It's part of the lies spread by that book "Bias" and the continual harping on this mythical left wing bias in the media by the right wing commentators that *dominate* the air waves. Everyone hears it so much now they assume it's true, like the falsehood spread by the Bushies that Iraq was connected to 9/11 which is believed in the US and no where else on the planet. One has to watch TV or read newspapers from a foreign country to *not* get a right wing bias these days.
I get this impression based upon individual threads. You do have a more sincere beef with the hospital thing so I will be more careful with how I use the word liberal in general. The conspiracy theorists comparing the United States with imperalist Japan is about as credible as the former Iraqi Information Minister and only boggles the mind. I wish I knew how this war could had been carried out anymore politically correct than it had been. Mosques, schools, hospitals were spared from air strikes desite being neglected and stashed with artillary and foot soldiers by the regime. If I knew that Castro was arming, financing and aiding terrorism then I would be asking why not Cuba as well. But thats not the case. Saddam has been trying to ally himself with funamentalist Islam for years now. If we didn't stop this person years down the road we would be up against a jihadist movement like you never seen.
I am pleased NATO is finally in. Although if we worked with them from the start in Afghanistan we might have better relations now with the world community.
What evidence do you have that Saddam had been trying to ally himself with fundamentalist Islamists for years now? Saddam himself is well known as being only nominally Muslim, or a Muslim only on paper. Unlike real Islamists such as Khomenei who preach the gospels of the Koran, Islamic laws and values and such, Saddam has never been known to do that whatsover. Saddam has been criticized as an infidel by Osama bin Laden and other fundamental Islamicists at one point or another. Within Iraq, Saddam has always maintained an iron clad grip on the Islamic clergy to ensure that fundamentalist Islam was kept DOWN lest it represent a threat to his regime and power. Of course Saddam and anti-West Islamicists do have common cause in a common foe in the West. Nevertheless, under Saddam, Iraq would almost NEVER have become a fundamentalist Islamic republic because that would pose a serious threat to his power.
For another perspective: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/041703-12v.htm Interesting data, Iraqi Americans largely behind Bush, but against Gulf War II for various reasons, except for Shiites but Shiites protesting in Iraq.
r35352 is right on all counts. Also, isn't Tariq Aziz Christian? Anybody know if he's still alive, by the way?
There is a mountain of evidence showing that Saddam has been courting fundamentalist Muslims ever since the Gulf War. No less than 40 mosques have either been built or are under construction in Baghdad in just the last two years. Saddam himself is very overt about his new dedication to Islam, as he made sure his 5 daily prayers were publicized. Saddam realized that his survival would be more assured if he could equate any attack upon him as an attack on Islam. Hopefully, he wasn't successful.
Saddam isn't trying to use fundamentalist Islam as a way to satisfy personal religious interests. But to use it as a weapon. I believe it all started in Gulf War 1. During which we allied ourselves with Islamic communities surrounding Iraq. Saddam quickly tried to benefit from the radical ideals by firing Scuds at Israel and manipulating the Iraq flag to bear the words "Under Allah (or God)" in order to break the coalition. Of course the Arab street went nuts and saw Saddam as a fellow Muslim being persecuted by the Christians. Even after the Gulf War he never accounted for the majority of WMD and those he used in his brutal cultural oppression of the Kurds. And by all accounts has been producing more. If you recall the speech made by the Iraqi Information Minister April 1st who read a letter by Saddam in which he was supposed to show up the letter not only used used the word God a number of times but also called for a jihad. http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/reaction/story/835974p-5885261c.html I'm not saying Saddam is fulfilling his own ambitions as a Muslim but he certainly has tried to use this movement as a tool. The scary thing is some terror attacks such as suicide car bombings were taken out on our forces. The fact people gave their lives for Saddam's survival because of the fundamentalist rhetoric was appalling. He made them believe he was a Muslim being persecuted by the west. Now if we allowed this guy to continue his business we would be looking at a movement patented by his WMD. That wouldn't had been a pretty picture.
Batman Jones, please elaborate. I'm not sure a Christian would stand by and defend this regime as it terminated people like insects. Or do you want to debate Saddam hasn't killed anyone?
Ditto MacBeth, but that's not what I was saying. People kill all the time in the name of religion. I was asking for confirmation that Aziz identifies himself as a Christian, which I think he does.
Dear lord.... Clearly I'm not going to defend the likes of Hitler or his cronies who perverted their faith. He felt he was doing God's bidding and clearly I don't view his acts as that. I do not believe a good Christian would place Jews and others viewed as imperfect in ovens and commit genocide. I do hope we are clear on that. Perhaps Aziz feels he's fulfilling God's will as a foot soldier for Saddam but I believe he's being hypocritical much like Hitler.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2760005.stm ... Mr. Aziz, a Christian, brought a letter to the Pope from President Saddam Hussein, replying to a message delivered by a Papal envoy earlier this week. ...
Thanks, moomoo. Couldn't be sure I was remembering that right. Anybody know if he's still alive? X-PAC, I really wasn't trying to have any sort of fight or debate about the nature of Christianity or even Aziz's "right" to call himself Christian. And incidentally, I am respectful of all religions and religious beliefs. But you seem like you really want to fight, so okay. Riddle me this: Would a "good" Christian "stand by and defend" child molesting priests? Would a good Christian defend or participate in the Crusades? The Pope says the death penalty and the Iraq war are acts against Christianity. Many people who consider themselves to be good Christians disagree. I'm not arrogant enough to tell them that makes them "bad" Christians. Are you? Or do you only stand in judgment of Iraqi Christians? I don't know if you're Christian or not, but if you are Jesus would tell you to judge not. According to Christianity, all men are sinners. Doesn't mean they can't identify themselves as Christian.
Batman, I wasn't trying to engage debate on this issue with you. I asked you to help elaborate on r35352 points after I presented my case. As for Tariq Aziz I feel he misrepresented the faith much like Hitler(which goes without saying.). My last post was in response to MacBeth's ridiculous post not to yours. And I don't believe faith should be used to justify UNJUST bloodshed. Again I don't see those who stood by and defended child molestors, the Crusades and whatnot representative of the faith. This goes without saying. As for the death penalty and the war there is a split in Christians as their support goes. There are Church leaders who are for and against it. I look at the incentive of freedom and liberty for the people and the casting out of a man who has killed more Muslims than anyone of recent history. And yes, I am not to judge I am pointing out the misrepresentation of the faith some are using as if Christianity is harmful.
That's cool, X-PAC. I'm pretty sure Christ was against all bloodshed, but I completely respect your positions. Peace.
1) Know the facts before throwing out insults. 2) Fact: wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler, you were. Was refering to the Vatican, among ohers, who 'stood by' during WWII...and have since apologized for same...unless you contend the Vatican isn't Christian? Otherwise, my post was not only not ridiculous, it made your 1st assumption, the one about Chrisitans, look that way, tosay nothing of your subsequent assumptions.
Yes, I mentioned the Vatican's failure during WW2 who were reluctant to justify action against the Nazis movement in a thread a while back which I am very critical of as well. A poll started by DaDakota a while back as a matter of fact. I found your post ridiculous because you challenged my knowledge of history rather than my point. Which was insulting. But we do share some common ground.
No, Christ was against all bloodshed. I didn't say he was. Though I do believe this conflict fulfills Aquinas' just war theory. I respect yours as well.
