This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
THE RAGING CIVIL WAR
Published on March 19, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The situation in Iraq is nowhere near normal. Three years after the Bush Admionistration launched its invasion of Iraq the country has been reduced to shambles. Electricity is supplies for only 4 to 6 hoiurs, schools and hospitals are virtually closed down, essential suppl\ies are to be had at an exhorbitant price and a proud and civilised nation reduced to sectarian and civil strife. The US invasion is the sole cause for this unfolding trgedy. The regular readers of our blog would know that this is exactly what we had predicted. The Shiaa Sunni strife is clearly got the US backed regime by surprise and are unprepared for it. The Shiaa dominated government is retaliating by launching death squads into Sunni areas and everyday nearly 70 to 100 people die in the sectarian violence. The US Administration thought that after the elections there will be peace. This was just a false hope encouraged by the alliance now in power. The drift into civil war willncrease the leverage the Iran has in Iraq and USA will have to call in the good offices of Iran to save the day.

The bombing of the Shiaa shrine at Samaraa has resulted in increasing the divide between the two major sectarian groupings in Iraqi society. This level of sectarian strife iwas unknpwn even in the woprst days of Saddam's tyranny. With no exit plan in place, the situatioon in Iraq deteriorating by the day, rising violence and a civil society restive to the point of distraction, the USA will hacve to begin its count down to leave Iraq.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 19, 2006

The situation in Iraq is nowhere near normal. Three years after the Bush Administration launched its invasion of Iraq the country has been reduced to shambles.


The local liar is at it again. Are you not worried that you will go to hell for your constant lying? I thought you were a believing Muslim? Are Muslims allowed to lie? Iraq is doing much better now than four years ago. The invaders have rebuilt many of the hospitals Saddam destroyed and a lot of the water supply Saddam refused to Shi'ites.



The US invasion is the sole cause for this unfolding trgedy.


Liar! In contrast to your romantic ideas, Iraq was NOT a paradise before the invasion. You REALLY REALLY need to inform yourself better. And you were told so often, I can only conclude that you are simply a liar. When did you ever tell the truth?

The "raging civil war" has killed fewer people in three years than Saddam in one. And yes, I blame the USA for that. But I don't hate Iraqis as much as you do and thus do not consider it a tragedy.



The regular readers of our blog would know that this is exactly what we had predicted.


Yes, you have been lying for a while. Your "predictions" never worked, so you keep making up lies.



This level of sectarian strife iwas unknpwn even in the woprst days of Saddam's tyranny.


And here a few pictures of the victims of the unknown sectarian strife during some of the worst days of Saddam's tyranny:

http://www.massgraves.info/

Liar!


This will be like World War II, won't it? People like you will deny that these things happened for decades. Iraq and other countries will make laws against such denial. And you will not be allowed to travel to Iraq if you become too famous for your lies.

You are a liar and a supporter of fascists, "Bahu". Perhaps you don't believe in G-d, but I do. And you WILL go to hell for this. You have lied too often and made fun of Saddam's Shi'ite victims by downplaying their suffering. Nothing can save you now.

I feel sorry for you, "Bahu", even though I am very angry at your stupidity. You are a tool for the fascists and the left. I hoped they would not get your soul.
on Mar 19, 2006

Today marks the three year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And of course anniversaries like this cannot occur without the usual protests of our resident hippies and they're kissing cousins back in the Middle East.

Before I go on about the supposed "Peace Protestors", let's just go through what has been accomplished in the three years following the removal of Saddam's regime.

1. Iraq now has a democratically elected government that answers to its people and not from its inner circle. Individual tenants of freedom are now in place in Iraq. Such as Freedom of Speech, freedom of the Press, Freedom of worship etc...
2. Palestinian Terrorists have lost a major source of income and diplomatic backing.
3. Ditto for Al Qaeda.
4.Libya has abandoned its WMD programs.
5.Syria has withdrew from Lebanon after the Lebanese students movement protested the occupation of their country. (Actions and protests that Syria always ignored and rushed in the past)
6.Democratic movements have spread throughout the Middle East.
7.The voices of moderates in the Middle East is becoming bigger by the hour.

All these events cannot have occurred without the military action in which Bush, Blair and every single nation that took part of Operation Iraqi Freedom decided to take.

Of course order has not been "restored". But then again, "order" in a country like Iraq was absent for over 40 years. You cannot fix the crap that's been left over from the previous regimes for over 40 years in a mere three years.

Changing the status-quo (which in this case endangered the lives of Westerners) is never easy, no matter which country or region its taking place. Which brings me to our beloved "Peace Protestors".

"Iraq is a quagmire and has been a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqis," said Jean Parker, a member of the Australian branch of the Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march. "There is no way forward without ending the occupation."



As usual, the Liberal-Left take it upon themselves and use they're mysterious telepathic powers in order to convey what the Iraqi people feel and think about they're current situation.

It should be pointed out to Ms. Parker that the only people who are hoping to create the humanitarian disaster are the Iraqi insurgents themselves. Trying to create tensions among groups, slowing down the reconstruction of hospitals, schools, assassination elected officials etc. And that should we take her advice and withdraw all western forces from Iraq. These insurgents would have the upper hand, with barely anyone tracking them down.

So what does that say about the "Stop the War Coalition's" humanitarian outlook towards Iraq?

Let me be perfectly blunt here:

The Liberal-Left and the anti-war lobby couldn't give a fu*k about the well-being of the Iraqi people or anyone else for that matter. If anything they cheer on any sign of chaos as a justification to their own political views.
Rather than express concern about the innocent lives that it might affect.

They cry and scream about "prisoner abuse" that's easily comparable to hazing rituals at McGill University, yet shrug or ignore the un-humane torture and executions committed by the very regime they opposed toppling.

They suddenly become Isolationist Fiscal Conservatives when it comes to Financial aid packages to Post-Saddam Iraq, yet throw an tantrum when it comes to a leader who hints he will not financially support a terrorist organization which can be summed up as a "mini-Taliban".

In short, they want a failure of the Iraq mission, only to brag and feel exonerated in they're original political views, rather than aim to make the mission a success that would benefit the entire world.

And that's exactly why I not only disagree, but despise the modern anti-war movement. They're hatred and loathing of one man, runs soooooooooo deep, that they're willing to "cut and run" from a mission that would end up resulting in decreased security, more instability in Iraq, more human-rights disasters at the hands of Islamists, a bigger humanitarian crisis than any of us could ever imagine, all for political retribution.

(Will the real racists please stand up?)

So on this day. should any anti-war prick give you a hard time about your personal views on this matter: Just turn the table on his race-baiting tactics and counter it with:

"So what do YOU have against the Iraqi people that would make you want to withdraw U.S. troops and create chaos and havoc in the country"?

Should you get an interesting answer, please e-mail it to me.


From my one of my friend's blog at http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/

If you are tired of Bahu's lies, you can read the truth over at that blog. The author is an Arab-Canadian who has lived in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and, I believe, in Jordan.

He has an understanding of the middle east that I cannot hope to acquire and it was he who made me change my mind about the ports deal a few weeks ago.

Enjoy!
on Mar 19, 2006
All I have to say is....



on Mar 19, 2006

All I have to say is....

Perhaps you  could have said that in 1776, instead of 1783.

on Mar 19, 2006
In 1776 I was dumping tea off the dock in Boston young fella.
on Mar 19, 2006
http://www.massgraves.info/

What I see in Iraq's past is what I see in Iraq's future without American troops.

I have NO REASON AT ALL to believe that anything would improve without American troops in Iraq. But I see lots of improvements now. Why risk everything for the theory that Sunnis and Shi'ites will stop fighting if only the Americans leave the country?
on Mar 19, 2006

The situation in Iraq is nowhere near normal. Three years after the Bush Admionistration launched its invasion of Iraq the country has been reduced to shambles. Electricity is supplies for only 4 to 6 hoiurs, schools and hospitals are virtually closed down, essential suppl\ies are to be had at an exhorbitant price and a proud and civilised nation reduced to sectarian and civil strife.


What a pile of dung! Got any "proof" of this? Or is this a democratic talking point?
on Mar 20, 2006
What a load of nonsense.
on Mar 21, 2006
The local liar is at it again. Are you not worried that you will go to hell for your constant lying? I thought you were a believing Muslim? Are Muslims allowed to lie?


based on what i've been reading, there's as much likelihood your vision of iraq today has less to do with reality as it does wishful thinking. i wouldn't go so far as to call you a liar, but then i wouldn't ask you if you were worried bout going to hell or whether jews were allowed to lie.

The "raging civil war" has killed fewer people in three years than Saddam in one. And yes, I blame the USA for that. But I don't hate Iraqis as much as you do and thus do not consider it a tragedy.


one of your most annoying traits (as long as you don't have any scruples about getting personal, i hope you'll extend me the same liberty) is how quickly you determine the targets of others' hatred (well not all others...just those who disagree with your unique, narrow pov).

Perhaps you don't believe in G-d, but I do. And you WILL go to hell for this. You have lied too often and made fun of Saddam's Shi'ite victims by downplaying their suffering. Nothing can save you now.


i wonder if pat robertson needs someone to handle his irish operation? you've got the rap down pat. (pun totally accidental but hell...)
on Mar 21, 2006

based on what i've been reading, there's as much likelihood your vision of iraq today has less to do with reality as it does wishful thinking. i wouldn't go so far as to call you a liar, but then i wouldn't ask you if you were worried bout going to hell or whether jews were allowed to lie.


What is my vision of Iraq?

If I kept telling you things that you know are false, and you kept telling me that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and if I kept telling other people these same things even though I was now told that I was wrong; I would be a liar.



one of your most annoying traits (as long as you don't have any scruples about getting personal, i hope you'll extend me the same liberty) is how quickly you determine the targets of others' hatred (well not all others...just those who disagree with your unique, narrow pov).


Quickly? I read his nonsense for half a year or so before I determined that he must hate Iraqis.

As for my point of view, it is perhaps unique, but I doubt it is narrow. I have travelled the long way from growing up in a left-wing family to becoming rather right-wing through learning and the patience of conservative (and Libertarian) teachers on the net and the offline world.

If after nearly ten years of learning about the middle east (I can assure you that I know more now than ten years ago), I have become more narrow-minded, then perhaps that it as it must be.

You certainly don't make a good case for why my point of view is wrong.



i wonder if pat robertson needs someone to handle his irish operation? you've got the rap down pat. (pun totally accidental but hell...)


After his righteous articles about how the west must understand Muslim rage and change its ways I figured that I can throw back the same nonsense at him. What's your problem with that?

If he wants to be a good Muslim, he shouldn't lie so much. And if he can't deal with, that's tough.
on Mar 21, 2006
If I kept telling you things that you know are false, and you kept telling me that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and if I kept telling other people these same things even though I was now told that I was wrong; I would be a liar.


apparently i wasn't paying attention and missed your appointment as truth commissar. how silly of anyone to treat your pronouncements as mere opinions rather than facts.

it's terribly unfair of you not to preface all your remarks with a warning to foolish mortals about the risks they incur by obstinately refusing to see things your way.
on Mar 23, 2006
The local liar is at it again. Are you not worried that you will go to hell for your constant lying


Liar! In contrast to your romantic ideas, Iraq was NOT a paradise before the invasion. You REALLY REALLY need to inform yourself better. And you were told so often, I can only conclude that you are simply a liar. When did you ever tell the truth?


The approval rate of the US President Bush has fallen even below Nixon at the height of Watergaste. Now who is lying. The majority of the US population feel that invasion was an grave error(pardon the unintended pun).

I have never said Iraq was a paradise before the invasion. I only say that the US led invasion has led to a humanitarian crisis there.
on Mar 23, 2006
Ditto for Al Qaeda.


In fact this satement is not trure and you know it.
on Mar 23, 2006

apparently i wasn't paying attention and missed your appointment as truth commissar. how silly of anyone to treat your pronouncements as mere opinions rather than facts.


I don't know why the left need a commissar for everything. I can simply be right and know it because I looked at facts, can't I?

Assuming that you needed a "truth commissar" to define the truth (as opposed to, say, reality or reports of it), what is the point in arguing?

Bahu made a few statements and they are wrong. There is nothing sinister about pointing it out.
on Mar 23, 2006

The approval rate of the US President Bush has fallen even below Nixon at the height of Watergaste. Now who is lying. The majority of the US population feel that invasion was an grave error(pardon the unintended pun).


The president's approval rating have little to do with whether your statements are true or false. It is a fallacy to use the one to back up the other. It is entirely possible for everything you said about Iraq to be true or false regardless of the president's approval ratings.

What you said is false not because of approval ratings but because the facts disagree.



I have never said Iraq was a paradise before the invasion. I only say that the US led invasion has led to a humanitarian crisis there.


Yes, and that is wrong. Looking at the numbers, I do not see a "humanitarian crisis" now that didn't already exist before the invasion. The major change seems to be that fewer people die than before.

And this I told you before. But you continue to make your false claims.

And that's why I called you a liar.

But go ahead and try to back up your claims. You never did, and you never could. Define "humanitarian crisis", give me numbers for before and after the invasion, and show how the numbers match your definition of a humanitarian crisis.

But from what I have read hospitals and schools are now working more smoothly than before the invasion and fewer people die every year. If that constitutes a humanitarian crisis to you, I don't know how to argue with you.

You made a claim about Iraqi hospitals not working well since the invasion. You made that claim before, I believe. Go ahead, back it up!



"Ditto for Al Qaeda."

In fact this satement is not true and you know it.


You would have to take it up with the author. But from what I know it is true that Al-Qaeda has lost major sources of financing in the last three years. At the very least they are now spending a lot of the money they do have in Iraq and not in the west.

As for diplomatic backing, it appears to me that demonstrations against Al-Qaeda in Jordan and Iraq BECAUSE of their fighting in Iraq constitutes a loss of "diplomatic backing". Jordan is certainly more interested than ever in hunting them down.
2 Pages1 2