Wider still and wider American tactics are helping Saddam Wednesday April 2, 2003 Threatening the neighbours is hardly the best way to rally Muslim support, or at least to elicit Muslim and Arab understanding, for America's cause in Iraq. But in recent days, senior Bush administration figures have gone out of their way to warn Syria, Iran and others of unspecified unpleasant consequences should they in any way interpose themselves between Washington and its objectives. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld initiated this ill-considered trend, claiming that Damascus was supplying military technology to the Iraqi army. He offered no public evidence to support his allegation, basing his information on US intelligence - a branch of the federal government whose assessments and predictions are daily shown to be less and less intelligent. Mr Rumsfeld's rumblings were quickly echoed by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose capacity for objective thought appears to diminish steadily the longer she remains in office. Then, more surprisingly perhaps, Colin Powell took up the cry. "We are demanding more responsible behaviour from states that do not follow acceptable patterns of behaviour," Mr Powell said. Singling out President Bashar Assad's government (which is fiercely critical of the US-led invasion), he warned that "Syria bears the responsibility for its choices and for the consequences". Note the imperative use of the verb "demand". This grammatical mood seems suited to Washington's present imperial mindset. Note, too, the phrase "acceptable behaviour". Is it possible that Paul Wolfowitz's dream has come true and the US already believes it is the Middle East's arbiter and overlord? And if Iran and Syria and others refuse to bow the knee, will they be invaded, too, with Britain loyally tagging along? These American delusions are dangerous. Widening regional destabilisation was one of the reasons why so many people and nations opposed this foolish war. By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly. The Iraqi regime must be delighted. It is already doing its level best to portray the conflict as one between the entire Arab "nation" and the US, between Islam and the west, between the righteous and the "Zionists". Its call for Arab volunteers appears to be having some success. Its resort to suicide bombings, or "martyrdom operations", creates an entirely deliberate, emotive association with the Palestinian intifada. Iraq's guerrilla tactics, increasingly indistinguishable in the American military mind from terrorism, are leading to ever more frequent, unacceptable civilian deaths at the hands of US soldiers unaccustomed and untrained for unconventional warfare. This in turn is intensifying the broad sense of outrage across the Arab and Muslim world and with it, a regrettable sense of solidarity. As the west's forces lay sacrilegious siege to the holy city of Najaf, as Shia clerics issue fatwas enjoining the faithful everywhere to rise up and repulse the "infidels", as Islamic Jihad sees an opportunity to spread its twisted creed of horror and rejection, as Israel's defence force gives handy tips to American commanders about how to attack and occupy Arab communities, and as George Bush stands up in Philadelphia and mouths crass platitudes about liberating Iraq even as his bombs rain down, little wonder that the Arab street cries out for vengeance. A wonder, in this context, that retaliatory terrorist attacks on western civilian targets have not yet begun. This steady radicalisation of Muslim opinion, this broadening polarisation and alienation of the Arab and western spheres is exactly what Tony Blair and others in Europe strove to prevent when the US "war on terror" was launched after September 11. Pro-western, so-called moderate Arab regimes also greatly fear what may yet ensue, not least Saudi Arabia. Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, glumly predicts the war will produce "100 Bin Ladens". He may well be right. The US could not find a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Now by its own woeful blunderings, it is creating one.
The american street is bombing the sh&t out of Saddam's forces and the impotent inept arab street is whining. HA HA HA HA HA. Like we care about the arab street. We'll be in Baghdad in a couple of days. And no, it is not a wonder that there has been no retaliation. There was no retaliation after Afghanistan either. The arab street is too stupid, inept, ignorant and cowardly.
Soon Iraq, Syria, and Iran will be ours... we will teach those evil arab scum to show some respect to their master...
Syria?? sure why not they are openly calling for terrorism They are calling for suicide bombers or as we call them "terrorists" And this being a war on terror and all:eek: Syria's Assad - 'We Will Not Wait' To Be Bush's Next Target 3-30-3 Special To World Tribune NICOSIA ÷ Syria, alarmed by the impending collapse of its neighbor and ally, has called for suicide missions against U.S. forces in Iraq. Syrian President Bashar Assad also called on Arab regimes to oppose the U.S.-led war against Iraq. He warned that Syria could be the next target of Washington. Assad said in an interview with the Beirut-based A-Safir daily that Damascus would not wait until the United States attacks Syria, Middle East Newsline reported. He did not elaborate. "We will not wait until we become the next target," Assad said. The mufti of Syria, appointed by the regime, called on Muslims to launch suicide attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. The statement came amid concern expressed by the Syrian regime over the U.S. advance on Baghdad. "I call on Muslims to use all means possible to thwart the aggression, including martyr operations against the hostile invaders," Sheik Ahmad Kaftaro, the mufti, said in a statement on Thursday. "This is the obligation of all Muslims." Kaftaro said the obligation to fight coalition forces begins with Muslims in Iraq. He also called on Westerners to protest the participation of their governments in the war against Iraq. Western intelligence sources said Syria has increased preparations of its military amid the war in Iraq. They said Assad has ordered accelerated production of the medium-range Scud C and D missiles, which have a range of 550 and 700 kilometers, respectively. Assad said he expected an Israeli attack. He said Syria would remain under threat as long as Israel exists Despite American warnings, in the last few days Damascus has expedited the passage of volunteers wishing to join the Iraqis in their war against the Americans, Haaretz said Tuesday in an exclusive report, according to which thousands of volunteer, most of them Syrians, are thronging to the Mosul and Kirkuk regions in north Iraq. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused Damascus of transferring weapons to Iraq, but did not mention the volunteers. On Monday the United States warned Syria and Iran again not to cooperate with terrorism and with Saddam Hussein's regime. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/278957.html Wait a cotton picking minute!!! WHY IS NOT ISRAEL in the coalition of the willing???? All these billions of our tax dollars, they are the BEST ally there, we want them ON the list
Yes Madison, your post makes perfect sense. On my first take, I thought you had quoted me somewhat out of context. But then I re-read my own post, and I now see that I did not present my thoughts clearly. Alphonso is of course not dangerous. While that is, admittedly what I said, again, I am at fault for poorly wording my intended point. Perhaps another try is in order. But you have already said it perfectly. "He may be dead wrong,or right.." and in a peaceful environment, it wouldn't matter either way. Freedom of speech and opinion works well for us. (While this, at least from what we hear on FOX News, doesn't work so well for the Iraqi people....and who can doubt Fox?) Extreme beliefs (and as you so correctly pointed out, all in the context of "whose intentions? stated by whom? which version, which motive of the several?") and the unwillingness to negotiate or debate with any hope or any intent whatsoever by either side to come to agreement seems dangerous to me. Empathy, of course is a total non factor. We have an American President that is determined to impose his will, "dead wrong or right". Opposing him is a tyrannical murderer (this fact remains no matter what one's opinion of the politics of the war), who we know will not have anyone's will imposed on him. Saddam himself "dead wrong or right"? (Hard to imagine anyone truly believing that Saddam is "in the right", but obviously there are vast numbers in the world who do...or more likely and more accurately, it is that they believe America/Bush is in the "wrong"). It seems to me that MondoTrader and MSFE/Wild are a microcosm of the whole shooting match (pun intended). The polarization of our planet; the absolute convictions of the opposing forces is what scares me. So again, no, Alphonso is not dangerous. Not by himself. (of course, MSFE/Wild is a better example, but poor Alphonso happened to be the one mentioned in the original statement I made). Nor is MondoTrader. Not by himself. But put the two of them in positions of real power. What do we have? A very volatile and "dangerous" environment. In physics, they taught us that the classic example of this would be the "irresistible force" and the "immovable object." In a logical world, they cannot both exist! Rs7
Iranians are not "Arab." Muslims without a doubt, Arab no... If you're gonna wax idiotic, at least get the basics correct.