@ 4Play, i completely understand your point.

I quote from a recent paper published in the Iranian Journal of Terrorism (IJT) vol 2; 450-87 titled: Jihad: the sword as the highway to heaven.,

". . . terrorism as is presently defined by the zionist and American axis of evil attempts to antagonise the role that jihad plays in cleansing the earth of secularity and hedonism - an attribute that is only meant to exist in jannat. It has remained a zionist conspiracy to deny great martyrs of jihad their rightful role in history as men who have shaped the destiny of their generation by selflessly giving their lives to the advancement of peace, freedom and the promotion of human rights . . ."

You guys are cracking me up real hard here. I just can't stop laughing.

@TayoD
How can u laugh at something this serious.These infidels need to be taught a lesson. Keep laughing and your head will be strategically relocated.Me and Mullah Davidylan understand what is going on in this world.

Who wouldn't want 72 virgins?Although I will prefer 36 experienced ones but 72 virgins is not bad.

The Jews are causing a lot of problem in this world and Ahmedinejad will sort them out.Can u imagine,they are not alowing to me sleep.They even removed the butter from my fridge

lol.
you guys crack me up.
actually, i meant Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies. my bad

however, i never said i completely believed the information. i'm only just reporting what i saw on TV.
here's a link to some info about the centre

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Centre_for_Research_and_Strategic_Studies

Disclaimer: The article referenced by the link above might be based on biased opinions. i only skimmed thru. make of it what u will.

@Texazzpete,

Hope you don't get too tied up with people that never want to get in touch with reality.

I guess Bush and his kitchen cabinet believed they knew better than everyone else about the happenings in Iraq until the mid term elections.

That Rumsfeld resigned followed by Bolton and Gates stating things the way they really are, I guess its time for a lot of the blind supporters of Bush to do a self appraisal.

Maybe, only in the imaginations of some religous bigots do we see the majority supporting the carnage in Iraq.

Real shame.

Please go and preach to the Shites and their Sunni counterparts who are the source of the carnage. Is it Bush that has ordered and equipped the militias to exterminate each other? That statement sure smells of the now famous BDS.

@Afam
For one who said that the Saddam slaughter of inoccent Shia civilians after Gulf War 1 was ,in his words UNDERSTANDABLE,u have a lot of cojones accusing anyone of suporting carnage.

U have also expressed sympathy for the terrorists and have never for once condemned the violence that they unleashed.

it is quite clear ur interest in Iraq is solely for the purpose of condemning the US.It has nothing to do with the Iraqis.In one post u even refered to the Shias perjoratively,ignoring the fact that most Iraqis are Shias

This is what Iraqi's think
Happy viewing all those that BBS (Blind Bush Supporters) that think others are suffering from BDS

nilla:

This is what Iraqi's think
Happy viewing all those that BBS (Blind Bush Supporters) that think others are suffering from BDS

and to those suffering political correctneopathy (PC), where were these same people when saddam was gassing them?

@Nilla,

Thanks my friend for pointing these "wise men" to what they should be aware of.

The americans they are desparately trying to defend made a statement in the last mid term elections and the statement was that the current situation was unacceptable and they needed change.

Rumsfeld, gone, Bolton, gone, Gates agreeing that US wasn't winning the war in Iraq and agreed that a lot of changes needs to made, the US Iraq study group came out with many recommendations including the US engaging Iran and Syria directly, something our lying Bush has consistently said the US will not do, yet the whole world is trying to solve the avoidable poblem that his careless and deliberate lie caused in Iraq.

If he eventually agrees to a direct talk with either Iran or Syria or even both, then he is confused otherwise he should resign.

Yet, on this forum we see people defending a country that the citizens have indicted and made serious changes by way of votes.

It's like fighting for someone that says "go to hell, I don't need your help" and yet these confused people here will not see beyond their religous prisms.

Another interesting scenario will be in Britain if the US goes ahead with the recommendations because that will leave Blair out in the cold since he decided to follow Bush blindly even though his own people have pressured him to leave office before his tenure ends, a direct consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

@4Play,

I am bold enough to make my position very clear on issues because I make up my mind based on facts and devoid of unnecessary sentiments and bias.

Yes, the killing of Iraqis in the southern part of the country when the coalition forces were pushing them back (though wrong, in that civilians were killed and not soldiers) is what most countries will do simply because they were supporting and aiding the enemy. If you cannot understand that, tough luck.

Sympathy for the terrorists? Where did you get that from? Another confused position from a vague understanding of issues? I have stated over 10 or 12 times on this forum especially in the Israel/Lebanon thread that the killing of innocent ones by anyone, group or country is wrong regardless of the reasons given for the killing.

Maybe in your warped sense of information processing, you have concluded that the statement in bold means sympathy for the terrorists and that I do not condemn the violence they unleash.

I can blame people for their wrong while pointing out the reasons for one even taking to arms in the first place. While discussing terrorism it is equally important to understand why terrorists exist, why people chose that part, what led to the current situation. Not wanting to take a holist approach to the issue will amount to playing the ostrich (hope you understand that sha).

If the long message directed at you ends up in confusing you the more, no vex because you have displayed an embarassing level of inability to comprehend basic and simple statements here.

@Afam and Nilla

What do u make of this then-www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/06/061206183540.4da9y9bi.html

On one hand ,u Nilla linked what is an unscientific poll of Sunni Iraqis in a Baghdad market-80 percent of all the violence in Iraq happen in Baghdad-,whereas I linked to u what is the opinion of the elected representatives of the Iraqi people .

I have never in this thread, claimed that the Iraqi people like the prescence of Americans.I recall that I said that most Iraqis don't.But what I said is that most Iraqis say that the removal of Saddam is worth their suffering-www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf.You can reference that on page 51 of the Brookings Iraq Index

At the moment ,the US troop prescence was unanimously authorised by the UN at the request of the Iraqi Govt.

So what is Bush to be tried for? is it for toppling Saddam which even Afam concedes most Iraqis thought up to this year was worth it?,or is it for the continued prescence of Coalition troops which is unanimously authorised by the UN Security Council at the request of the Iraqi Govt?Is it for the violence Iraqis are mostly perpetrating on themselves?

Make no mistake I don't think the Bush adminstration is anywhere  near competent in its handling of Iraq.But I can't stand knee-jerk anti-americanism or anti-Bushism masquareding as sympathy for Iraqis or constructive criticsm.

As an African I like Bush for other things;

Tripling American aid budget to Africa and foreign aid in general has increased from 9.6 billion dollars in 2000 at the end the Clinton adminstration to 27 billion dollars at 2005 despite 2 major wars and a budget deficit.

Increasing spending on the AIDs pandemic from 337 million dollars in 2000 under Clinton to 2.3 billion dollars in 2005,this has helped to save hundreds of thousands of lives-African lives-due to spending on medicine to stop infected mothers passing on the virus to their offspring.

Helping bring an end to the conflict in Southern Sudan which had caused 1 million lives

Raising 80 percent of all humanitarian relief spending around the world.
Debt relief for many African nations for which Nigeria has benefited

BDS sufferers will not like u to know this or will tell it is all a lie.That is their problem.

There is nothing Bush has done in Iraq which could be subject to prosecution.A lot of blame should be laid at the feet of Iraqis who have not taken advantage of the new era in much the same way as American occupied Germany and Japan after 2nd World War .

Personally I know that in the long run they will sort things out.The Kurdish provinces in Northern Iraq went through 5 years of bloody civil war after they came out from Saddam rule .Today it is a prosperous place with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. 

Am sure they will tell u that in the long run it was all worth it but then nobody cares about their opinion because they are not anti-american

davidylan:

and to those suffering political correctneopathy (PC), where were these same people when saddam was gassing them?

Is that the issue on this thread?



@ Afam: you're welcome

4 Play:

@Afam and Nilla

What do u make of this then-www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/06/061206183540.4da9y9bi.html

On one hand ,u Nilla linked what is an unscientific poll of Sunni Iraqis in a Baghdad market-80 percent of all the violence in Iraq happen in Baghdad-,whereas I linked to u what is the opinion of the elected representatives of the Iraqi people .

I have never in this thread, claimed that the Iraqi people like the prescence of Americans.I recall that I said that most Iraqis don't.But what I said is that most Iraqis say that the removal of Saddam is worth their suffering-www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

hmmm. . . .unscientific . I wonder how scientific you want it to get!

4Play,

A call for President George W. Bush to reduce US support to Iraq if Baghdad fails to improve security drew a sour response from Iraqi politicians, who said Washington had an obligation to back their government.

The reproduced quote above is the very first paragraph on the link you referenced.

What ordinary Iraqis say is more important to what politicians say.

I live in Nigeria today and the average politician (those not in the opposition, assuming we have any) will readily tell you that Nigeria is doing well and that majority of Nigerians are happy about the state of affairs even though in reality it is a wrong statement.

Thanks for showing me a new online news website. Didn't the mainstream media have anything to say about the US panel report and what the Iraqis think about it?

@nilla

nilla:

I



hmmm. . . .unscientific . I wonder how scientific you want it to get!

IF walking around in a market in Baghdad asking a few people questions is ur idea of scientific polling,then it says a lot.Iraqis live in 18 provinces and Baghdad is one of them-80 percent of all violence occurs in Baghdad .In Baghdad there are about 6 million people,thrusting cameras in the face of a few people in a SUNNI Baghdad market is not even polling not to talk of scientific

@Afam

Afam:

4Play,




What ordinary Iraqis say is more important to what politicians say.

That is presumung u know what ordinary IRAQIS across different ethnicities and the 18 provinces say.

In NIGERIA the politicians are not a reflection of what the people think because most pols in power rigged and bribed their way into power.

In Iraq will u say that Ayatollah Ali Sistani's  and Al-Hakim's SCIRI do not truly represent Iraqi Shias feeling-SCIRI wants US troops to remain in Iraq for now.Same apllies to the KDP and PUK in KURDISTAN both of whom want the US to stay

U can't compare SCIRI,the KDP and PUK in Iraq to the PDP of Nigeria .

4 Play,

Your link clearly showed that some Iraqi politicians are not happy and these politicians usually protect their selfish interests not the interest of the people they are supposed to protect.

Ali Sistani and co are religious leaders not politicians. Again, you have correctly stated that they have influence over the Shias, does that influence also cover the Sunnis, the Kurds or the Christains in Iraq?

Still on polls conducted by so many media, the majority in Iraq want the US out.

I need not compare PDP to SCIRI, KDP and PUK because I don't even know what they mean.

@Afam

Afam:

4 Play,


I need not compare PDP to SCIRI, KDP and PUK because I don't even know what they mean.

Ur words not mine.You and I have been arguing all this while about Iraq and what the people think and u don't even know the 3 major political parties in iraq?

Haba Afam,how can u discuss US politics if u don't know the difference btw the DEmocratic party and the Republican party.

The KDP and the PUK represent the Kurdish population which is 20 percent of the Iraqi populace

If Ali Sistani-Spiritual Leader of the Shia who make up 60 percent of the populace-together with the political parties representting the Kurdish populace say that American troop prescence is a necessary evil then that is a more authoritative represention of Iraqi view of US troop prescence than Nilla's You Tube link of 6 Iraqis in a Baghdad market

I failed to see how continued US prescence is in their personal interests as they don't need the US to maintain their personal positions
I never said Iraqis like US troops.

My position is that there is nothing to prosecute Bush for;
-Not the invasion which even u conceded that up to this year most Iraqis consented to-Ayatollah Sistani even passed a fatwa during the conflict calling on Shias not to fight the Americans

-NOR continued US troop prescence which is mandated by the UN as on the request of the Iraqi Govt
-Nor the killings mostly perprated by Iraqis against each other-Shias against Sunnis

4 Play:

@Afam

your words not mine.You and I have been arguing all this while about Iraq and what the people think and u don't even know the 3 major political parties in iraq?

Haba Afam,how can u discuss US politics if u don't know the difference between the DEmocratic party and the Republican party.

Hahaha I found that was the typical situation when arguing with Afam in the Israeli vs hezbolla thread.

@4Play,

Your diversionary tactics won't work. You are gradually shifting the issue to political parties, something that is clearly off point in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

You build premises off thin air and proceed to use them in your continued open ended analysis.

You posted a link that stated that some politicians in Iraq are not happy about the US report.

I responded that what the people think is more important than what the politicians think just as the American people told the world in very clear terms that they are not happy with the way the Bush administration is handling issues especially in Iraq.

You responded that Ali Sistani is in support of the continued stay even though he is not a politician but a religous leader.

In explaining to you why the views of the people are more important than that of politicians, I gave you an example that should ordinarily drive home the point and your brought in PDP and proceeded to wrongly state that I need not compare PDP with political parties that I do not even know about.

Again you are flat wrong in the area of not discusing a country unless you know about the political parties because I am sure that if you are asked to state the political parties in Israel, Lebanon you may not know them unless you use google.

Your simplistic approach to issues that require honest and sincere analysis may make you feel good but in reality it goes to show the level of awareness and understanding of the issues you choose to discuss.

Maybe by the time you are done on this topic you will end up discussing toys found on some Iraqi children somewhere in Iraq.

@Mariory,

You never disappoint, you never have a mind of your own, I am yet to read where you make your opinions known apart from making one line statements and copying and pasting links for people to go and read.

It is sad that many intelligent people have left this forum otherwise I can't imagine you being able to make contributions here.

On Israel/Lebanon, I have been consistently right and you have been consistently wrong in your analysis and the events have clearly proven this. And to justify your wrong analysis your group have chosen to brand those that were right "politically correct" even when your group have been politically incorrect and morally incorrect.

Maybe it will take you another 2 weeks to see a point you disagree with or a reason to laugh.

@Afam

Your perenial state of confusion is manifesting itself again.

I posted a link to some Iraqi pols statements to illustrate that a more authoritative Iraqi position-better than Nilla's link-
was that US troops are still needed in Iraq.U claimed that Iraqi pols ,like Nigerian pols, are not truly reflecting the Iraqi

people.This I disagreed with pointing out that these opinion of Iraqi pols reflect the opinion of Sistani and Hakim who are very influential in Iraqi Shia community.Same goes for the KDP and PUK in kURDISH IRAQ

Ur honesty in acknowledging that u don't know anything about Iraqi political parties is welcome.U claim that u can authoritatively discuss Iraqi politics without knowing the participants.Its like claiming knowledge about the English Premiership but not knowing who Man Utd,Chelsea or Arsenal are

I do know off head the main political parties in Isreal and Lebanon,partly due to the fact that I did study these things at University while doing international law .

I was not surprised to see how ignorant u are on this matter

@4Play,

International law? May God help anyone that engages you in that line as you will become a total disaster.

With your international law, you boldly stated that UN sanctioned the US led invasion of Iraq - a blatant lie.

With your international law, you do not see any reason why Bush should be held accountable for ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq that has caused so many deaths.

Common sense, not even based on professional law should tell you that if Saddam could be tried for ordering the execution of those that were tried for the failed assasination attempt then it makes perfect sense to try Bush for ordering an illegal invasion.

Premiership and Political parties, I won't be surprised if you still shift the goal post to accomodate rugby.

One more thing, it is a good thing to always accept responsibility of what you know and what you don't know. While it would have been easy to decipher or search for the meaning of the political parties you stated, I decided against that because I do not load unnecessary information in my head, I prefer to leave enough room to process information.

I will prefer not to know something than for me to be consistently wrong on what I think I know. Hope you will learn a thing or two from this statement.

I can bet my last kobo that you are not practicing international law.

While you have been wrong on so many occassions on this issue you still try to waste valuable space focusing on issues that do not have a direct bearing on the positions canvassed thus far.

What ordinary Iraqis say is more important to what politicians say.  I live in Nigeria today and the average politician (those not in the opposition, assuming we have any) will readily tell you that Nigeria is doing well and that majority of Nigerians are happy about the state of affairs even though in reality it is a wrong statement.

Did I mention that one of the symptoms of BDS is hypocrisy?  In defending their indefensible position to prosecute George Bush, they have now put forth the same argument I tendered in an earlier discussion which they vehemently opposed.  

I said the following: "I have not provided you with any contradictions.  A Senator's stand is not necessarily that of his constituency."

To which the ignorant hypocrite reacted:

Democracy at work here, I hope Bush respects the will of the senate as they respresent the Americans.

@TayoD,

You have only reproduced part of what I stated you lied about. Tell them the true story, it is ridiculous that you have suddenly attempted to reproduce part of what you avoided reproducing when you came out with lie that a bomb was not only discovered but detonated and went ahead to rain abuses on Allah and muslims.

To the reproduced quote proper, the senate is an institution and what that institution says can be correctly stated to be a representation of the will of the people (whether this is correct or not).

On the issue on ground, the senate in Iraq did not issue a statement frowning at the US report. A link to a website that I have never even heard of stated that Iraqi politicians are not happy with the US position based on the report.

Again this statement you reproduced actually undermines your position if looked at critically "I have not provided you with any contradictions. A Senator's stand is not necessarily that of his constituency.".

I guess it goes to support my arguement that the position of the politicians may be selfish and not in the interest of the Iraqis. Thanks for helping me pass across that point, hope 4 Play will be able to forgive you for that.

@ 4 Play,

Before we forget, could be point us to the source of your information that SCIRI, KDP and PUK all want the US to stay in Iraq?

Getting a handle on this will help us streamline this discussion lest we start building on a foundation that does not exist.

@Afam

U claimm that your ignorance of the political parties in Iraq is because u don't want unneccesary info in your head.So knowledge about Iraqi political parties is unnneccesary to a debate about Iraqi politics.U are a GENIUS.

The reason why u did not search for info on them is that it would have taken u a longtime to find them and their policy positions on US troops and then reply back to my post.U inevitably showed your ignorance

Afam legal opinion differs on the legality of the Iraq war.Some people like Lord Goldsmith and Prof Alan Dershowitz-Harvard law proffesor- say that the war is legal and I agree with them.U ignorantly think that everyone agrees with u.

Saddam is being tried for war crimes of which the massacre in Dujail is a component.

Precisely how will the charge against Bush be framed and who has the jurisdiction to hear such charges. Since u know more about these things tell me.

One more thing,when was the last time a former Head of State was put on trial for an illegal invasion.There is no precedence for such a thing.All the trials of former leaders relate to war crimes,for which u have to show some intent on the part of Bush of to massacre innocent civilians

Get this into your ignorant head,u can't sustain a charge for illegal invasion against Bush.Questions about the illegality of an invasion is not sufficient for a trial of a former Head of State

Afam:

@Mariory,

You never disappoint, you never have a mind of your own, I am yet to read where you make your opinions known apart from making one line statements and copying and pasting links for people to go and read.

It is sad that many intelligent people have left this forum otherwise I can't imagine you being able to make contributions here.

On Israel/Lebanon, I have been consistently right and you have been consistently wrong in your analysis and the events have clearly proven this. And to justify your wrong analysis your group have chosen to brand those that were right "politically correct" even when your group have been politically incorrect and morally incorrect.

Maybe it will take you another 2 weeks to see a point you disagree with or a reason to laugh.

My God, you are dumb. First of all why would I spend my precious time arguing with someone like you on a topic when I can just post evidence that you are wrong. Or you think people don't have lives outside of these forum boards? - Rhetorical question. Don't answer that.

@4Play and Mariory,

Exactly my point. The issue on this thread is not Iraqi politics as you guys are shamelessly trying to turn it into.

The issue has been whether Bush should also face trial and the attendant responses as to whether the people of Iraq support or oppose the illegal invasion.

Polls, surveys and positions of the government be it executive or legislative arm are more important in this regard when compared to political parties, many of which may not even be in government.

This is akin to stating that the position of Nigerians is the position of say FRESH political party in Nigeria even when the political power is not even part of the government.

There is a great deal of difference between political parties and the government. Hope this won't be too much information to comprehend.

I will try as much as possible to respond to posts if only to clarify some of the misinformation being dubiously fed to the public on this forum.

I have stated that I will rather not bother knowing what I am not interested in knowing than displaying ignorance on a public forum by making wrong statements.

@Afam
Anytime u are called to order on something u try to avoid it by claiming that one i s digressing.Iraqi politics is intertwined with the issue of the legality of the war on Iraq


None of ur postings have raised anything concrete for which Bush can be charged. U said he should be charged for an illegal invasion

Afam:

@4Play,



Common sense, not even based on professional law should tell you that if Saddam could be tried for ordering the execution of those that were tried for the failed assasination attempt then it makes perfect sense to try Bush for ordering an illegal invasion.

.Give me one example where a charge was sustained on that basis.If that was the case then people like Clinton,Mao Zedong,Nyerere for sendind troops into other countries without a UN mandate.Remember that about 30 countries participated in this invasion,all thier Heads of States could be tried too

The charge of an illegal invasion,or to use the legal term aggresive war,was not defined in the ICC statute, BUSH can't be tried on the basis u allege

hmmmm

@4Play,

I hope you do understand that this is a public forum, not a UN security council where decisions taken affect real things in the world.

Bush may not be tried based on all the reasons stated by you but that does not exclude the opinions stated by others who think that he should be tried for ordering the illegal invasion that has brought complete chaos and carnage in Iraq and more importantly has set the stage for increase in the hatred and grooming of terrorists.

Osama bin Laden is still free and even Bush conceded that Saddam/Iraq had not business with 9/11.

I believe he should be tried even though the way the UN and similar bodies are structured will make this an impossibility, a system that protects the strong while the commit atrocities against the weak will only create an environment where the security of the strong cannot be guaranteed.

You can make your position on any issue clear without manufacturing lies to support your position.

Bush may not be tried based on all the reasons stated by you but that does not exclude the opinions stated by others who think that he should be tried for ordering the illegal invasion that has brought complete chaos and carnage in Iraq and more importantly has set the stage for increase in the hatred and grooming of terrorists.

I believe it takes a breaking of a law to consider an action illegal.  We are waiting to find out from you all what laws George W. Bush trangressed. 

Public opinion, whether favorable or not does not hold up in a court of law.  Public opinion can only make a difference in an election.  From what I know, George Bush won his last election.  I know some will try to link up public opinion about the war to the last congressional election (which to some extent is legit), but a careful look at U.s history shows that americans generally vote off the ruling party in the 6th year of its government.  This case was not an exception.

Would it be correct to infer from the last post that any country can wake up any day and invade another country and everything will be just normal?

No doubt, the current structures in place today tends to protect the stronger nations but at the end of the day everyone will feel the state of insecurity because strong or weak, the effects of resistance will be felt by many.

I really want to know the answer to the question above as it will set the stage for a more fruitful discussion especially whether we should continue with practices that results in careless wastages of lives or seek to make amend to create a system where the lives and properties of everyone can be guaranteed at least to a reasonable extent.

On the last mid term elections, I beg to differ on the US history showing that americans generally vote off the ruling party in the 6th year of its government.

Clinton served for 8 years and it is on record that the republicans basically had control of both houses right from when he was sworn in till the time he left.

You may please point us to the source of this information which I consider incorrect.

As to the historicity of loosing power in the 6th year, here is some information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201597.html

Now in response to the article, a critic, Christopher Preble wrote: Krauthammer’s argument is based on his reading of the history of mid-year elections. He noted that the anticipated “anti-Republican wave” — a net pick up of perhaps 20-25 House seats, and 4-6 Senate seats, by the Democrats — is relatively modest by historical standards. Reagan lost more in the 6th year of his presidency; so too FDR. One of the greatest mid-term election disasters (not noted by Krauthammer) occurred in Dwight Eisenhower’s 6th year, 1958. At a time when Eisenhower was personally quite popular, the Democrats added nearly 50 members in the House, and another 16 in the Senate, building upon their already commanding majorities in both chambers. See http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/index.php?cat=12

I'll respond to other issues as we go.