TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Now, the freed Shi'ites are shouting "Death to America"

Now, the freed Shi'ites are shouting "Death to America"

... the America that freed them

Why are they screaming that?

quote:

Originally posted by robstar Why are they screaming that?

They are embracing their newfound freedoms of speech and the right to protest hehe.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They are embracing their newfound freedoms of speech and the right to protest hehe.

lol!
I see.

quote:

Why are they screaming that?

It is a shame there arent any Shia Muslims that frequent this site.

I am sure they could give you a number of reasons.

I'm sure they aren't here cause they percieve internet and music as the works of the devil.

It's hard for someone who has grown up in the lap of a secular nation to understand the role of religion in theses peoples' lives.

Now that the nation around them has crumbled, they are hanging onto the last bit of structure that is left -religion.

Here, when you want to be educated, when you require monetary assistance, who do you go to? The government. There? The mosque.

great post wurm.

And don't get me wrong, but Shiia officials thanked the US but told them politely to leave the country so that Iraqi rule their own country.

And I don't think the Shiia forgot how the US let them down in the first gulf war when they got massacred by Saddam. And they didn't forget the 12 years of sanctions either imposed by the US.

If you let them rule their own country, it would turn into a civil war between opposing islamic militants. But hey, divide et impera.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek great post wurm. And don't get me wrong, but Shiia officials thanked the US but told them politely to leave the country so that Iraqi rule their own country. And I don't think the Shiia forgot how the US let them down in the first gulf war when they got massacred by Saddam. And they didn't forget the 12 years of sanctions either imposed by the US.

but who are the Iraqi? surely not the Shia alone...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 If you let them rule their own country, it would turn into a civil war between opposing islamic militants. But hey, divide et impera.

seems that way|

... guys, read on why the Shiitas are protesting against the americans, aand want the americans out, that'll answer it.

something puzzles me here.. if for example the majority of the Iraqis which are Shiite want a fundamentalist government and the US wants to prevent that, then aren't they in a way preventing the democracy and free speech that they're trying to establish .. ?


what amazes me the most is the rash of articles on the news talking about how the US government did not forsee the power vacuum in Iraq fostering a fundamentalist government. you would have thought that they atleast consulted with some Islamic geo-political analysts or something on the outcomes of removing Iraq's government before embarking on this war. it almost seems as if they rushed into this whole thing without any thought of the aftermath caused..

It's gonna be funny if the new Iraq ends up with a Saudi Arabia like regime which will secretly sponosr islamic terrorists.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The Neoconservatives consulted mainly INC (the Iraqi Opposition exiles) about the moods in the country. The INC leader Chalabi, who's Perle's old university acquaintance, was a major intelligence source. So the Neoconservatives planned the whole invasion consulting only people in their own circles, instead of going on the Arab Street to find out what really happens when Saddam's regime collapses.

see that's what i had thought earlier. we've already seen such a large rift between the Bush administration and the security council, it's highly unlikely that the Neo-cons would have wanted to consult with anyone else on this other than those who might side with them.

so now my question is, was it just over confidence they had in their anaylsts' opinions? or did they just not want to hear any "bad news"?

It seems that the extreme right wing's solution to every crisis is to blow up things. "Heehehe It go boom. HEhehehe."

If they bombed a nuclear reactor it would spread radiation all over the area which was bombed. If it's close to a population center that would be catastrophic.

If they directly attack NK, I'm sure KJI would attack Japan and SK with nukes, as he proved himself to be quite an irrational person.

I'll post this here as well with regards to NK hehe

I actually posted here that the Pentagon had plans for bombing N. Korea, however, I argued in that posting that it was more so of a bluff or a diplomatic tactic rather than actual intent on going through with it. The fact that the Pentagon is drawing up plans in itself means nothing. It's the job of the pentagon to draw up war contingencies on nearly everything from an invasion of Canada to World War III with Russia in case such a scenario should ever arise. Plans were drawn up to bomb N. Korea in 1993 by the Pentagon under the "dovish" Clinton administration as well so it is nothing new:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...0%255E2,00.html

And actually Syria is a whole separate issue from N. Korea because N. Korea constitutes a volatile world threat. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon places very close attention to that peninsula. I've always stated that no military action will be taken against Syria and I'll stand by my words until the bitter end.

And if you think that the neocons or whatever are planning military operations against N. Korea have no fear! For the almighty, all powerful PNAC has spoken:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/northkorea-041403.htm

And since Bush is their stool pidgeon, and they are the true power behind our government, hope I'm not being too sarcastic, we can rest easy knowing that military operations will never happen right ?

At any rate even head honcho Mr. Neocon himself (wolfowitz) said:

quote:

Of particular significance today, Mr. Wolfowitz poured cold water on the idea of an attack on North Korea's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, an idea often ascribed to the administration's hawks. In March 1999, he dismissed the idea of a "neat and safe military operation, that in some antiseptic way could eliminate the North Korean nuclear problem. . . . First of all, we wouldn't know what to attack. . . . [W]e are . . . reasonably certain that there's a lot there that we don't know about and couldn't get at." Moreover, North Korean retaliation, and the resulting war on the Korean peninsula, he said, would be "absolutely devastating."



So if you're going to argue a neocon dominated US government theory then you better modify your position on what the US is gonna do next with N. Korea.

DaveSaenz, isn't it funny how much Saddam looks like Ron Jeremy?
Have they ever been seen together? Hmmm....


On a more serious note, if the US were to pull out of Iraq now without at least helping to establish a framework of a government, things would definitely take a turn for the worse. The phrase being thrown around is 'a presence as long as is needed, and not one day more.' That's not much margin for error.

Part of the way that the US plans to minimize its footprint is to have private companies do much of the jobs that would have once been done by the Corps of Engineers. In other words, politically-affiliated companies are getting fat contracts with little of the usual tendering process.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.