Iraqi tennis coach, players killed 'for wearing shorts'

I find it extremely hard to believe that religious fundamentalists are driving about town looking for men in shorts, or women without head covers to murder in cold blood because Islam made them do it.

Stinks.

Fundamentalists, no matter the religion, have always wanted to force others to their beliefs.
Some do it by proselytizing, and some through fear and/or murder. I have absolutely no doubts that this story is true. Ironic that Saddam kept these nutjobs in check.

Fundamentalists start Wars. But don't You find it odd that these Masked Men are spending time and bullets on murdering their own country men and women for minor indescretions? Why kill Iraqi's who don the clothing of the Occupiers when there are plenty of Occupiers to kill? It smells like manufactured Chaos to me.

They are religiously insane, IMO. Just because we are in the wrong in Iraq doesn't make the fundy-types right. I don't excuse their actions because they are against BushCo or because they are doing this becasue of our actions there. Wrong is wrong, and killing civilians is wrong no matter who does it; be it Marines, or the theocrats.

Where did I say the fundy-types are right? Geezus. My observation is simply that Americans want to believe every "expert" opinion about what is happening there. For example, at least Saddam kept the religious nuts from killing each other. So, now that he is jail, the nuts just decided to kill men in shorts? Americans are the Number One enemy in Iraq, so again I ask, why would the Shias or whomever expend all of their religious venom on fellow citizens who probably share most of their beliefs? The propaganda in this country is Thick.

Its already starting. By the 2008 elections, if the troops aren't significantly reduced in Iraq, the Dems will cruise to victory and pull the troops out ASAP.

These Shia fundamentalists know this, and are acting accordingly: they are instilling fear in the Iraqi population.

And we have only a very warped view of what is happening in Iraq because our government is more interested in instilling fear IN US than it is in informing us.

their goals are so far from the "common good." It's their only way of forcing submission upon the public, who otherwise could destroy them.

what is happening.

But we do know that our government has been willing, able and active in these kinds of operations and that we need to be careful when we read these reports.

I read a report today (think on yahoo!) that some residents in Baghdad are blocking off streets where children play.

:cry:

To doubt the account given in this report.

The fundamentalist groups in question are quite open about their intentions, and their commotment to violence in securing their goals.

:)

I am tired of the notion that if we are wrong, they must be right. People can be so black and white on this issue. We are wrong and so are they. Murder is murder, whether it's done with bombs or the guns and ropes of religious extremism. If this incident was perpetrated by Christians in the USA, you had better belive people would be all over it, rightly condemning them.

Just because racism toward Muslims exists does not mean that they can do no wrong. The sooner people disabuse themseves of this notion, the better. Religious fundamentalism is a worldwide threat, and Islam unfortunately seems to be the most extreme threat at this point in time.

Where in the world did You get the notion that I am FOR THE NUTS MURDERING MEN IN SHORTS? Christ. I was just pointing out that it is entirely feasible that Negroponte paid killers are STIRRING SHIT UP. I did not completely rule out that just plain old regular Fundamentalist Nuts are going more Nuts.

Islam is the most extreme threat now? WTF? How about America is the most extreme threat to many countries right now? How many are on our Invade "To Do" list?

to imply that Islam itself was the greatest threat facing the world, simply that of the major RELIGIONS and their lunatic fringes, Islamic Fundamentalism currently remains the most threatening.

as it has been for over a hundred years -- the United States government destablizing other nations so its corporations can do business as usual.

How do you even know an Islamist was the trigger man? You don't.

Halliburton with a few minor ones, also, benefiting.

some time now. It could have just as easily been our own "Salvadoran Option" at work. The same people who brought us Iran Contra are back pulling the strings.

It's perfectly transparent to us. :cry:

to apply logic and reason to explain acts that are based upon faith. you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

But I also am disgustingly aware of how the BushCo Mafiosa operate. Negroponte is in charge over there. Do You remember what he did back in the 1980's?

Of course, it's all just a big clusterfuck and every drop of blood is on Junior's bib.

arabic clothes? Since then, I really don't know who is inciting the violence. I do know that the PNAC plan has us staying indefinitely in the region. Pretty hard to justify our presence, though, if the terrorist acts go away.

Here's something that we could now....move all of our troops to isolated compounds and see if the insurgency begins to subside. Why not try that option and see if Iraq can sustain their themselves without our troops as a lightening rod? If it is sucessful, then there is no compelling reason for us to stay. If Iraq cannot maintain their stability, then we can move back in to the maintain the peace and allow the government more time to build their security forces. At least it provides a rationale to ourselves and the world as to why we remain there.

Seems rather strange that these hard core fundamentalists (assuming of course they are fundamentalists) are commanded by their peculiar 'fundamentalism' to kill short wearing countryman as opposed to the 'Great Satan' types occupying their country, bombing their mosques and killing their fellow fundamentalists.

If you're a fundamentalist wacko in Iraq, you're in the minority. But you want to be able to control the actions & behavior of everyday Iraqis who do not share your extreme beliefs. What is the best way to do that? Will killing Americans stop Iraqi women from going outside w/o head scarves? No. Will killing Iraqi women who don't wear them force women to wear head scarves? Yes. That's the goal. Because they can't persuade most Iraqis to share their agenda, they need to use fear & intimidation to force Iraqis to follow their agenda. The gang w/the most control wins. Historically, it's pretty common for these bands of thugs to gain control wherever anarchy & chaos exists - Russian Revolution, Chinese Cultural Revolution, etc. I think it's these gangs that truly have power & control in the streets, not the Americans.

.

The "occupiers" are considered hard targets; trained, armed, superior technology, etc. Soft targets, like a tennis coach, are unarmed and unprotected. Much easier to attack, but guarantees media exposure. These guys aren't really trying to advance a specific religious or political goal with their violence, just cause havoc to make the US and our allies look inept and powerless.

The US will leave if things get bad enough, letting these wackos take charge of the place. If there wasn't any violence, it would look like Bush was victorious, the insurgent's worst nightmare.

I'm sure that somehow they justify this shit to themselves. It's repugnant. We really need to find alternative fuels and get the hell out of the Middle East NOW. They don't want us there, and if it wasn't for oil, we sure as hell wouldn't be there militarily or economically. It's just too backward.

these people.

It stinks to heaven.

A thing like this serves no purpose to anyone else.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq certainly does not benefit from an increased level of religious civil war within the country; indeed, that is harmful to the prospects for continuing occupation, and ruinous to the chance of successful occupation, slim as it already is.

The fact is that there are great number of independent actors in the world, and many of them are willing to employ violence towards securing their own ends....

brought to you by Uncle Sam.

Are you in fact claiming U.S. sponsorship and control of these assassins? And if you are, on what evidence?

It would, of course, be possible to reasonably assert that the foolish policies employed during the U.S. occupation opened the door to these activities, but that is not quite the same thing.

They are certainly right-wing, by most standards: there is little on earth more reactionary than a hard-core fundamentalist fanatic, f whatever religious stripe. But that, of course, hardly indicates even alignment with the current regime fo the U.S., let alone its sponsorship and control of these elements.

by US military or intelligence agents, yes. I'm not claiming it's true because I haven't investigated it and it isn't easy to get facts out of Iraq in any case, but based on how the US normally does business and on reports of similiar killings and bombings in Iraq, I believe such suspicion is warranted.

I'll look for a report with a link and if I find one I'll post it for you.

What similarities do you refer to?

Armed fundamentalist militias have been a fact of life in the Middle East and Central Asia for almost half a century. This act is perfectly consonant with that long pattern.

What benefit do you suppose this act provides to the present regime here in our country?

You'd have to ask the madmen running this thing. Here's a quote from the article linked below that might help:

"What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing."

What you suggest does not follow sensibly from what you have cited in its support.

Running groups of faux-fundamentalist assassins would hardly assist the concerns of the military fellow you have cited. The more violence, the more chaos, the harder it is to control the situation, and the harder it is, therefore, to maintain an occupation of the place.

What cloak or cover they take is another story.

Your statement is meaningless, and at best compares apples to oranges.

and these assassins appear to have been Shiites. I'd guess the tennis players were Sunnis.

‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq


Nuns pray over the bodies of four American sisters killed by the military in El Salvador in 1980

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 5:59 p.m. PT Jan 14, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government — the Defense department or CIA — would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

It is a dirt noirmal element of campaigns to suppress guerrilla activity that programs of assassinating guerrilla leaders and support elements are engaged in, and certainly, owing to poor intelligence and other factors, these often mis-fire badly, and strike outside the useful parameters.

But this has nothing whatever to do with the widespread activity of fundamentalist Shia militias attacking elements they consider un-Islamic, ranging from liquor stores to cinemas to persons adopting western styles and secular ways in general.

Because they were wearing tennis togs? Please.

My suggestuion would be some travel in quieter areas of the region. To my personal knowledge, a man wearing shorts on the streets of Tangier fled back to the safety of his hotel in a deeadful panic after the reception he recieved out on the street in the Arab Quarter....

You just can't get through to some people. Claiming that anyone else besides the US commits evil acts will get you flamed to high hell.

I really wish the 99% of DU'ers who don't believe this conspiracy bullshit would speak up once in a while.

I don't believe this conspiracy bullshit.

It makes us look worse than bad, it makes us look gullible and incapable of critical thinking. Further, it gives our political opponents a powerful tool to discredit legitimate progressive ideas with a broad swipe and a dark snicker.

Politics is a battle of hearts and minds. Let's use both.

Peace.

People need to get a grip. Bad as they are, BushCo are not the source of all evil in the world. Shi'a fundamentalists began taking over Baghdad as soon as the city fell and have been attacking and killing citizens of all stripes for not adhering to their strict religious mandates ever since. (The Sunni fundamentalists have also fallen into this practice but I believe their part in the violence is overstated by the press. They're nowhere as big a group as the Shi'a radicals.)

The reason they do this? The power that control of a populace brings, plain and simple. Saddam was bad but at least he kept the lid on these religious whackjobs. Bush** unleashed them on Iraq. Some of them had been living in Iran for years, where their particular brand of radical Islam is tolerated. They returned when Rummy failed to secure the borders.

If Bush** engineered this on purpose it will have been in the broadest sense: to spin the war out so everyone could continue profiting off of it, and perhaps to draw Iran into the conflict, thereby giving him another excuse for his next war. But the death squads that Negroponte put in place aren't the only ones murdering people, not by a long shot...and the fundamentalists don't answer to Bush**.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the words of a young woman, an ex-computer programmer, who lives in Baghdad. Read her blog, Baghdad Burning, from the beginning. Her life and the lives of her family and neighbors have been drastically altered by the oppressive influence of the religious nutjobs. She's under no illusion who they are.

Many left-wingers on other forumms I post at avoid DU like the plauge because of the conspiracy nuttiness.

not only here in the forums, but in blogs & on radio, these roaming, murderous squads started right AFTER negroponte left.

I think some would like to tie every negative incident to this current administration, and while it is tempting, it serves us no positive purpose.

This incident certainly does nothing to advance our current administration's goals of raising poll numbers here in the US, and as you've stated, it does nothing to assist with their dreams of occupation.

Are you implying that the Bush administration is really trying to do good in Iraq but are just failing and have absolutely no interest in furthering the occupation ?

It is quite beyond me how you managed to winkle that out of the comment you are replying to.

Actions that increase chaos do not benefit an occupying power; therefore there is little reason to suppose an occuppying power clandestinely causes them. Chaotic conditions do benefit an insurgent organization, particularly if it is in competition with other insurgent factions. A faction blending religion and nationalism in a simultaneous drive to purify the people and expell the invader would have excellent reason to carry out this sort of attack, and absent real evidence to the contrary, may safely be taken as its author. Incantational chantings of "Negroponte" and the like do not rise to the level of real evidence.

I think it all depends on what this occupying force actually has for plans, IMHO. Bush and Rumsfeld said it many times; they won't leave until Iraq has it's own security forces capable of taking care of these tensions.

Meanwhile, we have known for at least 2 years that the Defense Dept. awarded contracts to build 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq. We also know that Iraq holds at least 10% of known oil reserve that are kept from reaching Western markets, thus, making sure for "Big Oil" that the prices stay high enough. We know as well that this war costs about 100,000$ per minute, justying most of Bush's execessive demands for Defense budget. Who do you think fits the bill ? You my friend. I could go on and on about that...

And how exactly would the above be possible in a country where the war would have lasted 6 months/a year ? Don't you think that the new Iraqi governement would not have politely shown the door to the occupiers, or at least, be under tremendous pressure from their people to do so if everything would have been fine and dandy within such a short timespan ?

Then again, I don't know who killed these people wearing shorts. But I honestly believe that the notion that the Coalition doesn't benefit from a long lasting war (its lenght based on a "chaos" level indicator) is a bit naive.

Have a nice day! :D

It makes my day, like a woman in her forties being carded by a kind bartender....

A stable situation presided over by a securely established puppet government would have no difficulty at all signing a long-term treaty, even including lease arrangements, for a U.S. security presence in the country, if that was desired: indeed, this would be far and away the preferrable means of securing such establishments. There would be no great clamor against it here; people have not got the slightest objection to garrisons in foreign lands providing they are in a peaceful state.

Resources can be kept off the market to engage in a squeeze readily enough without all the bother of a civil war in Iraq, and there is certainly little question that control of the resources there is sought to use that control to jack prices. People who subscribed to the idea the invasion was being conducted to procure cheap gasoline cannot be described as deep thinkers.

What continues to intruige me, though, is the sense that comes through from your comments that my not subscribing to the view that all or most of the killings constituting the emerging civil war in Iraq are the result of direct U.S. agency, a view for which there is no supporting evidence, and a mass of contradicting indications, reveals me as supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It truely puzzles me, Mr. Moose....

Then we agree partly. I just honestly think that when reading trough PNAC's paper, they wouldn't risk ending up with another Saddam. In the sense that he's "their guy" during a certain period of time, then become a "rebelious" asset later. So they just engage in ruling trough chaos to be sure to not loose control of their puppet out there since this puppet is not able to grab at anything due to immense civil unrest. They could care less for life losses.

I agree, the war was never meant to relieve US taxpayers by providing them with cheap oil.

Then again, I never ruled out the possibility of organic, true Islamic terrorism. But is it strong enough to steer a country's future? Can it successfully gain anything without massive external support ? I doubt so. For example, the Talibans barely had a leg to stand on. Why? People just didn't like them. The logistical, military support from the West, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan couldn't even make them control enough of the country.

Don't get me wrong, chaos would benefit extremists too. But I think it goes both ways, IMO.

But there is certainly historical evidence of how intelligence agencies infiltrated, impersonated, extremists groups to steer politics at their own advantage though. Do I have direct evidence of such things happening in Iraq right now ? They certainly caught last october SAS operatives dressed up as Arabs doing funky things. Of course, the British had a cover story for it -- the local police had another.

Does that mean that the whole bureaucracies want a never ending war? I don't think so. But certainly, some factions of intelligence services seem to desire so. If there is "factions" on the "crazy islamists" side, there are then also in the Coalition's governement apparatus.

And "religious fundamentalists" never seem to get that each time they strike, they help their enemies' need for endless war. ie: proves that Iraq is a turmoil, we can't "cut and run". You will also see much of the right and even the left running in circles trying to explain acts of these "religious fundamentalists" trough Quran tidbits and such, surprisingly fitting perfectly Bush's premise on Islamic terrorism.

Does real, organic "religious fundamentalists" exist? Of course. Does real, organic "religious fundamentalists" exist in a war zone where CIA, MI6, Mossad et al operatives are probably bumping into each other, involved in operations aimed at feeding the fire ? I have my own reasons to believe that these are steered or impersonated.

A good example being http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0714685003/103-7968274-2939826?v=glance&n=283155">Operation Gladio and how NATO infiltrated right wight extremists in many West European countries to steer politics for their own needs.

With the track record of the players involved (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Negroponte, Baker, etc.) and the dirty undercover operations they were involved in one way or another from Vietnam atrocities to Iran to Nicaragua, etc ad nauseum.. Why do so many people take the spoon-fed drivel about it being 100% Islamic Fundamentalists who are the murderers? WHY BELIEVE BUSH ON THIS???

...but he's right about any bomb that goes off in Iraq. Rrrrrright :eyes:

;)

I keep hearing this lame argument over and over again. "Divide and Conquer" or some BS like that. Guess what, we conquered Saddam. It is in everyones best interest, Bush, Military, Blair, Iraq, Oil Companies, that Iraq becomes stable. DON'T YOU GET THAT???? The insurgency seems to get the point better than you do. Chaos is bad for the west, good for the fundamentalists trying to start an Islamic government.

"It is in everyones best interest, Bush, Military, Blair, Iraq, Oil Companies, that Iraq becomes stable. DON'T YOU GET THAT????"

I won't deny that this is an argument I've heard over and over. Of course I "got it". Nonetheless, it doesn't fit the current scenario we have at hand.

Oil companies do benefit from having 10%, at least, of known world oil reserve locked up in a place that any newly built pipeline is destroyed nearly the same day. It's called artifical scarcity to jack up prices.

The military only cares about how much budget it will get for the next year. Obviously, peace time budgets are not the ones they lean towards. Thus, a global war on terror, an enemy without any real face, is the perfect justification for such budgets increases. 'Surprisingly' defense contractors are very close to policy makers in this administration.


It is in the Coalition's interest to have a stable Iraq you say? Would it be in the Coalition's interests to risk being shown the door quickly (thus loosing the opportunity to build 14 'enduring bases', very lucratives contracts) and would it be in "Big Oil"'s interest to have a flood of Iraqi oil on the markets for their reconstruction, thus driving the prices down awfully ? It wouldn't be in their interest either to risk facing the same situation Royal Dutch Shell faced with Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s; a leader actually asking something for oil (then having to remove him trough false flag terrorism tactics as well).

Face it, war is hell. In all its terms. Do you really think Bush LIED to go to war, so he can "try" to do something good? :eyes:

Indoctrination from a young age, praying three times a day every day...sermons over loudspeakers....

Sheep will be sheep, crazy sheep become dangerous...

Sermons over loudspeakers = megachurches. We're pretty good at indoctrination, too. It's just indoctrination at being a consumer, not a religious fanatic.

PS it's 5 times a day for praying.

that religious fundamentalists would blow themselves up? Islam is an intolerant religion, still a medieval religion. I'm not saying that there can't be other motivations for keeping the ME in turmoil and I think there are, so that we can take control of the oil. But it is also true that to give up one's life requires extreme beliefs, to an extent not seen in other parts of the world.

that would justify you blaming it on Islam.

Still looking...

I think Pat Robertson is posting at DU.

They're both intolerant religions, it's just that the worst Christianity influenced violence, including the Crusades, Inquisition, and the church fueled antisemitism that led to the Holocaust, have already happened. It's moderated to a degree that hasn't ocurred yet with Islam. You don't see Christians blowing themselves up. A religion that requires women to cover their faces up is intolerant and seems prone to cause outbreaks of violence in other areas, especially when linked to the invasion of Western culture that tennis might symbolize.

Blow up other people, not themselves. And give me a break. Now we're in Iraq because women wear burkas? Guess what? They were not forced to wear them under Saddam.

And women had many rights. Under Shiite control, it might be headed toward a theocracy like Iran.

Yes, the Christian soldiers blow up other people. That was part of my point. That it takes a more extreme faith to blow yourself up because you are doing God's will. This extreme faith is intolerant of other views and makes a society more prone to commit acts of violence based on that belief, less tolerant of Western social customs even, maybe even the wearing of tennis shorts? Part of what the Al-Queda violence is about is the intrusion of Western culture in the Mid East, aside from resisting the U.S. military invasion. The ultimate symbol of Western power was the WTC, which is why it was attacked. But it also takes extreme believers to commit such acts.

It may be 120 degrees F, but NOBODY is wearing shorts.... Why ??? In Islamic cultures, it's considered too 'sexually provocative' to reveal one's bare legs in public - even by secular standards.

"There are three sections in the Koran that deal with the issue of dress. The first instructs men and women to dress modestly. All people are to cover “that which is customarily concealed,” in other words, what we think of as “private parts.”

A second passage advises the prophet Muhammad to “enjoin the believing women to draw their covering over their bosom. That is more proper, so that they will be respected and not molested.”

A third passage deals only with Muhammad’s wives. Muhammad didn’t like his younger wives to be chatted up by young men who didn’t recognize them as members of his household. When fundamentalists argue that Muslim women should conceal themselves, remain secluded, and not interact freely with men, they refer to this passage, which was never intended to apply to average Muslim women: “Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear Allah, do not be careless in your speech, lest the lecherous should lust after you. Show discretion in what you say. Stay in your homes and do not display your beauty.”

Just like the Bible, it's open to interpretation. Nothing about tennis shorts or even car bombs.

http://www.rand.org/commentary/010504CSM.html

my sources tell me Islam was created by Prescott Bush as a means to rob the Arabs of their oil wealth. Everything else is just MSM lies.

Of course my sources have been said to be simply nuts but, hey, they could be right..........

Sorry, but that's nutz. I don't see where we can assume it's anyone but fanatics killing people over attire. That's inherently fanatical behavior. Which is not to say there are loose cannon private contractors out there stirring up shit. There are. But follow the logic--the mercs will be taking out people opposed to the current puppet regime, not the people benefitting from it. It makes no sense to terrorize potential allies to the pro-Washington puppet government out of stabilization activities.

Now in your reply to this comment, make sure you tell me I'm naive and then explain your triple-bank-shot conspiracy theory of how the corporate security complex in Iraq benefits from siccing their mercernaries on the allies of stabilizing the central government and making the country seem less secure.

they would drive around in cars and look for women without head coverings and such.

Isn't that what fundamentalists do? Please see - Taliban in Afganistan, Shiite fundamentalists in Iran, honor killings in Pakistan, fundamentalist gangs in Nigeria, etc. etc. I find it extremely easy to believe an armed gang of fundamentalist militants would do such a thing. It "sends a lesson" to the local people & establishes intimidation & control over everyday Iraqis. I'm not sure people will be wearing shorts again in that town, so they've achieved their purposes.

Fundamentalism made them do it...and a desire to control.

Say what you will about Saddam, but things like this didn't happen when Iraq was secular.

:headbang:
rocknation

Way to go, George.

so sad

Iraq was one of the most secular nations in the Mideast under Saddam. A dictatorship, yes, but a secular one. Now, it seems like the religious fundamentalists are gaining control & are well on their way to creating another fundamentalist state in Iraq. Go us.

:eyes:

do not know reliability of some of the sources, but there are several to choose from.
Of course, A does not equal B and torture is not death and all of this shit is hell.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0406/gross041206.php3?printer_friendly
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/07/MN175617.DTL
http://espn.go.com/oly/s/2002/1220/1480103.html

Bush's Potemkin government is every bit as brutal as Saddam's, a monument to incompetence and arrogance.

that is appalling :( i had never heard this before. is uday dead? wasn't he killed in an ambush awhile ago? he was a demon.

Long live the mullahs....who are thanking the neo-cons and laughing their asses off.

Because they can.

Tragic :cry:

I was afraid of this going into this war. Remember what happened to Iran, after the fall of the Shah? I knew he did some terrible things, but the country was more secular and women came to the US and Europe for education. I remember reading an article back then in MS Magazine about women who refused to put on the veil were murdered after the Ayatollah came to power. He was responsible for more murder than the atrocities committed by the Shah. Iraq is about ready to take the same path--and our government will wheel and deal with them as long as they'll do business with corporate buddies--just like Saudi Arabia.

wearing Western-influenced clothing, instead of clothing based on traditional "Islamic principles" and designed by Muslims.

Didn't I just hear about some law that said about the same thing? What was that ... Australia? Israel?

clothing are to be killed?

what does "about the same thing" mean to you?

Thanks, Bush!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do most islamic fundamentalists believe people should be killed for wearing shorts, or did a few wackos driving by in a car decided this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the white house is paying the news sources to make these kinds of events national US news.

it's not women--I never thought that fundy Islamists would pitch a fit if men were wearing shorts. Women, most definitely, but men?

...it may be 120 degrees F outside, but NOBODY is wearing shorts - why??? It's because revealing one's bare legs is considered 'sexually provocative' in Islamic countries (even in secular communities).

When Sadam Hussein ruled Iraq, he ruthlessly surpressed Islamic fundamentalism and encouraged the emulation of Western society (look at any highway sign in Iraq - all bilingual, English as well as Arabic). Now that Sadam is gone, the fundies are 'coming out to play', and Western influences are in their crosshairs.

Why heck, I saw on Fox and CNN that Sodom was worse than Hitler!
And then the President of the U-nited States even said it too.
It must be true.
Iraq has Freedom now and all the people are free and soon they'll all be Christian too.

From linked article:

Last week 15 members of the Iraqi Taekwondo team were kidnapped between Fallujah and Ramadi, west of Baghdad, as they returned from a tournament in neighbouring Jordan.

Their abductors have since demanded 100,000 dollars in ransom, the Olympic Committee said.

In February a former Iraqi wrestling champion was gunned down in front of his family in the southern port city of Basra.

Yeah, things are going real swimmingly in Iraq.

Oh wait!.. Wasn't that one of the reasons we gave FOR invading? Saddam's hit squds were a problem, so now he's gone., but not a new group has filled the void... Like water, terrorists always manage to slip through the cracks and fill any void.. The poor decent people in Iraq will just have their own Taliban now..:(

What a terrible question, isn't it? But I wonder, qui bono?
:(

Tha bad publicity, the obvious lack of control by Americans, the seeming rise of fundamentalists, the reminder of chaos & anarchy in Iraq. It seems like this story is bad news all around for the US occupation.

It will make people think it's okay for bush to donate more of the deficit to his war in iraq.

They'll believe we need to.

Haliburton wins over this.

but that is the outcome that the corporatists want.

I sound just like a "commie". Maybe I should just turn myself in to the thought police. :silly:

is a history of US intervening in other countries to protect their economic interests.

There are, apparently, no lengths our government hasn't gone to.

None.

It's not a history for the weak of heart. :(

I agree that on one hand, it makes us look incapable. But, it keeps the fiction of those evil crazy "terraists" alive and immediate.

/grammar