Holy War. On your knees, Tony.

dahamsta

So much for separation of Church and State. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. In fact, they're worse, because they're hypocrites on top of everything else. Stand up for my principles? With all this media attention? Hell, no, I won't go!

adam

House approves national day of prayer and fasting

March 27, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House passed a resolution Thursday calling for a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.

The resolution, passed 346-49, says Americans should use the day of prayer "to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation."

Under the resolution, President Bush would issue a proclamation designating a specific day as a day of "humility, prayer and fasting."

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said officials there had not looked at the resolution but "the president believes that faith and prayer are important and frequently references the importance of praying for American troops and for freedom around the world."

A similar resolution approved on March 17 said it was the sense of the Senate that that day should be a national day of prayer and fasting.

During Wednesday's House debate, some lawmakers expressed concern about the measure.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a presidential hopeful and an opponent of the war in Iraq, said the resolution "may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion."

dahamsta

How Holy would you like it, Sir?

Osama must be laughing

March 28 2003
By Fawaz Gerges

The US-led invasion of Iraq has blurred the lines between mainstream, liberal and radical politics in the world of Islam and has dissipated much of the empathy felt by Arabs toward America after the September 11 attacks.

Perhaps most alarming, US policy towards Iraq has alienated many of the important moderate voices, both secular and religious, which until now had been unwilling to join militant anti-American forces.

Cairo's Al Azhar University - the most respected institution of religious learning in the Muslim world - has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, advising "all Muslims in the world to make 'jihad' against invading American forces". The statement warned that Islam itself is the direct target of the "new crusaders' invasion", aimed at humiliating and subjugating Arabs and controlling their resources.

Given the university's historical and religious symbolism and weight, this ruling is likely to resonate with the faithful.

Prominent Muslim clerics and political leaders have echoed Al Azhar. Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, a reformist who, as the grand sheik of Al Azhar University, was one of the first clerics to condemn the September 11 attacks and to dismiss Osama bin Laden's jihadi credentials as fraudulent, ruled that attempts to resist an American attack are a "binding Islamic duty", and he asked Arab leaders to block any aggression against Iraq.

Maligned previously as a pro-Western reformer, despite his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Tantawi's new stance shows the extent of the realignment. Moderates and radicals now appear to be united and determined to oppose the American war.

The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - a mainstream Islamist organisation with membership numbers in the millions - called on his followers everywhere to join in jihad in defence of Iraq. The Muslim Brotherhood has not been considered militant since the 1970s, when it disavowed violence and agreed to play by the rules of the political game.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, whose organisation had been moving away from militancy in recent years, was even more explicit: Americans "will not be met in this region with roses, flowers and perfumes. They will be met with arms, martyrdom and rifles."

The big questions now are: how will the new calls to arms be translated in operational terms, and will the battlefield be limited to the Iraqi theatre?

Bin Laden must be laughing in either his grave or cave. His strategic goal was to mobilise Muslims worldwide to heed his call for jihad. But his apocalyptic nightmare initially fell on deaf ears. Then, leading Muslim clerics cautioned young men not to be swayed by the calls for jihad from fringe groups such as al-Qaeda and said that only legitimate institutions and accredited scholars should be heeded.

Yet what was unthinkable 18 months ago has happened. The US has alienated those in the Islamic community who were its best hope. The challenge now is to limit the damage.

Fawaz Gerges is a US-based professor of Middle East and international affairs and the author of the forthcoming The Islamists and the West (Cambridge University Press). This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

sceptre

I didn't think I could get more appalled but well, I am.

OK, I'm pretty well known as a committed "I don't know" with regard to religion and an all-seeing deity but I've no problem with religion as long as it isn't used by people for their own ends (where it's used by people for their own ends I've a problem with those people rather than the religion). Alienating all non-Christians (and some Christians as well) smells of downright stupidity. I'm quickly moving to a situation where I can read 1984 and see it coming true. meanwhile on the Muslim side, the nuts are coming out of the woodwork, being acclaimed as new leaders of the Muslim world and my deepest fears may well come true.

Wook

I'd say the Usa in it for the long run , all those radical figures and groups that now will see every terror attack as an personal victory. USA could be the new Israel ? bomb's going off anywhere ? any time.. The usa is the biggest recruitment drive for those radical terror groups. Even if Sadam falls , The world will not be a 'safer' place because of it.

gandalf

Not a good move.

Next we'll have all the Anglo-American Invasion troops dressed in White with Templar Crosses on their chests going to convert the barbarians* on their crusade.

Gandalf.

* I'm not saying Muslims are barbarians just showing how these idiots obviously are thinking in the US administration!

Cork

Originally posted by Wook
I'd say the Usa in it for the long run , all those radical figures and groups that now will see every terror attack as an personal victory. USA could be the new Israel ? bomb's going off anywhere ? any time.. The usa is the biggest recruitment drive for those radical terror groups. Even if Sadam falls , The world will not be a 'safer' place because of it.

I don't really agree with this. If Iraq becomes democratic & Isreal comes to an agreement with their neighbours things may stabilise out there.

Kell

Originally posted by Cork
I don't really agree with this. If Iraq becomes democratic & Isreal comes to an agreement with their neighbours things may stabilise out there.

Not likely to happen. With the issue of a fatwa the situation is likely to spiral downwards not long from now rather than stabilise.

Shinji

If Iraq becomes democratic & Isreal comes to an agreement with their neighbours things may stabilise out there.

Yes, and if I win the lottery tomorrow I'll channel the funds into research on wing grafts for pigs.

Israel is becoming more and more entrenched regarding the Palestinian situation every day, and the USA is becoming more and more staunchly against the idea of giving up control of Iraq after it "liberates" it every day. The middle east is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
If Iraq becomes democratic & Isreal comes to an agreement with their neighbours things may stabilise out there.

If we all hold hands and don't argue maybe we won't fight any more. Your statement is correct in the purely logical sense but doesn't contain any reference to practicalities. If wishes were horses, well, you know how it goes.

froggy 2

"House approves national day of prayer and fasting"

Great! What about a worwide mechoui that day?

froggy 2

"humility, prayer and fasting."
...
and abstinence?


"Next we'll have all the Anglo-American Invasion troops dressed in White with Templar Crosses on their chests going to convert the barbarians* on their crusade."

Well this reminds me a story about crusades:
At the time, someone raised a (big) problem about crusades: Christian claimed to be saving souls... but what about the muslims they were killing while they were not baptized...
ouch!!! they wouldn't go to paradise! unacceptable.
Luckily enough, a good priest (or theologian of some kind) finally found the solution : It was to be admitted that the bomb was freeing ... er... I mean, the sword of the crusader gave the baptism in the same time as it was killing the infidel.

The last crusade occured during the 14th century.

mike65

I wonder how many reasonable ordinary Americans
find it positively creepy how the state cossies up to
God.

Mike.

ballooba

In the 20th century 'Communism' was a dirty word.

I wonder will 'Muslim' become the dirty word for the 21st century.

Hobbes

ROFL. I thought it was a wind up but the bill is actually there! It's H.RES.153EH you can read it at http://thomas.loc.gov/

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
The war is a chance for Iraq to reform itself. It should act as a catalyst for other countries in the region to adapt democracy.

Again you're quoting me while making no reference to what I said.
Bold
/slap

Cork

Originally posted by sceptre
If we all hold hands and don't argue maybe we won't fight any more. Your statement is correct in the purely logical sense but doesn't contain any reference to practicalities. If wishes were horses, well, you know how it goes.

Iraq deserves democracy. The women of Iraq deserve rights. Both democracy and womens rights should be universal.

If the Arab world adopted democracy - they will be the authors of their own success or failure.

Blaming the US will not come into it.

I hope the US/Uk will leave Iraq - when they have gotten rid of Saddam - just with the clear instruction that democracy and human rights will be there in their aftermath.


Israel needs to be more accomadating. THe US needs to encourage the re-start of their peace process.

I think this whole war thing is not christians v Arabs. It is about ridding the world of a brutal dictator. Once he is gone, things should change for the better.

dahamsta

Originally posted by sceptre
If we all hold hands and don't argue maybe we won't fight any more. Your statement is correct in the purely logical sense but doesn't contain any reference to practicalities. If wishes were horses, well, you know how it goes.

Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite.

Soundbite - soundbite.

Soundbite.

Soundbite - soundbite - soundbite soundbite.


Soundbite. Soundbite.

Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite, soundbite.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq deserves democracy. The women of Iraq deserve rights. Both democracy and womens rights should be universal.

Iraq isn't neither an Islamic state or opressive specifically to women, everyone gets opressed.
The person in charge of Iraq's bio/chemical weapons programme is a woman, or she's an expert in the field or something.

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta
Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite.

Soundbite - soundbite.

Soundbite.

Soundbite - soundbite - soundbite soundbite.


Soundbite. Soundbite.

Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite. Soundbite, soundbite.

Touché, Mr Sarcastisimo:p

Hoisted by my own sardonic petard.

(odds of it hitting the real target?)

swiss

Adam - bold! Sarcasm is fine in posts, but no need to have one dripping with it (however valid your point may be).

Originally posted by Cork:

I think this whole war thing is not christians v Arabs. It is about ridding the world of a brutal dictator. Once he is gone, things should change for the better.

OK. I would tend to agree with Cork insofar as this war is not supposed to be about Christians Vs Arabs. However, given the extremely delicate situation in the Middle East at the moment vis a vis Arab, and hence 'Muslim' opinion as to the religious implications of the war means that any overt reference to religion, and christianity in particular in this war made by America should be done with great care and with regard to the religious sensibilities of these muslims that they're trying to 'save'.

However, Bush, with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, has elected to ignore this, and instead invoke christian references to give the appearance (to some) that this war has a divine mandate. Obviously, the man is entitled to his religious beliefs, but a man in his position must be careful when using these religious references in such a charged international environment sensitive to such references.

As for the second part of your point Cork, I couldn't disagree more. Ridding the world of a dictator appears to be just a convenient excuse for America and it's allies. I mean, if that's the sole rationale behind this endeavour, why not go over North Korea, which since the reestablishment of it's nuclear programme, represents a far more imminent threat to global security. Additionally, this war is supposed to be about finding WOMD. If the flavour of the month is now 'to rid the world of a brutal dictator (sic)' what happened to the last resolution. Incidentally, what about all those other UN resolutions that the US pursued with such vigor. Do those not matter now? Irrespective, I think it highlights the hypocrisy of the bush administration, when the reasons for the war are muddied at best.

Before I stray too far off topic, I'll just refer back to the religious fervour that seems to have gripped America. I feel that the state should not get involved in religious affairs, especially in a (supposedly) secular state like the US. It marginalises minority groups, like Muslims in america who may not agree with the war. It also risks stirring up the religious right, who now feel that this is a 'holy war' against the 'infidel' muslims. Overall, while the intent of reflecting on the war and the reasons why america is waging this war is honourable, the manner in which this can be twisted to serve to heighten tensions both domestically and internationally makes it an unwise move, IMO.

Cork

Ridding the world of a dictator appears to be just a convenient excuse for America and it's allies. I mean, if that's the sole rationale behind this endeavour, why not go over North Korea, which since the reestablishment of it's nuclear programme, represents a far more imminent threat to global security. Additionally, this war is supposed to be about finding WOMD. If the flavour of the month is now 'to rid the world of a brutal dictator (sic)' what happened to the last resolution. Incidentally, what about all those other UN resolutions that the US pursued with such vigor. Do those not matter now? Irrespective, I think it highlights the hypocrisy of the bush administration, when the reasons for the war are muddied at best.

I agree with you, Swiss.

I have no time for the Bush administration. I think the situation in Iraq is most serious. I felt that democratic values needed promoting in arab countries - but now I think war is not the way to do this.

I would love to see the back of Saddam & the end to sanctions - but I feel this war could easily spill over to Turkey, Iran & Syria.

Should Western countries promote democracy in Abab states?

If they are happy with having princes and dictators should we leave them alone?

dahamsta

I wasn't mocking you sceptre. Sorry swiss. Sometimes my tolerance for repetitive repetition (yes, that's what I mean to say) wanes and I give in to temptation. I'll go and stand outside the door.

adam

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta
I wasn't mocking you sceptre.

Yeah, I knew that. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind.:) Were you, erm, mocking someone else???

Originally posted by Cork
Should Western countries promote democracy in Abab states?

Possibly through osmosis. Not through invasion. The entire point of democracy is freedom of choice (including speech, association and other rights guaranteed to us) and relative freedom of information to make that choice. The current administration in Iraq doesn't provide that but then again, I'm becoming more concerned about whether our own government by decree (via election) does that either.

If they are happy with having princes and dictators should we leave them alone?

If they are happy with a situation like that (and the question is of course "if") that's their own damn business. That's freedom of choice again. If the entire Iraqi people (for example) want to be ruled by a far-right conservative, religious, totalitarian Shi'ite government that's their choice. (and yes, I know about the problems with the last paragraph so you don't necessarily need to point them out)

Originally posted by Cork
Should Western countries promote democracy in Abab states?

I know this is , not the time or the place for jokes, but I couldn't resist asking you Cork, did you mean to type Kebab states there:D
mm

Cork

Originally posted by Man
I know this is , not the time or the place for jokes, but I couldn't resist asking you Cork, did you mean to type Kebab states there:D
mm

No, Arab states. My typing or spelling is not great. But in this case - it was my typing.

swiss

Originally posted by dahamsta:

I wasn't mocking you sceptre. Sorry swiss. Sometimes my tolerance for repetitive repetition (yes, that's what I mean to say) wanes and I give in to temptation. I'll go and stand outside the door.

Ok. Personally, I'm not usually the kind of person to take offence on behalf of another person, and I'm not going to make an issue of it. I found it rather funny actually (sorry )

Originally posted by Cork:
Should Western countries promote democracy in Abab states?

What sceptre said. I find it a curious irony that those who purport to bring freedom of information to other countries by belligerent acts of war should deign to deny it to their own citizens. A perfect example of this is the recent amendments to the freedom of information act of 1997, reducing the transparency of governmental decisions.

I also have to question the timing and scope of this supposed "fight for democracy". I mean, Iraq is under the thumb of a ruthless dictator, but so are many countries worldwide, most of whom are an even greater risk to the US. I'm all for the dissemination of information, no matter how riskay that information, as it is only by information that we get facts and opinions, and only through objective analysis can we approach a rational solution, whether it be democracy, dictatorship etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It is about ridding the world of a brutal dictator. Once he is gone, things should change for the better.

So its not about WMDs and Iraqs refusal to disarm then?

All the statements we heard at the start of the conflict about how it was necessary to invade so that after removing Saddam they could find these weapons and prevent them falling into the hands of others who would take Saddam's place was all just a big lie then?

You think a people who were incapable of removing "a brutal dictator" will suddenly turn around and be able to protect their own nation from all of the other extremists and opportunists in the area who would seek to take advantage of them in a weakened condition? That they will simply say "thank our deity that he's gone, now lets put aside all our other differences and hold some proper elections"????

Come on....even Fianna Fail wouldnt try selling that

jc

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
So its not about WMDs and Iraqs refusal to disarm then?

All the statements we heard at the start of the conflict about how it was necessary to invade so that after removing Saddam they could find these weapons and prevent them falling into the hands of others who would take Saddam's place was all just a big lie then?

You think a people who were incapable of removing "a brutal dictator" will suddenly turn around and be able to protect their own nation from all of the other extremists and opportunists in the area who would seek to take advantage of them in a weakened condition? That they will simply say "thank our deity that he's gone, now lets put aside all our other differences and hold some proper elections"????

Come on....even Fianna Fail wouldnt try selling that

jc

It is about WMDs. It is about Saddam's refusal to comply with the original ceasefire resolution and the most recent 1441.

But, Saddam has made his choices. In a post Saddam Iraq - there needs to be some type of Marshall plan and a UN presence.

There are various groupings within Iraq, do they even desire democracy? I don't know.

Iraq was in a weakened condition after Kuwait & its neighbours did not take advantage.

Hopefully the UN will take change after the US troops leave, sanctions lifted and a "Marshall Plane" implemented.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It is about WMDs. It is about Saddam's refusal to comply with the original ceasefire resolution and the most recent 1441.

But the Iraqi government maintain they have complied with 1441, which - as their last chance - would supercede non-compliance of the other resolutions.

Hans Blix, the man in charge of determining whether or not they were in compliance basically said that the jury was still out on that when the option was removed by the choice of the coalition to go to war. He said so before the war, and he is still saying so now. Indeed, he pointed out that the Iraqi government were still trying to act (or be seen to act) in accordance with UNMOVIC after hostilities broke out.

Look at the statements coming from the governments. Increasingly, we should be grateful for this war because Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to his own people, and should be removed. Sometimes, we get statements that its because of his links to terrorism. Increasingly we hear references to how the US did not start this war - they were not the ones who flew planes into the WTC. Newsflash - neither did Saddam, and no case showing links between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government have held any water. Hell, its about as credible as the claims that the US themselves were behind the attacks on their own people.

There is a case that the northern Kurds were accomodating to terrorist organisations given that this is where they keep being found and attacked, but apparently that qualifies as an Iraqi - not Kurdish - guilt. This somehow makes the Kurds the ideal choice to back up the US in the North of Iraq, and makes Saddam a terrorist suporter.

I can see how Saddam is responsible for the actions of the self-ruing Northern Kurds, and how they themselves are not to blame at all for suffering the presence of terrorists in their lands, no more than the US and UK over-flights who would bomb anything Iraqi that they felt threatened them as a means of "diplomacy" can be blamed for not bothering to get rid of this threat that they knew about either. Yup, clearly they are not to blame. Its all Saddam's fault. I see that now. Honestly, I can....as long as I'm using too much logic or being too honest with myself.

jc