Iraqi troops locked in deadly battle with militia
70 killed in clashes with Shiites; eight U.S. soldiers die during the weekend
MSNBC News Services


Updated: 11:58 a.m. ET Aug. 28, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Fifty gunmen and 20 Iraqi soldiers have been killed in clashes in the town of Diwaniyah south of Baghdad, the Ministry of Defense spokesman said on Monday.

Mohammed al-Askari said the fighting started on Sunday evening when the gunmen attacked police stations and army troops were sent in as reinforcements and eventually took control on Monday.

Iraqi army, police and hospital sources said earlier that the clashes were between militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi troops. A spokesman in Sadr's local office said only two of his militiamen were killed.

The clashes were the most violent in two days of bloodshed across the country, from the northern city of Kirkuk to Baghdad and Basra in the south.

The dead included eight American soldiers, one of the U.S. military’s deadliest weekends in months.

Baghdad violence drops
Despite the weekend spike, violence in Baghdad has dropped by nearly half since July, when U.S.-led forces launched an operation to pacify the capital, a U.S. general said Monday.

U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell also said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would assume operational control of Iraq’s armed forces by next month in what he called a significant step toward Iraq taking responsibility for its security.

Caldwell hinted at a looming confrontation between U.S. and Iraqi forces and al Sadr's militia, whose Sadr City slum stronghold has not yet been targeted in Operation Together Forward.

“The intention is for Iraqi security forces to operate through the entire city of Baghdad,” Caldwell told journalists.

Sadr City is largely a no-go area for the Iraqi security forces and even U.S. troops’ few forays there have resulted in fierce gunbattles with militiamen. Analysts say the continued existence of the militias poses a threat to Iraq’s stability.

Caldwell said troops had cleared 33,000 buildings, seized more than 700 weapons and detained 70 suspects during the three-week-old operation to quell violence in Baghdad.

The daily murder rate had dropped 46 percent from July to August and car bombings were at their lowest rate for eight months, he said, while noting a spate of car bombings and shootings at the weekend which killed dozens.

“Insurgents and terrorists are hitting back in an attempt to offset the success of the Iraqi government and its security forces and divert media attention from Operation Together Forward,” he said.

‘High alert’
The fighting in Diwaniyah broke out late Sunday night when Iraqi soldiers conducted raids in three neighborhoods to flush out the militiamen and seize weapons, said army Capt. Fatik Aied.

He said the fighting continued Monday.

The al-Sadr representative in Diwaniyah, Sheik Abdul-Razaq al-Nidawi, told The Associated Press that “the Iraqi army pulled out of Diwaniyah and the Mahdi army is in state of high alert.”

Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, is a Shiite-dominated city where the influence of the Mahdi Army has been gradually increasing. It already runs a virtual parallel government in Sadr City, a slum in eastern Baghdad.

Al-Sadr's clout
The government of al-Maliki, a Shiite, has found it difficult to rein in al-Sadr, whose movement holds 30 of the 275 seats in parliament and five Cabinet posts.

Al-Sadr’s backing helped al-Maliki win the top job during painstaking negotiations within the Shiite alliance that led to the ouster of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Al-Sadr mounted two major uprisings against the American-led coalition in 2004 after U.S. authorities closed his newspaper and pushed an Iraqi judge into issuing an arrest warrant against him.

American forces have been wary of confronting the Mahdi Army because of al-Sadr’s clout and his large following among Iraq’s Shiite majority.

Some 10,000 Iraqis have been killed in the last four months in unrelenting attacks by Sunni and Shiite extremists on each other’s communities, as well as bombings and shootings by Sunni Arab insurgents.

In other incidents, a suicide car bomber slammed into a police checkpoint outside the Interior Ministry in Baghdad on Monday.

The blast, heard a mile away, killed 16 people, including 10 policemen, police 1st Lt. Ahmed Mohammed Ali said. He said 18 policemen were among the 47 people wounded.

Elsewhere in the capital, a roadside bomb in the mainly Sunni western neighborhood of Jihad struck a car transporting five barbershop workers, killing one person and seriously wounding four, police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Link:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14537878/


My Views:


Perhaps IF you tell me now that the envisaged 'civil war' amongst IRAQI is near i could attempt to agree with you. Yes, when it comes to the point that a brother Shi`a does not hesitate to kill a fellow Shi`a muslim. There is no reason to argue that he can not kill a brother muslim of another sect.

It would have not been easy for the occupation forces to attempt to wipe off the Iraqi map the forces of Seyyid Muqtada Ssadr. There would be strong criticism that the non-muslims are being too harsh towards the Iraqi citizens and that is where no coalition forces dare to tread. But look now what an Ibn al-Balad is doing towards the very people he is supposed to be their guardian. He dares to send his troops to crash those of the-Sayyed.

What a wonderful future for the people of the land Bush promised peace.


I wonder what Bush's god is going to inspire him with next time :p





.

Bush !! he will send more soldiers to be killed in Iraq ... If you remebre DS when USA went to libirate Iraq from Saddam and amny threads were openned and our Westerner and USA suppoerters were bragging that a new Iraq will be born and the Iraqi people will be free .. We all knew that all of that is LIES LIES , LIES .. I wonder if the same members have the Gutts to come here and tell us that USA and UK and the West did the right thing ???

Westerner and USA suppoerters were bragging that a new Iraq will be born and the Iraqi people will be free ..




That was a wishful think, so ? 2speak !

Now are we counting down on this ? Is there a tolerant for a government in a government for Iraqis ? for example :


Grappling with the al-Sadr problem
Clashes in southern Iraq focus attention on radical cleric

NEWS ANALYSISBy Robert H. Reid
The Associated Press


Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET Aug. 30, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - This week’s intense clashes between the Iraqi army and a Shiite militia are part of a strategy to whittle away the power of a radical cleric. But the high-risk gambit could trigger more fighting across the Shiite south — at a time when the cleric’s stronghold in the capital is virtually off-limits.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised to disband militias, including the Mahdi Army of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as a way to curb the sectarian violence propelling Iraq to the brink of civil war. The United States has made clear it views that effort as crucial.

But a full-scale assault by either American or Iraqi forces on al-Sadr’s stronghold of Sadr City is highly risky. Al-Maliki, a fellow Shiite with political ties to the cleric, has publicly criticized a U.S.-Iraqi raid this month on the teeming district in Baghdad, where al-Sadr’s followers maintain control and mete out Islamic justice in religious courts.

With Sadr City thus out of play for the time being, the U.S. military and its partners have been going after al-Sadr’s forces outside the capital, arresting a Mahdi commander in Basra and raiding militia offices in other cities to cut into the cleric’s power base.

The fighting Sunday and Monday in Diwaniyah, a ramshackle Shiite market town about 100 miles south of Baghdad, was the latest and one of the most intense examples.

The trouble started when Iraqi soldiers arrested one of the cleric’s supporters before dawn Sunday, said an al-Sadr aide. Later in the day, Iraqi soldiers launched more raids and fighting broke out.

Al-Maliki’s office said 73 people, including 23 Iraqi soldiers, were killed before a truce was reached on Monday. Other officials put the death toll at 40, most of them soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire.

“The battle may be over, but the campaign to clean that city up and to restore it to Iraqi government control isn’t finished,” the top U.S. commander, Gen. George W. Casey, told reporters Wednesday.


A test of loyalty

Such confrontations test the loyalty of Iraq’s mostly Shiite army and police, whose ranks have been infiltrated by al-Sadr’s supporters.

But military moves are all the more risky because of the intense rivalry within various Shiite parties and militias — all competing for power. Diwaniyah, for example, is controlled by a rival Shiite party, leading al-Sadr aides to blame local officials from the other party of essentially using the national army to deal with their rivals.

The fighting in Diwaniyah thus points to one of the most serious problems facing Iraq — the possibility that trouble will spread widely throughout the quieter, calmer south.

With its overwhelmingly Shiite population, most of the south has been spared the Sunni-Shiite fighting that has rocked Baghdad. But the internal Shiite divisions pose a threat.

Another raid earlier this month on the office of a relatively obscure cleric, Mahmoud al-Hassani, triggered a day of street fighting in the Shiite city of Karbala and protests in Nasiriyah and Basra.


Popular maverick
Within the Shiite community, al-Sadr is clearly a dominant figure. His popularity among impoverished Shiites has eclipsed those of mainstream Shiite politicians. Even the country’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has been loathe to speak out publicly against al-Sadr.

Yet since the beginning of the U.S. mission in 2003, American officials have struggled to find a way to deal with him. ;) :scold: :o

In 2004, U.S. authorities issued an arrest warrant accusing him of a role in the murder of a moderate cleric. That triggered two armed uprisings that ended when the Americans bowed to Shiite pressure and spared al-Sadr and shelved the arrest warrant.

Since then, al-Sadr has become a player. His movement controls 30 of the 275 seats in the national parliament and five Cabinet ministries, and his support was critical to al-Maliki winning the post of prime minister.

Name unmentionable for U.S. forces
Now, the U.S. military rarely mentions his name or his militia’s in connection with sectarian violence, even though U.S. officials say privately that the Mahdi Army is behind much of it. And Iraqi officials invariably speak of incidents involving “breakaway elements,” enabling al-Sadr to disavow responsibility for his followers’ actions.

Al-Sadr has described the Diwaniyah fighting as “individual acts that occurred without instructions” from him, according to one of his spokesmen, Sheik Mohammed Jamil.

In fact, it is unclear how much control al-Sadr does wield over the Mahdi militia, which appears to lack a cohesive command structure, and al-Sadr aides have complained about renegades.

Equally unclear are al-Sadr’s ties to Shiite-dominated Iran. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad contends Iran has urged Shiite militias to fire mortars and rockets on the Green Zone and says splinter groups of the Mahdi Army are behind the attacks.

Others doubt al-Sadr, whose politics are strongly nationalistic, is beholden to the Iranians, who instead have directed most of their aid to mainstream Shiite parties. A recent study by the International Crisis Group think tank concluded that al-Sadr receives “at best, limited material support from Iran.”

“Learning the hard way, the U.S. and its allies have had to recognize the reality of the Sadrists’ strength,” the group wrote.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Link:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14587871/



My Views:

This is interesting. Although, nothing seems new but the emergence of al-Seyyid to such a limelight in Iraqi politics and the seeming position of the Amrican standing at what i call stalmet of a mother of all tricks, i see no way out for Bush other than declaring a Chakemate to Al-Seyyid. Then that would be, i say would, be the beginning of a real fight for Ancle-Sam in the land of the two-Rivers.

Instead of hoping to see a internal Iraqi fighting against each other they will all turn against Bush boys ! at least that is what i can see events leading !!!

How much do you bet on this foretell my dear fellow :p






.

We all knew that all of that is LIES LIES , LIES .. I wonder if the same members have the Gutts to come here and tell us that USA and UK and the West did the right thing ???

All are aware of the facts but not ready to agree.

Saddam Had to be the President to control all that .... Rule them by power and iron fist that how Iraqis needs to be controlled

Saddam Had to be the President to control all that .... Rule them by power and iron fist that how Iraqis needs to be controlled

that says a lot for muslims and arabs if a dictator has to rule them by fear or else they will kill one another like animals.

that says a lot for muslims and arabs if a dictator has to rule them by fear or else they will kill one another like animals.



and which "animals" does "kill one another" ? i wonder.





.

That was a good observation by Reddot.

Not such a good response from Sloath, but thats okay.

that says a lot for muslims and arabs if a dictator has to rule them by fear or else they will kill one another like animals.

How does The West rule !! Or the USA ? Lies and deceive ? Or Hypocracy ! Well Their leaders have made them worse than animals !! Maggots squashed and killed on the bases of lies and cheat ! Stepped by their feet and killed with no cause ...

What on earth are you rambling about ! For goodness sakes, you sound almost like sloth !

So US citizens are being trampled on, squashed like maggots, killed on the basis of lies and cheats ?

In which parallel universe do you live ?

Lies of Bush and His Satan secretaries ... The question is thrown back at you which planet you come from wudjab?

and which "animals" does "kill one another" ? i wonder.





.

Where have you been lately?

Watch the news for just a few minutes and you'll see Sunnis and Shias killing each other like mosquitos.

Actually, redDot raises a good point.

let's say that some weak-minded person sees the jihad hand writing on the wall and decides to convert to Islam for his or her own personal safety. How does he or she know that he or she is still safe from other murderous Muslims because he or she joined the wrong sect of Islam?

Islam will always be a warrior religion, and will always find enemies to kill, even and especially within Islam itself.

You didn't understand the question DP.

You made this claim

Saddam Had to be the President to control all that .... Rule them by power and iron fist that how Iraqis needs to be controlled

Reddot replied

that says a lot for muslims and arabs if a dictator has to rule them by fear or else they will kill one another like animals

You then spun it away with an unconnected comment about how the West rules.

Now please show me any evidence that the West rules it's citizens with How does The West rule !! Or the USA ? Lies and deceive ? Or Hypocracy ! Well Their leaders have made them worse than animals !! Maggots squashed and killed on the bases of lies and cheat ! Stepped by their feet and killed with no cause ..."

Please note, we are talking about how Saddam ruled his people and how you claim the West rules its people.

Thanks.

wudjab( too many threads ) We do not want to go through that again of how the US and the West leaders lied and deceived their citizen with wrong statements by trying to show that Arabs and Muslims are terrorist , Fight to protect USA . What I meant is that USA and it Allies are sending their troops to Afghanistan - Iraq and for what ? Freeing the people for their own interest ( Lies again ) what was the real motive ? Where are they going to lead their Army next ( People ) Iran ? Syria ? For what ? and Why ? There are many countries which are suffering from terrorism why focus on middle east alone ?

Again the sickness of generalizing all Muslims and Arabs as RedDot stated and you are trying to justify it or explain it to me when he said '' that says a lot for Muslims and Arabs if a dictator has to rule them by fear or else they will kill one another like animals." We do not kill each other since our ethics and our religion forbids it .. But the dirty hands of the West and USA with its hypocracy and double standards which created such hostility .. Look at your bloody History and compare with ours. If you have the slightest common sense you will understand what caused all the fights in ME ..Unless you deliberately choose not to and insist to have a one track mind when it comes to Arabs and Muslims ..

I did not spin any comment , infact You are no better than the Arabs if not worse ( Arabs in a sense of Iraq) not the rest .
Muslims as in Afghanistan not all Muslims and we know the motive behind The USA and The West to assist Afghan people ( Yes there were Arab Fighters which the West gave them the weapons and supported them Likewise other Fanatic muslims ) funny how the USA and The West turned the table on them including OBL and Saddam …. Do you see the LIES and How they FOOL you and you guys shake your heads and fall in the Grave Yard that is why I said it .. Now come down to earth so you can see the truth ..

Let me add this article as well if you go and check my Thread Nostradamus quatrain :-

His detractors will remind us of Bush's record breaking deficit spending, his cutting taxes by trillions of dollars just when the nation finds itself needing to finance and fight a global world war of terrorism. One might call the president dubious for diverting US forces away from seeking and destroying the perpetrator of such a war--al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan--to invade Iraq. Is it not "dubious" to invade a country that has not attacked the US in the war on terror? If I invaded a country, cut tax revenue while draining the coffers of the nation by hundreds of billions of dollars--several billion a month--without any exit strategy, or post war strategy plan, would you not call me a doubtful one? It is nearly two years since Bush led America into Iraq. After a brief war and the violence of the endless post "liberation" period, 100,000 Iraqis had been killed. They are mostly civilians. Another 1,400 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 12,000 wounded in a subsequent insurrection for which Bush and his administartion never planned. But if the butcher's bill for this war is not proof enough of doubtful leadership, we recently find out from the Bush administration that his original reason for killing and maiming all those people actually never existed. The grounds for going to war, ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was a fluke. It is official. There are no weapons.

wudjab, do u know who got Saddam to power and then supported him for years? Do you know who got most Arabs leaders to power and supports them now?

Arabs don't need a Saddam to control them because their faith and truth controls them. But Western (and their puppet) cowards fear the truth and honest faith to control the Muslims and Arabs. Because when that happens, those evils will not be able to bully anyone anymore.

Anyhow, I know how will you and your twin brothers will reply, so let me explain further using some well known facts.

Muslims ruled the world for hundreds of years before the British started invading countries and building colonies. Today the Americans do.

Go and look at the durations each party rules the worls and check how many people were killed under the ruling of each party.

And please, use all the brain power u have or I will have to post with precise numeric facts and you are not worth that time because your mind is rules by racism and hatred :)

We do not kill each other since our ethics and our religion forbids it ..

THEN WHAT THE HHELL ARE THEY DOING TO EACH OTHER IN IRAQ?

And please, use all the brain power u have or I will have to post with precise numeric facts and you are not worth that time because your mind is rules by racism and hatred

Of course you won't because you can't.

RedDot, there are more than billion Muslims today I think. Are u saying that some of us kill each other than all of us r like this? And here, I am not confirmin ur propaganda, but I know, else where, Muslims have killed Muslims. We are the followers of Islam, god's only religion. We are not angels. That is why we also have a Judgement day.

Anyhow, I know ur mental capabilities are limited to udnerstand what I mean, so let me put it this way:

Christians in American have a billion dollar porn industry. A pretty good one I am sure. Millions of Christians are prostitutes and porn stars. So does this mean that you and all you family are like them too? Are you a pornstar?

Forget about the pornstarts, you have priests who were caught because they were engaged in adultery. Are all you Christians like this?

no more and no less than the child abuse in madrassas.

At least in the case of priests these is some punishment.

Not so in Islam which comes with death threats if exposed.

1:

Where have you been lately?

2:

Watch the news for just a few minutes and you'll see Sunnis and Shias killing each other like mosquitos.


1:

In the Darfoor, searching for Viagra tree.

2:

RedDot you have nothing to sustain your argument with. It is about time you converted to Islam. Don't waste your time, the clock is ticking and yesterday is not today. Fear GOD. Think positive:

a) How can you compare "Sunnis and Shias" with animals ?

b) How can you attempt a LIE as if you are mr Bush and tell all the Sablanian that "Sunnis and Shi`as" are comparebles to "animals" and that the animals and "Sunnis, Shi`as and animals" are compareble to "mosquitos" ?

I am worried about your MIND. You are even loosing your commonsense. You are confused. You are beginning to talk just like mr Bush who compares "freedom fighters" in Iraq and elsewhere with the Nazi and Communism.

Based on my observations, assuming the media is right, it was the so called third world countries that 'defeated' His Excellence Adolf Hitler. The battle of al-Alamein was fought by Abdullah and Mohammed from Commoro Island, Mr Singh and Patel from Great India. The Soviet Union in Afghanistan was defeated by Hadegan, Shama`an, Batran and Usama from Saudia and elsewhere as "Mujahedeen."

What did Bush do to claim credit ?

See what he is telling the poor American idiots in an attempt to lull them of their money and blood :



Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment
The Associated Press


Updated: 7:28 p.m. ET Aug. 31, 2006

SALT LAKE CITY - President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

With just over two months until Election Day, Bush said opponents of the war in Iraq who are calling for a plan to bring home troops would create a disaster in the Middle East.

"Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic but they could be -- they could not be more wrong," the president said. "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies -- Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban."


The first in a series of war remarks

The president chose a friendly audience in one of America's most conservative states to begin his pre-election series of speeches defending his war strategy. The three-week campaign is tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict," Bush told thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

American support
Only a third of Americans saying they approve of Bush's handling of the war or his leadership overall -- a figure that worries Republicans who are hoping they have enough support to keep control of Congress in elections just over two months away.

A majority of Americans approved of the way Bush responded to the Sept. 11 attacks nearly five years ago, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that came out Thursday, and the president was trying to remind them of that as the anniversary approaches.

Iraq-9/11 connection?

Bush described the current violence in the Middle East and the recently thwarted attack to blow up planes over the Atlantic Ocean as part of the same movement that resulted in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"As veterans you have seen this kind of enemy before," Bush said. "They are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be. - :D :D :D :D :D ;)

"This war will be difficult. This war will be long. And this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists," Bush said. - :help: :help: :help:

He acknowledged the unsettling times -- marked by sectarian violence in Iraq, war along the Israel-Lebanon border and terrorists allegedly plotting to blow up planes between Britain and the United States.

"The images that come back from the front lines are striking and sometimes unsettling," Bush conceded. "When you see innocent civilians ripped apart by suicide bombs or families buried inside their homes, the world can seem engulfed in purposeless violence." - :super:

But he also said that those responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center are united with car bombers in Baghdad, Hezbollah militants who shoot rockets into Israel and terrorists who wanted to bring down the flights between Britain and the United States. - :rolleyes: :scold:

"Despite their differences, these groups form the outline of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology," he said. "And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam." - :D that's soooo nice :color: sounds like croco`dile :cry: -ing :scold:

Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators

Even in Utah -- which gave Bush a wider margin of victory than any other state in the 2004 election -- the president's appearance was a source of dispute. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, led thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators on a march through the city Wednesday. He called Bush a "dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president."

The White House countered by organizing a campaign-like rally at the airport for Bush's arrival Wednesday night. A couple thousand cheering supporters, who got tickets from the governor's office and the congressional delegation, stood under flood lights and cheered as Bush pledged to stay in Iraq.


The pro-Bush American Legion did not have any anti-war speakers or nationally prominent Democrats scheduled to speak at its convention, which attracted at least 12,000 veterans. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed the group earlier this week as part of the high-powered campaign to build support for the war.

This is the third time in less than a year that Bush has made a series of speeches on Iraq and terrorism. This time, it's an all-hands-on-deck effort, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld also touting the mission this week.

While in Salt Lake City, Bush had a half-hour private meeting with leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also planned to speak at a luncheon fundraiser for Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Link:


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/?GT1=8404


In this speech Bush looks like someone standing on a stage trying to wear old tartarred cloths but not sure which one to put on for a party. Anyway, he sounded like a 21st Century Idiologist when he mixed all past ideologies the: Nazis, Facists, Communism, Zionism, Totalitarians, Capitalism etc putting them in one blender to come up with some kind of "support." Frankly his speech looked like I've written it for him ! :mmhmm: I think i can make a excellent speech writer for The President :scold: Even for The al-PM Blair :D But are there people I mean real human other than ...... to heed ? :cry:





.

Deserrt Sloth ,

What you wrote is nothing but the truth .. But Reddot and his twin bothers will always fail to see the reality ...As it is said if you watch Lies you become a liar and if you use your senses you will realize that there is something fishy of whats Bush and his Allies are on about and their master plan.

Einstein once said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius knows its limits."

Does Bush know his limits?

The president himself has said that his new mandate has earned him much "political capital" and he aims to spend it. There are others in his own political party that have also earned political capital for keeping mum about their differences with the president's policies. Many Republican senators, legislators and governors want something too. Some leaders of his party deem Bush religiously, fiscally and politically extreme. They too will demand payment of political capital. So far Bush has not shown himself to be a good conciliator. Will fail to satisfy both the religious right and the more moderate wings of his Republican party now in power in the Capitol?

wudjab u didn't answer the question. Are all Christians pornstars? What about you and your family?

I know it sounds stupid, but this is the only way you will understand what sort of stupid and pathetic comments you and your twins are making. I hope you see the irony and stupidity.

I personally think you might have lived in a Islamic country (maybe Oman) and some Omanis really abused you to a limit that now you became a racist. I understand your pain. Calm down we are not like that. We all love you baby :)

Muslims ruled the world for hundreds of years before the British started invading countries and building colonies. Today the Americans do.

That is just about the most ridiculous and false statement I have ever read or heard. Please tell us, exactly which centuries were those in which Muslims ruled the world? They sure as hell never ruled North America nor Europe, nor South America. What's left? Australia? Never ruled there either. LOL!

You are living in la la land.

I personally think you might have lived in a Islamic country (maybe Oman) and some Omanis really abused you to a limit that now you became a racist. I understand your pain. Calm down we are not like that. We all love you baby :)

Actually I was thinking more that he HADN'T experienced Islam from the inside and that that is part of the problem. No matter how convincing you find the arguments about violence and Islam, for example, living with ordinary Muslims tends to give you a different view.

I remember one friend of mine saying, "I find some of these arguments powerful, but the problem is that the Muslims I have met in my life aren't like that..."

Here is a bit of a piece by the Canadian conservative David Warren, who spent his young childhood in Pakistan, that can be found on his site davidwarrenonline. He is very critical of many things about today's Islam, but this is what he says near the beginning:

"For me, Islam is something I have touched, in the sense inadequately conveyed by the word "aesthetically". If any of you are old fashioned Catholics, or were, perhaps, in some distant childhood, attending the mass, absorbing the smells and the bells, the poetry and mystery of the old Latin liturgy, the family gatherings at Easter and Christmas, you can appreciate what this means the way in which you are held by that heritage, the bonds that hold you, as strong as self love.

The sounds of the muezzin calling the hours of prayer; the daily rhythm of life that follows; the sight of holy men preparing their ablutions at the entrance to the mosque; the sense of the town shut up in the holy month of Ramadan; the blaze of stars as the day's fast ends; the smells and sights of dainty food at Eid; the feeling of belonging to a very large, extended family; even the knowledge of being contained within a world that is complete, and which can explain itself in every little detail this is what it "means" to be a Muslim, and this is no small thing.

Though I was never tempted to become a Muslim convert, I have some hint of the taste of it. And when I begin to remember this true taste, it fills my heart with love, not hatred. To this day, when I catch my first glimpse of the fingernail moon in the western sky, there is excitement at the beginning of a new month. And by the symbol of this crescent, and the star imagined within, I feel a child again in Pakistan."

***

..."And when I begin to remember this true taste, it fills my heart with love, not hatred."

Islam is not just something in books, it is also something lived in day-to-day life.

I would ask the outside "debaters" to just put aside all the negativity for a moment and tell us what you find beautiful or impressive or moving in Islam or in the Muslims you have met. I'm sure you must have something like that to say, because otherwise why would you be here, hanging out with Muslims? You don't have to abandon your negative ideas, just put them aside for a moment...

slam is not just something in books, it is also something lived in day-to-day life.

I would ask the outside "debaters" to just put aside all the negativity for a moment and tell us what you find beautiful or impressive or moving in Islam or in the Muslims you have met. I'm sure you must have something like that to say, because otherwise why would you be here, hanging out with Muslims? You don't have to abandon your negative ideas, just put them aside for a moment..

Jeff, i agree about 99%. But I have no earthly clue what in the hell it has to do with this:

Muslims ruled the world for hundreds of years before the British started invading countries and building colonies. Today the Americans do. And my rational reply to it.

What I find good about Muslims, and Omanis in particular, is for another thread.

THIS IS AN EDIT. How did something someone else posted get under my name? I wrote the last sentence of it, not any of the gibberish that precedes it.

Well, now, all is back to normal. Mods in their boredom play games with real people, it seems. Not nice, mods.

Jeff, i agree about 99%. But I have no earthly clue what in the hell it has to do with this:

And my rational reply to it.

What I find good about Muslims, and Omanis in particular, is for another thread.

Just serf the net ( Islam in History -Politics and its Empire ) Not from The Christian or Jewish point of view nor Islamic point of you and you will understand what STING wrote :)

Nonsensical.

Jeff, thanks a lot for your views. :)

liberty, can u answer any question at all? You remind me of RedDot :D Do you know him :p

I hope you dont have the same future :D

Sting,

I had no idea that Muslims ruled the whole world for hundreds of years

I have lived in the UK for 38 years, I guess I must have been unlucky that I haven't seen the ancient Islamic ruins

Not the whole world but almost the whole world once upon a time :) not far in history thats why the Cursaders wanted to rule the world too but did not manage ...

next you'll tell me that they ruled the whole world.........without invading any countries!

PS The Crusaders wanted to free Jerusalem............they did not want to rule the world

Crusaders were brainwashed terrorists ;)

Crusaders were brainwashed terrorists ;)

are you referring to the "terrorists" responding to islamic aggression?

Red Dot is brief, but correct in his question. The Crusades were a long delayed and overdue response to Muslim aggression and slaughter in Christendom. . .several centuries overdue. The Crusades saved the West from the murdering, raping, pillaging looting and destroying hordes of Muslims. That is simply a historical fact.

RedDot, I didn't know you can't read English :D

Again, I said "Crusaders were brainwashed terrorists". How on the earth does this mean I was referring to someone else?

What do you think of crusaders?

I am glad we have cleared that up:

1) Islam did not rule the World

2) The Crusaders did not want to rule the World

Sting - I suggest you stick to sport............and leave History to other people

There's a good boy

RedDot you have nothing to sustain your argument with. It is about time you converted to Islam. Don't waste your time, the clock is ticking and yesterday is not today. Fear GOD. Think positive:

I'd slit my wrist before i converted to your religion.

RedDot, I didn't know you can't read English :D

Again, I said "Crusaders were brainwashed terrorists". How on the earth does this mean I was referring to someone else?

What do you think of crusaders?


i know that the crusades were in response to muslim aggression. that's what i think of the crusaders.

Sting,

I had no idea that Muslims ruled the whole world for hundreds of years

I have lived in the UK for 38 years, I guess I must have been unlucky that I haven't seen the ancient Islamic ruins

Or the Red domes Chirstopher Columbus was said to have seen when he first discovered America ( or should i say when he discovered America after islam had).

I giggle every time i hear that one.

i know that the crusades were in response to muslim aggression. that's what i think of the crusaders.

Really? How old are you again? :D

And what about Hezbollah's mission of capturing 2 Zionist invaders?

Red Dot is brief, but correct in his question. The Crusades were a long delayed and overdue response to Muslim aggression and slaughter in Christendom. . .several centuries overdue. The Crusades saved the West from the murdering, raping, pillaging looting and destroying hordes of Muslims. That is simply a historical fact.

And your proof !!!

Bush !! he will send more soldiers to be killed in Iraq ... If you remebre DS when USA went to libirate Iraq from Saddam and amny threads were openned and our Westerner and USA suppoerters were bragging that a new Iraq will be born and the Iraqi people will be free .. We all knew that all of that is LIES LIES , LIES .. I wonder if the same members have the Gutts to come here and tell us that USA and UK and the West did the right thing ???

well.........may I ask as an Omani would you feel safer with saddam hussein in Kuwait......or Saudi Arabia or in jail facing trial for killing muslims?

fatak

Really? How old are you again? :D

And what about Hezbollah's mission of capturing 2 Zionist invaders?

Two Israeli soldiers being kidnapped and taken hostage.......how does that make them invaders?

I think Israel would mount a bigger offensive then 2 soldiers.......

I really wish you'd get back in trying to do something about your qat habit.....it's starting to effect your logic.....

PS,nice avatar

fatak

well.........may I ask as an Omani would you feel safer with saddam hussein in Kuwait......or Saudi Arabia or in jail facing trial for killing muslims?

fatak

Saddam was never a threat to Oman ...Iraq and Kuwait had a dispute before Saddam took over ...

Well the question is thrown back at you ..If Saddam was a threat why was the Americans his friends and business partner for almost 30 years and why they sold him weapons to fight Iran ?