A few individuals are outraged that some veteran Indian military officers were here recently to be part of Bangladesh's Independence Day celebrations. And they were outraged because they believe, and have always believed, that India has had nothing to do with our liberation in 1971. Of course we do not subscribe to that opinion, for it flies in the face of everything decent and everything that reminds us of values.
For anyone to suggest, nearly four decades after the Indian army joined forces with the Mukti Bahini to free Bangladesh of Pakistani colonial repression, that the Indians were not involved with our struggle seems like careless thinking. Worse, it makes you wonder why people who have always tried to convey an impression of being analytical about history, who have watched history unfold in their very presence, should now sound so bitter when it comes to acknowledging the truth.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
04/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pakistan federal forces were in the process of murdering Hindus and Free Bengalis when the Indian intervened. Some reports hold that over 3 million were killed.
As for the historical verdict on the Nehru-Jinnah Partition: it has been a catastrophe. While India maintained English liberty and democracy, Pakistan turned into a Punjab dominated Islamic tyranny. Bengalis were only the first freed peoples. Sindhis, Balochis, Pashtos (if they cease heroin production), and Waziris will be next.
#2
It ius really sad that the Bengalis have forgotten (but we and India are partly to blame for not refreshing their minds and letting the Islamist propganda unhindered) that it was Pakistan a Muslim country who killed three million of them plus a number of rapes, that the Islmaic world who screams at the top of his lungs when, a Paleo gets a scratch, made and told nothing) that the only help came from infidel India.
March has been a bad month for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In recent weeks, the organizations sympathy for Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has been revealed more clearly than ever, as CAIR personnel publicly expressed their support for the two groups.
At this moment, for instance, Sami Al-Arians picture adorns CAIRs homepage. The graphic is part of an Action Alert that CAIR released March 19. It calls on supporters to write letters of support to Al-Arian, who is currently protesting his detention -- what CAIR calls alleged unjust treatment by U.S. authorities -- by way of a hunger strike. CAIR describes Al-Arians predicament as a struggle for justice.
It is telling what CAIR does not mention about al-Arian. A co-founder and the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, he played a major role in a number of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, that killed Israelis as well as two American citizens. He even used a childrens school that he created, in Tampa, Florida, to help finance the terror group. Today, Al-Arian sits in an American prison, convicted for his participation in PIJ.
On February 28, 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to one count of the indictment that had been previously issued against him. The charge, as stated in the plea agreement [pdf], was: Conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist...
While Al-Arian was in the United States, he was active in helping to found organizations beyond the fronts he created for PIJ. One of them, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), would later splinter off into CAIR. CAIR eventually repaid Al-Arian by having its Communications Director for its Florida chapter, Ahmed Bedier, act as his spokesman in the media, when Al-Arian was facing criminal charges. And the group has been repaying him ever since, even sponsoring screenings of a puff film about him, titled USA vs Al-Arian.
Since PIJ is found on the U.S. State Departments list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and since CAIR is overtly supporting and telling others to support one of PIJs admitted operatives, this would seem an open-and-shut case of the organization providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
It is not the only such case. This past year, CAIR was linked to Hamas, during a federal trial which ran from July through October of 2007. Court documents [pdf] from the trial prove that CAIR was created as part of the Palestine Committee, a group led by then-head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. Marzooks mission was to raise money for Hamas from American shores. The trial named leaders of another member organization of the Palestine Committee, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), as defendants. [IAP was also a member group.]
On March 1, 2008, Americans Against Hate sponsored a rally against CAIRs usage of a government-owned facility in Broward County, Florida. During the event, a CAIR-Florida representative named Jawhar Joe Badran stated his feelings about Hamas. Standing next to the Executive Director of CAIR-Florida Altaf Ali and speaking into a microphone bearing CAIRs logo and name, Badran was caught on camera making the following incredible statement: Hamas is not a terrorist organization. As well, at the rally, he proclaimed, Hamas is a defender of the Palestinian people. Thats what Hamas is. And: Hamas is better than Fatah, because theres no corruption. Hamas takes care of the people.
Badran picked a poor time to exonerate Hamas of the charge of terrorism. Less than a week after a CAIR member voiced his support for Hamas, on March, a terrorist attack took place at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, in Jerusalem, carried out by a resident of the city, Alaa Hisham Abu Dhaim. The attack left eight students dead, each from gunshot wounds. All but one of those murdered were teenagers, including a 16-year-old American citizen named Avraham David Moses. Following the attack, the military wing of Hamas, Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades, issued a press release calling the incident a heroic martyrdom operation and stating that more attacks like it are to follow. Hamas originally took credit for the attack (which may have been coordinated with one or more terror groups), and a number of arrests regarding it followed, including that of the shooters father, Maan, a former Hamas member.
CAIRs recent and very public support for terrorist groups should be seen as a defiant challenge to those in our government who are no longer oblivious to the organizations disquieting agenda. CAIR, in short, has sided with Americas enemies in the War on Terror. All that remains is for the U.S. government to hold the group to its word.
Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative.
Prime Minister Gillanis initial 100-day programme has, for the first time, sought to undo some of the neglected dictatorial leftovers from the Zia period especifically the ban on trade and student unions. Having taught at university for over sixteen years, I have always maintained that student unions are the proper way to educate the youth in healthy political traditions. It was the ban on these unions that allowed ethnic and sectarian associations to grow and fester intolerance within campuses. The issue is not having unhealthy depoliticised campuses, but ensuring that rules are enforced, zero tolerance for violence is maintained and there is a level playing field for all.
There is much to comment on in the context of the 100-day programme, especially in the context of agriculture, but in the prevailing national environment, the antics of the US in the context of the war on terror require greater scrutiny. It was gratifying to witness some of our political leaders do long-overdue straight talking with the Negroponte-Boucher duo. Now the prime minister has also declared that Parliament will discuss and decide on the countrys cooperation with the US on the war against terror. However, there is an urgency in moving towards a long-overdue reassessment regarding the military-centric policy of the US in fighting terrorism.
This is not to deny the terrorism problem confronting Pakistan, but we need to realise that our problem involves our own people, and therefore we cannot continue to suffer the collateral damage that results from a purely military approach. In fact, the US is a growing liability in our effort to fight terrorism. Some of us have always maintained and stated that US interests in this region are not similar to our long-term interests and so we need to create some space between ourselves and the US. Right now, while the nation and the political leadership are seeking to evolve a national consensus on how to fight the menace of terrorism, what is the US doing? Increasing its intrusiveness within Pakistans domestic affairs. How else would one describe the shadowy presence of US personnel all across the country seeking to deal directly with tribal leaders and militants without even informing the Pakistani government?
The reach of the US has not been curtailed at all, post the elections. In fact, realising that they may find a hostile Parliament, the Americans have increased their intrusive activities on all fronts. So we have had rising predator and missile attacks from across the international Pakistani-Afghan border even as US-linked/supported personnel continue to occupy positions in the corridors of power. The Balusa group members, funded through an American, Shirin Taher- Kheli, are a key US investment in Pakistans power echelons that continue to pay dividends for the US and this is only one of the many influence-generating channels.
More offensive was, of course, the forced-upon-Pakistan visit of the Negroponte-Boucher duo, who also took it upon themselves to visit many private individuals and groups, especially in the NWFP, often without the knowledge of the government of Pakistan. Stories coming out of the tribal areas relate how two Americans, through the US embassy, sought and met an MPA from Mohmand Agency, as well as a well-known MNA from FATA. Another MNA, from the Orakzai Agency, however, refused to meet any of the Americans. It is believed that US embassy personnel are directly dealing with the Maliks by hiring locals as intermediaries. If this is not intervention in our domestic affairs, what is? Worse still, such dealings directly undermine the states authority and relationship with the tribals. Undermining Pakistans sovereignty, the US is turning the FATA region into open ground for the highest bidder. Interestingly, where the locals have resisted this US intrusion, the level of attacks has receded as is presently the case in the Mohmand and Khyber Agencies.
In a more threatening mode, the US has upped its missile attacks on Pakistani soil since the elections. That is why, on Feb 28, the Pakistani government lodged a complaint with Kabul. But the interesting factor for Pakistan is what the real US intent is, since many of the missiles have targeted the very people who have supported the Pakistani government and thrown out the Uzbeks, like Maulana Nazir in South Waziristan? On March 16, three missiles hit the compound owned by Nurullah Wazir at Shahnawaz Kot, in which 20 people died. Wazir was a close aide of Mullah Nazir and only three days ago the latters main office was attacked by a US missile. As some of us have long suspected and repeatedly stated, the Americans real intent seems to be to keep the NWFP and the tribal belt destabilised as they move the centre of gravity of the war on terror from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Unless Pakistan reviews its whole strategy for fighting terrorism, we will continue to see more violence as a result of our alliance with the US. Incidentally, we also need to realise that right now the US actually does need us more than we need them. Imagine if we closed off all access to the US, including logistic support where would they go to access Afghanistan? To Iran? This is without taking into consideration the abuse of some of our facilities in Balochistan where the US is targeting Iran rather than fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan.
The first realisation for Pakistan should be that not all our acts of terror are related to international terrorism of the Al-Qaeda brand. We do face sub-national and local acts of terror which do not require international intervention and must be dealt with locally. For instance, there is a question mark emerging over whether the targeting of the FIA office in Lahore was by Al-Qaeda or by the high-stake players of human trafficking. In any event, we need to separate our various strands of terrorism, just as we need to accept that our suicide bomber is very different in character from the Palestinian and LTTE varieties, and in my view, from the scant profiling available so far, far more accessible to being converted back from his suicidal path.
Dialogue is also of central importance and as long as the adversary is prepared to talk, so should the State be willing. We need to study Asian models like the Philippine-MNLF and the Indonesian-Aceh models, as well as the Northern Ireland one. In all these cases, militants were brought to dialogue and renunciation of arms. Interestingly, in the Irish Good Friday Agreement, deweaponisation was to follow operationalisation of the agreement and was not a precondition for dialogue. Yet who can deny the violence and death that these militant groups had perpetrated at the time they were brought into the dialogue process. So why should the Pakistani state not talk to its citizens who have adopted violence, if they are prepared to dialogue? After all, the State has to bring these people and areas into the mainstream of national life, so that the diehard terrorists are isolated, as are the foreign fighters. This is the only viable strategy of space denial to the terrorists which should be the central strategy in any war against terrorism.
Finally, we must brace ourselves for the new terrorist threat that has developed post-9/11. This is the psychological terrorism coming to the Muslim world from Europe under the guise of freedom of speech. It is far more lethal and long-term in its impact on Muslims than any other form of terrorism. We have still not prepared ourselves for this assault.
The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
Posted by: john frum ||
04/02/2008 17:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is the psychological terrorism coming to the Muslim world from Europe under the guise of freedom of speech. It is far more lethal and long-term in its impact on Muslims than any other form of terrorism.
After his outlaw militiamen raised white flags and skedaddled from their latest round of combat with the Iraqi Army, radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared victory.
He always does. He understands media bravado. He wagers that survival bandaged by bombast and swathed in sensational headlines is a short-term triumph. Survive long enough, and Sadr bets he will prevail.
This time, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a contrarian press release, however, calling the Iraqi Army's anti-militia operations in southern Iraq a "success."
A dispute over casualties in the firefights has ensued, as it always does. An Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman alleged that Sadr's militia had been hit hard in six days of fighting, suffering 215 dead, 155 arrested and approximately 600 wounded. The government spokesman gave no casualty figures for Iraqi security forces.
No one, of course, could offer an independent confirmation, but if the numbers are accurate they provide an indirect confirmation of reports that Sadr's Mahdi Militia (Jaish al-Mahdi, hence the acronym JAM) had at least a couple thousand fighters scattered throughout southern Iraq. This is not shocking news, but a reason to launch a limited offensive when opportunity appeared.
Numbers, however, are a very limited gauge. The firefights, white flags, media debate and, for that matter, the Iraqi-led anti-militia offensive itself are the visible manifestations of a slow, opaque and occasionally violent political and psychological struggle that in the long term is likely democratic Iraq's most decisive: the control, reduction and eventual elimination of Shia gangs and terrorists strongly influenced if not directly supported by Iran. (SNIP)
The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.
In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.
Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.
HT strategypage.com
Posted by: tipover ||
04/02/2008 11:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Mahdi Army
#1
Very sound analysis. Iraq's path will be slow, twisting, and as unsatisfying to many of us as it is characteristic of the region and the country (uh, that is, except when the country is under the thumb of an absolute despot). But there shouldn't be any smart money on Sadr.
#2
This time, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a contrarian press release, however, calling the Iraqi Army's anti-militia operations in southern Iraq a "success."
Did he remind people to check whose forces were patrolling the streets?
The Iraqi military's offensive in Basra was supposed to demonstrate the power of the central government in Baghdad. Instead it has proven the continuing relevance of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, stood its ground in several days of heavy fighting with Iraqi soldiers backed up by American and British air power. But perhaps more important than the manner in which the militia fought is the manner in which it stopped fighting. On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased. It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.
In the view of many American troops and officers, the Mahdi Army had splintered irretrievably into a collection of independent operators and criminal gangs. Now, however, the conclusion of the conflict in Basra shows that when Sadr speaks, the militia listens.
That apparent authority is in marked contrast to the weakness of Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. He traveled south to Basra with his security ministers to supervise the operation personally. After a few days of intense fighting he extended his previously announced deadline for surrender and offered militants cash in exchange for their weapons. Yet in the ceasefire announcement the militia explicitly reserved the right to hold onto its weapons. And the very fact of the ceasefire flies in the face of Maliki's proclamation that there would be no negotiations. It is Maliki, and not Sadr, who now appears militarily weak and unable to control elements of his own political coalition.
Sadr, in fact, finds himself in a perfect position: both in politics and out of it, part of the establishment and yet anti-establishment. Despite the fighting, he never pulled his allies out of the government or withdrew his support from Maliki in Parliament, which he could have done. Nor did he demand that all his followers leave Parliament and work outside the current political system. He has kept his hand in as a hedge. Goebbels would be proud of Time, just as he was when they named Hitler their Man of the Year in 1939.
Sadr's army surrendered the field and left their enemy in control. That is defeat, plain and simple. Bloggers at the scene, such as Bill Roggio, have documented the terrible slaughter of Sadr's men in the fighting.
The standard media line seems to be that al-Maliki was so hard-pressed he had to turn to Sadr's statesmanship to help him out, thereby raising the evil cleric's status to an unprecedented level. This is like saying that allied forces were so hard-pressed in the spring of 1945 they had to turn to Admiral Doenitz to rescue them by signing an unconditional surrender.
The media-industrial complex is not the free press of the Founding Fathers, it is an unaccountable and unelected shadow government whose actions and policies are determined solely by the prejudices and self-interest of its depraved elitist membership. They ARE the enemy.
#6
A significant event would be a Shia led anti-Iran demonstration in Baghdad or Basra that is big enough to shame at least some of the big media into covering it.
I've been hoping the ISF would capture a couple of Iranian agents and put them on Iraqi TV but maybe so far...
#7
One side loses a dozen or so out of 10's of thousands and occupies the battle ground, building new outposts and stationing more police and troops there. The other loses HUNDREDS out of a few thousand, and is forced from the battlefield, even to the point of surrendering in some places.
Tell me again how the second group wins?
Only by the press LYING to the public to turn that loss into a victory. Time and the leftists are trying so hard to recreate Tet - which was a military debacle for the VC (from which they never recovered), but was spun by the press into a loss for the US.
#8
i think the fog of war is thick right now. Unless someone is on the ground, watching what is happening in Basra, its hard to know what the deal was really about. Quoting tater tot casualties doesnt prove anything, cause Tater may have been willing to keep sacrificing cannon fodder longer than Maliki could accept green zone attacks. OTOH a lot of MSM stuff has simply parroted Sadr press releases - or stuff like the above, saying Sadr won simply cause he kept his movement together - I think lots of folks here were skeptical of that how "rogue sadrist" meme.
Seems to me that Sadr true to form, wanted to defer a battle to the death, and made a deal he thought he could manipulate. Maliki had his own reasons to accept a deal.
Since Malikis main goal seems to have been to shift the balance of power in Basra, we wont know if he achieved it until we've had more time to see how Basra shakes out.
#9
Big thing is that the Iraqi Army and other ISF elements are still on the ground, still clearing and controlling Basra, and shooting "criminal" elements (essentially cleaning up the mess that British disengagement allowed to flourish). They have not been withdrawn, and are building outposts and manning them.
Tater seems to bleed his forces regularly, and needlessly (unless the press continues to carry water for him and accept his version uncritically and nearly unquestioned, and publish that as the truth, ignoring MNF and Iraqi National data)
#11
LH is right - lots of fog in that war. Pretty typical, especially as we move into the next phase of the Iraq operation, which is about Iraqis sorting things out - unavoidably messy, with lots of soft edges and ambiguous intermediate outcomes and light on the dramatic decisive sorts of things we'd all love to see. What TIME and many others mine here is the distorted framework, for which much of the blame lies with the administration, as part of its steadfast refusal to talk to the country, refute bad analysis, correct bad information, and define the context for our mission.
All that said, the media has been - hilariously -referring to the JAM's debacle(s) in 2004 as resulting in a "standoff". Ya see, any action which does not end in the highly visible, utter and complete elimination of an enemy entity is described as a stand-off. Of course, when there are engagements in which there is such a liquidation of a specific enemy force, as occurred frequently when I was over there, the result is silence in the media. MNF-I has made intermittent feeble efforts to get the info out, but without political leadership to lead the way, the media have easily ignored almost all of those developments (occasional "leakers" like the convoy unit that wiped out a larger attacking force south of B'dad, which got attention because it was lead by a female reservist, are mere blips in a larger screen of the usual downbeat and distorted "glass is 1/10,000th empty" coverage).
Sadr and the JAM do not have to cease to exist for US interests to be advanced in Iraq, or for Iraq to move ahead. That's the likely outcome, but it's not a pre-requisite.
#15
A significant event would be a Shia led anti-Iran demonstration in Baghdad or Basra that is big enough to shame at least some of the big media into covering it.
As I recall soon after the fall of Baghdad there was a very large demonstration by the Iraqi people against terrorism. Numbers from 100K to 1M people were involved from all across Iraq. This was *not* pro-american (or pro-US) in fact some of it was anti-occupation - it was mostly anti-terrorism. Weeks in planning.
The MSM (including FOX) totally ignored it. I think there was one small paragraph in some obscure newspaper.
#17
On the Letterman Show, Sen McCain spoke of Donald Rumsfeld's "mismanagement" of the Iraq war. Read: McCain knows that election victory means distancing himself somewhat from current policy, while fulfilling long term objectives. Hopefully, Bush supporters won't be alienated with what will be either implied criticism of the President. From day one, I supported use of disproportionate retaliation as the appropriate response to terrorist attacks. McCain questioned policies that resulted in 3 million Iraqis assuming exile status. And many of the 4000 US dead and thousands of injured, so suffered because Iraqis remained silent to open planting of IED weapons. Tactical grant of impunity to a civil population that supported terrorism - the Anbar Rules have now reduced that - drove a steel rod into the Islamofascists. McCain's association with open anti-islamists - like Rev Parsley - indicates a better understanding of the enemy than that of the President. Ergo: feel free to shed wheel-spinning' baggage, Senator.
An article by Nibras Kazimi, Visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute
.... The United Alliance List delegation ... evidently made al-Sadr an offer he couldnt refuse when they sat down for a friendly chat in Tehran two days ago: the Iraqi state was willing to go all the way in smashing the Sadrist movement arresting all the leaders and shutting down all the offices if he didnt play along with Operation Cavalry Charge and hand over those operatives whose names appear on the wanted lists.
See, Maliki went to Basra with a long-ish list of names comprising all those involved in oil smuggling, drug dealing and the various other crimes that have wracked Basra. It just so happens that many of them claim to be Mahdi Army commanders. The Mahdi Army in Basra is only an army in the sense that soldiers and cappos are rankings in the Cosa Nostra. .... Maliki made the calculation that he can take on these cartels and withstand the wrath of the other affiliated Mafiosi familias that got unleashed in other parts of Iraq. The criminal syndicate knows that once Operation Cavalry Charge squashes their sweet set-up in Basra, then other pockets of criminality are going to be next, so thats why they are going to the mattresses.
Well, so far several dozen of these Most Wanted folks have been killed, while tens of others are wounded or in hiding. At least 50 of them are under arrest. The outbreak of violence in places other than Basra was an occasion for the Iraqi Army and police to act on arrest warrants that have been outstanding since 2004, for example, several such dangerous outlaws were taken into custody in Karbala and Hillah. .....
.... today he [Maliki] is perceived as a statesman commanding a strong and motivated army that can impose law and order on once-powerful forces that have run amuck. If thats not a benchmark of success, then what is? .... Operation Cavalry Charge was a reality warp for all those whove internalized the rhetoric that Iraq is a failed state. Instead of being dismissed as a Green Zone politician, Maliki took his war cabinet to Basra and went all Untouchables on the Al Capones of Iraqs oil-rich south; plenty of journalists and experts simply could not grasp these dramatic changes to the political topography of Iraq.
Maliki won, pure and simple. The western media invented the narrative that Maliki was at war with the Sadrist movement, even though no such declaration was ever made. .... Malikis approach is piece-meal: hes taken out the intimidation factor that kept much of the Sadrist sway in place and hes done that by showing them that they are no armed match for a better-disciplined, better-supplied Iraqi Army with plenty of stamina. The Sadrists are left with some political gains that theyve accrued from joining the political process, such as government posts and lucrative contracts that theyd be loathe to part with and thats their collateral for good behavior from now on. ....
Now the Sadrist will have to sway voters their way with words and entreaties, rather than threats and drills. Most of the crime cartels are also on notice that the days of the Wild, Wild South are over and theres a new sheriff in town. .... Maliki has promised to keep arresting the names on his list, and he has demonstrated that hes a man who means what he says. .... The regular folks Ive been speaking to are so admiring of Maliki.
The political elite in Baghdad is freaked out by Malikis newfound stature and they must all go back to the drawing boards to recalculate this new dynamic in the political equation. ..... Today, Basra is calm and Iraqs national army is in charge, not the Mahdis. Well done, Mr. Maliki.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Mahdi Army
#1
We will never see this point of view on the MSM while Bush is in office. The news of any victory in Iraq must comply with the left's idealism.
Really, look at Leb. Leb army and UN force in place on the border, not Hezb attacks on Israel in a long time. So Israel won, right? But never got the kidnapped troops back, and Hezb strong as ever in Leb politics. So Israel lost? Or did they, if Hezb can no longer use force to undermine Israeli policies elsewhere?
If Sadr has lost ground in Basra, but solidified his position in Sadr city, whats the net net? Depends on how Maliki USES the improvement in Basra, and thats an open question.
#7
Well obviously there are still blanks to be filled out but, unless I'm wrong, I think a partial consensus should be that:
- the ISF performed far better in this engagement than back in the Mahdi uprise of 2004
- the Iraqi Congress didn't sabatoge the ISF this time, in fact no significant element of the Iraqi political network was working against the govt.
- unlike in 2004, al Sadr began the engagement while studying islamic texts in Iran and ended the engagement studying islamic texts in Iran
- unlike in 2004, there are few, if any pro Sadr demonstrations in Shiastan
#8
...and don't forget the oil. If Maliki was truly succesful in decapping the shia gangs in Basra, then that's true victory - control of the oil at the point of export. If Sadr gets to parade around a bit in his Baghdad slum, that's more than a fair trade.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/02/2008 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#9
IMHO this was a victory for the Iraqi army and what some may be overlooking is the intel received from the captives. I don't think we lost any advantage in Baghdad, many reports say hundreds were killed and captured there also.
. . . During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.
At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, hed scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXÈÕÓ, which means fish and also is an acronym for Jesus Christ, Gods Son, Savior. Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they werent alone.
In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt youve seen these, too. The fish is updated with little feet on the bottom, and IXÈÕÓ or Jesus is replaced with either Darwin or Evolve.
I find Darwin fish offensive. First, theres the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that hate is not a family value. But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. Namely: Its acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with Shalom written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with Usury written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.
But its the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.
Whatever the faults of Fitna, it aint no Darwin fish.
Wilders film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
Its fine for Muslim moderates to say they arent part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer in film, book or cartoon is dubbed intolerant, while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.
Its not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, its that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/02/2008 08:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
An employee, of Algerian origins (ie born Muslim) of a French city, dared to publish an a critic of the Religion of Peace. The city's council, the progressive city council, fired the Arab/Berber guy alleging... racism.
#2
IIRC, in a very similar way, a bit of time ago, say 2-3 years (after 9/11 anyway), there was some kind of similar stickers/symbols war in egypt, as the Copts had taken on a fashion of putting fish stickers and other symbolic objets (same meaning) to affirm their faith in a context of growing assertiveness and intolerance from the ROPMA... and the response of the egyptian population at large, and notably the Youths, not only the fundos, was to have stickers or graffittis, etc, etc... of sharks, or sharks eating fish.
Fish = feeble Christianity; shark = powerful, manly, conquering islam.
I was reminded of that earlier last year, as on Jihadwatc I think, there was an interrogation if an arab advertising campaing (can't remember exactly, this was something rather inocuous like a cellphone company, I don't think it was al jizz or a sat teevee), with the same imagery of a big shark eating a smaller fish was not a nod to this very popular egyptian meme.
#3
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that hate is not a family value. But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
This is absurd. It is neither intolerant nor bigoted to disagree with Christianity or to mock those Christians who wish to advertise their faith with fish stickers on their cars. Identity politics on the part of women, blacks and Muslims also deserves to be publicly mocked so no sympathy there either.
If I had a car, I would put a fish sticker on it, btw. Darwin stickers would not bother me in the slightest. Because I am an adult.
#5
Mocking IS intolerance when it is derived from mindless hatred. It is derision directed at people for no other reason than making yourself feel better by belittling others.
Mocking others is for assholes, unless they have earned it. And in general, modern Christians have not, not nearly to the degree that, say, Scientologists (barratry) or Islamofascists (terrorism, extreme intolerence).
The only group it seems OK to pick on these days is Christians, and specifically orthodox (conserative) protestants and Catholics. This goes double if you are also white and male.
#7
The only group it seems OK to pick on these days is Christians, and specifically orthodox (conserative) protestants and Catholics. This goes double if you are also white and male.
OS - you got that right, but it may be turning around. During a conversation in my cube an old friend and I were discussing various Christian faiths as I have experience with a large number of them. She spied my rosary case and said "Oh No, you're not Catholic are you?" in horror. At that I showed her the door. A co-worker overheard and reported it to HR. She was terminated by the end of the day.
Even though her anti-Catholic slam has been explained to her many times, she still does not understand that what she said was wrong.
#8
There are admonitions for both Christians and atheists in order. "In your face" Christians who believe it essential to their faith to proselytize in ways no different from other kinds of bullies deserve to be derided for it. But it is just the same for atheists who really hate Christians and want to demean them and their symbols.
Christians can also be criticized for attempting to inject their faith into non-religious subjects, using the pretense that there *are* no non-religious subjects. Much of the obnoxious atheist response is just that, a reaction to having religion shoved in their face.
Ironically, the same defense, that of there being extremist, moderate and "secular" Christians, who shouldn't be lumped together, is just as valid an argument for Islam. So "all Christians", "all Muslims", or "all atheists" doesn't really apply, when it is a small minority of each group that is offensive and causing most of the problems.
Yet each group gets to be criticized for its obnoxious minority.
Society has created a lot of rules to get around the problems caused by such people. That is why there are things like "non-denominational prayers" and "moments of silence", where invoking Jesus or bashing unbelievers in your belief, is throwing down the gauntlet and asking for a fight.
Most of the rules in the US were invented to keep Christians from attacking other Christians of a different sect. It is why "polite people don't discuss religion and politics, to avoid a fight."
And as long as everybody follows the rules, the fighting is kept to a minimum.
#9
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science
It amuses me that these people (the Darwin fish people) are just advertising the fact they don't understand how Darwinian evolution works, or how science works for that matter.
One only has to look at the global warming hysteria to see how dangerous this kind of pop-science is.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Joe Kaufman
The Iraqi military's offensive in Basra was supposed to demonstrate the power of the central government in Baghdad. Instead it has proven the continuing relevance of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, stood its ground in several days of heavy fighting with Iraqi soldiers backed up by American and British air power. But perhaps more important than the manner in which the militia fought is the manner in which it stopped fighting. On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased. It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.
