US to target anti-Iraq activity

BBC ^ | Thursday, 11 January 2007, 16:05 GMT | BBC Staff

[Blue State Insurgent]

Ah yes. The stability that the mass graves brought Iraq is, alas, no more.

[MinorityRepublican]

Saddam viewed himself as the next "Saladin", the great leader who united the Arab World.

If President Bush left him alone, Saddam would only get more powerful in which the next Democrat would be too impotent to do anything against him.

[Blue State Insurgent]

Don't buy into Osama's religious war

Islam is not the enemy. Fascists, like Saddam and the gangster mullahs of the Iranian Regime, are.

[ErieGeno]

Whatever else Iraq was under Hussein, it was stable.

Yep, stable except it attacked its neighbor Kuwait and slaughtered thousands of innocent humans? Stable, except that its leader offered $25 grand to suicide bomber families? Stable, except that its leader thumbed his nose at the world and then tried to convince everyone that he had WMD. Stable, except that his lovely sons actively ran rape rooms?

You just keep drinking that kool-aid there marshie baby.....

[marshmallow]

Some of the "thousands of innocent humans" whom he slaughtered were Iranian, too. Gassed and bombed with US support in his war against Iran.

Hadn't forgotten that, had you?

[juliej]

People like Marshmallow don't care if the Kurds are gassed. And by the way: there are Christian and Jewish Kurds.

[juliej]

Ah, yes: your pals the Iranians.

[quesney]

"Her statement comes hours after US forces stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil - prompting condemnation from Tehran."

That's all I needed to read to dare to hope that we're finally getting serious about prosecuting this damn war.

[death2tyrants]

"Article 2
Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation . . . No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Any idea where that statement comes from? "

You conviently ommitted the rest of article 2:

{B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.}

Your half-truths would be better suited at the DU and the MSM.

[marshmallow]

The Constitution makes it clear that there will be one and only one point of reference for the law: Islam. Not Christianity or any other creed.

If and when this demand comes into conflict with other articles in the Constitution, such as those referring to democracy and the rights of other religions, it's clear to me at least which of these articles will prevail and which will be subordinated.

As for the "full religious rights" of Christians, as of now, they're non-existent.

[death2tyrants]

" it's clear to me at least which of these articles will prevail and which will be subordinated."

Is this anything beyond baseless doom and gloom speculation? At least the MSM takes the time to find Iraqi rejectionists and collect quotes. Where is your source?

" As for the "full religious rights" of Christians, as of now, they're non-existent."

Then how do you explain people like Wijdan Mikaeil? Where is your source that these rights are non-existant? If you follow the pro-Saddam anti-war crowd, you will cite wrongdoing againsts Christains and pretend it is the official Iraqi policy. Go back to DU.

[marshmallow]

"Baseless doom and gloom"? Is that meant to be a joke? My "baseless doom and gloom" is actually based on observation of almost every other country on the planet where Moslems form a majority. Almost without exception, life for Christians in those countries involves hardship, discrimination and often, persecution. Here is one recent article on the worsening situation for Christians in Iraq which I posted yesterday.

A Christian Exodus From The Arab World.

As for official Iraqi policy towards Christians, there is none because Iraq is a chaotic shambles. If you think otherwise, then I'd like to see your source.

The Baker-Hamilton report was succinct. "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating".

If you think it isn't then perhaps you'd care to explain why an extra 20,000 troops are about to be dispatched.

[death2tyrants]

""Baseless doom and gloom"? Is that meant to be a joke? My "baseless doom and gloom" is actually based on observation of almost every other country..."

I was referring to Iraq. Where is your source for your prediction (get it, a source for a prediction, haha). You have none. It is baseless doom and gloom on your part. You have already declared that the Iraqi government will subordinate their constitutional rights. No source will be provided by you.

"as for official Iraqi policy towards Christians, there is none because Iraq is a chaotic shambles"

Yes, there is, per the Constitution. You remember the part that you omitted? That part. Your opinion that Iraq is 'a chaotic shambles' has no relevence to the official policies of the Iraqi Government.

" If you think otherwise, then I'd like to see your source."

I have already provided it via the Iraqi Constitution excerpt. You remember the part that you omitted? That part.

" If you think it isn't then perhaps you'd care to explain why an extra 20,000 troops are about to be dispatched."

A strawman on your part. We were talking about the offical policies of the Iraqi government. You're baseless speculation does not constitute proof of your claims. Your claim that there is no official policy toward religious minorities is false as well, as noted in the Iraqi Constitution.

[marshmallow]

I was referring to Iraq. Where is your source for your prediction (get it, a source for a prediction, haha). You have none. It is baseless doom and gloom on your part. You have already declared that the Iraqi government will subordinate their constitutional rights. No source will be provided by you.

Their "constitutional rights" have already been subordinated and the Iraqi "government" (I use the word loosely) has been powerless to stop it. If the government has not upheld their constitutional rights then it has been a party to their violation. It's already happened.

That's a clear indication that the "official" government of Iraq is not the real government, for it can't enforce it's own laws. It is not the seat of power in the country. Such a situation is untenable in the long term and power will inevitably be officially installed in the hands of those who now wield it unofficially. The Islamic radicals. To assert that these Islamic radicals will not adhere to the constitution is of course, "baseless doom and gloom".

Yes, there is, per the Constitution. You remember the part that you omitted? That part. Your opinion that Iraq is 'a chaotic shambles' has no relevence to the official policies of the Iraqi Government.

The official policy of the Iraqi government would appear to be to ignore the Constitution and do nothing. Christians have been murdered, harassed and persecuted. It has de facto violated the Constitution by being unable or unwilling to enforce it.

Your self-congratulatory prose is as empty as your vacuous optimism.

[death2tyrants]

" Their "constitutional rights" have already been subordinated and the Iraqi "government" "

No, and this is why you provide no source for your accusations.

" That's a clear indication that the "official" government of Iraq is not the real government, for it can't enforce it's own laws."

Unfortunately for you, it is recognized as the official government of Iraq by the member states of the U.N. In fact, it has embassies all over the world. Whether you recognize it as the official government of Iraq has no relevence.

"To assert that these Islamic radicals will not adhere to the constitution is of course, "baseless doom and gloom"."

A strawman on your part. You reject the democratically elected government of Iraq and pretend the radicals are the official government, so you can pretend your original arguement is valid. I was referring to the official government of Iraq, as recognized by the UNSC. As I said, the fact that you don't recognize the the offical government of Iraq as has no relevence.

" The official policy of the Iraqi government would appear to be to ignore the Constitution and do nothing."

Since you consider the 'offical' Iraqi government to be the radicals trying to undermine Iraqi government, your accusation that the government condones such acts makes no sense.

" Your self-congratulatory prose is as empty as your vacuous optimism."

All I asked was proof that the Iraqi government took away religious rights of minorities (your original arguement). You provided no source for this accusaiton. And my prediction was true. Rather than provide a source, you cited wrongdoing against Christains and pretended it is the official Iraqi policy. Your assertion that the Iraqis are doing nothing is false as well. They are fighting a common enemy alongside coailition forces.