhari should never be names mentioned when we talk about the government, never. If they want to be religious authority, then give them a rug and ask them to teach people how to pray. That’s what they are good for and that’s what they should be doing."

I think there should not be anything such as "religious authority" outside the mosque and once that is accomplished, we can have the people who are capable of holding governmental positions to do what needs to be done.

24, I agree that it's wrong to hire and fire people based on sect - what happened to your relative is shameful and I hope she gets her job back.

"But I ask: heal from what?"

The wounds that Saddam and his regime inflicted on Iraqis for 24 miserable years. Do you not know about them? Of course you do. It helps when all Iraqis agree that he was a madman who mass murdered innocent Iraqis.


"And how? By phasing out every single Iraqi, who does not identify as a Shiite, and bring in whoever is in the street and fits the word even if they are unqualified? Is that how the new Iraq is going to heal?"

Um, NO. I never suggested that is how Iraq is going to heal. But wait - the Iraqis had an election, no? They voted for their party, and multiple parties ran in the elections, and those parties included Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Communists, and secular technocrats. The Shia clerics came out on top - to me this is not surprising, given the history of traumatizing you mentioned. I don't like clerics in govt, but how do we form a democracy in Iraq without causing further trauma to the clerics who want to be in govt??

Today Iraq has a Sunni Arab Vice President - he is the #2 or #3 guy in Iraq. In Saddam's regime, did a Shii ever hold the #2 or #3 spot? Maybe they couldn't find any Shia who wanted to be part of Saddam's top brass. Today, Iraq's Ministry of Defense (one of the most powerful Ministries) is run by Sunni Arabs.

24, you know that 60% of Iraq's population are Shia, and you know that they were oppressed by Saddam's regime. So it shouldn't be surprising that the Shia of Iraq would want to dominate in the new Iraqi govt. Maybe the Iraqis didn't know what they were getting when they voted for SCIRI & Da3wa - maybe they were thinking of the Hakims they knew in the 70s, before the Hakims became Iranianized. I want to see a change in leadership too, but I think it must be done peacefully and democratically. Luckily, the next elections are just 2 years away. Iraqis don't have to wait through 24 years in order to see regime change.

24, maybe you should work with a party you like and promote them in the next couple of years, so that the next Iraqi govt is not dominated by clerics.

I wrote this on the previous thread:

Omar: "Let’s not change and deceive history"

me: Omar, I don't think I'm changing history by saying that Saddam's top brass was mostly Sunni Arab. Maybe you're right - maybe Saddam and his gang were not sectarian, but the fact is that his top guys were mostly Sunni Arabs. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns Iraq's Sunni Arabs. As I mentioned before, many of Iraq's Sunni Arab leaders have been great leaders. I think that Iraq's Sunni Arabs must play a very important role in the govt today - let's just say they have a secularizing effect, and to me this is important - I don't want to see Iran have too much influence in Baghdad. I definitely don't want to see Sharia law imposed in Baghdad. Iraq needs its Sunni Arabs if Iraq is to remain a secular state. Also it seems that in general, Iraqi Sunni Arabs are more educated - I should say that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of educated Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and I'm sure it has to do with the high poverty rate among Shia and the conditions they faced, especially in the south. Iraqis needs guys like Mithal al Alusi, guys like you, Omar.'


Omar: "Let’s be honest about what happened and forget about our differences and hatred."

me: 'I'm with you there, brother. But part of the healing is acknowledging the truth about what happened. It helps us heal - we know that ordinary Sunni Arabs had nothing to do with Saddam's crimes. Many Sunni Arabs were *victims* of Saddam's crimes. We know this, and I hope for a better future for all of us.'

[24Steps] The Iraqis need someone to unite them. They need someone to say “OK, hundreds of thousands were killed during Saddam and after him. Let’s forget about that time now and for ever.

Well, Dubya noted this problem a few days ago, 24. He said:
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela?'," Mr Bush said. "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."
(leading a lot of remarkably dense journalists to claim Bush thought Nelson Mandela was dead)

Which goes back to the fact that Iraqis are traumatized. As told BT 18 months ago, "The US threw down Saddam, but it could not depose the Saddam that the original Saddam implanted in the heart of Iraqi he tormented and terrorized for 30 years."

Gotta say, 24, I agree with everything you've written here.

However, I think it is a non-starter to assert that those who suffered most under Saddam should be eliminated from consideration from leadership.

On the contrary, it will require one of those who suffered so much to unite Iraq in way you so eloquently suggested. Only those that suffered the most can say "The past is past."

You are right that a major Iraqi Shi'a myth is that Sunni Arabs did not suffer under Saddam and that they were all involved in his crimes. However, it didn't help when so many Sunni Arabs so openly declared how "humiliated" the were by Saddam's quick defeat, and when they approved of (or were at least ambivalent toward) the Insurgency.

There is one thing, more than all others, that "proves" the prospective lives of Sunni Arabs were better under Saddam than for Shi'a Arabs or Kurds: The fact that Sunni Arabs were so inclined to feel "patriotic" toward Iraq under Saddam. When Saddam fell, the Shi'a Arabs felt they had "won". The Sunni Arabs *tended* to feel they had "lost" (even if so many believed it was a necessary evil).

Also it helps us heal when Sunni Arab leaders (members of parliament!) do not declare Iraqi Shia as 'Persian' or 'Safavid' or 'foreign' even if many Iraqi Shia spent time in Iran. Iran is Iraq's neighbor, just like the Arab states are. Many Iraqis fled to Iran during Saddam's brutal rule.

"'Al-Sistani urged the Iraqi government to rebuild the shrine, whose golden dome was partially torn off by last year's blast. The compound has since been locked and guarded by Iraqi police.

But he also called for restraint among those observing Monday's anniversary.

"We call on the believers to express their emotions but to be cautious and act disciplined, and not to do anything to hurt our brothers the Sunnis, as they are not responsible for this awful crime," he said.

About 16,000 demonstrators flooded the main street of the southern city of Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, marching toward two Shiite shrines there. Participants rallied with placards reading, "No to terrorism" and "Iraqis are one people, whether Shiite or Sunni." '

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela?'," Mr Bush said. "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

just for the record, i wanted to clarify why this statement is so hypocritical. mandela has blasted bush for the iraq invasion. mandela's political affiliates the ANC (african national congress)was viewed as a terrorist organization by conservatives in this country. cheney supported the apartheid regime and insisted that Mandela was a terrorist. he voted against a 1986 resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and recognition of the African National Congress.

if iraq does have a mandela he is likely sitting in jail somewhere just like mandela did for 27 years. or possibly killed on an attack on his home like the well loved iraqi labor leader.

the hypocricy is that if there was a mandela in iraq, he would likely be against the occupation and deemed a terrorist as mandela was and jailed as mandela was.

just sayin'


Besides, it seems that if there were any Mandela in Iraq -- someone that Bush so fervently seems to want -- he would have thrown the US out of the country....Bush does not even realize the implications of his poor attempt at symbolism. He just seeks to protect himself from his own failures by once again turning to Hussein in the same way the student always knows there's a dog somewhere who ate his homework.

and THAT is what rational people are sying about bush's mandela statement.

saddam saddam saddam saddam.....

jeez

24,

How can someone heal if there is no acknowledgement of a crime?

The people who mourned Saddam's passing in effect were saying that they didn't care about what happened to those he oppressed. They cared more for themselves and their positions. I can understand people's fear of Iran's influence, but you don't hang your own people out to dry. You try to work with them and achieve compromise.

It was a wasted opportunity for unity on the part of the Iraqis. Now because of everything that has happened it will be harder to get people's feelings to soften.

But not impossible.

Annie,

Whether Mandela approved or disapproved of the Iraq invasion wasn't the point.

The point was that there is no one unifying figure in Iraq.

Sorry, I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to go pick apples.

See ya.

I should note Mish3an al Jabouri did that Al Jazeera interview *after* he left parliament.

The point was that there is no one unifying figure in Iraq.

and my point was that bush blaming saddam for that is the cat calling the kettle black, because cheney called mandela and his party terrorists. in other words, there very well be people who can unify iraq, if we haven't killed or imprisoned them. since most iraqis want the occupation out, and no permanent bases,a unifying figure would have these goals, and therefore run up against bush just as mandela ran up against the right wing aparthied regime.

You all are running around a circle and not getting the point. What I am saying is that NON of those in power suffered under Saddam Hussein and those who suffered are not mentioned at all.

Here you go, again:

Iraqi mojo: “The wounds that Saddam and his regime inflicted on Iraqis for 24 miserable years.”

Do you really think that Iraqis have not talked about this and not addressed it yet? Do you want more? And let’s say they did what you want and continued to talk about the miserable time under Saddam, but for how long? And then what? When do you think it will be enough?

“but how do we form a democracy in Iraq without causing further trauma to the clerics who want to be in govt??”

By simply preventing them from interfering in the government. Yes, prevent them. Logic says they studied religion and they should work accordingly. Otherwise, they should go study political science or anything else that qualifies them to be in the government.

“Today Iraq has a Sunni Arab Vice President - he is the #2 or #3 guy in Iraq. In Saddam's regime, did a Shii ever hold the #2 or #3 spot?”

Have you heard of Mizban Khudur Hadi [#1 or 2 in baath party after Saddam for a long time and until the invasion]? Or Muhammed Hamza al-Zubaidi [#1 in baath party after Saddam and until the invasion and was the prime minister for a while in the 1980s]? Or Samir al-Sheikhly [minister of interior during the 1980s]? Or Abdul Baqi al-Saadoun [the strongest man in the baath party and slaughtered thousands of people until the invasion]? Or Muhammed Zmam al-Saadoun [one of the top officials in the baath party]?

All the names above are Shiites. Do you want more names?

Have you lived in Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s like I did? If the answer is no, then why do you keep repeating what the media is saying without checking your facts? Is it just to waist our time?

“24, you know that 60% of Iraq's population are Shia, and you know that they were oppressed by Saddam's regime.”

I don’t disagree with the percentage. But who was oppressed under Saddam Hussein of those in power now?

CMARII
“I think it is a non-starter to assert that those who suffered most under Saddam should be eliminated from consideration from leadership.”

I agree that those QUALIFIED should get a chance to serve the people in Iraq. But does anyone of them have power no in Iraq?

Let me tell you one thing: those suffered under Hussein are still poor, helpless and jobless. Go check it.

And don’t even get me started on Sistani now.

"Have you heard of Mizban Khudur Hadi [#1 or 2 in baath party after Saddam for a long time and until the invasion]?"

No I've never heard of this guy. What crimes did he commit? What do you mean by #1 or 2? What position did he hold?


"Or Muhammed Hamza al-Zubaidi [#1 in baath party after Saddam and until the invasion and was the prime minister for a while in the 1980s]?"

Yes I've heard of Zubaidi. He's on the deck of cards. He was the only Shii on the face cards, to my knowledge. Zubaidi killed Kurds too. I hope he rots in jail for the rest of his life.


"Or Samir al-Sheikhly [minister of interior during the 1980s]? Or Abdul Baqi al-Saadoun [the strongest man in the baath party and slaughtered thousands of people until the invasion]?"

I've never heard of him. He murdered innocent people? I hope he's in jail. Where is he now?


"Or Muhammed Zmam al-Saadoun [one of the top officials in the baath party]?'"

What crimes did Saadoun commit? What position did he hold? I've never heard of him.


"All the names above are Shiites. Do you want more names?"

Actually I'd like you to take a look at the deck of cards and tell me if any of them (besides Zubaidi) is Shii. I honestly don't know. When I first saw that deck of cards I was surprised by the number of Tikritis on the face cards. It really was a Tikriti mafia that ran Iraq, don't you think?

24, not every Ba3thi was a criminal, and not every criminal Ba3thi was Sunni Arab. I know this. My father was a top official at the oil ministry for a while. But the famous names in my mind are Saddam, Uday, Qusay, Ali Keemyawi, Izzat al Duri, and Barzan al Tikriti - I remember a bunch of Tikritis running Iraq in the 80s. If you say a bunch of Shia took over in the 90s, then I must tell you that I did not know this! lol:)

So we should not allow Iraqis who didn't suffer under Saddam to participate in the Iraqi govt, or should we ban only the clerics?

Omar, I don't think I'm changing history by saying that Saddam's top brass was mostly Sunni Arab. Maybe you're right - maybe Saddam and his gang were not sectarian, but the fact is that his top guys were mostly Sunni Arabs. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

just to let you know how this sounds to me.

I don't think I'm changing history by saying that US government is mostly white christian. Maybe you're right - maybe bush and his gang are not crusaders, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly christian. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all christians.

I don't think I'm changing history by saying that cheneys top advisors are mostly zionist. Maybe you're right - maybe cheney and his neocon gang are not racist, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly jewish. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all jews.


while there is 'nothing wrong in acknowledging' something, you are indicating you think it is relevant and important to today. placing the term 'this fact' in front of an idea indicates you think it has relevance. 'this fact doesn't condem all jews'. then why mention it.

why this continual emphasis on sect?

“The wounds that Saddam and his regime inflicted on Iraqis for 24 miserable years.”

Do you really think that Iraqis have not talked about this and not addressed it yet? Do you want more?

Omar, in case you haven't noticed the 'theme' of the traumatized iraqis, it is quite prevelent in todays lexion of 'healing iraq'.

there is this 'therapy' speech, and the idea of the 'surrender' and absording your societies past sins thing. kind of like what the germans had to go thru to repent after the nazis. and the japanese to be able to understand why they were then occupied.

it has to do w/a framing for the US and iraqis to 'accept' to be able to succumb . it is a psycological game in play, and you can hear this theme running thru much of the thinktank speak today. stassel used it in her wall street jouranl article.

you are quite right to address it head on. those who are traumatized should move over and let those who aren't move forward. this focus on a big iraqi sobfest of trauma acknowlegment is worthless, it only serves to weaken iraq.

Omar, don't you think that disallowing clerics to run in elections can be viewed as oppressive? Wouldn't it be better if the Iraqi people decide for themselves that clerics are not the answer to everything? Why not campaign for a secular Iraq and promote tolerant views in Iraq, and hope that Iraqis will vote for guys like Mithal al Alusi?

You mentioned in the previous thread that Mithal al Alusi is one of Iraq's heroes. He fled Iraq in the 70s, and now he is a member of parliament. I hope to see him as PM. He should not be disqualified from leadership because he did not suffer under Saddam in the 80s & 90s, right?

"maybe bush and his gang are not crusaders, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly christian. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all christians."

That is an excellent analogy!

"Maybe you're right - maybe cheney and his neocon gang are not racist, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly jewish."

Is this true? I heard that second Clinton's admin was 40% Jewish. That's a disproportionately large percentage of the administration. I wonder what percentage it is under Bush.

"you are quite right to address it head on. those who are traumatized should move over and let those who aren't move forward."

So is Mithal al Alusi traumatized, or not?

What did the average Sunnis do to you and others so you want to heal? And if this is “help” why hasn’t is been working? And why it will definitely not work?

i can't speak for mojo, he is just one voice.

like i mentioned in the last post, we are making history here. how it is framed and how it will be remembered. naomi klien's shock doctrine demonstrates this use of shock video

now it seems clear iraqis are in a shock mode, and this is very much used in invasion purposes so much so that the name was incorporated into our policies in argentina, and of course the shock n awe. the effort now seems to be to place the blame for the shock, to place it firmly in a category AWAY from occupation. in other words, iraqis are tramatized because of saddam. but since saddam is no longer around, it is placed on sunnis (presumably, not my theory).

iraqis are traumatized because they are refugees, they have no security, lots of reasons. but i ask you, why this theme, why now? why the explanations, the framing, the heal speak?? doesn't it seem we are being distracted?

are the think tanks leading us all into this concept of group therapy and rationalizations for why everything is so screwed up? i mean for heavens sake, there is a war going on, the government is not accomplishing anything of significance, more and more people are being forced from their homes, and yet, there is slow progress being made in what?

what is going on we aren't hearing about? more displacement? more neighborhoods being divided by sect? i believe this is the period of the 'soft partition'. we are not supposed to notice it is violent or cruel in nature. we are not even supposed to call it by name. the government is left in place by the invader for they same reason they were ushered into power..because they are serving a purpose in continuing the sectarian nature of things which is required for this inevitable partition of iraq to continue and succeed.

it is all happening under the banner of traumatization. it is however being directed.

hopefully with the ouster of AQI and Blackwater, the Iraqis will be less traumatized. hopefully the 'legitimate' resistance has stopped killing innocent Iraqis. and then hopefully the US troops will withdraw, and insha allah Iraq will return to normal, without sharia law.

That is an excellent analogy!

good, then let us review it one more time step by step

I don't think I'm changing history by saying that Saddam's top brass was mostly Sunni Arab.
I don't think I'm changing history by saying that US government is mostly white christian

Maybe you're right - maybe Saddam and his gang were not sectarian,
Maybe you're right - maybe bush and his gang are not crusaders,

but the fact is that his top guys were mostly Sunni Arabs.
but the fact is that his top guys are mostly christian.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns Iraq's Sunni Arabs.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all christians.

and you think this is an excellent analogy? ok, then tell me why, in the context of the iraq war, having white christians making up the bulk of our government employees is relevant to the occupation of iraq.

"and you think this is an excellent analogy?"

actually, after thinking about it, it's not such an excellent analogy. Iraq's Sunni Arabs comprise 20% of the population and they ruled Iraq for 85 years. America's Christians comprise 80% of the population, and Christians have been in charge for over 200 years.


"ok, then tell me why, in the context of the iraq war, having white christians making up the bulk of our government employees is relevant to the occupation of iraq."

I will explain, step by step, just like you did for me! lol:)

I thought you were saying that ordinary Christian Americans are not responsible for what Bush & Cheney have done, just like ordinary Iraqi Sunni Arabs are not responsible for what Saddam did. Did I misunderstand something? I thought it was a pretty good analogy, until I remembered that American Christians actually *elected* Bush. Well, the first election (at least in Florida) was a fraud, imo. It's still a good analogy, I think. Ordinary Christians should not be blamed for what Bush does, just like ordinary Iraqi Sunni Arabs should not be blamed for what Saddam (and his filthy henchmen) did.

good work, annie.

Iraqi Mojo:
"the Iraqis had an election, no? They voted for their party, and multiple parties ran in the elections, and those parties included Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Communists, and secular technocrats. The Shia clerics came out on top - to me this is not surprising,"

That just make me wander if you really get your news/"facts" from one source or more.

Haven't you heard about all the cheating that was done in the elections?

Haven't you heard about all the armed men who were standing in front of the gates of the voting centres?

annie: "I don't think I'm changing history by saying that US government is mostly white christian. Maybe you're right - maybe bush and his gang are not crusaders, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly christian. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all christians.

I don't think I'm changing history by saying that cheneys top advisors are mostly zionist. Maybe you're right - maybe cheney and his neocon gang are not racist, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly jewish. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all jews."

This kind of an analogy doesn't really remind me of an opinion that a well educated person would say, it kind of remind me of a person who studied in the Wahhabi school in Saudi Arabia in the 80s.

So, I ask again, since this post is about the disqualification of the traumatized: is Mithal al Alusi traumatized?

Can there be a liberal Iraq?

So is Mithal al Alusi traumatized, or not?

mojo, nothing in your link gives me any clue whatsoever regarding this persons current standing amoung iraqis or what his proposed policies for domestic iraq politics are. so i was speaking in general and am not here to advocate for any particular iraqi politician. wrt his politics there were only 2 references

supports a close alliance with the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Israel.

Alusi was appointed the General Director of Culture and Media at the Higher National Commission for De-Baathification

i am curious about what alliance if any he supports w/his other neighbors. i think the most important quality in a politician is to be able to inspire and rally people into unity around ideas that move the country forward in a secular way. a way that can organize workers and sustain iraq culture. can he do this? if he can, then i think this is more important than his foreign alliances or his willingness to allow an occupation force to remain in the country and build permanent bases.

this is a concern of mine. that any popular politician would clash w/the zionist agenda. maybe al-Alusi can overcome this. does he want iraq to stick together, or is he in support of the new map?

mojo, you failed to understand my point which was the religion (christian) is supposed to be totally irrelevant to our policies becasue we have a separation of church and state, therefore, it is irrelevant what religion people are, becasue when voting for their government officials, they are supposed to focus on governing, not religion.

by continually associating saddam as a sunni, you are [perpetuating an idea that how he governed related to his sect.

in other words, it would be nice to imagine that his christian roots had no effect on georges march into islam territory. of course christians should be blamed for out illegal invasion, no more than sunnis should pay a price for saddams crimes.

you cann't move into a concept of separation of church and state when you continually frame ideas using ethnic/religious qualifications.

sorry, i meant , of course christians should not be blamed for our illegal invasion..

"Haven't you heard about all the cheating that was done in the elections?"

Yes I heard that a bunch of Iranians crossed the border to inflate Shia numbers! Is it true? Is that what you mean by cheating?


"Haven't you heard about all the armed men who were standing in front of the gates of the voting centres?"

What were those armed men doing? Did they prevent anybody from voting? Did they work for the Iraqi or US govt?

"mojo, nothing in your link gives me any clue whatsoever regarding this persons current standing amoung iraqis or what his proposed policies for domestic iraq politics are."

Please allow me to summarize: Mithal al Alusi, a former Ba3thi (Sunni Arab) who fled Iraq in the 70s and moved to Germany until the invasion in 2003. He became a member of Iraq's new parliament, and in 2004 his sons were murdered in front of him. He is secular. This man has been traumatized, and he spent many years abroad. Does this disqualify him from leadership?


"so i was speaking in general and am not here to advocate for any particular iraqi politician. wrt his politics there were only 2 references"

Yes you were speaking in general. You wrote "those who are traumatized should move over and let those who aren't move forward." So all traumatized Iraqis should move over and let those who aren't run the show? Or did you mean that traumatized clerics should not be allowed to run? Perhaps you can elaborate.

mojo, when the WSJ talks about a liberal iraq, are they referring to neoliberalism?

is this what iraqis want? there is abig difference between policies of what we call 'liberal' here in america, and neoliberalism, or free trade and privatization. that is a radical step for iraq.

Perhaps that is what the WSJ is referring to when they talk about Iraq. No doubt they like Alusi's stance towards Israel. Iraqis may not want to normalize relations with Israel, but they do want economic development and political liberty. Who doesn't?

and annie, the Iraqis are very familiar with free trade and privatization. the concept of money was founded in Mesopotamia.

http://www.museumofmoney.org/babylon/

Perhaps you can elaborate.

ok, say you are in a car accident and have emotional scars. your sister is also in the car, she doesn't. a person w/emotional scars should not be running the government. in other owrds, those iraqis who are wanting payback from the sufering of the past are in no position to lead because they are acting for partly revenge or to make up for past trauma.

another person could have gone thru the same experience and come out balanced and strong. i would not disqualify a person because they were in the car accident.

if this person Mithal al-Alusi (who sounds like he mirrors many US neoliberal policies) is a leader that can rally iraqis and push his policies thru w/success, then he should. however, i am not a neoliberalist, nor do i think it is best fro iraq, but this is not my choice to make.

from the article...

"Something basic has changed," he says, noting that the terrorism that once was directed against Israel and the West has lost its cachet on the Arab street now

was iraq directing terrorism towards israel and the US before the invasion?

Iraqi soldiers--many of them Shiite--were willing to fight and die alongside American soldiers in recent fighting against Shiite militants. "So, the loyalty to Iraqi institutions did count and the partnership between the Iraqi and American armies did hold."

it might sound more positive if he chose an analogy that emphasized uniting all iraqis instead of one that pitted iraqis and americans against other iraqis.

"The main mistake of liberals in the Middle East is trying to speak at too high a level. Liberal values aren't for intellectuals or for the rich. They're for the simple people."

perhaps he should explain it simply then, so simple people can understand.

he doesn't sound very tramatized. i think iraq needs politicians to offer choices divorced from religion, this is certainly a start.

Iraqis are very familiar with free trade and privatization. the concept of money was founded in Mesopotamia.

well then, do they want it? because they certainly do seem to be dragging their feet on that oil draft. we are also 9 trillion in debt. i don't think free trade is really popular right now on the home front. lots of people pissed their pensions are dissapearing and jobs going overseas.

but they do want economic development

not all economic developement is the same. there are ways to strengthen your economy by having a natinal oil company and keeping the profits in iraq. how is he w/this?

in other words, i wouldn't seel iraqis short on brains. their could be other reasons he is not so popular besides embracing israel and their could be other reasons for not embracing israel besides racism

This kind of an analogy doesn't really remind me of an opinion that a well educated person would say, it kind of remind me of a person who studied in the Wahhabi school in Saudi Arabia in the 80s.

!!!! ALI wins the prize! you got it ali, sorry i missed your answer before i responded to mojo, who obviously did not get my point.

"well then, do they want it? because they certainly do seem to be dragging their feet on that oil draft."

They want it but they want to be cautious at the same time. They know that oil companies want to maximize profits and and they want to make the terms of the contract favorable to them, and of course they want to minimize expenses, and that includes paying the Iraqis a share of the profits. Most Iraqis don't want to privatize oil at any level. But infrastructure is old, and Iraq doesn't have much money. Iraq is also heavily in debt. They have no choice but to work with companies that have the equipment and resources to pump & refine more oil.

Health care and education have been nationalized (and free) since my parents can remember. That should not change, hope it doesn't.

This kind of an analogy doesn't really remind me of an opinion that a well educated person would say, it kind of remind me of a person who studied in the Wahhabi school in Saudi Arabia in the 80s.

!!!! ALI wins the prize! you got it ali, sorry i missed your answer before i responded to mojo, who obviously did not get my point.

4:07 PM


annie, Ali was referring to the analogy that YOU made:

"I don't think I'm changing history by saying that cheneys top advisors are mostly zionist. Maybe you're right - maybe cheney and his neocon gang are not racist, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly jewish. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think. and I don't think that this fact condemns all jews."

and it would be a valid analogy if there is any truth to the claim that Cheney's top guys are mostly Jewish.

Furthermore, I don't understand Ali's response: the analogy says that not all Jews should be blamed for what Cheney's Jewish men have done. How is this Wahhabi? Were the Wahhabis this smart in the 80s? Did the Wahhabis write and talk about the need to not blame all Jews for what Jews in the US govt do?? and annie thinks Ali's response is a slam on me. WOW. what are you two smoking??

annie, are you an art major?

annie, Ali was referring to the analogy that YOU made:

i made 2 false analogies to highlight the inappropriateness of yours.


"Maybe you're right - maybe cheney and his neocon gang are not racist, but the fact is that his top guys are mostly jewish."

Is this true? I heard that second Clinton's admin was 40% Jewish.

mojo, my point in all this, in case you haven't noticed by now, is that the way you framed your message, while not trying to be, was however, racist.

there were many jewish advisors in clintons days, many well known american politicians and advisors are jewish.. kissinger , fiengold, emanuel, that was not my point. the point being that these guys do not all think in unison. neocons however, do. zionists do. so my analogy of 'the fact they are jewish' was supposed to highlight your comment about'the fact they are all sunni'.

the fact is, the fact of someones ethnic background is usually irrelevant to their politics, or should be. that said, to answer your question.. cheneys gang (advisors/pnac) is primarily jewish. there politics is not because of their religion or birthright, it is because they all rally around the foreign policies of what is best for israel which by nature is going to be filled w/jews because pnac was formed around israeli policies. it is zionist in nature. so 'the fact' they are jewish is not relevant, unless you are racist. and yes, there are racist jews, zionism can certainly qualify as racist.

its a tricky concept. either you get it, or you don't.

there is a disporportionate amount of jews in the upper esceleons of political influence compared to their representation in the population. this is because the israel lobby happens to be the 2 most powerful lobby in the US.

personally, i rarely consider israel an independent nation. thats why many people refer to it as the 51st state. i think of israel as the US state in the middle east. there is essentially no difference in their policies, and ours, and that is very dangerous imho.

this is getting really off track, and i have to go for the evening. cheerio.

mojo, i am not a student, i am an artist tho

"i made 2 false analogies to highlight the inappropriateness of yours."

It is inappropriate to say that ordinary Sunni Arabs should not be blamed for what Saddam did? and it's inappropriate to say that ordinary Jews should not be blamed for what Paul Wolfowitz has done? this is inappropriate?? are you serious??

and Ali apparently thinks that the analogy would have been made by some Wahhabis in the 80s. that, my friends, is some crazy shit.

mojo, if a man kills another and you not only point out that he is black, and then asks everyone to 'acknowledge' he is black, and then say there is nothing wrong w/acknowledging the 'fact' he is black..are you not isolating his blackness and highlighting it?

i mean would you be 'changing history' to acknowledge 'the fact' that black men in this country have spent a vastly disporportionate time in jail?

what kind of idea is that? doesn't it call attention to the blackness of the person. when it could very well be that this says more about law enforcement or the society in general than the nature of the race.

I don't think I'm changing history by saying that Saddam's top brass was mostly Sunni Arab.

no, you aren't changing history, you are however focusing on the sunni ethnic aspect of this

Maybe you're right - maybe Saddam and his gang were not sectarian, but the fact is that his top guys were mostly Sunni Arabs.

again, maybe, the doubt factor here... maybe they were not sectarian... but they were.....they were what? what? they were sunni arab. that is, is it not, your focus?

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, I don't think.

excuse me?? oh, sorry i thought you were just pointing it out. no? no you are not pointing it out, you are 'acknowledging' that. lets check that word shall we

to recognize the rights, authority, or status of
to disclose knowledge of or agreement with

to recognize as genuine or valid

so in other words..to recognize the rights, authority, or status of.. the validity of ..of what

SUNNI ARABness in association w/saddams policies.

and I don't think that this fact condemns Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

well for gods sake mojo, then why the heck did you bring it up????

if someone is discussing israel and neocon politics and someone says, well they led primarily by jews right, we can all acknowledge they are jews, it doesn't mean all jews are like this but it doesn't change history to acknowledge the fact they are all jews.. aren't you kind of making the connection about there jewishness and implying a jew is therefore more likely to be a neocon?

i mean can't iraq move thru these definitions of everyone?? isn't it the religious people that put the emphasis on sect? not the secular politicians? isn't baath by nature a secular group?

are iraqis going to unite, and if they do how often , how many times, how important is it really, to continually over and over acknowledge that the people who suppressed iraqis were primarily... sunni arabs?

you can't hear yourself because you are not an outsider. but i hear this very clearly. when a person takes this much effort to make a point... why? what is your point?

a

"well for gods sake mojo, then why the heck did you bring it up????"

Because in the previous thread, we were talking about whether Sunni Arabs would accept a Shia govt in 1991. I was having a conversation with perry1961, and he asked what I thought was a good question:

"How many Christians ran Iraq in the last 300 years 24? How many Kurds? How many Shia? Zero."

I know it may not be politically correct to point out that Shia have not ruled Iraq, EVER before 2003. but some people aren't afraid. It is quite appropriate to talk about the history of the Shia in Iraq when talking about such things as democracy in Iraq, and it is quite appropriate to point out the Sunni domination of Iraq for so many years.

ok, sorry. its just hard to hear people always referencing the past instead of the future

We have to study the past in order to explain what is happening in Iraq today, and in order to plan for a better future.

Maybe we Iraqis should support candidates who's campaign (or part of it) is No to political Islam

[24Steps] I agree that those QUALIFIED should get a chance to serve the people in Iraq. But does anyone of them have power no in Iraq?

I don't know. It depends on what "qualified" means. Was George Washington, a farmer who had trained only in commanding men in battle, qualified to be President of the US in 1789? I presume backers of the Dawa Party think one important qualification for leadership in Iraq is to have been odious enough to Saddam that you had to flee for your life.

I imagine many Iraqis think that having felt sad or nationally humiliated by Saddam's defeat makes you UNqualified for leadership. (I do as well, but that's neither here nor there.)

It has often been noted that dictatorships and oligarchies do a better job than democracies at selecting only the "best" for important positions. But you and I don't want to live under one of those, despite their so-called advantages. I think the behavior of Sen. Reid & Clinton, and the silliness of Rep. Pelosi's comments definitely disqualifies them for leadership of the US. But they *did* "qualify* for the positions they have by getting enough votes.

[24Steps] Let me tell you one thing: those suffered under Hussein are still poor, helpless and jobless.

That's probably true for many and untrue for many. You have already pointed out that Hakim suffered greatly under Saddam. So did Sadr. I agree the behavior of Hakim and Sadr have disqualifies them for leadership, but *I* am not their boss, so I can't fire them. The collective Iraqi people are their boss. It is up to their boss to fire them, not me. And not you, individually.

In order to fire them, we have to win the argument in Iraq by offering something better than Hakim and Sadr. (Hint: I don't think a Sunni strongman will be seen as "something better" by most Iraqi Shi'a or Iraqi Kurds)

Iraqi mojo,
I did take you seriously and devoted a whole entry to answer your previous questions and explain my point of view. But if you want to play a game of who is qualified and who is not, then I have no time for that.

You clearly haven’t heard of the names of the members of Iraq’s government in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Obviously, your source of information about Iraq has been the Pentagon’s deck cards and State department, and that means you are ill-informed and know nothing about a country that you always try to discuss. If you don’t know who Mizban Khudur Hadi is and you don’t know who Samir al-Sheikhly is, how do you want me to take you seriously?

And if there are more Sunnis than Shiites in your source for news about Iraq [deck of cards,] does that mean the Shiites under Saddam were angels and only the Sunnis were the bad guys?

Iraqi mojo: “Actually I'd like you to take a look at the deck of cards and tell me if any of them (besides Zubaidi) is Shii.”

What is this? Elementary school!

Listen, if you hate Sunnis for whatever reason there is in your mind, fine. I don’t care. But let me tell you something: I don’t consider Iraqi he or she who hates other Iraqis. That’s my way of judging Iraqis.

And why would you think the Sunnis were favored under Saddam? As far as I know you did not have to serve in the military, you did not have to hide in a shelter when the bombs rained on us for 45 days in 1991, you did not have to sell your TV and mattress to get food during the sanctions in 1990s, you did not have to fail in school to postpone the mandatory military service, you did not have to go back to the shelter to hide from the bombs during the invasion in 2003 and you did not live as an Iraqi. What do you know about Iraq other than the colors of its flag?

One good advice in the game of politics: multiple sources, listen to what both sides have to say, check your sources, check your facts, know how your rival is going to react and then present your ideas.

Well ... discussing the problem
is the first step ... and at least
we are moving toward getting
to the root problem in Iraq.

And the quicker its revealed
and can be discussed openly.
the faster an end to this violence
will come.

I will point out the most important thing is to end the violence ... I have mentioned before

Maliki agrees to new January elections ... BUT HE DOES SO
in exchange for the insurgency to end.

All truly patriotic Iraqi
who seek to build a nation
and who do not seek to rule
or seek revenge over others
can agree to this and then all
issues can be hashed out slowly
and deliberately during a period
of non-violence and reconstruction.

I call for Maliki and Parlimentary
representatives in Iraq to
voluntarily disband and set a date
for new elections
(perhaps under a different scheme)
In exchange for an end to insurgent activity.

Isolate al-queda and Iranian
backed militias once and for all.

Naturally the discussion had to move back to Bush and Christianity
but in previous posts
(NOT necessarily from our Iraqi Guests)

I recall all this
chatter about Wolfowitz/Perl/Negroponte ...

Hmm they are all Jews ....
And Condi/Colin a nice
deep chocolate Brown

Too bad for annie that America is still overwhelming white
and Christian .... perhaps
you she would feel better about
her country if she immigrated
to The Sudan where Arab Muslims
rule

"24" makes a valid point ...
a portion of the new government
seems more revenge/rule oriented
then a unifying governing body.

BUT Americans like me really
have no legitimate voice

a)we did NOT live under Saddam ...
b)we have no idea what it was like ...
c)we have no idea about the Baath Party ....and its tenacles and ruthless tactics

Non-Iraqi are in no position
to judge the validity of "anti-Baathist" sentiment .... because
we do not have a clue
However
the fact is as of today there is still a hardcore Baathist element
which still strikes fear into Iraqi
(which group burned the Iraqi boy ??)

If Sistani and others take a hard line they probably have a reason ...

Iraqi can and should criticize
Non - Iraqi should shut the hell up
about it this is a topic non-Iraqi
are completely ignorant about.

This is exactly what needs to be worked out in Iraq ...how
quick can real reconciliation
tale place !!!

I will close asking our Iraqi
host and his journalism buddies ...

Can you find out for me

a) How much money Brian DePalma
was paid to direct the movie
"Redacted"

b) How much money the actors were
paid

c) If the financier of the movie
Mark Cuban donated any money
to organizations that would help
Iraqis get medical treatment
or other such humanitarian
endeavors

The point being... I mean
people talk about war profiteering

Well I think it would be interesting for our Iraqi
guests with journalism credentials
to do a piece on all this
money floating around to make
Iraqi war movies.

Lets see
if the Hollywood types are donating
a good amount of their huge paychecks to entities which
would help Iraqi civilians.

"Obviously, your source of information about Iraq has been the Pentagon’s deck cards and State department, and that means you are ill-informed and know nothing about a country that you always try to discuss." -24

Yes I agree with the Pentagon and the State Department that Saddam, his cousins Barzan & Ali Hasan al Majeed, and his sons were most responsible for the the crimes against humanity in Iraq before 2003. If the Shia you mentioned were guilty of crimes, I hope they are punished for what the crimes they committed. I hope Zubaidi is jailed all his life.

The assertion that traumatized Iraqis cannot lead seems silly to me. I gave as an example Mithal al Alusi, whose sons were murdered in front of him - I presume he was traumatized, and yet you called him one of Iraq's heroes, and I agreed with you.

Did you look at the deck of cards? Is that false propaganda by the Pentagon and State Dept? LOL!

"Listen, if you hate Sunnis for whatever reason there is in your mind, fine. I don’t care."

LOL! No, I don't hate Sunnis! That's why I keep saying that ordinary Sunnis should not be blamed for what Saddam did.

"And why would you think the Sunnis were favored under Saddam?"

Saddam's top brass was Sunni Arab - this is a fact. We should be able to state this fact without provoking emotions. No need to jump to conclusions about my 'hatred' of Sunnis! I'm sure many Shia worked for Saddam - I heard that many Sadrists today are former fedayeen Saddam. but this doesn't change the fact that Iraq was run by Sunni Arabs for decades. We should be able to talk about this freely without being judged 'Sunni-hater' or Iraqi-hater.

actually I think it's natural to react emotionally. as long as the truth is told. is there anything false in that deck of cards distributed by the Pentagon?

Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash sounds like a Shi'i name. Whatever happened to her?

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

btw, I found Mizban Khudur Hadi as the 9 of hearts in the deck of cards - I don't know where you got #1 or 2 guy in the party. Zubaidi was the QUEEN (lol!) of spades. You don't like the deck of cards, do you, Omar? Many Arabs don't, it seems. I think it was brilliant.

Too bad for annie that America is still overwhelming white
and Christian .... perhaps
you she would feel better about
her country if she immigrated
to The Sudan where Arab Muslims rule

maybe if you read the thread anon you can see i use this as an example of prejudice, and are not my views.


Non-Iraqi are in no position
to judge the validity of "anti-Baathist" sentiment .... because we do not have a clue

right, we don't. but any person w/common sense can distinguish between the baath party and sunni arabs, which was the topic

However the fact is as of today there is still a hardcore Baathist element which still strikes fear into Iraqi

well, mr brilliant, the fact, as in THE REAL FACT, is there are many many more baathists who are and always were just regular people. people who have been discriminated against, and people who have had there lives ruined because of the policies. and you cannot ever have a normal healthy iraq w/out including these people because they made up the core of everything that functioned in the gov and beyond.

Non - Iraqi should shut the hell up about it this is a topic non-Iraqi are completely ignorant about.

practice what you preach you idiot. maybe it is you who should shut your trap. what do you offer, nothing. and your blathering about haditha shows your ignorance. did you ever even show concern for te victims? no, you did not. did you ever concern yourself for the profits of war movies before, no you do not. do you show any concern for the billions of war profits from your cheneyco friends? no you did not.

you are an impotent blathering fool. try reading the thread so you can make sense of the context before you jump like an animal in heat.

Zoom in on the deck of cards and read the print on the Joker card in the lower right corner. also:

"A word about Iraqi male names. In 1972 the government decreed that instead of using the family name, indicative of the clan, tribe, or the area of origin, men should use a maximum of three personal names - self, father, and grandfather. This order was issued primarily to mask the fact that al Tikritis - originating in the native area of President Ahmad Hassan Bakr and his relative, Saddam Hussein - held far too many top positions. Though this law has not been formally revoked, the use of the family names has crept back."

--Dilip Hiro, Iraq: In The Eye Of The Storm, 2002

I agree with those above who said that this is a necessary discussion that Sunni and Shia Iraqis need to have and I applaud both Omar and Iraqi Mojo for entering into this dialogue.

Iraqi Mojo wrote: The assertion that traumatized Iraqis cannot lead seems silly to me. I gave as an example Mithal al Alusi, whose sons were murdered in front of him - I presume he was traumatized, and yet you called him one of Iraq's heroes, and I agreed with you.

I agree with Mojo here. If one had to disqualify people from office-holding for being "traumatized," how would one ever create such a test? And what would one do with Chemical Ali? HE wasn't "traumatized," was he? He would probably gas the Kurds and run tanks over Shia in the south again if he had the chance. But, allowing for a humorous reductio ad absurdum, I guess in Omar's view, though, he would still be able to run for office because he did not feel "traumatized" by Saddam!

By the way, I've found both Shahristani and Zebari, two guys who were certainly traumatized by Saddam, to be stand-up, honest Iraqi leaders. Omar, would you disallow someone like Shahristani them from serving his country because Saddam's thugs hung him from a hook? Why did they do that? Because he said he was unable to build a nuclear bomb for him (actually his speciality was a completely different field of physics but the illiterate Tikriti thug who interrogated him couldn't understand algebra much less concepts of physics and its different branches). I would like to see Omar do some investigative reporting on the idiocies of Saddam's 25 years of moronic rule.

Omar, if you really believe in representitive democracy, then you better get used to Shia Iraqis being prominent in government. I was raised as a Roman Catholic in the US. We represent about 25% of the population while Protestants represent about 50%. So Roman Catholics represent close to the number of Sunna in Iraq. In our 225-year history, however, the first and only Roman Catholic president was John F. Kennedy. Compare that to the the history of Sunna in Iraq (a minority denomination) over the last 1000 years. Think about it. And then you will start to understand how Iraqi Mojo feels.

It would be like if in US history all of our presidents were Roman Catholic and none of the majority denomination (Protestants) had political power.

And yes, I know you would like to see better-qualified representives. We're only a couple years into this and better candidates will come. Be patient.

Very interesting discussion. Hey, both of you guys are in the Bay Area. Are you ever going to get together for coffee? It might help.

*

Revisiting the analogy from earlier...

Let's say Bush and Cheney are impeached, and their whole neocon administration is dismissed with them, as some have been calling for here in the states. Let's say Al Gore rides into Washington on the back of a Code Pink Subaru and is installed as President as a national unity salvation progressive MoveOn smartman to save America from the 0.7 decades of horror and repression that Bushitler CheneyCo forced on the world. Habeus Corpus is restored, wiretapping eliminated, Kyoto ratified, Quantanamo closed & its hapless detainees released, universal free healthcare for all, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the whole world loves us again.

Let's call it the "Awesome Progressive Administration" because some people think that's what the majority of Americans want. It is the Way it Must Be. There Can Be No Other Way.

Hooray!

But let's say those deposed & discredited neocons (remember them?), who also happen to be *mostly* Protestant Christians by the way, take to the hills and begin attacking that new Awesome Progressive Administration any way they can, in an effort to discredit it. No, not just attacking it politically as is American tradition, but slaughtering Awesome Progressive officials, destroying infrastructure, intimidating & kidnapping & killing anyone they judge to be supporters of the Awesome Progressive Administration?

OK?

Now say part of this campaign is to invite *mostly* Protestant Christians into America from Canada, Brazil, Belgium, etc. to carry out attacks against this new Awesome Progressive Administration, who are also *mostly* let's say Catholic Christians. And those attacks are heinous and random and frequent, although they also kill anyone they judge to be supporters of the Awesome Progressive Administration.

Oh, and let's just say there's a certain part of America that's pulling for these *mostly* Protestant Christian "neocons", and let's also say there's an international peanut gallery of sympathetic deputy neocons pulling for the hands-on neocons, saying at every turn the neocons should not have been deposed and look how much better everything was when they were in power, and on and on.

Now, an outsider trying to understand these events may recognize that it's not all Protestant Christians doing these terrible things, but may wonder: "what the hell is wrong with those Protestant Christians who are doing these things?? And why the Hell do their domestic and international cheerleaders give them so much slack for it??"

Rumsfeld lost his job, too. Is he helping suicide bombers to attack Wal Marts across America?

"The Iraqis need someone to unite them. They need someone to say 'OK, hundreds of thousands were killed during Saddam and after him. Let’s forget about that time now and for ever. The best way to honor the dead is to prove that their lives did not go in vein and start building what they spent their lives hoping for, that is an Iraq where people can live together and be able to plan for ten years ahead.'”

While I agree with 24's hopeful vision - it occurs to me that forgetting a wrong on that scale is probably impossible (the same as it will likely be impossible for all those being traumatized by the current violence to forget). But choosing not to allow that wrong to control your current actions, in other words – forgiving – may be the only path to a future for Iraq.

But let's say those deposed & discredited neocons (remember them?), who also happen to be *mostly* Protestant Christians .

lets not. lets just call them republicans.

part of this campaign is to invite *mostly* Protestant Christians into America from Canada, Brazil, Belgium, etc carry out attacks against this new Awesome Progressive Administration, who are also *mostly* let's say Catholic Christians.

so the rightwingers invite their buds to kill off the dems.. can we call them dems. or do we have to continue this zionist racist meme of dividing everyone into religious factions?

Now, an outsider trying to understand these events may recognize that it's not all republicans doing these terrible things, but may wonder: "what the hell is wrong with those rightwingers who are doing these things?? And why the Hell do their domestic and international cheerleaders give them so much slack for it??"

ok lets go one step further. lets pretend instead of them being impeached we were invaded by china who placed gore in power. lets pretend china decided republicans couldn't hold their jobs and dems said.. way cool. most , many of the rethugs left the country. then the chinese set up camp on dc and new york and houston and about 50 other prime locals. lets say they decided we should all be socialist and changed our economic system. lets pretend they went house to house and started imprisoning everyone who had any signs of rightwing garb like american flags, and nascar stuff. lets pretend they accidently started killing lots of people at all the roadblocks they set up. lets pretend we lost out water and electricity. lets pretend as the chinese were clearing out the rethugs, many of the families were dem/rethug mixed and they didn't like their relatives dying.

lets pretend the chinese stared organizing death squads w/the dems killing off prominent rethugs which included many of our military members that many dems actually ... liked. lets pretend that outside of politics these dems and rethugs actually got along in the supermarket and when they were playing cribbage. lets pretend that their children played together. lets pretend that many of the dems actually liked life better under the asshole rethugs than the chinese influenced dems. lets pretend some really weren't that into politics but they just didn't like foreign troops invading their homes at night and all their neighbors disappearing.

on second thought. lets not. lets not pretend. reality in iraq is horrible enough.. isn't it?

OK, "Republicans". Let's say the deposed Republicans began killing Democrats wholesale, in the name of "Patriotic Resistance", whether they supported this new regime or not.

Then let's pretend this "Patriotic Resistance" was not mainly composed of Republicans.

Let's say the deposed Republicans began killing Democrats wholesale, in the name of "Patriotic Resistance", whether they supported this new regime or not.

would that be before or after the chinese and dems started the rounding up republicans and started drilling holes in them?


Then let's pretend this "Patriotic Resistance" was not mainly composed of Republicans.

ok, that sounds good to me.lets pretend some of them used to work for the chinese. hey, i have an idea. lets not call them the resistance because if it weren't for the chinese invasion they never would have gotten into the US anyway. but i know, lets pretend the chinese want to call them the same name as the republicans just to confuse people. the chinese really like naming things huh?

you sound like you are really good and making up stories. have you had much practice?

hey, lets pretend the chinese want to divide the US into several little nations because they don't want it to ever be big and strong again. they bribe many of the dems and offer them really good deals, like a few little states of their own.

lets pretend they want americans to think it is an american idea.. hey instead of 'idea' lets call it a 'choice'. lets pretend while the chinese are trying to broker 'peace' between the rethugs and the dems they are actually (very gradually of course)making sure the dems and the thugs are 'safe' by dividing them into little separate neighborhoods and putting walls around them for their 'safety'.

lets pretend the chinese rule the news and make up lots of stories to tell people about how what and why things are happening the way they are because some people are confused.

hey if you were a confused dem who would you more likely trust.. a republican, or the chinese?

if you were a republican who would you trust more? the chinese, or the dems.

24, I haven't given much thought to the Shiite leaders of Iraq having been traumatized, but I am sure you are right. This probably has a lot to do with their creation of death squads in their militias to take revenge on their perceived Sunni enemies.

Traumatized people have a tendency to do bad things, sometimes very bad! I have read that as a small child Saddam was severely and cruelly beaten by his uncle. There is a similar story for Hitler and Stalin, who were both nearly beaten to death by their fathers. It is no surprise to me that all three men turned out to be cold blooded mass murderers.

Back to Iraq, I know that Shiites were not the only people traumatized under Saddam. Also, for the past four years, every Iraqi has been traumatized! So, who is there that has not been traumatized that can lead Iraq? Well, I would look for people who, despite their personal tragedies, can still reach out and embrace fellow Iraqis of different sects as their brothers and sisters. I think that tribal leaders of mixed sect tribes would be a good place to look.

Jeffrey,
Don't assume things you have no idea about. I am not Sunni. Although Fox news tells you that everyone with the name Omar is a Sunni, that isn’t a general rule in Iraq.

Iraqi mojo: if your intention is to ridicule this platform, then I warn you now to respect it and its author or you will not be welcomed. You linked to your source of news several times and I think this is enough.
If you try to make this discussion a joke, then I should remind you that dozens of Iraqis get killed every day and I don’t intend to mock that, like you are doing.
And if you want to have a Sunni vs. Shiite dialogue, then go find a Sunni, who hate Shiite, just like how you hate Sunnis and you can have your discussion away from here.

We don’t welcome here those brain washed to hate.

I think that tribal leaders of mixed sect tribes would be a good place to look.

what a great idea! one glitch tho might be the people who support the 'soft partition' plan. i'm not sure how that plan will work for people of mixed tribes and families. i wonder if they will have border checks between them? don't the kurds already have some kind of border check?

i think the best place to start is with ideas. find out what kind of iraq most people want, and then support politicians who can make that happen. it isn't enough just to say 'we want the terrorist out'.

what if you find a politician that is secular and you really support his plan for security but he wants everything privatized and most iraqis don't? if there was a way of finding a consensus of ideas that most iraqis supported.

what kind of economic plan do most iraqis want.

how do most iraqis feel about long term occupation forces in there borders, including 100 acres in the middle of baghdad and other permanent bases.

do most iraqis want their country divided by sect?

if there was a charismatic leader w/ideas most iraqis supported who unified and strengthened the country could you support him if dick cheney didn't? what if most people really liked him but he had nothing to say, no policy what so ever regarding israel. would that disqualify him?

how important is having a working functioning relationship with israel? how would you rate this in the top 10 important feature for a leader of iraq?

in the US, how a politician talks about israel might very well determine his entire political future. i am curious how important this feature is in the new iraq.

cool, check out this newsweek article.

Oct. 1, 2007 issue - Sam Gardiner plays war for a living. A former Air Force colonel who helped write contingency plans for the U.S. military, Gardiner has spent the 20 years since his retirement staging war-simulation exercises for military and policy wonks within and on the fringes of government (he keeps his client list confidential). Lately, more of his work has focused on Iran and its nuclear program. Gardiner starts by gathering various experts in a room to play the parts of government principals—the CIA director, the secretary of State, leaders of other countries—and presents them with a scenario: Iran, for example, has made a dramatic nuclear advance. Then he sits back and watches the cycle of action and reaction, occasionally lobbing new information at the participants.

hey, this reminds me of rhus's game! listen to how it ends

"The United States does not want to turn the possibility of a general war in the Middle East over to the decision making in Israel," he says. Does not want to, certainly—but might not have a choice.

anyway, you have to read the whole article to understand how thrilling it must be to be able to spend all your time playing war games.

also, keep in mind, the 'stories' these guys float, sometimes the 'scenarios' first break in some foreign right wing rag, i guess the msm here are a little iffy about printing make believe as if it was fact.

moving right(wing) along. rup murdie's rightwing london fishwrap has an interesting spin on the isreali syria bombing. step right up folks!Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid (according to israel)

i don't know about you but i always appreciate murdock doing us the service of printing this stuff outside the country first. when it bounces back at us my red flags go up.

I agree with just about everything in your post. I also believe Iraqis will vote more secular next time around. Hopefully,the brothers at ITM will win a parliament seat this time around. And you guys should form a list too. Call it the Liberty Party. If a majority of Iraqis share your views,Omar could be the next Prime Minister.

"Iraqi mojo: if your intention is to ridicule this platform, then I warn you now to respect it and its author or you will not be welcomed."

Have I disrespected you? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I disrespect you. same goes to Ali and any other Iraqi blogger who doesn't like what I write.


"You linked to your source of news several times and I think this is enough."

You mean the deck of cards? Yes I am still curious about the number of Shia on the deck of cards. nobody has answered me. whatever, I won't link to it again if it bothers you that much.


"If you try to make this discussion a joke, then I should remind you that dozens of Iraqis get killed every day and I don’t intend to mock that, like you are doing."

Am I mocking the Iraqis who are killed every day? How am I doing that?? and how am I making this discussion a joke? by joking about annie and ali? I'm not allowed to use humor to highlight the absurdity in annie & ali's arguments? this is what you're telling me?


"And if you want to have a Sunni vs. Shiite dialogue, then go find a Sunni, who hate Shiite, just like how you hate Sunnis and you can have your discussion away from here."

LOL! Again, as I've stated before, I don't hate Sunni Arabs. but you like to repeat this claim. hmmm, I wonder why. You're the one who interjected with examples of Shia who did well under Saddam, in an effort to prove something. I'm the one who pointed out that Saddam's top brass was mostly Sunni Arab. this doesn't mean I hate Sunni Arabs. just stating the facts, mate. do you really want to talk about facts? or do you want to bury the facts and focus on the crimes committed by Americans, like most Arabs do?


"We don’t welcome here those brain washed to hate."

I am brainwashed? to hate? LOL! I hate people who kill innocent people. unfortunately, innocent Iraqis have been killed by all kinds of people, including Iraqis. this is a fact. should I not hate the Iraqis who've murdered innocent Iraqis?

Omar could be the next Prime Minister.

yeaah!

It would be like if in US history all of our presidents were Roman Catholic and none of the majority denomination (Protestants) had political power.

jeffery, my guess is that if you put 1000 american 6th graders in a room and ask them if they had ever considered what christian denomination most of our presidents have been 99% of them would say no. most people just don't think in these terms. if you ask most americans 10 things about kennedy how many of them would say 'catholic'? of the ones who even consider this, how high on the list would that rate?

before or after the cuban missle crisis?

what about his 'ask not what your country could do for you' speech? would it rate before this?

if an iraqi were to compare the importance of sect when entered into their consideration of priorities, before invasion vs now, how many would say it is more important now? why?

what would it take for americans to start judging people based on their religion?

i heard when the dem senators visited the troops in iraq the military handed out sheets w/info about them. the second thing after their name and state was their religion. why?

why is it so important for some people to frame everything in terms of religious affiliation? our new muslim senator.. how many people who cast their ballot considered his religion as the defining reason to vote for him as opposed to his policies for their state?

most people, even iraqis, gravitate towards ideas and people who think like they do. iraq needs to unify behind ideas, not sect. by dividing iraq into separate entities based on sect, it will prevent the unification of iraqs who have similar ideas.


What we need now is a secular government that cares about renovating the infrastructure more than it cares about spending millions of dollars on religious shrines.

ok, just as an exercise ask yourself what idea it serves to have the hakim and friends in power as opposed to a secular government. imagine the people in power now are there by design. i know, i know they were 'elected', but imagine their rule was predicted.

if the goal was to divide iraq, that goal is being fulfilled. is that success?

everything is being framed around religion because iraq is supposed to be divided that way, and it can't work unless people think that way. hence, jeffery's statement about the US president is a way of making us think in these terms. but americans just don't. why are we floating ideas that divide iraqis instead of unify them?

Omar, i like betools flower. just a simple fragile flower. i like the glowing circular orb over her sternum and how the centers of the flower and the orb are identical. the magic glowy butterlfy thing above her heart. see the fragile threadlike stem holding up the flower being held on the one side by 3 fingers, and then the thumb on the other side. there is an open circle of empty space between the index finger and the thumb. the stem divides this space. one of the fingers looks as tho it is beginning to head off in some independent direction. i am also curious about the glowing borders of her dress.

Omar, how do you feel about Vali Nasr?

"everything is being framed around religion because iraq is supposed to be divided that way, and it can't work unless people think that way."

That's just bullcrap. The U.S. would VERY MUCH prefer a secular democracy in Iraq. Something closer to Turkey,rather than Iran or Saudi Arabia. Any dodo that thinks otherwise is just fooling herself.

Why do you think Allawi was installed as interim Prime Minister Annie? Was it because he was seen as a secular Shiite eager to reconcile with Sunnis? Or was it just another conspiracy to set one religion against another? LOL!

yeah it's funny - the US has been pushing Allawi for four years, and he didn't do that well in the elections. the US is still supporting Allawi.

it's also funny to watch people demanding that Iraqis do not talk about the past, but they don't talk much about the future. Omar, do you support Allawi? whom do you support? who's gonna be PM in 2010?

perry and I are on the same page:)

Here's what I see happening in the next elections. The Anbar Salvation Council will have morphed into a National Salvation Council,becoming a multi-ethnic secular party backed by sheiks of every major tribe. They'll get most of the vote. Allawi and the Kurdish parties will join them to form a ruling coalition. The religious parties will be relegated to nothing more than a nuisance opposition role. That's not really so far fetched either.

The U.S. would VERY MUCH prefer a secular democracy in Iraq. Something closer to Turkey,rather than Iran or Saudi Arabia. Any dodo that thinks otherwise is just fooling herself.

don't you mean rather than iran, SA and israel? oh, cool. i didn't realize the soft partition was going to create a place for secular people! for some reason i missed the news about the formation of secular mixed neighborhoods in baghdad.

neurotic iraqi wife has an excellent sad post about a very traumatized iraqi woman.


He promised her his undying love. I will protect you he promised. Trust me, he said. I will protect you. He gave her freedom, or so he said. Freedom that he thought she deserved. But with this freedom, he also opened up every single wild animal's cage on her. That was his vision of freedom. She can do what she wanted, he told her. Here, go and enjoy this freedom. You are free. You are finally free, he assured her. At first, she loved this so called freedom. It was something new. Something she never lived before, never experienced. She went out, she had fun, she would come back at dawn, alcohol and smoke smothered all over her. She didnt know what she was putting herself into. But she enjoyed it. She enjoyed this so called freedom.

i recommend

it occurs to me, the shadow in her story, the one who stands there watching...yeah, he is probably saying he wants a secular iraq too, just like you perry. don't listen to what people say, watch what they do. better yet, watch what is happening to iraq. watch how the US says iraqs number one enemy is a couple thousand renegade fanatics called AQ. one would think if that were the case a force of three hundred thousand (combination military/mercenary) could clear up that little mess in no time.

watch america make big money payments to the 'troublemakers' to subdue them and call this a 'surge progress' while the same government they appear to be ignoring just keeps failing iraqis.

Any dodo that thinks otherwise is just fooling herself.

somebody has a serious failure of imagination, and it ain't me. go ahead, play little idea games about framing the issues, i am going to try to observe what the results of all this are, and assume that who ever is running this operation is telling me at least some of the truth. i will tell you what i believe..

when they tell me they plan to be in iraq w/permanant bases, i believe them.

when they tell me the US military will be in iraq for the next 20 years.. i believe that is what they want.

now you can lie to us and we can all pretend this is just a friggin coincidence that now iraq happens to NEED US and that is why we are staying. me, i am going to assume we wanted to be there all along, and now low and behold, like the victim in neurotic wife's story... she calls out.

That's not really so far fetched either.

get real, iraq could be a bloody pulp by the next election. whats left of it anyway.

"get real, iraq could be a bloody pulp by the next election."

Only in your fantasies Annie. Voters will remember who brought them security when elections roll around. Hint: It wasn't the U.S. or the Iraqi government. True,the U.S. had a role to play in helping to bring about the Salvation Council. But it's not seen as a U.S. puppet at least. Now,the Council is going national,trying to appeal to Shia and Kurd as well. I think they'll be very successful. And that little dream of a bloody Iraq will remain your dark little fantasy Annie.

Why do you think Allawi was installed as interim Prime Minister Annie?

you mean as opposed to being installed as prime minister?

well for one thing the illusion of free and fair elections serves to place the blame on iraqis

I think there will be clerical influence in the Iraqi govt no matter what. we should not underestimate Sistani's influence in Iraq. also it surprises me that Sadr has so much influence. didn't Raed Jarrar write recently in support of Sadr as a nationalist patriot?

I really hope guys like Alusi do well in the next elections, but if you were to hold elections tomorrow, they probably wouldn't win enough votes to come out on top.

I want to hear more about these allegations of cheating in the last elections. Ustath Omar, are we allowed to discuss the cheating that Ali referred to?

True,the U.S. had a role to play in helping to bring about the Salvation Council. But it's not seen as a U.S. puppet at least. Now,the Council is going national,trying to appeal to Shia and Kurd as well.

cool framing perry, i wonder if this is how the war games guys figured they would pull the rug out from under the shia puppets and hand control back to you know who, their previous ebemies(after weeding out all those who aren't pro US). hey this should be intersting. the US can hang in the shadows and watch the changing of the guards.

Try to keep up Annie. The Salvation Council doesn't want to be a Sunni organization. They want to represent everyone. I was heartened to see 250 Sunni families under pressure in a Baghdad neighborhood move in with Shia families of the same tribe south of Baghdad recently. Many tribes in Iraq are as Sunni as Shia. It's entirely possible they'll be the big winners in the next election. Sistani still has a lot of influence,but that doesn't mean Iraqis won't vote however they damn well please once they get in the booth.

"get real, iraq could be a bloody pulp by the next election. whats left of it anyway..."

Yep, there's annie again - pretending to support peace for iraqis, yet, in reality, encouraging and propagating for the the forces of destruction in Iraq. I'm sure her conscious eats at her.

allegations of cheating in the last elections.

i'm curious about that 45 million dollar pentagon 'election project' that was passed around to different departments for funding because somebody didn't want to get it authorized thru congress. you know the one where they were using the mercenary company to hire 20 american iraqi 'election helpers'. you remeber, i linked to it before, the one being pushed by that neocon whose uncle was johnson's advisor when israel plummeted the USS liberty.

ok, gotta go, work to do. don't forget to read neurotica's link.

"cool framing perry, i wonder if this is how the war games guys figured they would pull the rug out from under the shia puppets and hand control back to you know who, their previous ebemies(after weeding out all those who aren't pro US)."

Annie's tactic of naming any entity that would reject her extreme socialist nationalist politics as "pro-US" is getting boring.

Face it, you're losing steam. Time you should start slinging the death threats again.

if the Pentagon had a hand in the Iraqi elections, why didn't they make sure their man would win??

I was heartened to see 250 Sunni families under pressure in a Baghdad neighborhood move in with Shia families of the same tribe south of Baghdad recently.

under pressure? is that what you call a few days of getting pounded by militias w/the US just standing by (in the shadows) not doing a damn thing?

seriously tho, i was very heartened by this story. and the amazing thing is as far as i know, they did this without any assistance from the occupying force.

why didn't they make sure their man would win??

they did.

annie, do you know who the Pentagon's man was in 2005?

"as far as i know, they did this without any assistance from the occupying force."

Now you're catching on Annie. And the Iraqi people will too. The next step will be for the National Salvation Council to bring Shia and Sunnis forced from their homes in Diyala back home. If the Council can have the same success in Diyala as Anbar,I can't see anything stopping them.

Face it, you're losing steam.

you wish

Time you should start slinging the death threats again.

make that 'threat', it was only once. you liked it when i threatened to magically superimpose myself thru your computer screen didn't you? if you didn't throw such a hissy fit and threaten to make a lawsuit against omar in real life (as opposed to my cartoon version of things) i do it again in a flash, just for you.

lol

do you know who the Pentagon's man was in 2005?

you mean in jan 2005?

"The interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is said to be among the most forthright proponents of the Salvador option."

and did Allawi win in 2005, annie?

and did Allawi win in 2005, annie?

i'm not sure that is the question we should be asking. the elections were a combination of smoke and mirrors. what did 'win' in 05. in other words, rather than looking at what the US said was its priority, why not look at what happened and assume the outcome was related to the priorities of the US.

now, while the news was all filled w/exciting election talk (think diversion) what was unfolding behind the scenes? maybe what was going on in the background was what 'won' in 05.

myself, i think of 05 as being a year of state sanctioned organized genocide. if the US may had really 'wanted' allawi, they could have simply installed him. however, it wouldn't have really been very PC to install someone like hakim as PM now would it?

lets just say i think the US got the job done, the one they wanted to accomplish. obviously if they had wanted to knock off hakim, they could have.

ahhh, so Hakim is secretly, behind the scenes, the real slim shady. got it! I would say that Hakim has real support among many Iraqis, but on the other hand many Sunni Arabs hate him. Konfused Kid wants him dead and was happy to hear about his lung cancer. Iraqis like Shaqawa respect Hakim.

but the theory that the Pentagon wanted Hakim, actually *preferred* Hakim to Allawi seems unrealistic.

Sorry to interrupt your discussion with an OT subject, but for those interested, here is an update on that Israeli raid in Syria. The plot thickens.

lynn, i posted one @10:27 that links to this. that times on line, murdock comin thru for the team

so Hakim is secretly, behind the scenes, the real slim shady.

oh please, behind the scenes? hardly. i would say the slim shady was the cia/shahwani

the elections were a combination of smoke and mirrors. what did 'win' in 05? in other words, rather than looking at what the US said was iraqs priority, why not look at what happened and assume the outcome was related to the priorities of the US.

but the theory that the Pentagon wanted Hakim, actually *preferred* Hakim to Allawi seems unrealistic.

not very creative of you mojo. the pentagon did not prefer hakim, they perferred accomplishing the salvadoran option as opposed to placing a PM of their choice in 05. besides, it really wouldn't have been very good for allawi's reputation to have been closely linked to that program, the way it played out anyway.

also keep in mind, if all had gone swimmingly in iraq, what would have been the iragi 'need' for a US occupation w/multiple bases?

and how do the death squads help the US? you're saying that hakim is part of a bigger plan to incite civil war in iraq, in or to justify a longer occupation?

Fascinating!

and how do the death squads help the US?

probably the same way they helped the US in el salvador, nicaragua, guatemala, argentina, chile, honduras.. heck why don't you google 'school of the americas' run out of fort benning, georgia, look up the congressional testimony re negroponte... its just the american way of doing regime change. it 'traumatizes' the population, makes it easier to implement the shock doctrine (named by the famous chicago school rightwing economist milton friedman)

The brutality of the Chilean dictatorship combined with its implementation of free market policies seemed to give the lie however, to Frieman's argument that free markets and free societies necessarily went together. His failure to criticize the regime which openly and explicitly implemented his policy recommendations, and his failure to acknowledge that it was only through the bloody military coup and overthrow of the freely and democratically elected socialist government of Salvadore Allende that his policies could be imposed damaged his moral standing and weakened the power of his arguments that capitalism was about being "free to choose."

also, you may want to watch the video at the salvadoran option link above for the 'official' explanation (special feature, neocon stenographer judy miller prior to her outing), or read the newsweek piece. i believe rummy's quote was something along the lines of "sunnis aren't paying a price"

personally, i think they wanted death squads to eliminate potential threats to the occupation. this is kind of a no brainer mojo. why have an open battle later when you can work undercover killing off the male population by dragging them from their homes in the middle of the night. remember, when the story broke, the journalist was killed by an american sniper the next morning. clearly many iraqis understood what was going a long time before the news reached us here altho when negroponte was hired in early 04, there was sort of a chill over the blogishere as i recall. Negroponte was the ambassador to Honduras during the Iran-Contra period and when Honduran army death squads
from an article i saved from 3/10/05, the chicago sun times.. although it has been scrubbed now
http://www.suntimes.com/output/orourke/cst-edt-rour27.html

That he is now George W. Bush's chief briefer on intelligence matters closes the circle: It is as if the family is only talking to itself. Given the limited personnel that President Bush deals with -- people with extensive dealings with the entire Bush family -- there is something of a crime syndicate atmosphere about the entire enterprise. When there are so few to be trusted, what are they being trusted with?

scroll to the section that says death squads and you can read other msm articles about this. also at the link are many links to gwu.ed (george washington university) who have archived many of the cia documents from the office of the inspector general. you can see them yourself, it is pretty gross reading them. lots of info has been redacted

here's an interesting scrubbed link

Two former members of Battalion 316 who had might have testified at Negroponte's confirmation hearing were suddenly deported:

one of the chilling factors was that many of those that went 'missing' were dissidents and human rights activists, church leaders and critics of the Honduran military, including some americans. that didn't go over to well, as you can imagine.

here's a youtude clip from a great movie called the official story about the same thing happening in argentina. it is just part of our history.


btw lynn, ms baxter the london correspondent.. she has quite a reputation.

"snark hunt for non-existent WMD."

current and former U.S. intelligence officials, willing to speak only if they were not named, say they've seen no credible evidence yet of nuclear ties between North Korea and Syria, whether before or since the Israeli operation. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, says allegations raised by Bolton prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect Syria's small nuclear research reactor and other sites in 2003. He says the agency found the claims to be "unsubstantiated." Even Bolton, who served as the State Department's under secretary for arms control and international security, acknowledged to NEWSWEEK that while in government, he never saw proof North Korea was sharing nuclear technology with Syria.

....

And over at Foreign policy magazine, Blake Hounsell quotes Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow and director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, as saying:

This story is nonsense. The Washington Post story should have been headlined "White House Officials Try to Push North Korea-Syria Connection." This is a political story, not a threat story. The mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the run-up to war in Iraq. It is a sad commentary on how selective leaks from administration officials who have repeatedly misled the press are still treated as if they were absolute truth.


Once again, this appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted "intelligence" to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.

those are a small sample of some of the other commentors the link sites. here are 2 more. just in case you think we are buying this scenario hook line and sinker, from a group of people who specialize in creating myth and trying to pass it off as reality.

I'm reminded strongly of another recent attempt to push the Syrian angle of Axis of Evul evilitude, when Mike Ledeen tried to hype the announcement by a Syrian regime-change group led by someone who has never been to Syria that Iran had a secret missile base in the Syrian desert. I'm quite surprised the neocons haven't rolled that one out again now - but then again, it was too rich a bit of bulls**t even for most of them.

...The real story is how quickly the New York Times and the Washington Post snapped up the bait and ran exactly the story the officials wanted, thereby feeding a mini-media frenzy.

sarah baxter? pleeease.

whoops, my first sarah baxter link ;)

So... what did the Israelis bomb in Syria? An orphanage?

Omar,

I don't care if you're Sunni or Shia. You have proven once again that you're simply an ASSHOLE.

What the fuck's wrong with you? Mojo tries to engage in debate and you threaten him. How many times have you done that to him? I'd say at least FIVE times already. Every time he challenges you, you threaten him like a FUCKING PUSSY.

I'll meet you at the airport next summer and personally KICK YOU IN YOUR ASS BACK ONTO YOUR PLANE BACK TO IRAQ. And the way I kick it'll leave a big fuckin' bruise!

*

Iraqi Mojo, you said: I would say that Hakim has real support among many Iraqis, but on the other hand many Sunni Arabs hate him.

You have no idea what you saying.

I am Shi3i, my father and mother are Shi3i. My father fought in Iraq war with Iran and returned in 1993 from war prisoner camb.

In Iran, he was tortured by Badir, Badir people who Hakim is their leader. My father is still sick.

Hakim got much support from Iran because he tortured Iraqi soldiers, Shi3i Sunna Kurdi soldier ... same for Hakim ... he tortured and killed many of them.

Most soldiers who fight and die for Iraq against Iran are Shi3i.

And in 2003 when America invade Iraq he came to with Irani help and weapons. Hakim people kill all officers who in Iraqi army fight Iran.

My father is now in Syria because he comes from proud Iraqi family who all military people in Iraqi history. And Badir kill people like him in Iraq.

Hakims people, Badir, they are creating civil war in Basra, in Nasrriyah and in Najaf and Karbalah they fighting the Shi3i there who control holy city for centuries.

Please Iraqi mojo, do not say what you think all Iraqis feel or belive.

We just left Iraq, our homes beautiful house all gone.

Where are you?

Yes it's true that the Badr seem to be at war with Sadrists, but is it not true that many Iraqis support Hakim?


"Please Iraqi mojo, do not say what you think all Iraqis feel or belive."

I am in America. Are you in the US? In America, we are allowed to have our own opinions! It's really a wonderful thing, to be able to express an opinion that may differ from the status quo. I may have "no idea what I'm saying" but I'm pretty sure that Hakim's party came out on top in the elections, even though many Iraqis may not be fond of him now, and I've heard Iraqis call his son 'Uday Hakim'. but I've also read other Iraqi blogs and at least one of them respects Hakim - this is what I explained in a comment above. Iraq is complicated, and obviously Iraqis are divided - Iraqi Shi3a are divided. it's funny to watch an Iraqi attack me because I left out an important detail - Iraqi Shi3a hate Hakim too! thanks for the info, 3aini. insha Allah your life will improve, and you and your family will soon be able to return to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. Ali wyak!

Jeffrey,

I will not delete your last comment.
It will be a proof that you don’t deserve respect. It is a proof that you have not been taught how to engage in a civil discussion. It is a proof that you are a nasty racist. It shows that you have grown up in an environment that taught you how to hate.

Well done. You looked into the mirror and wrote your last comment.

Iraqi mojo: “but I've also read other Iraqi blogs and at least one of them respects Hakim,”

ONE blog respects Hakim and you concluded that “Hakim has real support among many Iraqis.” !!

Are you serious when you write this stuff, or just kidding? And I am asking this in the nicest way I can. You really seem to be ignorant of Iraq as a country, ignorant of Iraq as a community, ignorant of Iraq as a culture and ignorant of Iraq as a situation.
I can help you catch up with what happened in Iraq since 1980, I’m serious. But you have to first start listen to more sources than the State and Pentagon departments and the White House statements. Seriously, I feel sorry for you because all what you say would be disputed by at least 90% of Iraqis.

Do you really want to have a conversation about Iraq, or you just want to spread wrong assumptions and analysis based on nothing?

And please answer this question: Do you really believe Hakim has significant support in Iraq?

"Are you serious when you write this stuff, or just kidding?"

Of course I'm serious. I wouldn't be writing so much here if I wasn't serious. How did SCIRI win so many votes if Hakim has no support in Iraq? shlon??

"Do you really want to have a conversation about Iraq, or you just want to spread wrong assumptions and analysis based on nothing?"

Actually I want to spread the truth about Iraq. The truth is Hakim's party came out on top in the elections. Is this not true?

"Do you really believe Hakim has significant support in Iraq?"

Based on what I've seen and read, YES I believe Hakim has significant support in Iraq. his support seems to be significant enough to win big in elections. did SCIRI cheat?

One of the reasons I read Iraqi blogs is to learn more about what Iraqis are thinking and what they're going through. have the Iraqi Shi3a who voted for Hakim changed their minds in the last year? I hope so. I'm going to bed. I hope to see somebody answer me without disparaging me:)

jeffery. who do you think you are? do you not think omar and mojo can settle their own score and communicate or not however they work it out or don't.

if you want to support mojos pov, why don't you take issues w/the idea presented instead of trying to attack who you think is his advisory w/physical threats?

mojo has less experience w/iraq, yet speaks with a confidence that does not match his knowledge.

you have the gaul to accuse omar of threatening mojo when he warned him to communicate w/more respect or he would be banned. perhaps mojo shows an insensitivity to understanding a nuance omar has repeatedly stated that i also have tried to communicate. maybe this can lead to further understandong, but honestly, you come onto this forumn blasting your rude physical threats interjecting yourself into conflicting opinions of 2 ither people that you have no business doing.

you say mojo tries to engage in debate? and omar has not. he wrote this entire post to clear up confusion to mojos assertions on the last thread. you don't see this as him responding in a mature appropriate manner.

really, both of them, mojo and omar, show a level of discourse far superior to anything your barbaric post displays. what an embarrasing example of american upbringing. you should be ashamed and delete your post. it is an abomination and a disgrace to this forum.

if you take issue w/what omar has done then copy and paste the ideas of mojos you support and try to back them up, or take points omar has made ON THE TOPIC and show how you think they are wrong.

but this grossness you have done here acting like you are some father figure, you are not. you an just an example of gross american manners.

grow up.

oh, sorry, i just realized... between reading and writing my post this issue has been dealt with and i cannot delete my post because i didn't register, i was too lazy. sorry.

annie

Iraqi mojo,
The elections were democratic and no one forced people to vote to anyone. I totally believe this because I watched it there. But do you know how Hakim ran in the elections?
Hakim’s was one group in a coalition of Shiite parties and personnel. There was Sadr, Dawa, Fadhila, Dawa [Iraq organization], Hezbollah Movement of Iraq, Islamic Union of Iraqi Turkumans, the Independents list and many many others. The coalition is called the United Iraqi Alliance. It is an umbrella of more than 20 groups. When the Iraqis voted for the alliance, for dozens of reasons and one of which is that Sistani openly supported it, they voted for a group of hundreds of politicians and intellectuals, not because they wanted to vote for Hakim himself. Hakim is one of many others.

Ya Rajul, you need to look into things. You need to be your own analyst and weigh the information and link the dots to get the bigger picture. You cannot just say “YES I believe Hakim has significant support in Iraq” just because his group got into the government. You need to ask yourself: OK, he got into the government but how did he run? Who is in his group?
You are forgetting that in his group, there is a very well respected politician, Adil Abdul Mehdi [the current vice president] and I really believe that he is the glue that still holds Hakim’s group together.

By the way, you call Hakim’s group SCIRI, but they changed their name a long time ago. It is now called Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, or SIIC. [And yes, it is very important in the politics world to know the names of political groups, especially when you believe they have significant support among the people!]

Therefore, I invite you to search news about Iraq and spend some time to analyze them and then start giving your thoughts.

I hope this was a good advice.

In America, we are allowed to have our own opinions! It's really a wonderful thing, to be able to express an opinion that may differ from the status quo.

this kind of snark does not further understanding. fyi slamming people rudely who don't agree w/you is an american tradition, specifically a rove tradition.. in case you haven't noticed it is used frequently as recently demonstrated by our cowardly congress w/legislation designed to prevent people from voicing their opinions. jst this week!

also, mojo, it is one thing to have a right to demonstrate your ignorance (which you have done repeatedly in this thread) ie 'freedom of speech'. it is another matter to expect that your opinion will hold water simply because you voice it and your name claims you are an iraqi.

and no, nobody voted for 'hakim' because the ballots voted for parties.

here is the biggest most obvious red flag about hakim. nobody in the western press mentions him. why? he is very powerful as are the badr brigades. he got some little blip in the news when he visited the WH and had tea w/our puppet president.

how is it that nobody talks about him in DC and he is so powerful? what kind of alignment and agreements has he had w/the US? how did the cpa install the badr brigades w/out heavy influence and communication w/hakim and this is presumably behind the scenes yethe is very public figure. why is he not on the cover of time magazine? is he not as powerful in raq as sadr? why is sadr so heavily talked about and not hakim? even if they are going to call him good? they call him nothing. they don't call him at all. he is as if he doesn't exist. what is with this. maybe it is because whatever alliance we have w/him is not supposed to be acknowledged. why?

and here we have this voice saying, here in america we are allowed ot say anything and everybody likes hakim and you know this how? how? from what blog. show me some links that say he is well loved. show me. really, i want to see some demonstration of his popularity. it isn't good enough for you to day he won an election.

prove it. or at least admit you get your ideas from osmosis or something. for i read a lot of iraqis and nobody seems to love him or anything.

maybe ITM say great things about him but i doubt it becasue it is not PC for the pro america crowd to discuss him. he is the face of death in iraq, and americas 'friend"? what has he done for america? iraq? why do you defend hakim mojo? is it something in the aran press, because there isn't anything here.
asia times


The walkout on the UIA deprives the all-Shi'ite alliance of 32 deputies from the Sadrist bloc in the 275-member Parliament. It is targeted against two people, Maliki and his patron, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim (a traditional opponent of the Sadr family in Shi'ite politics and leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council - SIIC).

his patron????

Hakim, who competes with Muqtada for leadership among Shi'ites, is still strongly in favor of creating an autonomous Shi'ite district in southern Iraq. The UIA backs him in this, but Muqtada is curtly opposed to further federalization of Iraq, claiming the country should remain united.

Many Iraqis, who remain Arab nationalists at heart, are opposed to the carving up of Iraq along sectarian lines, despite their Shi'ite nationalism. The UIA is also strongly allied to, and funded by, the mullahs of Iran. Muqtada claims that Hakim is a stooge of Tehran for having lived there in the 1980s and mobilized his militia, the Badr Brigade, to fight against the Iraqi army in the Iran-Iraq War of that decade. Although Muqtada dreams of a theocracy in Iraq, he nevertheless wants it to be independent of the Iranian regime.



helllloooo

do we say this in the western press??? no we don't

why

because we are not supposed to talk about WHAT THE PRIORITY OF THE NEOCONS IS!!!

did the 'sofy partition' discussion come up in the betrayus talks?

why don't the ptb want us to know what is happening in iraq? the violence is not just about some sectarian fistfight. it is about MOVING AND REARRANGING THE POPULATION. THIS IS THE GOAL OF THE SURGE. it isn't just about making safety, it is making safety by separating peope based on their religion.

it is the new map. the zionist objective.. goal.

The targeting of Sunni neighborhoods, attacks on Sunni mosques and the assassination of Sunni notables were all believed to be the doing of Muqtada. The Sunni street made Muqtada the scapegoat for all the sectarian violence in Iraqi, even if he were not responsible.

what are the badr? nice guys? what do they do, twiddle their thumbs?

Maliki began the US-backed plan after falling out with Muqtada this year, and instead of concentrating his efforts on combating al-Qaeda, focused on the Mahdi Army to please the Americans. As a result, al-Qaeda continued to thrive, and the Mahdi Army turned against Maliki.

more asia times

South of Baghdad, the logical corollary to this kind of "surge" policy would have been to build local alliances with the Shi'ite groups with a historical record of firmly opposing Iran and its interference in Iraq.

The principal aim would be to create a counterbalance against the extreme pro-Iranian factions inside, such as the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and its Badr Brigades - organizations that since 2003 have obtained a disproportionate degree of formal political power in the Iraqi political system and are using their roles in the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to consolidate their positions further.

There are many groups in the south with a long record of hostility to Iran, above all the various Sadrist factions such as Fadhila and the "mainline" followers of Muqtada al-Sadr (some of whom have even served sentences in Iranian prisons). There are also independent Shi'ite tribal groups that are fiercely proud of their Arab heritage. These groups also distinguish themselves from the SIIC by maintaining that any clerical rule in Iraq should be under the principle of wilayat al-faqih (the rule of the jurisprudent) dictated by Iraqi clerics, not Iranian ones.

But US policy south of Baghdad is exactly the opposite. The pro-Iranian SIIC and its friends in the Badr Organization (now powerful in the Iraqi security forces) are being supported by the United States in their efforts to bulldoze all kinds of internal Shi'ite opposition.

why is there nothing of this here? becasue the US is more interested in dividing iraq REGARDLESS OF THE THREAT TO THE POPULATION than in forging the fastest road to reconcilliation and peace.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

"if it weren't typical of your usual disconnnected, unreadable comments."

She makes perfect sense once you get the psyop decoder ring from a box of fruit loops.

Omar, who do you think would come out on top in a U.S. style election for Prime Minister? I think Mogtada would win the first round with maybe 12% of the vote. Then he'd be trounced in the runoff...by just about anyone but Maliki. Are there any popular politicians in Iraq,or will they all be kicked to the curb next time around? And I'd really like to know if you think the Anbar Awakening Council can become a serious contender.

Annie,

Pardon me for the repeat link. As you know, many times I scroll through you.

I NEVER respond to you

geez, wouldn't that be a treat.

The audacity .... of your claim that he knows nothing about Iraq, would be laughable, if it weren't typical of your usual disconnnected, unreadable comments.


lol, well, had i made that claim your comment would have made more sense! but i didn't so as usual you have proved your worthlessness in terms of contribution.

what i said was mojo had demonstrated his ignorance about iraq repeatedly, which he has. Omar has made several attempts to educate him, where the appreciation for that? at minimum he could have acknowledged the effort of the post in tackling some of these issues.

mojo, when i made the reference to the use of iraq in your name, coupled w/the word mojo, which implies supernatural or extraordinary power... using the word 'claim' was more in connection w/'claiming' the name, or proclaiming your iraqiness w/each post which carries w/it a certain weight wrt respect-deferring to an iraqi. usually one might defer to an iraqi wrt events in his/her own country but it honestly seems like you get your info from the US propaganda department. in this regard when i say (it is another matter to expect that your opinion will hold water simply because you voice it and your name claims you are an iraqi.) my point is not to doubt you are iraqi, it is to challenge the weight of your opinion based on nationality alone.

in this regard, i have to admit that is a very choppy explanation but i hope you get my meaning. you have chosen a posting name that presupposes a lot, maybe you should take omar's advice and study up so you can earn your name. i was not challenging your birthright, excuse me if this was your impression.

As you know, many times I scroll through you.

well, discussing a topic like hakim, or the real purpose behind the surge, or the US intent to divide iraq, these are all topics it is obvious you guys avoid like the plague.

i think Salman Rushdie says it quite well at a video i posted at the end of the last thread..

"The Republicans, in order to not talk about the war--any excuse to not discuss the actual war," says Rushdie, "means that you attack people who talk about the war in ways they don't like.".."So you talk about 'talking about the war,' instead of talking about the war."

Rushdie brings to light the fact that a general was sent in place of the Commander in Chief himself to give the report. "The Commander in Chief: Nobody believes a word he says."

"It's like cutting the head off a chicken then putting it on TV to say something."

when all you have to peddle is a bunch of bullshit, negative blathering about your opponent works quite well to fill the empty space and move the conversation AWAY from real events.

your specialty lynn.

"It's like cutting the head off a chicken then putting it on TV to say something."

i just wanted to post that again. this is rushdie's take on the pet speaking to congress, in case you missed the meaning. lol!

we now have important legislation to prevent this being said in congress! lol!

good morning everyone. lets start our day w/a laugh over the worthless leaders we have in our 2 countries!

A World Health Organization representative in Iraq] also said some 100,000 tons of chlorine were being held up at Iraq's border with Jordan, apparently because of fears the chemical could be used in explosives. She urged authorities to release it for use in decontaminating water supplies.

cholera has now reached baghdad. how many people have died as a result of chlorine bombs? does anyone know? it would be a shame for a disease to wipe out the population because the cure cannot enter the country for fear the terrorists may use it. this sounds like something only dr evil could come up with.

god help iraq.

"my point is not to doubt you are iraqi, it is to challenge the weight of your opinion based on nationality alone."

Really? Gosh, you know, when I was engaged with TAI over @ BT's (before his conscience started working and he shot himself) I was expected to take his opinion over mine precisely because he was Iraqi and I am not. Nevermind that he was an ardent propagandist for the "Resistance" who are resisting Iraq's reconstruction and reconciliation, or anything like that.

No, he was Iraqi and that was that. Failure to properly bow to his opinion immediately made me a rascist and an ubermenschen and subjected me to tirade after tirade to drive those points home.

And I vaguely remember "someone else" jumping in to agree with him at every turn.

To me it looks like Omar and Mojo are expressing differing opinions about parts of Iraq & its situation. This represents just part of the spectrum of opinions held by Iraqis, which is wide and varied indeed.

How funny that an American believes one opinion is invalid because it's "not Iraqi enough", or because he disagrees with her or another Iraqi he doesn't know anything about Iraq!

this is a very weird story

James D. Culp, a civilian attorney for one of the snipers, Sgt. Evan Vela, said the soldiers became "battle-fatigued pawns in a newfangled concept of 'baiting' warfare that, like an onion, perhaps looked good on the surface, but started stinking to high hell the minute the layers were pulled back and scrutinized."


Spec. Jorge Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley are accused by the military of placing a spool of wire into the pocket of an Iraqi man Sandoval had shot on April 27 on Hensley's order. The man had been cutting grass with a rusty sickle when he was shot, according to court documents.

....

One soldier who came forward with the allegations, Pfc. David C. Petta, told the same court that he believed the classified items were for dropping on people the unit had killed, "to enforce if we killed somebody that we knew was a bad guy but we didn't have the evidence to show for it." Petta had not been officially briefed about the program.

i don't know what to think about this weird story. there is a drop box of questionable items that are used either to lure people to their death, or to plant on people after they die. the soldiers use these items but apparently many are not aware of their original 'purpose' to be used 'before' you kill someone, not after.

and this program is coming to light now, in defense of a possible war crime? the program itself sounds like a war crime. what person would not bend down and pick up something possibly dangerous to prevent a child from receiving it?

scattering items around and then setting up snipers to kill people who clear them off the street?

having a bunch of items around to plant on people after you kill them?

and the soldiers are not sure what the items are for? this sounds very very odd. i think the father of the soldier charged has a very good point


All those people who said 'go use this stuff' just disappeared, like they never sanctioned it."

it is a 3 page article w/other very disturbing info. i appreciate our military for prosecuting crimes, but doesn't it seem to get to the bottom of things you have to get to the top brass? who comes up w/these programs? who approves them? what is the point of having the program if the purpose of the 'bait' is not known and soldiers think they are being supplied with 'excuses' for killing? no wonder they come home w/PTSD.

for every ounce of sympathy i may feel for these soldiers how can i not ask myself "how many people are suffering because of just one of these illegal deaths?" what if the person killed had 5 children and his family is now full of broken hearts and starving for food?

"I hope this was a good advice."

Yes, Omar, it was good advice. Thank you for responding to me without disparaging me, and thank for answering allegations of cheating. So it really wasn't Abdul Aziz al Hakim the Iraqis voted for, and they didn't vote for SCIRI (now SIIC as you mentioned) either. Iraqis voted for UIA, which includes SCIRI and Da3wa. Yes this is an excellent point. but Hakim has always been the leader of SCIRI, no? and in general, the Hakim family is respected by the majority of Iraqis, no? This is a question, because I'm not sure, and I hope Iraqis respond without going ba3thi on me:)

Results of the Dec 2005 elections

It's interesting - in a comment above I wrote "I would say that Hakim has real support among many Iraqis, but on the other hand many Sunni Arabs hate him." I was slammed for making this statement, apparently because it's not true! An anonymous Shi3i said that I don't know what I'm talking about, and Omar has urged me to do more research before making such a statement! Iraqis crack me up. I don't blame them for hating Hakim (I don't like him either) but Omar's and anonymous Shi3i's reactions are amusing. We Iraqis must do our research before stating "I would say that Hakim has real support among many Iraqis, but on the other hand many Sunni Arabs hate him." The fact is that I DON'T know everything about Iraq, and that's why I read Iraqi blogs and ask questions. Sometimes I make a claim that is not entirely true, or one that requires some clarification. Thanks for clarifying!

So how should the next election be structured? Obviously we should do things differently next time. Do you like the American system, in which the party nominates its candidate a year or so before the election?

"This represents just part of the spectrum of opinions held by Iraqis, which is wide and varied indeed." -Rhuslancia

I think I might start using that as a disclaimer when I express an opinion.

"what i said was mojo had demonstrated his ignorance about iraq repeatedly, which he has." -anonymous

LOL!


"Omar has made several attempts to educate him, where the appreciation for that?"

LOL!! yes I appreciate all the great education I'm receiving here! now I know that Hakim is not supported by many Iraqis! Shukren, Ustath Omar!


"at minimum he could have acknowledged the effort of the post in tackling some of these issues."

yes, Omar, thank you for swiftly and concisely tacking the issues!

To me it looks like Omar and Mojo are expressing differing opinions about parts of Iraq & its situation.

you are right, they are. the difference is one opinion sounds like it comes from experience and the other from heresay.

you want to name yourself something that stands out so much as iraqi mojo, one should have the mojo to back this up and not say things that sound like a young cub trying to take on someone with much more education and experience.

too much time has been spent on this topic. extending it to try to drag the conversation to include TAI is just more of same thing you always do rhus.

mojo, i hope someday you can go back and live in iraq as an adult, perhaps you can not only learn a little more of your country, you might pick up the talent of poise in dialog which must be a very well developed custom in iraq as demonstrated by many iraqi bloggers.

feeh

Let’s try to answer your question about the Hakim family:
It is one of the most respected families in Iraq. They are all Sayids, or their grandfather is Imam Ali. They have many clergies and intellectuals. But that doesn’t mean that the Iraqis are going to hand their future over to someone from the Hakim family just because it is respected.
Let me remind you that Muhammed’s uncles, Abu Lahab, Abu Jahal and other relatives are going to hell [the Muslims believe]

My family is very well known and highly regarded as one of the important Baghdadi families, but no one voted for me yet!

There is no family that is more respected and known in Baghdad, and Iraq, than the Chalabi family. They practically owned Baghdad at one point in the last century. But Ahmed Chalabi did not get enough votes to be in the parliament.

And Iraqis a much smarter than voting for someone just because he is a Sayid. Otherwise, they could have voted for Sistani because he claim’s to be a Sayid!

Thanks Omar. I hope your family stays safe and I hope they continue to be highly regarded by Baghdadis. Have you ever thought of running for office after finishing your degree?

Jeffrey & Rhuslancia, I don't take annie seriously. I think she's entertaining. She's a great example of what's gone wrong with the 'left' in America.

annie is like the ba3thi bozos: they all crack me up!

I just realized that at 9:44 am I linked to the video made by employees of Aegis Defence Services. I used cut&paste and I forgot to change the link to this:

Results of the Dec 2005 elections

btw that video of ADS employees shooting at Iraqi civilian cars is shocking, no?

Omar,

My family is very well known and highly regarded as one of the important Baghdadi families, but no one voted for me yet!

Oh hell, here we go. I just KNEW that Omar would pull this kind of elitist crap. Now we know why he's so upset with the democratically elected Shia.

Lord, who knew that Omar was a LITTLE PRINCE?!

Folks, Omar is a gift that just keeps giving.

*

LOL, Jeffrey, you crack me up too! Yes, Omar is Allah's gift to Iraq. He will lead Iraq to greatness, I have no doubt. Iraq will be a great nation once again, and it will be people like Omar who take the reigns and makes sure that we are all highly educated, and we will march proudly, educating other ignorants.

Omar, may I invite Shaqawa to participate here? or would that be too much?

Mojo,

Sorry about going all aggro upside Omar's head in your defense. It's not fair to you, but the Psycho Sicko American just couldn't hold his tongue after Omar accussed you you of hating Sunna for the eleventh or twelfth time now. Anyway, I'll be banned, but I want you to continue taking his arguments to task.

The idea of traumatization by Saddam disqualifying Iraqi politicians from running for office is, I'm afraid, just another trick that Omar would like to use to get his "higly regarded" and "important" Baghdadi family back in power.

Those Omars are pretty clever. Gotta watch 'em like a hawk. Heh heh.

*

that video of ADS employees shooting at Iraqi civilian cars is shocking, no?

what was so shocking about it was that they filmed themselves and posted it as some trophy. news of this kind of activity proceeded the video. in this way it was not a shock.

i suppose there is some reason you have not banned jeffery Omar. this constant reminder of 'the crude american', i suppose it serves some purpose. maybe he is an example of the mentality that is going to 'civilize' your country.

god help iraqis

Hey guys- Bruno missed a day posting his chaos-mongering roundup @ Zeyad's! Did his conscience start working all of a sudden, so he shot himself like TAI did? I have another theory !!

annie: "god help iraqis"

Because annie and the left sure as hell aren't going to!

Jeffrey, yes I'm used to people accusing me of hating Sunni Arabs. You shoulda read the comments on Angry Arab a year ago - this is nothing compared to the fights there last summer. I was much more provocative back then, and maybe it's a good thing that we tone it down and not use bad language - I did that a lot on AA. I can understand why ordinary Sunni Arabs hate Hakim so much - Badr has murdered many of them in the last couple of years.

Thanks for defending me, Jeffrey. I don't think you should get yourself banned here, because I think your opinions are important. I commend Rhuslancia and others who argue every day with annie, and yet they control their emotions and don't use foul language. That is hard to do - I know this because I am guilty of it myself. It feels good to explode sometimes.

Yes, I am proud of my family and will always be. That’s not something I would discuss ever, not with someone like you anyway, disgrace.

We were never in power, that’s not our game, or at least not yet. We only lead intellectually, as we have done for decades and will always do.

Iraqi mojo,

I want you to understand, and I will not repeat this because it took longer than it should have: I am not against Shiites taking over, or Sunnis or Kurds. I am upset and concerned that no qualified Shiite, or Sunni or Kurd, have participated in the government yet. Being Shiite, or Sunni or Kurd, doesn’t give you the right to be a Prime Minister or in any position in Iraq. Being Iraqi does. And you have to go back and look into the government and ask yourself: who is qualified to be leading a country that is so in need of a good leader?
When you find the answer, let me know.
And to answer you question about me running for office, I say: Yes. I will run for office one day.

And, Everyone can participate on this platform as long as they respect the readers and the rules of civil dialogue.

Yes, Omar is Allah's gift to Iraq.

mojo, why don't you go tend to your little heaven sent blog. why do you bother to come here and disrespect Omar. where i come from if you don't respect someone you don't go over to their house and take a crap in their living room.

omar just gave us an iraq 101 post which i for one appreciated. how big of you to muster a 'thanks omar'.

i think this thread is fast going to poop. so much for trying to design something for the myopics. i for one appreciate your expertise, it is not that many iraqis who take the time to educate us.

maybe it is because americans do not specialize in listening, being that we excell in producing verbose authoritarians as demonstrated w/abundance here in your comment section..

they control their emotions and don't use foul language.

lol. yes and if you click your heels together 3 times and repeat 'there's no place like home' you will wake up in baghdad.

One more thing mojo,
If you have been accused many times of hating Sunnis, maybe it is the time to give it another thought. Have you ever thought that maybe your comments give that impression? There is nothing wrong in thinking twice before you write something, I think Imam Ali was the one who said: “God, make my neck longer than a camel’s so I can have more time to think before the word comes out of my mouth.”
You are Shiite, you should know that.

i for one appreciate your expertise, it is not that many iraqis who take the time to educate us.

this comment was for you Omar. your patience is astounding.

What about Mithal al Alusi?

Can there be a liberal Iraq?

Annie,
I write on this blog and try to keep up with the comments, although I have a quiz and three pieces to write today for school, just because it is not for me. It is for Iraq.
Iraq and Iraqis were very patient with me. When I was in elementary school and worried about nothing but to compete with my friends [who brings the best sandwich tomorrow, or who is going to by the best sneakers] other Iraqis were fighting to give me a better life. And when I was sleeping at home with my family, other Iraqis were getting killed in the 1991 war. When I was going to high school and then college, other Iraqis were getting $3 to $4 a month so I get the best education.

I think the least I can do now is to make the time to talk about Iraq and help my people. It is my turn now and I will be patient. It is my Iraq.

We only lead intellectually

and perhaps artistically i would presume.

Mojo,

Thanks. You're right. Every now and then I just have to let the expletives fly, but your point is well-taken. Debate without so many nasty epithets is much better for day-to-day blogging. I used to be much snarkier -- CMAR II can probably attest to this -- (and snark to me is like a box of bonbons to a slipper-footed housewife as she watches the afternoon soup operas), but I'll try to keep it expletives holstered for now.

Omar does irritate me, though, with his holier-than-thou priggishness. And now with his claim of how his family leads Iraqi society "intellectually." I don't think he understands how preposterous and snobbish he sounds to an American.

Rule no. 1 in life: Beware of people who call themselves "intellectuals." Whether it's Stalin or Saddam, they be the first ones in line for their paychcck for fleshing out the ideology behind the killing fields.

*

well, we are very lucky to have you here for this short time, and very lucky someone w/your brains,talent and patience posts for us. BT too. both of you are so talented.

your manner says more about iraq than a million newspaper columns ever could.

Mojo,

One more point. Omar seems to lack any sense of humor and that creates a strain on our debates with him, don't you think? Both of us use sarcasm when necessary in our comments and Omar usually responds like a wooden Indian. I've never heard him laugh at anything, in fact. I KNOW it's not about Iraqi culture because both you and Konfused Kid regularly employ sarcasm and wit in your replies. I'm suggesting that part of our problem with Omar might be that he suffers from a chronic case of humor-deficiency!

*

Beware of people who call themselves "intellectuals."

(says the wise sage?) cough

lol! yes, to people who are intellectually challenged they are a real threat!

most academics don't shy away from calling themselves intellectuals. here tho , we do generally refer to these people as academics.

i presume your family has a history of leading in academia?

"If you have been accused many times of hating Sunnis, maybe it is the time to give it another thought. Have you ever thought that maybe your comments give that impression?"

Yes, absolutely, especially on AA, but on your blog I don't think I have blamed all Sunni Arabs for the bad things that have happened in Iraq. actually I have stated several times that ordinary Sunni Arabs should not be blamed for what Saddam did to Iraq. I was compared to Wahhabi students in KSA in the 80s for saying that.

I think that many Sunni Arabs are just too sensitive. When we say that Saddam did bad things to Iraq and most of Saddam's henchmen were Sunni Arabs, this is not to say that all Sunni Arabs are bad people. If the effect of me repeating this fact really does result in people believing that all Sunni Arabs are bad people, then I will stop repeating it. Maybe I should say that Saddam's brass was Tikriti. Would that help?

When discussing democracy and the history of Iraq, it is impossible to avoid facts like the centuries-long Sunni domination of Iraq. I admire Iraqis like Konfused Kid, who is not afraid to state the facts, to translate Ali al Wardi! Many Iraqis are not afraid to acknowledge that yes, Sunni Arabs dominated Iraq for many years, and maybe we should try some form of democracy. and so we are trying it, and we've made mistakes, which I hope will be corrected. but I'm glad we're trying democracy instead of living life according to ba3thi rules.

The punishment for telling a joke about Saddam or his family was cutting one’s tongue.

Omar,

I think Annie wants to have your child. She lives north of the Bay. You might want to meet for a glass of wine.

*insert drunken, lecherous smiley face*

I'm sorry. I just let Annie's fawning worship pass by without a response -- my kind of response. Psycho Sicko American STRIKES AGAIN! Hooray!

*

Annie,

I teach at a university. We do NOT go around introducing ourselves, "Hi, I'm an intellectual."

*

Jeffrey,
I don’t take the situation in Iraq as a joke at all. I don’t discuss it to humor you and your kind.

But you seem to enjoy laughing at what is happening in my country.

Dead people and the unknown future of my country don’t really make me laugh. I am not as sick-minded as you are.

jeffery, you know no bounds. i have a child already, quite close to Omar's age. however i must admit i have many times thought of his mother and how hard it must be to have her son so far away from her.

are you making attempts to demonstrating the depths of rudeness?

do you think this will prevent me from commenting here?

you must know there are fundamental differences between Omar and my vision of this war, precisely whether the troops should stay or leave. i think in this way it should be quite clear my respect is not based on those who share all of my views.

grow up! you are like a teenage boy whose testestrone is out of control! i am very used to having a house full of teenage boys and know what runs thru their minds. can we not have an adult conversation!

My family members are all intellectuals, all. That is not something that we feel ashamed of. They spent their time, efforts and money to educate themselves. They have contributed to Iraq’s literature, politics, science and art and they deserve to be recognized. That is in the Iraqi culture, an Iraqi is allowed and should show off his or her family heritage and live to continue what their families started, otherwise they don’t deserve to be Iraqi. And I have a lot to show off and continue.
If your culture calls this “snobbish” then I couldn’t care less. I am not American and don’t intend to me one. I am Iraqi and I will live up to it.

Now, if you have nothing to talk about in your family, that it your problem.

Yes it's true, both Omar and Annie seem to be humor-deficient. very different from Konfused Kid and many other bloggers, actually. Omar apparently thinks we're laughing at dead Iraqis.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Why is it so hard to admit that it's the Sunni Arabs *mostly* behind the rejectionism & insurgency in Iraq? Oftentimes I think this idea of the "Resistance" as a "Nationalistic" movement is just a smokescreen to say that only the traditional lords of Iraq (= Sunni Arab) have any legitimacy to rule Iraq in the future.

Every time they issue demands they start with dissolving the elected gov't and recognizing the "Resistance" as the only legitimate rulers of Iraq!

This is not to say that I have anything against the Sunnis as a group. But in a lot of ways we seem to put the onus on the Shia to bury the hatchet while the Sunnis are still using it on them!

[24Step] Don't assume things you have no idea about. I am not Sunni. Although Fox news tells you that everyone with the name Omar is a Sunni, that isn’t a general rule in Iraq

Hmmm...What's that? It is the smell of some one shading the truth.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Oh boy, the whole gang is here!

Where's Sheriff Lee C. when you need him!

*

'The Shia understood the rage and the roots of the violence that was perpetrated against them. As one Shia cleric put it, "The killers of today are the same killers as yesterday." Still, Shia leaders and their flock, victims and bystanders, all repeatedly chose to blame outsiders for the violence against them. It was almost as if there was great fear in identifying neighbors and countrymen as those responsible. But even if this were true, and if the Shia genuinely believed it, then the question would remain: Who were the outsiders? They were Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, and most of all Saudis - all Sunni extremists who had come to Iraq to fight Americans and kill Shias. Their national identity would cast them as outsiders to Iraq, but they were still Sunni Arabs. They shared Sunni religious, Arab ethnic, and in some cases even tribal identities with Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and shared a Salafi ideology that guided their actions.'

--Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

little boy, i can assure you i am not humor deficient. the time i spend doing research on the war and commenting on it is not the time in my day that is funny to me. from your link..

In the 1990s the punishment for a deserter became cutting his ear & branding his forehead with heated metal.

so let me get this straight, to get many of the decent jobs to support ones family one must join the baath party. to desert the party or change parties results in death. then the members of the party, not just the higher ranks, are eliminated from the better jobs of the new country.

does this make any sense? only if you want to make a country that eliminates an abundance of the educated people from running it!

now, you take these ideas of saddams and presuppose them on the whole party, which your link demonstrates people cannot divorce themselves from, then you also compound this by highlighting the sunni arabs in the party, and somehow one is supposed to make some connection between saddams policies and sunni arabs in the here and now.

I think that many Sunni Arabs are just too sensitive.

you admit you keep repeating saddam/sunni arab factoid. and then you think people who have moved on are 'too sensitive'

this reminds me of the US trait of continually trying to connect muslims and islam w/fanatics.

it is like saying well you have to acknowledge the fact that bin laden in muslim.

you don't get it. you will never get it. it is as if you cannot hear yourself.

what exactly is your point? do you want a secular iraq? do you like the separation of mosque and state? can we talk about politics in iraq without highlighting peoples religious background and framing everything in this way?

oh great, the mentally challenged cmar is here. i can tell this is going to turn into a regular macho pile on. i think i will let you boys slug it out.

how many illiterates does it take to knock the light out of a lightbulb?

one of them gets a sledgehammer

the other a brick

then we have the pipsqueak w/the slingshot

then the adult opens the door and flips the switch killing the light in the room, they all aim their weapons and knock eachother out.

go at it you wackjobs. now all you need is ms minnie to show up and grace us all w/a smiley face.

Anyone happen to watch the hilariously slithering question and answer with Ahmadinejad at Columbia University? I think he read Annie's posts on this blog as preparation - his responses were almost verbatim what Annie writes here, and he seemed to lack the same part of the brain that processes logic.

check it out - its good for a laugh. he came off pretty stupid.

What do you call someone who makes several claims about you -- that you laugh at dead people, for example -- and then deletes your non-snarked response? What do you call that kind of person? Do you think that person should be a FUTURE LEADER OF IRAQ?

*

Why is it so hard to admit that it's the Sunni Arabs *mostly* behind the rejectionism

yawn, what about sadr, they ceratinly reject the occupation, no?

& insurgency in Iraq?

as if the insurgency is responsible for most of the violence you mean? as if the players in the militias that are condoned, they are not named insurgents because their presense is graced w/puppet authority?.


Oftentimes I think this idea of the "Resistance" as a "Nationalistic" movement is just a smokescreen to say that only the traditional lords of Iraq (= Sunni Arab) have any legitimacy to rule Iraq in the future.

once again this idea of a nationalist being sunni arab in nature belies the facts on the ground. more shia are nationalists in iraq than sunni simply because of their numbers.

framing boys, framing. slapping the word fact on something doesn't make it so......

Rhuslancia,

But in a lot of ways we seem to put the onus on the Shia to bury the hatchet while the Sunnis are still using it on them!

Huzzah! Bullseye!

Ouch, that's gotta hurt, Omar.

*voice-generated warning*

PRE-PARE TO BE DE-LET-ED.

WARNING.

PRE-PARE TO BE DE-LET-ED.

*

Mojo,

Just so you know. I never used one curse-word in all of those comments of mine that Omar deleted.

WARNING.

Oh, crap.

PRE-PARE TO BE DE-LET-ED.

Frickin' Mukhabart Robot on my tail!

*

mojo, you highlight

Vali Nasr is Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School.

so he works for the nsa does he. maybe it is this kind of mentality that has led to the stunning success of the occupation

Now I have to admit, I laughed lowed when I read your "voice-generated warning"
It really made me laugh loud. I just heard it in my head and it is funny.

I don't delete people who disagree with me. I delete those who disrespect the platform and its readers

Iraqi mojo,
I really feel sorry for you. Maybe your intention is to do good, but man you need to vary your sources and listen to all. Do you know who Vali Nasir is? Where did he grow up? What's his agenda? How much time did he spend in Iraq to have had the chance to right “in depth” about its community.

Don’t you ever digest the information they throw on you?

Omar laughed! Yay! It's good to hear you laugh:) I also laughed at his description of his family. Jeffrey's family is po! Next time, let me buy lunch, Jeffrey.

Does Vali Nasr lie?

Well, I don't know him personally to tell you whether he lies or not. I cannot make this decision because I don’t have the background for it.
But why are you so surprised that he would lie? Do you know him?

I did not say he would lie. I only asked you if you know him that you trust his book that much.
How did he write about Iraq? How much time did he spend there and how many Shiites did he talk to write his book?
These are questions any editor would ask you if you pitch a news story, and he write an opinionated book. How did he get his info? Who are his sources?

Mojo,

Next time, let me buy lunch, Jeffrey.

Of course, I would never have let you know that our lunch cost my family two weeks' worth of soda-can returns. And no, next time you're in town I'm still buying. But next time I'm in the Bay Area -- sometime early next year probably -- I might let you treat me. I wish Omar hadn't deleted my trash-bag family story. I thought it was pretty humourous (and touching, with that reference that God looks down kindly on my family of trashpickers as much as a phalanx of Sunni innerlekshuals).

WARNING.

Okay, okay, I'm going.

*

here is an interesting look at vali nasr


So, now we understand why Nasr was chosen to be a senior fellow at the CFR - he, like his neo-con buddies, regard the invasion and destruction of Iraq a "liberation" ! (heee hawww).

Now, it also turns out that Nasr "briefed" Bush on sectarianism in August 2006. It is quite possible that this guy is totally naive, that he thinks that the neo-cons are just ignorant, and are not doing anything deliberately to fan the flames of sectarianism to their advantage. It is possible that is what Nasr was thinking when he sat down for his chat with Bush.

But it is rather strange that Nasr was not familiar with the Rand Report that explicitly called for using sectarianism to divide Muslims and that he was not aware of other articles that also called for using Shi'a Sunni divisions to create a civil war situation amongst Muslims.


i swear mojo, it is as if you get all your info about iraq from neocons. maybe you should go study iraq in tel avi

I read his book, The Shia Revival, which I think is really good. It's basically a history of the world's Shia, told by an intelligent Iranian American. He lists all his sources in his excellent book.

' "Throughout all this debate and conflict, Sistani tried to stay above the fray. He continued to keep his eyes on the big prize: delivering Iraq to the Shia and protecting Shia identity by ensuring its embodiment in the new constitution and the state arising from it. He did not get bogged down in debates over who was Iranian and who was Iraqi. Most Iraqi Shias were clearly Arabs, but that identity was surfacing in a new way, different from the way in which Arab nationalism and Ba'thism had always envisioned it.

The bombing of markeplaces, police stations, mosques, and open-air religious gatherings meanwhile occurred almost daily, generating a tale of sorrow and rage that would tear Shias and Sunnis apart. On August 31, 2005, about a million Shia pilgrims gathered at the shrine of Kazemiya in Baghdad to mark the anniversary of the death of the seventh imam, who is buried there. The crowd stretched from the mosque across the River Tigris to Sadr City, clogging the bridge over the river. A mortar attack on the crowd early in the day killed sixteen and injured many more. The crowd was on edge when some person or persons on the bridge spread a rumor – Shias believe deliberately – that there was a suicide bomber in their midst. Anxious and fearful, the crowd panicked. In the ensuing stampede, more than a thousand people died; some were trampled to death, while others drowned after jumping into the river. Most of the victims were women and children. The incident showed the extent to which the insurgency could disrupt Shias' lives and turn their commemoration of the death of their imams into a new occasion for mourning. It also underscored the inability of the Iraqi government to contend with the violence, and even more the extent to which the insurgency had succeeded in instilling fear in Shias' hearts and minds.'

--Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

'Urged by Sistani and his clerical network not to respond in kind, Shias showed tremendous restraint. Their patience was taxed, but their sense of distinct identity only grew under the onslaught of Sunni terror (a good deal of which was the work of non-Iraqis, such as the terror group run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian Salafi who masterminded the insurgency's most violent excesses). Attitudes on the street hardened, as did Shias' determination to stay in charge of their own destiny. Even where relations between Shia and Sunni neighbors remained friendly, distrust of Ba'thists and the Wahhabi influence on Sunni clerics intensified.

Increasingly, Shias saw Sunnis as vicious brutes and ridiculed their historical claims to grandeur. In Basra and other places in the south, Sunnis came under attack. Targeted killing of Sunni clerics and community leaders served notice to others to move away. These acts, which some blamed on the Badr Brigade, reflected the mood on the street. Anger and prejudice were rising on both sides of the sectarian divide. The manner in which Shia identity was taking for was directly tied to the intensity of the sectarian conflict.

This became clear when a bombing attack on the Shia Askariya shrine (where the tenth and eleventh imams are buried, and wherefrom the Twelfth Imam went into hiding) brought sectarian conflict into the open. Hundreds died as angry Shias and Sunnis attacked mosques, killed clerics, and abducted and murdered civilians. Despite calls for calm the violence continued to rage, exposing the deep sectarian fissures that were shaping Shia identity and politics." '

-Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

Omar,

Holy cow! You DID laugh! Cool. That's ALL I wanted. Okay, that's a lie, but you get the idea.

I'll try to curtail the curse-words, but I don't know if I can live without humor and sarcasm. I would also like to think that now and then I ascend to wit. Ah, a man can dream, can't he?

This might sound strange, but as a teacher I'm always respectful and encouraging and yet thorough. So blogs help release some of the innate snark that builds up during the day. Civil discourse is fine. I teach it. But blogs to me -- especially on the comments pages -- ought to enter that gray area between civil and uncivil discourse.

*

Iraqi mojo,
Vali Nasr has his own means of communicating his book to the world, I don't think this platform is one of them. So, please keep his book on your bedside and/or in your laptop.

It is one thing to quote one or two lines. It is another to quote the whole book.

Readers: the book is in book stores, if you want to read it, buy it.

Thanks mojo.

Ya, well not this blog.

I am writing this blog to create a page where history is written, where people talk about what is happening in Iraq now and debate it so that next generations be informed. I don't intend to make it a website for you to "release some of the innate snark that builds up during the day."

I don’t release my own emotions here and it is my blog. So, please respect that and let's move on to something more informative and useful to the readers.

annie, if the US aim is to incite sectarianism to divide Iraqis, why did the brave resistance participate in the sectarianism that divided Iraqis?

It seems to me that the call for democracy in Iraq is what incited the insurgent attacks on the Shia. The Ba3thists were already used to mass murdering Iraqis by 2003, so it wasn't entirely surprising what they did.

The first high-profile sectarian attack came in August of 2003, when Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim was murdered along with 80 other innocent Iraqis - they were bombed near the Imam Ali shrine.

Omar,

I don't intend to make it a website for you to "release some of the innate snark that builds up during the day.".

Couldn't you set aside a couple hours to create a website devoted to my snark-release? I'll promise not to let anyone know your family name.

Think about it. It would really show that you value our friendship.

Okay, to tell the truth, I have to head off for evening classes. Later, dude.

*

"The Shia understood the rage and the roots of the violence that was perpetrated against them. As one Shia cleric put it, "The killers of today are the same killers as yesterday."

I don't really care if Vali Nasr cheats on his taxes, or steals office supplies... or votes Republican. This quote in particular seems true enough to my ignorant American eyes. Is it true, or not?

If the Ba'ath had no trouble mass-murdering Iraqis (OK, of all sects) prior to '03, how come some people have so much trouble admitting that they mass-murder Iraqis after '03 also?

Yes, it is true that Baathists murdered Iraqis before *and* after 2003. but after 2003 they got lots of help from Al Qaeda. and yes, they killed Sunni Arabs too.

Outspoken cleric murdered after backing Iraq vote

mojo, it just seems a little weird to me that you are learning first hand about your country from an iranian american. don't you think this neocon version could be a little scewed.

also, keep in mind we don't exactly invade a country w/no idea of how we want to proceed. just because we made a mess of things doesn't mean there was no plan, just a faulty one. if you read the rand report (they have scubbed it, but the text below the editorial at the blog posts many parts verbatim, it expresses how to exploit divisions in the sect, so we can create a "foundation for a stable U.S. position'

In addition to the ideological differences noted above, certain divisions cut across the Muslim world and have implications for U.S. interests and strategy: Sunnis and Shi’ites. The majority of Muslims are Sunni. Shi’ites, who number about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims, are dominant in Iran and are politically excluded majorities in Bahrain and the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, as they were in Iraq prior to the removal of Saddam. The United States may have an opportunity to align its policy with Shi’ite groups, who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.

this is from 02. notice the priority? a stable position for the US in the middle east. this is colonymaking.

the reason this vali person has been so popular amoung the rightwing here is because he says everything they want to hear. remember, he is addressing westerners who know nothing. making a little easily explained picture for the foreigners to comprehend doesn't make it right.

also, if you notice in the rand report, the premise for all of this is the idea of islamic extremists in the middle east. iraq didn't have much islamic extremism there, our invasion created a vacum for it. why? how?

this assumption that iraq was an extremist country,and that it was full of terrorist nutjobs that need to be isolated is very odd coming from before the invasion don't you think?


check out this link from the american conservative to give you a better idea of what i am referring to.

really, i recommend reading it.

there is such a thing as exploiting an existing tension to make it work in your favor.

i would urge you to not rely on foreign opinion for the foundation of your beliefs about iraq and iraqis, especially from an invader.

remember, who is the biggest winner so far in this war? is it not iran? and vali is iranian? somehow i don't think this is the best source.

anyway, for the most outrageous genocidal link, check out the one in this post.

"he, like his neo-con buddies, regard the invasion and destruction of Iraq a "liberation" ! (heee hawww)."

Why aren't you living in Syria Annie? They have a cute little Baathist regime. Assad takes in all kinds of freaks. He'd probably put you up in style. Let you air all those grievances against the U.S.. So what are you waiting for? Or do you think you're too good to live under the kind of repression you desire for Iraqis? (heee hawww)

"mojo, it just seems a little weird to me that you are learning first hand about your country from an iranian american. don't you think this neocon version could be a little scewed."

When I read The Shia Revival I learned about the history of the Shia from an American who was born and grew up in Iran, the largest Shia country in the world. I had already known many facts discussed in the book before reading it, but I learned much more than what I knew before I read this incredible book.

furthermore, many Iranians have written about the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. many Iraqis spent many years in Iran.

Watch part 4 of this excellent 1993 documentary. about half way through watch the interview with an Iraqi exile in Tehran - this guy had all kinds of documents - records of Iraqis murdered by Saddam's regime, plans for draining the marshes. Iranians and Iranians of Iraqi descent have much documented evidence of atrocities committed by Saddam. many Iranians were victims of Saddam's atrocities.

Despite annie's dilligent and painstaking research on Iraq, she had remained completely oblivious to the fact that *mostly Sunni* AQ fighters routinely captured large groups of Iraqis and murdered them in front of video cameras... until BT posted a video of it and dared her to watch, just recently.

...but then of course she couldn't come to terms with the idea of it being AQ mass-murdering Iraqis, so she threw out the possibility that it could be American psyops instead. Back into her comfort zone!

honestly rhus, you are such an attention whor.just because i don't watch those kinds of videos, and had certainly never watched anything like that until BT posted it doesn't mean, or imply i was ever oblivious to mass murder going on in this war. so take you little attention getting crap and shove it where the sun don't shine.

mostly Sunni* AQ fighters routinely captured large groups of Iraqis and murdered them

fyi, don't for a minute try to imply one sect is responsible for the majority of murder and mayhem going on.

really you guys are horrid. please, get a grip on yourselves. hey does anybody remember that little abu gonzales (cough) i meant ghraib fiasco? given there are so many more shai that sunni in iraq i wonder what kind of coincidence could have led to the rounding up of sunni to satisfy the sexual deprvation of those few bad apples. anybody know??

according to the frontline special i think i recall we were just hauling off any ol male sunni arab who hapened to be standing around looking military age? no? of was it a mixed crowd?

anyone remember?

perry, you didn't quote me, you quoted the report on the neocon vali i linked to. (hee hawwww) so you mean you still think the invasion was a liberation? yeah i guess you are right, we liberated iraq from relative peace, electricity, mixed neighborhoods, etc etc.

beleive me , if you and your sidekicks here represented the bulk of american males i would be high tailing it over to syria or anywhere else for that matter just to get a breath of fresh air!

oh sorry, i meant sexual SADISTIC deprivation.

but it wasn't... policy or anything. not from our good american culture

Was this an American psyop, too, annie? Sunnis... Shia... US-promoted reconciliation... suicide bomber... yep, must be a psyop! What else could it possibly be ??

speaking of the sexual sadistic deprivation, did you guys hear about the federal prosecutor from florida last week who got busted trying to solicit a 5 year old sex partner from her mother who happened to be in the force? wow, i guess it gets lonely over at the federal building in florida.

i was just wondering.. maybe its a white male thing or a white protestan thing? ya think?

that fed guy, that preacher, what was his name, jeffery dammer, senator craig, foley, that other government guy in florida picked up in the bathroom..they were all white males. maybe white males are more prone to sexual deviation.. ya think?

i mean since this is turning into a racist thread, why don't we go hog wild. rhus, perry , jeff, krypt are you white males? christian white males?

your point rhus? are you trying to imply i am an AQ supporter? or do you think this is an appropriate time for everyone to 'acknowledge' that AQ's are sunni arabs. what is your point?

tell me this, if AQ is only a coupe thousand guys and they are responsible for the bulk of this problems in iraq, why haven't we finished them off?

oh, i forgot, iran seems to be the main culprit now right? are you going to tell me it is their bombs but the sunni arabs are responsible for this too.

really you guys, grow up

I'm implying you are an AQ denier.

And to you, only the Shia are 'sectarian' just as only them and the US can commit attrocities thru a 'psyops' campaign.

We haven't finished AQ off because until recently they were welcomed, hidden and assisted by the white Christian minorities in Anbar and elsewhere, whose interests overlapped significantly with theirs.

Who else might have possibly welcomed, hidden and assisted them?

"until recently they were welcomed, hidden and assisted by the white Christian minorities in Anbar and elsewhere, whose interests overlapped significantly with theirs."

LOL! awesome!

Omar, you might like this:

NPR interview with Iraqi Shi3i Ba3thi in Syria