The Iraq thread 4

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Al sadr, in his own words wanted a muslim IRaq not just a Iraq.

And what's wrong with that?  

1. There are muslims and then there are muslims.

2. Some muslims are more muslim than others.

3. Other muslims are more muslim than some muslims.

4. Some muslims will try and take power away from other muslims, by force if necessary.

5. Other muslims will try and stop some muslims from doing it.

6. Muslims will win, muslims will go taleban.

Never EVER give power to religious fanatics.

I recommend substituting Muslim with Christian, and then preparing a task force for Vatican City and Constantinople and Moscow....

[quicksand 0]

The Bush Team in Iraq-Moral Cowardice, as Practiced by Experts

Quote[/b] ]It is acknowledged almost everywhere except in official Washington and London that Iraq and Afghanistan have gone to hell in a hand cart, thanks in the main to appallingly poor planning by the Pentagon of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, an arrogant trio of silly asses whose combined allocation of common-sense would fit comfortably in a peanut shell. Their incompetence is almost matched by that of their former representative in Baghdad, L Paul Bremer, who was masterly in his uncanny ability to make decisions that were exactly opposed to what would have worked in restoring the country to some sort of order.

The US army must take its share of blame, because after defeating a disorganized and ineffective enemy its orders were to arrest hundreds of 'wanted' people under civil law, a task for which it was manifestly unprepared. It went about its task in a brutal and inflammatory fashion, treating the civil population as it would its enemies on the battlefield, where utmost force is the rule. By its tactics of crash, smash and bash, and menacing cowering families in their bedrooms at dead of night, it alienated even the most fervent US-supporting Saddam-haters. Its exultant and swaggering attitude was ludicrous, but this was how the troops had been taught to behave. Their violations of culture, customs and religion were only to be expected, because these soldiers had no idea how to conduct themselves in the policing role, especially in a country inhabited by people whose history and values are not only complex but totally alien to anything with which they were familiar. There was no intention by their superiors, uniformed or civilian, Pentagon or field, to provide them with instruction and information concerning the country whose ancient national habits and traditions were grossly, and, as it transpired, dangerously trampled in the mire of conquest.

The aim of Bush was to destroy Saddam Hussein. He and his war-happy minions imagined that after that objective was achieved the whole of Iraq and indeed the world would pour blessings on his name, and the United States would be regarded as the benevolent protector of justice for the entire globe. It didn't matter, in the Bush Crusade conjured up by the bunch of charlatans surrounding him, that there were countless thousands of totally innocent people who would suffer terribly from their combined lunacy. It didn't dawn on any of his coterie of war-mongering zealots that the citizens of a country that had been humiliated by an invader would object to exultation and brutality on the part of the conquering heroes. No matter how wicked their former dictator might have been, Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi. The majority of his country-folk hated him ; but the actions of the jubilant victor in replacing him with an equally malevolent scoundrel to rule them has been the final straw in national humiliation.

The Bush people lacked the moral fiber to permit elections, because they thought the results might not suit them, and there is no point in saying that mechanisms did not exist for elections, because there were extensive records of all citizens, as there always are in a police state. And there had been an election in Iraq only a year before the invasion ; it had been fiddled, of course, but the point is that everything was in place for the holding of democratic elections. Had the Bush administration not feared their outcome, Iraq would now have a legal government.

Although it was largely the US army's bizarre and barbaric conduct that impelled thousands of young Iraqis to rise up against the occupiers of their country and to rebel against the Iraqi apparatchiks appointed by the conquerors, responsibility for the present disaster must be shared by the foolish Bremer and his masters who refused to permit the majority of Iraqis to be employed in transport, construction, defence and civil community tasks after the invasion. The legions of unemployed young men, many of them former civil servants, public works' employees, police and military who owed no loyalty to Saddam Hussein, would have been happy to work for the occupation forces had the opportunity been given them. But instead of being awarded the dignity and much-needed wages of gainful employment, they were treated with casual contempt. Most of them were declared to be untrustworthy and therefore unemployable. They then saw mass importation of tens of thousands of highly-paid, low-grade, semi-skilled workers from all over the world, which fueled their sense of humiliation and frustration.

The awarding of lucrative contracts to mainly US firms, especially to Halliburton, whose employees conducted a major scam involving millions of dollars, was yet another slap in the face for ordinary Iraqis. These people aren't ignorant savages, as they are regarded by the most American citizens (and especially by the US soldiery). They are quite as sophisticated as the inhabitants of the countries that invaded them, and they know very well what is going on in their own country, courtesy of the conquerors' machinations. They are only too aware that Cheney is associated with Halliburton, and they don't care about Washington's tap-dancing official apologias about the relationship.

The fact that Cheney receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Halliburton yet is in some mysterious manner not associated with Halliburton cuts no ice in downtown Baghdad, or anywhere else, for that matter. The Iraqis realize they have been taken for a humiliating ride, and that the vice-president of the United States is personally involved in their degradation. The best thing that multi-millionaire Cheney could have done for his country was to say that he wouldn't take Halliburton's million dollars. ("Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001 and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004, and 2005.") Rather he should have announced that he would forfeit it in the interests of personal honor and America's dignity. He doesn't need the money, after all, being already a very wealthy man. But he is also a stubborn, dark and nasty-minded creep to whom the very notion of backing down from a morally indefensible position smacks of personal surrender rather than a pragmatic and honorable decision. In this he epitomizes the entire Bush administration ethos, right down to the rotten core of its basic moral cowardice.

The Bush-Blair war on Iraq was illegal and unnecessary, but their violent subjugation and brutal occupation of a sovereign nation has been cataclysmic in terms of long term effects. It was marked by a series of blunders made by bumbling dunderheads who paid no attention to the wise advice proffered by the State Department and the British Foreign Office, whose experts were treated with suspicion and contempt by their own governments, unlike the con-men expatriate Iraqis who are now discredited as lying fraudsters and in the most high-profile cases as deliberate provokers of war.

These grubby tricksters, some of whom were pathological liars, were paid vast sums by the US administration (let's be blunt : the US taxpayer) to purvey their fairy-tales about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction to the armchair vandals in the White House and Downing Street who were all too anxious to believe their fantasies. Governments in Moscow, Paris and Berlin didn't believe a word of all this rubbish. They were right, and Bush Washington was wrong ; and for that they will never be forgiven by the Bush coterie. The moral cowardice evident in this attitude is as intriguing as it is despicable, because it reveals the deep streak of vindictiveness that runs though the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld foreign policy. (Forget Powell ; he neither contributes to foreign policy nor exercises influence in the White House. Only misplaced loyalty keeps him from resigning following a series of immensely humiliating incidents in which he has been sidelined and ignored.) But the world, with the exception of the British, Italian and Australian governments and a few other hangers-on, now knows exactly what to expect from the Bush administration : deviousness, disloyalty, deception and moral cowardice. The notion of a Bush-led America that could be morally courageous in its foreign policy is dismissed as preposterous by most countries, for Bush and his people have shown, over and over again, that they prefer confrontation to confabulation, and that their word is worthless.

Moral cowardice is evident in Washington-endorsed official reporting of deaths and casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. When two Polish soldiers were killed and five wounded on Thursday their HQ issued a detailed description of what happened, and the country's newspapers covered the action in depth. When a US Marine was killed on the same day, here's what was reported : "One U.S. marine was killed in action in the southern city of Najaf, the center of a two-week uprising led by radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the U.S. military said on Thursday. The marine, assigned to the First Marine Expeditionary Force, was killed on Wednesday while conducting security and stability operations, a statement said."

This laconic release was an insultingly banal public epitaph for a member of the US armed forces. You might think that he deserved a bit more than that, because, after all, the military and the White House were only too eager to provide lots of details about operations in Iraq only a year or so ago, and it would be reasonable for the world to know exactly what happened to him. The American public, in fact, has a right to know in what circumstances a US Marine gave up his life for . . . . Well, for what, exactly?

This is the rub. Bush's war-obsessed whizkids don't want to release details about soldiers dying because US citizens might become concerned about what is going on in Iraq, and would ask why so many US citizens are being killed. In the unlikely event of a prominent newspaper or television company getting details of how this Marine was killed, they would spread it as an important story (except Fox, of course). But they don't know (or want to know?) what is going on, and, therefore, neither does the American public, because sure as eggs the Bush administration isn't going to tell them.

Marine John Doe died as if he had never lived. He is mourned by his family, comrades, and hometown friends. But even when his name is made public, after his family have been told (that dreaded knock on the door by a uniformed figure . . .) the rest of America won't know why and how he died. Especially why.

It is official Pentagon policy to give only the briefest notification of US deaths in Iraq, and incidents of hideous injury are covered in exactly the same fashion. This is not because publication of the circumstances in which soldiers die or are blinded or lose a leg or are emasculated might betray their comrades or their country. The reason for the terse press releases is quite simple : the Bush administration doesn't want stories about dead Marines to hit the headlines. The Brits, of course, wouldn't stand for any of this sort of crap. When a British soldier is killed the tabloid press are onto the story before his last heartbeat, in as mawkish, maudlin and Diana-mode a fashion as can be expected from papers that prosper because of their grubby sensationalism. But at least the British public is told the details of how their soldiers die, and are not kept in the dark by use of impudently patronizing PR phrases like "The marine, assigned to the First Marine Expeditionary Force, was killed Wednesday while conducting security and stability operations".

Bush and the rest of the Washington warriors don't want America to know the details, because they would have to answer questions about why these kids are dying. They lack the moral courage to admit that the deaths are futile, just as their whole war was futile.

It would certainly be uncomfortable to be told something on the lines of :

"An American soldier screams as medics hoist him into a helicopter on a stretcher, his face twisted with pain from shrapnel wounds to his arm and head. Roaring rotor blades drown out the young man's cry as the Blackhawk lurches upwards, its wheels seeming to brush the flat roofs of central Baghdad in a full-throttle race to hospital. For US medics riding to the airborne rescue of the wounded, a surge in fighting in Iraq since Aug. 5 has shattered weeks of relative calm at their base. Working round-the-clock, crews have tripled their missions since the clashes erupted between US forces and militia loyal to Shi'i Muslim cleric Moqtada Al Sadr in Baghdad and Najaf. The leap in activity not only points to a sharp increase in US casualties, but provides an insight into the cost in life and limb to the men doing the fighting. "It's not like anything in the movies," said Major Christopher Knapp, 40, a pilot and commander of the 45th Medical Company based at Taji, just north of Baghdad. "There's torn flesh, blood everywhere. There's no way to be able to describe it, it's just horrific," he said on Tuesday at the base housing Blackhawk transports and Apache gunships. At least US soldiers can expect to be whisked to surgeons in Iraq, or if necessary, treated at US bases in Germany. For wounded Iraqis, medical facilities are often makeshift at best. As the helicopter banked towards the US military hospital in Baghdad, a medic in a bulky flying helmet and visor searched the wounded soldier's wrist for a pulse. There was none. A roadside bomb blast that morning appeared to have severed an artery, draining the life from the man's arm, swathed by his comrades in bandages stained with dried blood. On the stretcher stacked beneath him lay an Iraqi man who had been working alongside the soldier as a translator, his knees bandaged to cover less serious shrapnel wounds . . . " And so on.

Horrible, isn't it? But you say you didn't see that report of August 12? I'm not surprised, because it was from Reuters, and was picked up by al Jazeera and the Jordan Times, and nobody else printed it.

There is little wonder that the new dictator of Iraq, the bloodstained mega-thug Allawi, has closed down the al Jazeera office. Reuters' correspondents produce excellent, indeed absolutely outstanding reports, but they might as well be farting into the wind, because descriptions like the one above are decidedly uncomfortable and won't see mainstream US publications. In contrast, here's the Washington Post of August 6 : "Since the beginning of July, the city of Baghdad, through a grant from the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), has spent $12 million hauling off the garbage. The program has two goals: to clean up the city and to create jobs for the unemployed." Oh wow.

And here is the New York Times of the same day, with a different helicopter slant, as it were, describing a casevac without quite as much blood : "But from the air, too, more starkly than on the ground, there is also the new world of Iraq beyond Mr. Hussein, a world where almost every roof has a satellite television dish, banned by the ousted dictator except for his acolytes; where markets that were once nearly deserted for lack of spending power are now crowded from dawn to dusk; where almost every open space, as the sun sets, is busy these days with men and young boys playing pick-up games of soccer. "Down there, right now, that's the new Iraq", said Capt. Roderick P. Stout, 28, of Gainesville, Fla., commanding a flight that carried the soldier from Abu Ghraib to the Ibn Sina hospital. "They're out there playing, they're out there shopping. That's good"."

But here's what really happened that day : "Lance Cpl. Larry L. Wells, 22, of Mount Hermon, La., was also killed Friday August 6 in An Najal Province, Iraq. He was assigned to Unit Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif." And, as Associated Press reported (on the same level as Reuters ; these people are good) : "Assailants and militiamen loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr wounded 15 American troops in four separate attacks in Baghdad, the U.S. command said Friday. The attacks took place over a six-hour period late Thursday, the military said, as fighting raged separately with al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, south of the capital. The military had earlier reported seven U.S. soldiers wounded in violence in Baghdad on Thursday . . ."

The place is hellish (Afghanistan is, too, and we hear almost nothing about the quagmire there), and US soldiers are being maimed and murdered every day. But unless they search the net for Reuters, AP and al Jazeerah the American public cannot know what is going on, and this suits Bush and the warniks just fine. The truth hurts people like that. The trouble is that it doesn't hurt them as much as those who suffer "torn flesh, blood everywhere. There's no way to be able to describe it, it's just horrific." But there is certainly a way to describe the Bush policy of deceiving the American public and the world : downright moral cowardice. And that's horrific, too.

Once more an worthwile,eye opener read from Counterpunch which emphisises on Bush censoring practices against the US serviceman dieing everyday in Iraq.The article also stresses to point out the moral cowardice of the backbone-less jubilant thief.

All though my position towards US serviceman occupying Iraq isn`t the most positive one,I indeed feel nothing but downright sorrow for the ones that after paying ultimate sacrifice serving their country are backstabbed in such a brutal manner by The Bush Administration agenda.

[Ares1978 0]

Except for number 6, I could substitute Muslim with Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc., in every one of your statements and still end up saying, "So what?"

But would you mind explaining how you come up with number 6 ?  And I'd also like to know how a Muslim Iraq has anything to do with giving power to religious fanatics.  In case you haven't noticed, the country is already Muslim.

Well good, replace them with Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc., in every one of the statements. It even strengthens my point,  as there are historical examples of them too.

Number 6 is the logical result. Without leadership that suppresses religious fanaticism (through democracy or a dictatorship), the religious groups will just fight each other and the most ruthless group of religious fanatics usually wins.

In any case, civil war has almost always been the first step after a people has been "liberated" from its government.

Of course you can say "so what" in any situation.

[Ares1978 0]

I recommend substituting Muslim with Christian, and then preparing a task force for Vatican City and Constantinople and Moscow....  

Where do I sign up? Always dreamt of pillaging the Vatican..

[denoir 0]

Najaf in crisis, but shrine under control [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

By Alastair Leithead

BBC correspondent at the Imam Ali shrine, Najaf

Birds scattered from amid the ornate balconies and beautifully decorated tile arches of the courtyard surrounding the holy shrine of Imam Ali.

A mortar round had landed close by and the sound of the explosion echoed around the perfect golden dome of one of Shia Islam's holiest sites. In contrast, the hundreds of people lying in the shade or gathering in groups chanting and singing, hardly noticed.

They are used to the sounds of battle - the fight for Najaf has been going on for days and American air bombardment here has been among the heaviest since the end of the war.

But there appear to be no guns inside the sacred courtyard - even if the narrow streets and alleyways surrounding the mausoleum are protected by militia armed with rocket launchers and automatic weapons.

High spirits

A main road marks the end of American control and the start of the snipers and defensive positions of the Mehdi Army. We crossed it with caution, arms raised in surrender - a white T-shirt acting as a flag in front.

The American tank appeared to ignore us; the armed supporters of Moqtada Sadr welcomed us as we picked our way through broken glass and debris, shrapnel and bullet holes peppering the street. The men seemed in good spirits, one who saw the camera immediately pulled his ammunition belt across his chest and lifted his gun in the air - the other hand gestured a victory sign.

They joked with us - "Have you got your press passes?" one said. "Because if the Iraqi police are in the shrine you will have to show them or you'll be arrested."

He burst into laughter - the government gave a statement saying the shrine was in the hands of the police and that 400 fighters had been arrested. It was clear the only people controlling the streets of Najaf's old city were the heavily armed supporters of Mr Sadr, the young cleric who has helped plunge the interim government deep into crisis only weeks after it assumed control of the country.

Credibility challenges

The silence of the stand-off is broken by sniper fire, and the rattle of machine guns in the holy place that is now a war zone.

The stand-off appears to be going nowhere.

All the final warnings from the interim government have come to nothing - contradiction, broken promises and empty threats have characterised this crisis.

Moqtada Sadr's spokesman in the shrine said control would be passed on to the higher Shia religious authority - a possible chance for a settlement. But then he added the Mehdi Army would stay on the streets outside the courtyard to protect the holy city - not what the government demanded.

And so the interim government, committed to action but afraid to damage the Imam Ali shrine, is losing credibility. The interior ministry was at the very least wishfully thinking, at the worst lying, when it issued its statement over control of the shrine.

Mr Sadr, wherever he might be, also needs to come out of this appearing not to have backed down. It is not going to be an easy stalemate to crack.

What happens next is not a question that can be answered by those who call themselves "human shields" in the shrine courtyard. They continue to pray for peace as war rages on around them.

[turms 0]

Is it ok for me to post a link to vid that shows m88 beeing hit in the side by a rpg? I have no idea what happened to the crew.

[bn880 5]

I believe you can psot that as long as you do not see bodies being mangled etc. Try a PM to a few moderators with the link.

[Bernadotte 0]

But would you mind explaining how you come up with number 6 ?  And I'd also like to know how a Muslim Iraq has anything to do with giving power to religious fanatics.  In case you haven't noticed, the country is already Muslim.

Number 6 is the logical result. Without leadership that suppresses religious fanaticism (through democracy or a dictatorship), the religious groups will just fight each other and the most ruthless group of religious fanatics usually wins.

In any case, civil war has almost always been the first step after a people has been "liberated" from its government.

The Taleban was an Afghan Islamist movement lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion.  The Muslims in Iraq will not, as you say, "go to Taleban."

And you still have not explained how Iraq being Muslim has anything to do with giving power to fanatics.

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

The Taleban was an Afghan Islamist movement lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion. The Muslims in Iraq will not, as you say, "go to Taleban."

And you still have not explained how Iraq being Muslim has anything to do with giving power to fanatics.

Sorry for butting in, sir, but I have to ask: how do you know that a fundamentalist government will not ensue from allowing Iraqis freedom to choose?*

Most of the things I've seen about Iraq have indicated that they would want a government based on Islamic lines, and that they would not see any problems with a religiously-orientated government.

I'd say that a government organised around religion is probably going to be a bad thing, and is fairly likely to lead to extremism and fanaticism.

Another question I have is how you have decided that you know what these peoples religion is/ entails better than they do?

Sorry for going a little OT but I think this has relevance to the future of Iraq.

*Although of course I think they should be able to choose.

[Bernadotte 0]

Sorry for butting in, sir, but I have to ask: how do you know that a fundamentalist government will not ensue from allowing Iraqis freedom to choose?*

I did not say that such a thing could not happen.  I only said that the Muslims in Iraq will not go to Taleban.  There are many other forms of fundamentalist regimes besides what the Taleban created.  Nonetheless, I do not consider it likely that any form of fundamentalist regime will rule Iraq.  However, fundamentalists of many flavours will certainly have a strong voice there for the foreseeable future.

Quote[/b] ]I'd say that a government organised around religion is probably going to be a bad thing, and is fairly likely to lead to extremism and fanaticism.

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

Quote[/b] ]Another question I have is how you have decided that you know what these peoples religion is/ entails better than they do?

Oh really?  Where did I say anything like that?  

I've only stated that Iraq is already a Muslim nation.  Would you deny that?  

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

I did not say that such a thing could not happen. I only said that the Muslims in Iraq will not go to Taleban. There are many other forms of fundamentalist regimes besides what the Taleban created. Nonetheless, I do not consider it likely that any form of fundamentalist regime will rule Iraq. However, fundamentalists of many flavours will certainly have a strong voice there for the foreseeable future.

I see.

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not. Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Oh really? Where did I say anything like that?

I've only stated that Iraq is already a Muslim nation. Would you deny that?

Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear with that.

I was referring to your statement

"lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion. "

I was wondering what made you qualified to decide what is and what is not 'the true meaning' of their religion, which seems to be what you are saying there. If not then I apologise.

*edit* woops, I have messed up this quoting somehow. Not used to this board layout styley thing.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not.  Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Israel.

Quote[/b] ]I was referring to your statement

"lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion."  I was wondering what made you qualified to decide what is and what is not 'the true meaning' of their religion, which seems to be what you are saying there.

I qualified that statement with a source link about the Taleban rather than my own personal knowledge.

Did you click it?  Does it seem authoritative to you (assuming you are qualified to determine such things)?

[Ares1978 0]

The Taleban was an Afghan Islamist movement lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion.  The Muslims in Iraq will not, as you say, "go to Taleban."

And you still have not explained how Iraq being Muslim has anything to do with giving power to fanatics.  

So what you are saying is that you intentionally misunderstood what I said?

[Ares1978 0]

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not.  Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Israel.

That was a good joke.   Seriously, any real examples?

[Yagyu Retsudo 0]

Israel.

We must be thinking of different Israels. The one I'm thinking of goes in for ethnic cleansing and racial hatred in a big way. Not that there aren't extenuating circumstances - just not enough to mitigate them.

Sorry, Israel fails that test.- It is leading to extremism and fanaticism.

Give me another.

Quote[/b] ]I qualified that statement with a source link about the Taleban rather than my own personal knowledge.

Did you click it? Does it seem authoritative to you (assuming you are qualified to determine such things)?

Yes. And if I may quote a sentence from it "Taliban is the Pashtun word for religious students." I cannot see how you are getting the idea, either from that article or from other sources, that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is and more 'wrong' than anyone elses. They had little contact with modern interpretations of Islam (apart from their own.) So? That doesn't mean they are any more right or wrong than any other Muslim, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Jew.

You cannot simply claim one interpretation is the correct one and have done with it.

[Bernadotte 0]

That was a good joke.   Seriously, any real examples?

You're just embarrassing yourself, buddy.

Perhaps you should come back when you can actually state your objections.

[Ares1978 0]

You're just embarrassing yourself, buddy.

Perhaps you should come back when you can actually state your objections.

Whatever.   You trolls are all the same.

How about answering my question?

[ozanzac 0]

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not.  Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Israel.

That was a good joke.   Seriously, any real examples?

Fairly obvious one would be Iraqs neighbour. Iran.

[Bernadotte 0]

We must be thinking of different Israels. The one I'm thinking of goes in for ethnic cleansing and racial hatred in a big way. Not that there aren't extenuating circumstances - just not enough to mitigate them.

Sorry, Israel fails that test.- It is leading to extremism and fanaticism.

Give me another.

First, I want you to list as many democracies as you care to that were founded around religion.  That way we might be able to avoid any arguments about what defines an existing democracy founded around a religion.  Only then can we move on to the question of whether they've lead to extremism or fanaticism.

Quote[/b] ]I cannot see how you are getting the idea, either from that article or from other sources, that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is and more 'wrong' than anyone elses.

I did not say "wrong."  Please do not put words in my mouth.

What I did say was "the Taleban was an Afghan Islamist movement lead by uneducated villagers with an extremely limited understanding of their own religion."

And according to the article:

Quote[/b] ]The most influential members, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the movement, were simple village ulema—Islamic religious scholars, whose education was extremely limited and did not include exposure to most modern thought in the Islamic community.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not.  Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Israel.

That was a good joke.   Seriously, any real examples?

Fairly obvious one would be Iraqs neighbour. Iran.

Interesting.  At first you corrected yourself by identifying Iran as a theocracy and then you came back and deleted your correction.  

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

[Ares1978 0]

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

No, let's keep it on, to quote Yagyu Retsudo, "a government organised primarily around religion"

[Bernadotte 0]

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

No, let's keep it on, to quote Yagyu Retsudo, "a government organised primarily around religion"

No, let's keep the topic on "Iraq being Muslim" because that was the original comment being addressed by Yagyu Retsudo.  Iraq being Muslim is hardly the same as saying Iraq being a theocracy.

[Ares1978 0]

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

No, let's keep it on, to quote Yagyu Retsudo, "a government organised primarily around religion"

No, let's keep the topic on "Iraq being Muslim" because that was the original comment being addressed by Yagyu Retsudo.  Iraq being Muslim is hardly the same as saying Iraq being a theocracy.

And so we come back to you intentionally misunderstanding what other people are saying.

No, the topic is and should be "Iraq with an islamistic government". In other words, a theocracy.

[Bernadotte 0]

What ever you say, dude.

[ozanzac 0]

I'd say that a government organised around religion could be a bad thing if it leads to extremism and fanaticism, but there's no guarantee that it would go down that road.

I'm not sure I know of any examples where it has not.  Could you possibly provide me/ us with some?

By that I mean a government organised primarily around religion, not a government which is incidentally composed of religious people.

Israel.

That was a good joke.   Seriously, any real examples?

Fairly obvious one would be Iraqs neighbour. Iran.

Interesting.  At first you corrected yourself by identifying Iran as a theocracy and then you came back and deleted your correction.  

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

Let's keep the topic on democracies formed around a religion rather than theocracies formed around a single religious leader.

No, let's keep it on, to quote Yagyu Retsudo, "a government organised primarily around religion"

Ares1978 hit the nail on the head in reference to my correction. Also in my correction I stated that Saudi Arabia might have been a better example. But does not Saudi Arabia have a (huge) royal family?

Iraq is not yet a democracy. It's still a state reeling from the effects from war. It's future system of government, though likely to be brought about via a democratic election, does not seal Iraq as a democracy.