Insurgents in Iraq attacking churches

[LadyShea]

The situation over there is getting worse and worse, our presence is is fueling this. Gah, when will it end?

Story

[Goliath]

It's unfortunate that two died and 38 were injured.

[Gawen]

It's my opinion that whoever would have removed Hussein, this extremist behaviour would happen anyway. Now that there is no real effective government, or police force, extremists will have their violent say. This very same thing happened when the Roman Empire was failing.

[PastorFreud]

I've been told by someone on another board that if even one person accepts Jesus as Lard and Slaviour, it will have all been worth it. I am still trying to fathom the logic.

[Goliath]

The rationalization is both ancient and incredibly easy to grasp, PastorFreud. Simply put: Convert at all costs.

[Dingfod]

Does not this latest tactic make you wonder if this does not play right into Bush's hands? Doesn't it mobilize the support of righteous Christians to turn this into a holy war? I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but... draw your own conclusion.


Warren

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Does not this latest tactic make you wonder if this does not play right into Bush's hands? Doesn't it mobilize the support of righteous Christians to turn this into a holy war? I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but... draw your own conclusion.


Warren

Y'know, Warren... I keep wondering the same thing. Don't these "insurgents" know that a change in power in Washington more likely to bring desired results, while continuing to destabilize with terrorist tactics plays into the hands of those who would rationalize the necessity of the continued presence of US/Allied forces?

I could understand these actions if we were looking at three or four long years of the current leadership, but that's just not the case.

It makes me wonder who is encouraging who to do what.

godfry

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Y'know, Warren... I keep wondering the same thing. Don't these "insurgents" know that a change in power in Washington more likely to bring desired results, while continuing to destabilize with terrorist tactics plays into the hands of those who would rationalize the necessity of the continued presence of US/Allied forces?

Perhaps that is exactly what the insurgents want, or for sure what Osama bin Laden wants, a holy war. If we give them what they want, is that not caving in to terrorists, or aiding and comforting our enemy? George W. Bush has helped give Osama bin Laden what Osama could never achieve, Muslims united in opposition to The Great Satan, the United States. Perhaps George W. Bush was suckered into the whole thing to acheive that one thing.


Warren

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Perhaps that is exactly what the insurgents want, or for sure what Osama bin Laden wants, a holy war. If we give them what they want, is that not caving in to terrorists, or aiding and comforting our enemy? George W. Bush has helped give Osama bin Laden what Osama could never achieve, Muslims united in opposition to The Great Satan, the United States. Perhaps George W. Bush was suckered into the whole thing to acheive that one thing.


Warren

Hmmm... Interesting hypothesis, that the "desired result" is the continued presence of US forces in the Iraqi quagmire. It seems to me that such jibes with repeated reports from other "Islamic" reports before the invasion that the Iraqis had WMD. Wasn't Saddam the Islamic world's most secular leader? Plus, a pull-out of forces from Iraq allows more resources to be dedicated to the hunt for Osama and the Al Kader folks...

godfry

[LadyShea]

Iraq under Saddam was very secular compared to the rest of the region. As Gawen says, without a proper government in place, and without any real policing, the extremists are basically let loose to wreak havoc.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Iraq under Saddam was very secular compared to the rest of the region. As Gawen says, without a proper government in place, and without any real policing, the extremists are basically let loose to wreak havoc.

I'm tempted to say that the American extremists have done just that.

I'm pondering what it is "the extremists" want in terms of US involvement in Iraq. Do they want us out? If so, they'd do better not to attack Christian churches, because that's just fuel for the American Christian zealots (Bushites) to push for continued US presence in Iraq. If "the extremists" want the US to continue their presence in the region, then continuing the terrorism, with abductions and wanton bomb attacks, makes sense. Keeping the US mired in Iraq accomplishes some objectives that I could see a broader coalition might want...the al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Islamic zealots. It offers up an example to the rest of the Islamic world as to our questionable rationale for being there in the first place.

I suspect that there are a fair number of "rogue leaders" with their own agendas, zealous or not. Evidently there's not an "alternative government" either. One that could coordinate efforts "insurgents" against the US/Allied forces toward a united objective.

godfry

[Dingfod]

Saddam was a secular leader, but it wasn't Saddam that suckered Bush into attacking Iraq. In fact, the whole thing definitely hasn't played out well for Saddam. It was a few stories of a few anti-Saddam people that got blown into "We know they have WMD." that was used to justify the invasion in the first place. Someone suckered somebody somewhere somehow. Whether ObL or al Qaeda actually played an active role in suckering Bush or not, I think that, just as 9-11-2001 conveniently played into Bush's hands, the invasion of Iraq played right into ObL's hands.


Warren

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Iraq under Saddam was very secular compared to the rest of the region.

Right. Any opponent of the war was already apt to be accused of loving Saddam. This made it difficult for anyone to articulate the realpolitik view that, monstrous as he was, Hussein headed (or comprised) one of two explicitly secular Islamic governments in the region, and, through his past belligerence and expansionism, served to fracture pan-Islamist sentiments. American political influence -- ie, working by tapping into a sense of common interest -- in the Persian Gulf and Middle East was never stronger than when Kuwait, the Saudis, Iran, Jordan and Israel were all frightened of Hussein.

Conjecture: Leaving him in power after GW1 might have been an abandonment of the Iraqi people to further despotism, but it also was a way of saying to the countries around Iraq: This guy can go back to being Your Problem anytime we feel like rolling back the sanctions. And lo, many years of low, low oil prices ensued.

Anyhow, the religious radicalization of Iraq will place that much more pressure on the secularists in Turkey, I expect.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Right. Any opponent of the war was already apt to be accused of loving Saddam. This made it difficult for anyone to articulate the realpolitik view that, monstrous as he was, Hussein headed (or comprised) one of two explicitly secular Islamic governments in the region, and, through his past belligerence and expansionism, served to fracture pan-Islamist sentiments. American political influence -- ie, working by tapping into a sense of common interest -- in the Persian Gulf and Middle East was never stronger than when Kuwait, the Saudis, Iran, Jordan and Israel were all frightened of Hussein.

And, was not Saddam largely armed by American weaponry and American money, as a "counterweight" to a radicalized Iran?

Did not the American ambassador to Iraq prior to GW1 inform the Baathist government (i.e., Saddam et al) that the U.S. would not intervene in Iraq's military venture to reclaim Kuwait?

Conjecture: Leaving him in power after GW1 might have been an abandonment of the Iraqi people to further despotism, but it also was a way of saying to the countries around Iraq: This guy can go back to being Your Problem anytime we feel like rolling back the sanctions. And lo, many years of low, low oil prices ensued.

...most interesting. Particularly considering we armed him.

Anyhow, the religious radicalization of Iraq will place that much more pressure on the secularists in Turkey, I expect.

That's what I'd expect as well. All these considerations give credence to the objections that Senior Shrub had to the renewal of hostilities and unseating of Saddam.

It certainly sounds as though American policy set the U.S. up in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. Had internal opposition toppled Saddam, couldn't they have legitimately claimed that Saddam had been propped up by the U.S. and American interests?

godfry