i see – no doubt you were in Iraq before the war? you must have something to compare to the horror currently being experienced? perhaps you’ve even been there fairly recently and can comment with conviction on the improved state of affairs? and if not why not? oh right i get it, let shrapnel affect someone else…needless to say, it was your own comment on the other thread ( where jay singh came down so hard on you – and you know what i actually thought there was something in what you said, and that he was too harsh on you) this business of ‘only some of us can afford to be progressive. you seem like a fairly smart fellow- you probably get Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. you know – like you were saying ..food on the table. vs. sitting and being ‘progressive’. similarly…when they’re are bombs falling on your head, and you can’t literally step outside cos either one of 2 or more camps are out to get you..well who really gives a shit about ‘democracy’ then. eh.

besides from what i can see, a hell of a lot of muslims in britain ‘blindly’ follow their religion and don’t know much about it…’because we can’t be seen to be disrespecting our elders, and nonconformity, and who the hell gives a damn anyway..its just about our identity and how different we are to ‘white’ folk”.

Puh-leese. politics of identity as a basis for spirituality? Reading out ‘arabic verses’ without having a clue what they mean?

I think we all need to calm down and stop attacking our sister Yvonne.

I am sure she is regretting her outbursts which i can only put down to her monthly cycle.

May Allah find her a husband where she can let go of her steam rather than attacking Muslim artists who are trying their utmost to enhance a new medium of giving da’wah.

Ameen.

It’s the siege of STALINGRAD, you ignorant cow! The one in the annals of history as an example of enduring resistance to oppression is the siege of STALINGRAD! Not Leningrad!
Sheesh. Don’t they teach history in the adult-education madrassa you attended?

John

As for points 3 and 5, well…it’s just pure conjecture. No ‘real’ evidence, in other words, to amass these confident accusations. And besides, what makes you so sure that America is in situ to ‘monopolise’ the oil reserves in Iraq once the country is pacified? These lucrative contracts are being handled by the United Nations and by Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, not – may I emphasize – by Halliburton or the Carlyle Group.

Embarrassingly, what you fail to acknowledge is the part played by ‘oil’ in the psychology in of Vladamir Putin and Jacques Chirac. For the past 10 years, France and Russia have turned the UN into a stage from which to pursue naked self-interest. They have used multilateralism as a way to further unilateral policies. The dust from the gulf war had not settled when the French government began a quiet but persistent campaign to gut the sanctions against Iraq, turn inspections into a charade and send signals to Saddam Hussein that Paris was ready to do business with him again.

The Russians have also been more interested in cozying up to Iraq than disarming it. There are more than 200 Russian companies in Iraq, doing deals that total at least $4 billion. Moscow has been Iraq’s most dependable ally in the Security Council, routinely endorsing its objections about sanctions and inspections. It helped sabotage the most recent efforts to create ‘smart sanctions,’ which would have dropped broader economic barriers in favour of targeted ones against Saddam’s regime.

Point 2) Backs up what I said above.

Point 3) Why sign contracts for a share of the profits when you can take the lot?

Point 4) It is not to ensure the production but to own the product.

Point 5) Again how do you think the war is being paid for? How much oil is being produced? How much is being accounted for?

John

Point 1) First, the United States is already in control of the main oil reserves (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, the Caspian Sea, etc.) Why, then, would America go to war in Iraq if She could just as easily ‘cut a deal’ with Saddam? Traditionally, the US has secured its oil reserves by appeasing dictators, supporting proxies, bribing corrupt monarchs and seducing egotistical stratocats. That’s the cheapest and easiest way of safeguarding a steady supply of oil. War, by stark comparison, is expensive and very, very damaging to public opinion.

Point 2) In any case, it is not the US that decides on the price and the level of production. Decisions on these matters are made by the OPEC and non-OPEC individual countries.

Point 3) Revealingly, big oil producers such as Iran and Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) have repeatedly sought co-operation with US oil companies… but to no avail. In the mid-1990s, Exxon, a giant American oil company, nearly concluded a very lucrative contract with the Iranian national Oil Company. And yet, the contract was never finalized – not because of Iranian reluctance but because of a decision by Bill Clinton that, in fact, ordered Exxon to back off. According to two presidential executive orders (12957 and 13059), investing more than $40 million in Iranian oil industries was declared punishable. Similarly, under Saddam’s regime, high-ranking Iraqi officials (e.g. Tariq Aziz) invited US citizens to take part in Iraqi oil concessions. Again, it was the US administration that declined the invitation.

Point 4) Fourthly – and here’s the crunch – the urgent and constant need for oil (including exports) is independent from the political identity of persons who will be in charge of the region. The shah or ayatollahs, Saddam or non-Saddam, King Fahad and even bin Laden – all of them are heavily dependent on oil for their income. Therefore, there is no need to put military pressure or to ‘colonize’ these countries to assure the production and circulation of oil.

Point 5)To restate the obvious once more: just look at how much the Iraq war is already costing: until the summer of 2004, the US spent more than $100 billion on war and reconstruction in Iraq (a continued military presence will be needed for up to 10-12 years). Since Iraq’s oil revenue in recent years has been only approximately $12 billion per year, how many years will it take to cover the US’ expenses? Thus: If you add up the total costs and total benefits hitherto, it is hardly a good-looking balance-sheet in the greedy world of realpolitik.

So there.

Mongolians ….

Mwahahahahahaha!

‘Those goddam Mongolians – trying to knock down my shitty wall‘

‘Mongolians!!!’

That’s not really a persuasive analysis. Saudi is not long-term stable. The US doesn’t give a damn if the French blow a gasket, not when long-term oil is at stake. The Chinese have got their own dirty blood for oil thing going, so don’t expect any moral stand there.

People have made and are making fortunes out of this, not withstanding the dead people.

‘If it was about oil how come we aren’t getting any – riddle me that?’

Oh, come on. You have a problem getting oil? No. Nor will you, in the long(ish)term.

My point is that the pro-war camp keep citing evidence of atrocities committed by Saddam during the 80’s as justification for the war. So why didn’t they attack him then rather than now?

There is also some hint of US/UK opportunism. What could the US/UK want?

– more oil and more army basis?

Why? How?

Look at the facts. The US already has naval and army basis in Saudi. It does not really need more bases. It can’t steal the oil in some hidden pipe-line without others seeing. It cannot negociate incredibly cheap oil deals without the Chinese, French etc etc blowing a head gasget. There is no real way to make a fortune out of this Iraq situation that counteracts the piles of dead people.

On the KNOWN facts, it appears the only possible net gainers to this mess are the Iraqi seperatists, democrats and Iranians. The Iraqi Catholics certainly did not gain (they live in Sunni areas).

If it was about oil how come we aren’t getting any – riddle me that?

John

“For me, the end of tyranny (and triumph of democracy) is the ‘be all’ and ‘end all’ of politics.”

I don’t have a problem with people advocating the use of force to prevent events such as Halbja or the Rwanda Massacres. However the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with whatever Saddam had done to his own people and everything to do with US political interests and oil. Otherwise they would have attacked in 1988 when Halabja was gassed and the would also have invaded Zimbabwe and sent in troops to Rwanda etc.

“I do. Don’t you?”

Since the point was in asking why ALL Muslims are expected to condemn someone that the poster feels is an extremist, then a valid response would be to ask if the same response is requested from ALL Christians when the extremist is a Christian. From your response am I to assume that you too have now joined the Christian faith?