Apologizing for Iraq

I think it is late enough in the day to talk true colors. We keep hearing about Lixy’s “progressism”, here is a light into this brand of Islamist-Progressism:

[i]In his latest video-taped message, Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden tried to lay the foundations for an alliance between radical Islamism and Western leftist “progressisim”.

He quoted with admiration a number of American and European leftists, including Noam Chomsky, the polemicist-cum-linguist who believes that the United States is a “rogue state” and the source of all evil on earth.

The dream of an Islamist-Marxist alliance, however, is not confined to Bin Laden and Al Qaida. It also plays a part in the overall strategy of Iran.

It is in the name of “a global progressist front”, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez are sponsoring a number of projects to underline “the ideological kinship of the left and revolutionary Islam”.

The theme, hammered in by Ahmadinejad during his recent visit to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, was the inspiration for a four-day seminar organised by his supporters at Tehran University last week. With the blessings of Chavez, who partly financed the event, and Ahmadinejad the hope was that the conference would produce a synthesis of Marxist and Khomeinist ideologies and highlight what the Iranian leader has labelled “the divine aspect of revolutionary war”.

The conference was given the title of “Che Like Chamran”, a play on words designed to emphasise “the common goals” of Marxism and Islamism.

Defence minister

Mustapha Chamran was a Khomeinist militant of Iranian origin who lived in California and became a US citizen in the 1960s before travelling to Lebanon where he founded the Shiite Amal militia. He entered Iran in 1979 and helped the mullahs seize power. In 1981, Khomeini appointed him defence minister. Chamran was killed in a car crash a few months later.

The Tehran conference was organised to honour Chamran on the 26th anniversary of his death, which coincided with the 40th anniversary of the death of the Cuban-Argentine guerrilla icon Guevara.

The conference had three guests of honour. One was Mahdi Chamran, a brother of the late Mustapha and an associate of Ahmadinejad. The two others were Guevara’s children, daughter Aleida and son Camilo. Aleida, a middle-aged paediatrician who lives in Havana, Cuba, was wearing the mandatory Khomeinist hijab while her brother had grown designer stubble to please the hosts.

Also in attendance were an array of ageing European and Latin American “Guevarista” and cadres from the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah.

Initially, the conference was all plain sailing as participants agreed that the sole source of evil in the world was the US and its “earth-devouring ambitions.”

The Khomeinists were pleased to hear their European and Latin American guests denounce “America’s criminal plans to attack the Islamic revolution”, and insist that Iran had every right to develop its nuclear capabilities. The ageing Guevarista were equally pleased as their Khomeinist hosts praised the dead T-shirt poster image boy as “a fighter for universal justice”.

Mahdi Chamran claimed that Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and “the leaders of the revolution in Nicaragua and Bolivia” belong to the same family of “strugglers for universal justice”.

Another Khomeinist speaker Mortaza Firuzabadi boasted that the banner of fighting America “everywhere and all the time” had now passed to Islamists.

“Our duty is to the whole of humanity,” he said. “We seek unity with revolutionary movements everywhere. This is why we have invited the children of Che Guevara.”

Claiming that the Khomeinists will win because they do not fear death while “Americans are scared of dying”, Firuzabadi invited all anti-American forces to accept the leadership of Ahmadinejad’s revolutionary regime.

Things went pear-shape when one of the keynote speakers Hajj Saeed Qassemi, whose title is “Coordinator of the Association of Volunteers for Suicide-Martyrdom,” took the podium.

He praised the late “Che” as “a true revolutionary who made the American Great Satan tremble”. Qassemi went on to claim he was in a position to reveal that the late Guevara had been “a truly religious man who believed in God and hated Communism and the Soviet Union”.

“Today, Communism has been consigned to the garbage can of history as foreseen by Imam Khomeini,” Qassemi said. “Thus progressists everywhere must accept the leadership of our religious, pro-justice movement.”

He also claimed that the Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega had told his group during a visit to Tehran that the reason for the Sandinista’s electoral defeats a decade ago had been their “failure to understand the importance of religion”.

Waving a Persian-language book as “proof”, Qassemi claimed that his assertion of Guevara’s “deep religious beliefs” was based on the late Cuban guerrilla leader’s writings.

Demanding the right to respond, Aleida Guevara, sitting at the podium told the conference that Qassemi’s claim might be based on a wrong translation of her father’s writings.

“My father never mentioned God,” she said as the hall sighed in chagrined disbelief. “He never met God.”

The remarks caused a commotion amid which Aleida and her brother were whisked away, led into a car and driven to their hotel under escort.

Qassemi returned to the podium to unleash an unscripted attack on “Godless Communists”. He called on “the left in Latin America and elsewhere” to clarify its position.

He claimed that Guevara and his “Supreme Guide Fidel Castro” had decided to hide their religious beliefs in order to secure Soviet support.

“Both were men of God and never believed socialism or communism,” Qassemi asserted. (The practice of hiding one’s religious belief to achieve security or desperately needed help is known as taqiyah and recognised in Shiite Islam as legitimate.)

A few hours after the incident, the Guevara siblings attended another meeting, this time organised at Amir-Kabir University by a group called The Mobilisation of the Downtrodden Militia. Camilo Guevara confirmed his sister’s earlier remarks but insisted that “progressists everywhere” focus on fighting America rather than probing each other’s personal beliefs.

Forgot the Guevaras

By the end of the day, the two Guevaras had become non-persons. The state-controlled media that had given them VIP billing, suddenly forgot their existence. The anniversary of Guevara’s death was mentioned in passing with no reference to his Marxism.

While all non-Khomeinist ideologies are banned in Iran, two are specifically punishable by imprisonment or death: socialism and liberal democracy.

The two Guevaras, who left Iran in some haste, managed to anger some Iranian progressists. The siblings refused to mention the mass arrest of workers’ leaders throughout Iran in the past few months or condemn the current wave of repression against trade unions, women’s organisations, teachers, and farm workers.

“These people don’t give a damn about the toiling masses,” says Parviz Jamshidi, a lawyer for imprisoned trade unionists. “To them workers represent nothing but an abstraction, an excuse for appearing left and chic. They don’t see that the Khomeinist regime is at war against the poorest sections of our society.”

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.[/i]

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21064

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Boom.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL1145540

The way that you post and present these bombing reports… It’s almost like you’re happy that they are taking place. [/quote]

How on earth can anyone interpret a descriptive onomatopoeia as happy?

No.

Wars of aggression on the other hand…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Ok, then what can be done to turn the situation around in Afghanistan?

To turn it around? The draft.

You must be joking. That is the last thing we need.

The draft is the first thing we need to improve our military.

How do you figure? Our miltary was horrible last time we had a draft. Adding a bunch of people that don’t want to be there would not help.

The only thing that would improve our miltary would be to put everyone in uniform. like in WW2. [/quote]

Why I support a draft -

  • Allows military leaders to focus on winning wars rather than worrying about recruiting and keeping re-enlistment rates high
  • To get better quality military personnel including non-criminals and people that have proven themselves in the business world
  • To make more families interested in whether we should go to war thereby potentially reducing the number of wars
  • To create a more fair distribution of responsibility for national defense by including all categories of Americans, all economic statuses, education levels, and regional and ethnic groups
  • To acquire persons with skills that may be needed but the military can’t teach
  • Minimize bureaucratization of the military
  • To end inappropriate policies such as stop-loss, extended combat tours, promotions of unqualified personnel, and forcing non-infantry to become infantry

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Ok, then what can be done to turn the situation around in Afghanistan?

To turn it around? The draft.

You must be joking. That is the last thing we need.

The draft is the first thing we need to improve our military.

How do you figure? Our miltary was horrible last time we had a draft. Adding a bunch of people that don’t want to be there would not help.

The only thing that would improve our miltary would be to put everyone in uniform. like in WW2.

Why I support a draft -

  • Allows military leaders to focus on winning wars rather than worrying about recruiting and keeping re-enlistment rates high
  • To get better quality military personnel including non-criminals and people that have proven themselves in the business world
  • To make more families interested in whether we should go to war thereby potentially reducing the number of wars
  • To create a more fair distribution of responsibility for national defense by including all categories of Americans, all economic statuses, education levels, and regional and ethnic groups
  • To acquire persons with skills that may be needed but the military can’t teach
  • Minimize bureaucratization of the military
  • To end inappropriate policies such as stop-loss, extended combat tours, promotions of unqualified personnel, and forcing non-infantry to become infantry[/quote]

The only way to get that to work would be to put every able bodied man in uniform as in WW2.

Otherwise you will just get a load of people that do not want to be there and cannot find a way out of it as in Vietnam.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Otherwise you will just get a load of people that do not want to be there and cannot find a way out of it as in Vietnam.[/quote]

That’s the point. If the government forced you to drag your fat bum to countries half-way across the world that constitute no threat to you nor to your nation, you wouldn’t be orgasming every time the US decides to attack another country.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Otherwise you will just get a load of people that do not want to be there and cannot find a way out of it as in Vietnam.

That’s the point. If the government forced you to drag your fat bum to countries half-way across the world that constitute no threat to you nor to your nation, you wouldn’t be orgasming every time the US decides to attack another country. [/quote]

Piss off asshole. No one is orgasming here except you every time a suicide bomber goes off.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Yay! Only 1 in 5 Pakistanis have sympathy for Ben-Laden. That’s only 65 millions.

Yikes!

[/quote]

Do you mean 65 millions AND ONE?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Boom.

The way that you post and present these bombing reports… It’s almost like you’re happy that they are taking place.

How on earth can anyone interpret a descriptive onomatopoeia as happy?

Is criticizing the US really THAT important to you?

No.

Wars of aggression on the other hand…[/quote]

Boom

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23195450-401,00.html

Remember, Lixy, I’m not happy this happened. It’s just a “descriptive onomatopoeia” as you call it.

Again, the situation in Iraq is looking more positive all the time:

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, the situation in Iraq is looking more positive all the time:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece [/quote]

And who better than Rupert Murdoch to tell us about it?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, the situation in Iraq is looking more positive all the time:

lixy wrote:
And who better than Rupert Murdoch to tell us about it?[/quote]

I presume you have some sort of substantive criticism that got cut off?

And today, in “evil” Pakistan, the leader of the Taliban was captured.

Why would they capture him? According to Lixy, they are all in cahoots.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
And who better than Rupert Murdoch to tell us about it?

I presume you have some sort of substantive criticism that got cut off?[/quote]

Nope. Didn’t even read the article.

The talk about the situation in Iraq “looking more positive all the time” is bogus in my opinion. The country is sectarily divided, the government has almost no legitimacy, terrorism is fostering and heavily armed foreigners are patrolling the streets. What we are witnessing now is a consequence of an unsustainable raise in the numbers of the latter and handing out money and weapons to any local tribe or militia willing to get on “your” side. That’s it. Anything else is mental masturbation.

I know that you guys have probably forgotten about the lies and deceit that lead to the carnage we are witnessing, but I can’t seem to get past that. The US invasion of Iraq was a criminal act of monumental proportions, and is inexcusable. Period.

Were you to acknowledge that or publically apologize to the Iraqi people, we can then have a constructive discussion. Else, every Murdoch paper you link to just sounds like see, I told you we were right all along to me. It’s not something I’m proud of, but it seems to be reflexive.

I think you haven’t seen this. It’s about 15 years old. This is what Bush thinks of middle-east.

More “Iraqi freedom”.

[quote]lixy wrote:
More “Iraqi freedom”.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Syria 'to name Mughniyeh killer' [/quote]

Eh?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
More “Iraqi freedom”.

Eh?

LMAO. He’s losing it.[/quote]

Maybe he’s in the wrong thread? He got his anti-US and anti-Israel databases mixed up or something.

That’s funny as hell.

Hey, while we’re on the subject (from the other thread) who the hell cares who killed Mughniyeh? He’s dead. End of story.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
More “Iraqi freedom”.

Eh?
[/quote]

My bad.