Are we there yet, Dad? :)

Thanks so much for your reports from the field. It's really important that folks back here in the States get to read how things are going in Iraq, both the bad and the good, and I'm glad you're bringing your part of that to us.

Let me be 1st to say:

What kind of wimpy excuses are we being handed? Been in Iraq. Time off with my wife. What a pansy. :-)

Looking forward to your new dispatch.

oops....let me be second to say....

So much for democracy in Iraq, eh Mr. Totten? Instead of working through democratic means, Bush would rather tout deals with autocratic tribal sheiks! Worse, those sheiks were Saddam's power base! Does it make sense to anyone that we're now giving weapons and full support to the sheiks who just a year or two ago were sending their Sunni underlings to kill Americans, and five years ago were the backbone of Saddam's regime? Is this really what 3700 Americans have died for in Iraq? At what point in this ridiculous campaign will reason finally get a hold of war supporters?

Geez, Dan, do you want Americans to make peace with Iraqis or not? Turning tribal sheiks into Trent Lott and Barbara Boxer ain't gonna happen. Iraq is not static, but it will always be Iraq.

I think the kind of "peace" we'll achieve by arming and training the Taliban 2.0 in al Anbar is what Tacitus called the peace of the wilderness.

As in:

"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."

Riverbend finally posted again, btw. She left Iraq for the peace of Syria.

Taliban 2.0? You don't have the slightest idea what in the hell you're talking about. I'd tell you to go to Iraq and see for yourself, but that's obviously pointless.

No one who has been to Iraq thinks Sahawar Al Anbar is the Taliban. They vanquished the Taliban in Al Anbar.

"Vanquished" is a strong word, don't you think, Michael.

I see quite a few U.S. casualties in al Anbar last month.

Don't forget, the Taliban started out as a very small group within the U.S.-funded Mujahadeen of Afghanistan which grew rapidly because of their combat skills and claims of religious piety.

Plus, the tribes have to be a little upset with us for bumping off their sugar daddy.

Oh well, hope for the best and prepare for the worst, I guess.

You're going to look really stupid, e, when I publish my report.

Oh, and by the way, "e," I banned you some time ago when you went by the name of "Alphie." Since you still have nothing to contribute to this discussion aside from adolescent jackassery, and since you never apologized, I have decided to pull over the car, so to speak, and re-instate the ban.

Out.

I think you deserve time with your wife. A sincere thank you for to you and her for your sacrifice in bringing us the information from the ground that we might not otherwise get.

Good riddance. He didn't even possess a basic knowledge of the Taliban. A simple wikipedia search would have done the trick, but one should read Soldiers of God (Robert D. Kaplan) and Ghost Wars (author name escapes me atm) before they use Taliban in every other post. Sorry to be a stickler on this issue (one of the only times I comment), but I'm an Afghanophile who gets tired of hearing the word Taliban constantly misused in analogy...

BTW, any chance you will visit there someday Mr. Totten?

Tom from South Texas - not a nice thing to say. Yes, Michael is doing fantastic work! He was great while in northern Israel during last year's war with Hizbullah. But a marriage is extremely important to maintain. She must be a very special person. Michael, enjoy your time with her!

Great reporting, Michael. Keep it up. En

Raise your hand if you're tired of hearing those without history degrees or first-hand knowledge & experience talk as if they have either. (*cough* "e" cough)
And why does everyone keep assuming that an Iraqi representative government must be just like ours. If a Democratic Republic exactly like ours is what is pictured when folks say "Representative government ("democracy") can't happen in the Middle East or coexist with Islam in general," then I suppose I can see why they would think such a thing.

Strange babbling from "poots/poot"??

Chava: It was just a joke, thus the :-)
Of course Michael deserves to spend time with his wife. I think I should have used the word "slacker" tho.

Michael,

Geez, Dan, do you want Americans to make peace with Iraqis or not? Turning tribal sheiks into Trent Lott and Barbara Boxer ain't gonna happen. Iraq is not static, but it will always be Iraq.

That's not the point. We went into Iraq to fight Saddam's people. Now we're fighting FOR Saddam's people, because the people we gave freedom to, Iranian supported Shi'ites are too close to Iran for our liking, so now we're turning the tables back to the 1980s and backing the Sunnis against the Shi'ites.

Has General Petraeus really considered what it means to arm Saddam's people? Or is he quite simply not being truthful, that arming the Sunni insurgents is really about having a proxy war with Iran and her surrogates. Just how does providing MORE weaponry to a weapon-infested country like Iraq mollify the anger and hate and violence between peoples?

BTW, to further destroy "e"'s weak arguments, check out this link I found on Bill Ardonlino's page (the one Michael linked.)

Lengthy and well written, it was penned by Dave Kilcullen. Look him up on wikipedia for his incredible credentials...
check it out

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/

Joe,

And why does everyone keep assuming that an Iraqi representative government must be just like ours.

No one has claimed that it should be like ours, but we have been consistently told that democracy in Iraq is crucial to "success"---however that is defined. As long as our leaders continue the lie that we're in Iraq for democracy when our actions speak otherwise, then criticism is fairly meted out.

Cap: BTW, MJ Snotten, you're married, for real? You look kind of gay. Just checking.

Don't worry about this anti-gay language. He's just joking.

Dan,
I'll avoid jumping to assumptions on what you're referring to, so I'll instead just ask you to please clarify why it's a lie that we are attempting to spread representative government in Iraq (and what, then, do you believe our mission in Iraq to "really" be?)
I ask because it certainly seems that our actions and efforts would have been starkly different (and our difficulties quite likely lessened by a large degree) if our intentions were indeed not tied to the establishment of consensual government.

That lunatic Edgar quoted is banned, and his comments have been deleted. He didn't just accuse me of being gay, which is childish and stupid, but also advocated the murder of one billion people.

That lunatic Edgar quoted is banned...

That was so obviously a sock-puppet.

Dan,

Some of the insurgents are former insurgents.

If they switched sides and are no longer our enemies, then peace has been made with them and they should not be counted as enemies for the rest of their lives.

This always happens when peace is made with your enemies. It is not necessary to kill every single last one of them, in any war, ever. Doing so is evil and vindictive and not our way. Reconciliation is part of the peace process.

My grandfather fought Germany and Japan. He went to Japan itself for the first time in the 1980s and felt very uncomfortable...until he met a man who was an officer in the Japanese military who fought on the other side. They had a long talk about the war, and afterwards my grandfather never felt uncomfortable in Japan or around Japanese people again.

Sometimes peace is strange.

Some people are incapable of making peace. Osama bin Laden is surely one of those. But others can be persuaded to stop fighting, and when they do so they often become friends and allies. This is nothing new, and is not limited to General Petraeus and Iraq.

I know you want peace between Americans and Iraqis, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you're so upset about this.

Dan,

You are the kid who is always asking, "are we there yet?" during the ride and " I wanna go home" when arriving at the destination. Nothing is good enough. Contrary is the norm. Tiresome and negative is the effect. You will never be a good team player because you will never be allowed to call the shots. But feel free to spread the FUD...

If they switched sides and are no longer our enemies, then peace has been made with them and they should not be counted as enemies for the rest of their lives.

Amen.

DPU: That was so obviously a sock-puppet.

I thought that was possible, too, but I don't know. I've seen worse comments that I know are real and were also deleted immediately.

Nothing surprises me at this point.

An open thread...hmmm?

Is anyone going to watch the fights this weekend?

and/or

Is there a country (or region) that has either a majority or sizeable minority of muslims that hasn't had to deal with alot of religious violence?

Michael,

I know you want peace between Americans and Iraqis, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you're so upset about this.

Because I don't see how arming tribal sheiks brings the nation of Iraq closer to reconciliation and repair. Especially in light of our saber rattling against Shi'ite Iran. Moreover, tribal sheiks are just that---sheiks. They are not elected representatives. They rule over their tribes authoritatively. Furthermore, they set the rules for their tribe, not the government in Baghdad. Furthermore, arming Sunni insurgents with American weapons only seems to exacerbate the distrust with the Shi'ites, who are now wondering yet again just whose side America is on.

Anbar sheiks turning on Al-Qaeda is not a result of the "Surge." They began turning on Al-Qaeda last September. General Petraeus was wise enough to jump on it and "reward" those sheiks, but unfortunately it seems the game General Petraeus is playing does not conclude with national reconciliation. Perhaps that was never the endgame anyways. If that's the case, then we should terminate all talk of democracy in Iraq. It is a complete failure.

mikek,

Is there a country (or region) that has either a majority or sizeable minority of muslims that hasn't had to deal with alot of religious violence?

Malaysia. Indonesia (only some violence, but nowhere close to the levels found in the Middle East). China.

There are plenty of examples where Muslims are living in peace. So the argument that religion is the cause of the violence does not quite work so well. Other factors are involved.

Dan: Because I don't see how arming tribal sheiks brings the nation of Iraq closer to reconciliation and repair.

It keeps Al Qaeda out of their area.

Reconciliation and repair is impossible when Al Qaeda has seized control of entire cities in Iraq.

The sheiks exist. They are not going anywhere. They are a part of Iraqi culture. It is not possible to get anything done without working with them.

Paul Bremer dismissed them as relics from the past who didn't deserve a role in Iraq's future, and they waged war against him because of it. Petraeus fixed that mistake. Sheiks should not be made into enemies just because they are sheiks.

They aren't my cup of tea either, but Iraq is what it is.

Michael,

I am new to your journalism. I love what you are doing and reading your articles. I look forward to reading more!

That's not the point. We went into Iraq to fight Saddam's people. Now we're fighting FOR Saddam's people, because the people we gave freedom to, Iranian supported Shi'ites are too close to Iran for our liking, so now we're turning the tables back to the 1980s and backing the Sunnis against the Shi'ites.
-Dan

The US is arming Sunni tribes in Al Anbar to fight Al Qaeda (who are Sunni). Please identify once instance where those weapons were used to attack Shi'ites.

"Because I don't see how arming tribal sheiks brings the nation of Iraq closer to reconciliation and repair."

Try it's not happening. It's a gross distortion of what is actually happening.

The sheiks aren't being armed. Sunnis are being allowed into the ISFs in increasing numbers and are getting the same weapons and training any other Iraqi gets. Many of these young Sunnis were insurgents beforehand. This is where the myth of arming Sunni insurgents comes from. They are joining because the tribal officials have enough faith at this point that the US and the ISFs will provide sufficient security and that the Sunnis will have a place in the Iraqi government. In return, the Sunni tribal militias are being disbanded, not armed.

Iraqi law allowed for each household to possess one automatic rifle under Saddam and that law hasn't changed. So there won't be any gun control as we think of it in Anbar or any other Iraqi province or decrease below some base number of weapons but there are less weapons in independent Sunni hands in Anbar than a year ago, not more. Tribal elders have been giving them up, not getting more.

Lurker is correct.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what's going on in Anbar, in part because there hasn't been a lot of media coverage from there.

I should stay out of the comments and finish my (first) article on the subject...

Dan,

Sometimes you have to deal with the world the way it is and not the way you think it ought to be. That's what other posters are trying to tell you — Iraq is what it is. Just because we can't turn the population into freedom loving progressives overnight doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in despair and quit.

South Korea's history is marked by alternating periods of democratic and autocratic rule. Had we given up on South Korea and left them to their own devices instead of working with them and urging them to democratize we, might be without a economically powerful and democratic ally on the Korean peninsula today.

Malaysia. Indonesia (only some violence, but nowhere close to the levels found in the Middle East). China.

Jeeze Dan, I can contradict all those examples in a few minutes with Google.

At least 1 dead, 20 injured in Muslim-Han clashes in eastern China

Civil war looms in Moluccas
(This is a BBC report from the middle of the Molucca War where a 4 year civil war between Christian and Muslims claimed the lives of over 9,000 people)

Police clampdown on Malaysia violence

Wonderful and concise response, Michael.
Dan,
You said no one was claiming their democracy will look just like ours. But Michael's response is where I was going with that: the view that sheiks should not be included ignores the fact that they are deeply rooted in Iraqi culture. It also seems to be doing exactly what you claimed no one was doing: assuming that "democracy" is the same regardless of culture. Iraq's democracy will look like an Iraqi democracy. Just as the United States' looks like an American democracy, Britain's looks like a British democracy, Japan's looks like a Japanese democracy....

Guys,

I'm all for working with the sheiks. I think I should have said that clearly. What I'm trying to point out is that that is not what is being SOLD to the Americans, as the justification for our continued presence in Iraq. The justification was democracy. How are our actions in Iraq bringing us to that goal? If they aren't then why haven't we been clear to the American public that the original goal of democratization is failing and we need to reconsider our options? The reason we haven't had this clear debate is because the American people would demand we withdraw. Why should we go around propping yet another dictatorship? I'm trying to point out our hypocritical positions vis a vis Iraq.

It is yet another example of how the rhetoric does not match the action, and will yet again be another mark of failure, because we used the wrong tools for the wrong mission yet again.

by the way, I love the article in the Washington Monthly on Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq.

This particular passage is most noteworthy:

The first instructive set of data comes from the U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In March, the organization analyzed the online postings of eleven prominent Sunni insurgent groups, including AQI, tallying how many attacks each group claimed. AQI took credit for 10 percent of attacks on Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias (forty-three out of 439 attacks), and less than 4 percent of attacks on U.S. troops (seventeen out of 357). Although these Internet postings should not be taken as proof positive of the culprits, it's instructive to remember that PR-conscious al- Qaeda operatives are far more likely to overstate than understate their role.

When turning to the question of manpower, military officials told the New York Times in August that of the roughly 24,500 prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq (nearly all of whom are Sunni), just 1,800—about 7 percent—claim allegiance to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, the composition of inmates does not support the assumption that large numbers of foreign terrorists, long believed to be the leaders and most hard-core elements of AQI, are operating inside Iraq. In August, American forces held in custody 280 foreign nationals—slightly more than 1 percent of total inmates.

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which arguably has the best track record for producing accurate intelligence assessments, last year estimated that AQI's membership was in a range of "more than 1,000." When compared with the military's estimate for the total size of the insurgency—between 20,000 and 30,000 full-time fighters—this figure puts AQI forces at around 5 percent. When compared with Iraqi intelligence's much larger estimates of the insurgency—200,000 fighters—INR's estimate would put AQI forces at less than 1 percent. This year, the State Department dropped even its base-level estimate, because, as an official explained, "the information is too disparate to come up with a consensus number."

How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

So nice to see someone finally saying it right. If only the rest of the media would look at it properly...but then again, I have too high of a standard for my country.

Joe,
You have a good point, but how much is the current administration willing to let Iraq's democracy mold its self? As in this latest quote by Bush.

“[Maliki’s] learning to be a leader. And one of my jobs as the president and his ally is to help him be that leader without being patronizing. At some point in time, if I come to the conclusion that he can’t be the leader—he’s unwilling to lead or he’s deceptive—then we’ll change course. But I haven’t come to that conclusion. As a matter of fact, his recent actions have inspired me.”

Dan, the sheiks aren't "a dictatorship." And the government of Iraq, poor thing, was elected by the people who live in Iraq.

Iraq is a disaster, and until recently Anbar Province was the worst. There was no possibility of democracy or even a moderate dictatorship (like in Kuwait or Jordan) in Anbar until AQI was purged first.

Nothing was possible until AQI was purged first. Ramadi had no electricity, no running water, no functioning sewer, no telephone service, no garbage collection, and no funcioning business. All of those things were are ZERO.

First things first. A place that broken can't be instantly transformed into something you're comfortable with.

Dan,

I have no idea what percentage of insurgents in Iraq are AQI. But in Anbar they were around 100 percent just a few months ago. In most of Iraq they are zero percent.

Iraq is not one place. It is a huge country where conditions vary vastly from one area to another.

As far as I can tell, AQI has been defeated almost everywhere they operated in Iraq by now and may very well be only a microscopic remnant on its last leges.

Actually (and I reserve the right to change my view on this), I suspect that the odds of Al Qaeda winning anywhere in Iraq are now zero no matter what the US does. Everyone hates them. Everyone. They are self-defeating because they are so extremely psychotic. They appear to have made a victory for themselves all but impossible for the same reason no one wants to go on a date with Hannibal Lecter.

The Mahdi Army is more moderate, and therefore more difficult. And they aren't moderate enough (yet?) to make lasting peace with.

I feel no compelling reason to respond to any of Dan's uninformed rants anymore, but will make an exception to this statement:

"Moreover, tribal sheiks are just that---sheiks. They are not elected representatives. They rule over their tribes authoritatively. Furthermore, they set the rules for their tribe, not the government in Baghdad."

Factually this is correct. But you've obviously never been to Iraq or any other middle eastern area and fail to fully understand their culture, or the full role of religion in their society. There is not even an understanding of separation of "church" and state there. Religion very much dictates governmental actions and decisions.

Beyond that, give it a rest, Dan. Meaningful discussion of the issues Michael reports on is good. Being a self-aggrandizing message board troll is not.

Being a self-aggrandizing message board troll is not.

I really hate it when the troll label gets thrown about like this. Dan isn't a troll unless your definition of troll is wide enough to simply encompass people whose opinion you disagree with.

The comment section has been quite good here in the last few weeks, better than it's been in a long time. Part of that is undoubtedly because people are able to express differing opinions in a generally positive manner. This allows disagreement and expression of why the other side is wrong. Small flare-ups in temper are bound to occur, but it's generally been good, I think.

We've seen some good discussion from both sides of the fence. And most of your comment, Rob, is in that category save the last paragraph.

Micheal,

I have no idea what percentage of insurgents in Iraq are AQI.

Total foriegn fighters in US custody are 1.1%. AQ, I've heard is a small "sliver" of the insurgency.

I agree, Dan is not a troll. I don't want an echo chamber in here.

I agree. I don't want one either.

;-)

Michael,

First things first. A place that broken can't be instantly transformed into something you're comfortable with.

I agree with you, but here again we come to the problem. Our actions in Iraq are not being sold to Americans as taking the time actually required. Every time this administration and its supporters talk about the timing of the war, they keep claiming the Friedman Unit, that the "next six months are crucial." Now that we're in September the talk is of next April. Next April the talk will be October, and so on.

So will we have a proper debate about how long it REALLY will take? Will we talk about how the Army will run out of troops starting in April? Will we talk about just what we really want to do in regards to Iran? No. We won't actually have a proper debate about these topics because these actions will come at a very high cost to America, and no politician wants to really address negatives like these. They gloss over and spin reports to somehow benefit them. This is not proper, and it will cost us dearly.

My personal belief is that to fix Iraq, we really need troops in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 troops. That's the ratio that even General Petraeus wrote about in his counterinsurgency manual. 50 combat troops for every 1000 civilians. In a country the size of Iraq, that is about 500,000 combat troops. I believe that if you do not go all the way, you should not go at all, because half-hearted attempts will only bring you heartache and pain.

We should never have gone in in the first place. Now that we're there, unfortunately, unless we're willing to go full throttle, we must get out and stop making things worse.

Dan isn't a troll, but most of the things he says are factually incorrect and/or wishful thinking.

The least he could do is try to build an argument with facts and then spend the time to refute people's counter-arguments. For example, I would still like to know how Indonesia, China and Maylasia are examples of peaceful muslim/non-muslim coexistence. Convince me that islam isn't a leading cause of violence around the world.

Convince me that islam isn't a leading cause of violence around the world.

There are those in Islam that have hijaked the religion, like OBL, and those who are violent just because their homes or loved one were accidentally bombed. In the eyes of a Muslim, the approachment of the US into their lands is a threat. The majority, luckily, the 5 million in US, and 1.3 billion through out the world are still non violent. I have one site
you might care to look at concerning these things.

Russ, so you are agreeing with me:

"There are those in Islam that have hijaked the religion.."

The perpetrators of this violence are muslims, first and foremost. This worldwide violence is religious and the geography, nationality, ethnicity are not really relevant. I take issue with your use of the word hijacked, I think they are just using a population conditioned towards violence by the teachings and culture of this religion.
Furthermore, if the encroachment upon their lands is the problem, how do you explain the muslim violence in Norway, Denmark, China, Britain, Bali, India, Sweden, France, Germany, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. etc.

Keith,

It's a problem in those countries, no doubt, and I think they are starting to where out there welcome. I don't know really enough to speak more of it. As our own goverrnment studies have shown, though, the occupation of the Muslim lands has been a "cause celebre." It inflames radicalism. I think our 5 million Muslims have been doing a rather good job, and proportional to any other group, are not more violent. I disagree with you about the hijacking.

Time Magazine July 2, 2007

Five years ago, extremists murdered her journalist husband Daniel in Pakistan. Mariane Pearl takes some questions.

Has your view of Islam changed?

No, it hasn't changed at all. I grew up with Muslim people, so I was very acquainted with Islam. So it is not like the people who killed Danny taught me what Islam was about. They are hijackers of their own faith.

I think Miss Pearl is delusional.

If Muslims come into contact with non-Muslims there will be strife and terrorism. 'Our' Muslims are no different. To you they may be doing pretty well, but the coming anniversary of September 11th reminds me that they are quite good at killing. My original premise isn't that all Muslims are like this, just that the religion conditions people to do this.

I wanted to clarify my, in retrospect, poor choice of the word troll. In my mind, a troll is one who posts inflammatory responses, usually lacking substance or basis in fact, for what appears to be for the sole intent of instigating others.

There have been a number of posts previously that fit this bill.

With that said... Dan, I applaud you (seriously) for posting a well worded response about troop levels. It appears to be well thought out and attempts to provide a factual basis for your opinion.

Interestingly enough, I happen to agree with the math you have put forth. I disagree, however, that "we must get out and stop making things worse," if we cannot provide 500,000 troops. Michael's reporting, as well as countless others, discusses how positive gains can be made, especially when the troops are employed effectively (ie deploying WITH the populace vs the FOB mentality).

Doing as you suggest would accomplish exactly what you fear. Make things worse.

On another note, I think we should be careful associating the term "Muslim" directly with radicalism. Having been to Iraq myself and getting the chance to talk with Iraqis, many (if not most) will be happy to explain what the Koran says about killing. Many are adamant that the Muslim religion does not tolerate such actions.

In my personal opinion, it is solely a matter of education, which Michael possibly can speak to. Too many Iraqis lack the basic education to understand the difference between the teachings of what appears to be a peaceful religion, and the radical ideas that are so influential and being preached by their local religious leaders.

And to speak further to the separation of government and religion discussed previously, Americans delineate their national issues along Democrat vs. Republican belief lines. Government or no government, every Iraqi I met delineates their view of their country and the world along Sunni/Shia/Kurd religious lines. I think it is difficult for many of us in the West to fully understand this major fundamental difference.

At any rate, cheers to continued civilized discussion based in fact, not conjecture.

Dan,
You're arguing the politics of the war it seems more than the issue of the war. The politics of it are well established and surely don't need rehashing out. Each side's stance has been clearly marked. Now let's all put away our dongers.
The conduct of the war is another matter. Saying that we are being lied to about trying to establish consensual government there is not realistic. By reading Michael's, Yon's, and others' reporting I would have to believe a large number of our soldiers and more than a fair number of Iraqis would disagree. So even if your argument is Bush isn't aiming for this, this is what is being aimed for by those on the ground and it is happening.
Nor is it accurate suggesting that Petraeus believes we need 500,000 to 600,000 troops to win. He has never said such a thing, and has actually stated specifically otherwise on more than one occasion.
Furthermore, your own belief that it will take such a number in order to win is not based on fact. As you can see from the reporting, it clearly is working with a much smaller number. No, the verdict is not in yet on whether it will succeed in the end. Only time will tell. But your assertions that this cannot possibly work with such numbers is as debased as someone declaring victory tomorrow in the counterinsurgency battle.

Anyone like to comment on what the senior Senator from NY (D) said in front of Congress
yesterday?

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

(my emphasis added) - Isn't he forgetting a few major U.S. operations, and many minor ones?

Patrick? Michael? comments?

seems I lost control of the bold tag above

Anyone know if the html image tag works here?

Keith,

My original premise isn't that all Muslims are like this, just that the religion conditions people to do this.

What solution do you propose?

Tom,

I'll address the senator indirectly by writing 25,000 words on the subject. The first 5,000 will be ready for publication here shortly.

Oh, and the html image tag doesn't work, sorry.

Creamy Goodness (were you a Bond girl? :)

My proposed solution is basically a version of what is being done. I agree with Natan Sharansky that democracy is a big part of it; get the dictators off the backs of the people so they don't turn to violent jihad (real Islam) as an escape. Cajole our allies like Jordan and Kuwait, take out the recalcitrant dictators like Assad and Hussein and for heaven's sake watch who you let into the country.
This is a marathon not a sprint.

Blogging has been slow because I took some time off with my wife. She is leaving town for a few weeks starting this weekend, and because I've been in Iraq we have hardly seen each other.

Time to divorce, then?

Keith,

That doesn't seem like a sufficient solution for the problem you've identified. For better or worse, we have a lot of Muslims already in this country. What do you propose we do about them?

"For better or worse, we have a lot of Muslims already in this country. What do you propose we do about them?"

Maybe we should persecute them for a little while and then create a little muslim state in Israel for them to move to:)

The US gov't should offer buyouts for devout muslims to move to muslim countries. I don't know who thought religious muslims would do well in a secular and modern society, but it won't work. They don't like modern culture and their culture is too backwards to be tolerated (you don't have to tolerate intolerant people) so it is a bad match for everyone. Even if the initial group does well it is only a matter of time before the jihad gets going like it always does. I am not saying that all muslims are violent, but enough (maybe 10%) are to make it an unacceptable risk.

Maybe we should persecute them for a little while and then create a little muslim state in Israel for them to move to:)

Ow.

I agree with Natan Sharansky that democracy is a big part of it; get the dictators off the backs of the people so they don't turn to violent jihad (real Islam) as an escape

I think religion is a bigger part. How many mid-east Christians, Bahais, or Druzes are taking up terrorism as a career?

I think religion is a bigger part.

I think there's too much tribalism hanging off religion in people's minds in general.

Benjamin: Time to divorce, then?

No.

The US gov't should offer buyouts for devout muslims to move to muslim countries. I don't know who thought religious muslims would do well in a secular and modern society, but it won't work.

Polls have shown that politically extreme Muslims are no more or less 'devout' than politically moderate or apathetic Muslims.

It's really not about the religion. The people who support terrorism or Sharia law in the US see their political goals as a way of getting more power and money, just like any other hostile aggressor. If we wanted to take action against the political extremists, moving them from point A to point B wouldn't really help much. Giving them money wouldn't either.

A lot of devout Muslims don't speak out against terrorism, but why should they? Since 9/11, we all care so much about Islam. We all want to know what Muslims think, we hang on their every word. We try so hard not to hurt their feelings. No one wants to be an Islamophobe. Even though Muslim activist groups like CAIR and ISNA are full of terrorists, when they say 'jump' the State Department says 'how far?' We want to shower them with bribes, we give them special little washrooms for their feet.

The devout Muslims among us are doing very well in this modern society.

mikek:

I am not saying that all muslims are violent, but enough (maybe 10%) are to make it an unacceptable risk.

Depending on who's counting, there are between 1 and 6 million Muslims in the US. By your calculus, that means we have 100,000-600,000 violent American Muslims.

How can we tell which are the violent ones?

creamy, I was talking about muslims in general. That 10% would be the ones who not only believe that non-muslims are inferior, but believe that they should do something about it. If we keep importing muslims there will be a religious conflict at some point that never had to happen.

"How can we tell which are the violent ones?"

You can't and that's why you don't invite people who are hostile to your culture into the mix. I doubt muslims could go four generations in any country without being involved in some sort of religious conflict.

That 10% would be the ones who not only believe that non-muslims are inferior, but believe that they should do something about it.

Are there any major religions that DON'T believe that non-believers are in error and that something needs to be done about it?

Besides Buddhism, I mean.

Mikek: "I doubt muslims could go four generations in any country without being involved in some sort of religious conflict."

I think this sort of thing is really facile, Mikek.

If I said "I doubt Germans could go 2 generations without starting a World War," you'd think me a fool.

Hopefully people would make the point that numerous and varied historical, economic, political and ideological circumstances were involved in starting those conflicts -- rather than some inherent flaw in Teutonic DNA.

Is itfair to say that Christians are inacapable of going four generations without organising pogroms, oppression or even the mechanised genocide of Jews? Because a cursory look at European history over the past 1,000 odd years would probably bear that out too.

Personally, I think it's useful to make a distinction between Islam - a religion - and Islamism, an aggressive post-colonial political ideology which cherry picks aspects of the Islamic religion to provide it with the trappings of cultural authenticity and a moral justification to legitimise violence.

(What's that tap-tapping noise? Surely not the massed ranks of Islamophobes typing the words "tree" "rock" and "Jew" into Google to try and prove to me that Islam itself is inherently wicked? If so, please don't bother guys/dolls. The Old and New Testaments are littered with nasty one liners too).

I doubt muslims could go four generations in any country without being involved in some sort of religious conflict.

Four generations? Should we be especially worried about the descendants of the first and second waves of Muslim immigration to the US, from 1875-1912 and 1919-1924?

How much time do you think we have before the American Muslim population casts aside the facade of successful integration, above-average education and economic prosperity and commences its attack?

"I doubt muslims could go four generations in any country without being involved in some sort of religious conflict."

Here comes the Kristallnacht ...

Microraptor: Is it fair to say that Christians are inacapable of going four generations without organising pogroms, oppression or even the mechanised genocide of Jews? Because a cursory look at European history over the past 1,000 odd years would probably bear that out too.

This is true. And Europe still has a pretty serious problem with anti-Semitism. But I don't expect the Holocaust to start up again, ever.

But I don't expect the Holocaust to start up again, ever.

I wonder what a pogrom against Muslims might be called.

DPU: I wonder what a pogrom against Muslims might be called.

"The Backlash"

"Operation They Had It Coming"?

Oh wait, before this slips into bad taste...

Too late. Apologies.

"A Mogadon"?

Kristal-Nitrazepam?

Sorry... that's not even punny. MJT check your hotmail.

Some poss useful stuff for you there RE. Irooon

Microraptor, DPU - If you guys want some help with your pogrom punning, why don't you ask Britian's tubby Taliban for help. He's always going on about the same thing.

Here's what Riyadh ul Haq has to say about the upcoming Euro-pogrom against Muslims:

.....

On the Taleban “The only group of people upon the earth who are establishing the Sharia and the law of Allah” [In 2000]

“What crime has the Government of Afghanistan committed? All they have done is they have refused to hand over a person (Osama bin Laden) whose guilt is yet to be proven. Because of that crime, the entire nation is being punished. And as a result, because they strive to represent Islam, the whole of Islam is being demonised. And as a result, Muslims all over the globe are being discriminated against” [In late 2001]

On Europe “Europe has made it clear: they will not tolerate a Muslim force or power in Europe. And if it means massacring Muslims, if it means genocide, if it means a holocaust in Europe again, so be it. For this time, the target is Muslims”

On Muslims in Britain “It’s become insane that as Muslims in this country we are more concerned about the frequency of our bins being emptied than we are about Muslim women being raped, children being massacred, old men being put to death and buried alive, and entire populations being subjugated and being made victims of genocide in other parts of the world”

On Britain’s antiterror laws “Muslims are being maligned, our religious ideals and values . . . are under threat and it is naive to suggest otherwise. Read between the lines, peer beyond the spin. Laws are being introduced which . . . are targeted at Muslims. We are being discriminated against. Muslims in this country are being picked up one by one, control orders, imprisonment without trial, imprisonment on the flimsiest of excuses”

....

Your fellow pogrom-punner, Riyadh ul Haq supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus. His sect in Britain runs more than than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.

I'm sure ul Haq would love to hear from you.

Mary seems to have sat on a bee or something,

I'm sure ul Haq would love to hear from you.

That, in particular, is delightful. What is it about the above conversation that has so aroused your snark gland?

Mary, Mary.... how could I possibly forget that Jews are the real victims here - and there - and always. Turn your GIYUS tool off for a minute, why doncha. The megaphone is deafening me.

Besides, you may be interested in the following product.

http://www.newcolonsweep.com/

It's specifically designed to help tight assed people loosen up.

Jeez.

Well, at least there's tolerance on this blog.

We get only mild Islamophobia from Mary and mild anti-semitism from Microraptor.

DPU, M - You guys have your idioms mixed up. If one is tight-assed, one worries too much about small details. However, if one has their panties in a bunch, that's a sign of a wild leap into hysteria.

The panties-in-a-bunch moment in this thread came at the point when someone said "Here comes the Kristallnacht"... I was just trying to add some facts.

Mary, Mary.... how could I possibly forget that Jews are the real victims here - and there - and always.

Microraptor, I didn't bring up the victimhood of the Jews, you did.

We get only mild Islamophobia from Mary and mild anti-semitism from Microraptor.

And here I sit hating the Dutch like anything, and not a comment is made.

The panties-in-a-bunch moment in this thread came at the point when someone said "Here comes the Kristallnacht"... I was just trying to add some facts.

That was a response to a comment that said it took four generations to get the violent tendencies out of Muslims.

Is that a statement that you think fair or agreeable? It struck me as ominous, hence my Kristallnacht remark.

That was a response to a comment that said it took four generations to get the violent tendencies out of Muslims.
Is that a statement that you think fair or agreeable?

I didn't agree with it, but I'd already mentioned how wrong it is to blame Muslims for the actions of political extremists.

I am spending a gorgeous day stuck in a cubicle, and on my lunch break I read an extremely depressing article about the Holocaust in TNR, so I might be more techy than usual.

But, really, after reading about the genuine propaganda that led up to Holocaust, mikek's comment was not alarming in any way. Even the tubby Taliban, Riyadh ul Haq is a minor annoyance. It really wasn't comparable at all.

But, really, after reading about the genuine propaganda that led up to Holocaust, mikek's comment was not alarming in any way.

Well, to each his own. I've watched Conspiracy several times recently, and may be overly sensitive to offhand negative generalizations about entire ethnic groups and how bad traits are inherent parts of those people, so I may be tetchy too.

And here I sit hating the Dutch like anything, and not a comment is made.

Well, that's because most of us already know there is a special place in hell for those who hate the Dutch.

At least that's what my wife says. But then her ancestors are Dutch, so I think she's exaggerating a bit. Hard to say though.

My S.O. is Dutch, and she says the same thing.

I don't say anything in retort because the Dutch fight dirty, and I don't want to get smacked with a wooden shoe when my back is turned.

Me: My S.O. is Dutch, ...

Well, of Dutch stock. Some other strains got mixed up in there, but the Dutch genes strangle anything else they encounter, so it's the same as being Dutch.

Michael,

You once opined that there are more political opinions in Lebanon than there are Lebanese.

By comparison, do you find Iraqi political viewpoints to be as perplexing?

Hey.... Dubbel Plus de nr Goed, Wat wij gedaan hebben dit verdienen?!

En ik gekscheerde slechts, Mary.

Goede nacht van Teheran mijn vrienden.

xx

Micro van den Raptor - Ich spreche keine Niederländisch, nur Deutsche. Vieleicht ich verstanden..

Anyway, macht nichts. Guten abend.

do you find Iraqi political viewpoints to be as perplexing?

In Kurdistan, no. In Arab Iraq, more so even than in Lebanon, at least for me, because I don't understand the country nearly as much. It's harder to penetrate because I can't just hang out for months there with the locals and learn the "street."

dpu,

What does S.O. stand for?

The view of Islam being a bad religion appears to be a common rw philosophy. I can only wish we had had General Schwarzkopf lead this occupation instead of Bremmer. He appreciated the need to respect the culture of the muslims. I read once that a Muslim in the Green Zone was told point blank that his religion was "stupid." Crocker needs to go threw and weed the fundies out.

Mr. Totten, I admire your work.

(p.s. I'm of Friesian roots.)

Russ: The view of Islam being a bad religion appears to be a common rw philosophy.

There's bitter irony in the fact that many of the people who insist that Islam is incompatible with democracy are now dependent upon Iraqi Muslims to make democracy work and win the war for them.

Russ,

S.O. = significant other

I'd say "girlfriend", but I'm fifty and she's forty-something and says it makes her sound like a teenager. And "partner" sounds too professional. "Wife" isn't quite right because we aren't married and live in separate domiciles.

She's okay with calling me her "love bitch", but I don't care for that (have I mentioned she's Dutch?)

So we're stuck with "significant other", sadly.

Man, is this off-topic or what?

DPU: She's okay with calling me her "love bitch"

I've got to get married soon. I'll avoid these kinds of semantic dilemmas.

"I think this sort of thing is really facile, Mikek."

Good for you. I doubt that any non-muslim country will be able to avoid a small war if muslims have the numbers they are looking for. I am sick of hearing (or mocked for not buying in) about "tolerance". It is the right of anyone living somewhere to not want a hostile culture to move in. Fuck off.

"Four generations?"

A family isn't a wave. Any mass movement of muslims will mean war within fifty years. Islam doesn't accept the host and fails on its own. It's parasitic and won't work well for anyone. Fuck off.

"Here comes the Kristallnacht"

meh. It is kind of funny that the last few comments are focused on me hating people. I don't hate muslims. I hate the religion and doubt that it will work in the real world, but I don't hate people for being born into it. I want to avoid the next war.

My, my, we're getting a lot of violations of Godwin's law here. 'raptor, care to compare the rights of Muslims in Israel to the rights of Jews and Christians in the rest of the Middle East? Doesn't fit your agenda, but I'm sure you're up to spinning it.

Gary,

Christians have the same rights under law as Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. They don't in Egypt, or in Gaza obviously. Not sure about some of the others.

Christians have it rough in the Arab (not Kurdish) parts of Iraq, but then so does everyone else. If they had larger numbers, like they do in Lebanon, they would probably have at least one militia like the Sunnis and Shias. The Lebanese Christians had several.

Jews have it worse, definitely, everywhere except Israel.

mikek, earlier:

(you don't have to tolerate intolerant people)

mikek, later:

I am sick of hearing (or mocked for not buying in) about "tolerance". [...] Fuck off.

But you make it so easy to mock you, it's hard to resist.

Mary, neither do I (speak Dutch).... I confess!!! I found myself an internet translating page...

is apparently says:

"Double Plus no good, What have we done to deserve this?
Mary, I was only joking. Good night from Tehran, My Friends."

Gary R, just because my point of view is different from yours doesn't mean it's "spin."

Mikek, I think your statement that you don't hate people who are Muslims, you just hate the religion (which as you know is something of an all encompasing way of life to the faithful) is as weak and pathetic a distinction as when the Iranian government say that their deeply offensive slogan "Death to America" isn't aimed at American people per se, but the US government and its foreign policy.

Just ask MJT how he feels about that slogan, and he's intelligent and thoughtful.

Yep, I hate that slogan.

I once asked a Hezbollah supporter how he would feel if the US Congress opened sessions with "Death to Lebanon," and he understood my point perfectly. He was rather embarrassed and tried hard to get me to feel not-bad about it.

Micro VD Raptor: Mikek, I think your statement that you don't hate people who are Muslims, you just hate the religion...is...weak and pathetic

Most atheists probably hate Islam the religion without hating the people.

Just ask MJT how he feels about that slogan, and he's intelligent and thoughtful.

All brown-nosing aside, you might ask him a question yourself: what does he think of Islam as a religion?

Michael, I rarely comment but I have been a reader for years. The fact that you don't seem to have a political ax to grind is the reason that I believe you to be an honest broker, I trust that what you write is about as close to the truth as one can find today. Especially on the subject of Iraq. I also believe that you are a patriot and want what is best for America and for the world at large. Also your willingness to engage your readers in the comments section tells me that you listen to other opinions and serves to keep the comments section serious and informative. I just wanted to thank you for that. Keep up the good work.

Micro Van Den Raptor;

I think you suffer from the common delusion that Islam is the same as Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism. Islam, as you mentioned, is an all encompassing way of life. It instructs the follower on how to conduct themselves in every aspect of life; personally, professionally, politically, and morally. In the other religions I've mentioned these sorts of things are more like suggestions, and all you are required to do is a single thing for example with Christianity (belief in god).

Now I understand what you're saying, little Sharif down the street who happens to be Muslim, but has never thrown a rock, or said anything bad against Americans (although if he's watching the DATH TO AMERIKA, propaganda on Al Jizz he's most definitely thinking it) is getting blanked in this wide sweeping statement. This nice lovable kid is now getting shit on from thousands of miles away. Nobody likes that, but nobody also likes getting liquefied by Sharif's older brother who's had a longer time to be indoctrinated and build his suicide belt filled with nails, glass and other loveables.

Johndakota,

This nice lovable kid is now getting shit on from thousands of miles away.

You're also shitting on Matt Ghaffari, the first generation Iranian-American immigrant who won a silver medal for the United States at the 1996 Olympics, then broke down on the medal stand because he felt he had failed his country.

"I looked up and saw my flag. But I didn't hear my anthem."

Most atheists probably hate Islam the religion without hating the people.

I don't know about most atheists, but I'm an atheist, and I don't think I hate any religion. Actually, I have a great deal of respect for most of them, Islam included.

I don't buy into the mythos, but who can hate a belief system that billions of people think fundamental to their lives? One might as well hate humanity itself.

DPU: who can hate a belief system that billions of people think fundamental to their lives? One might as well hate humanity itself.

I am an atheist. I used to hate every religion except for Buddhism, but I started to feel like I was hating humanity itself, so I forced myself to adopt DPU's view instead. I've felt better since.

Islam is interpreted differently by different people, different cultures, and in different time periods. So my view of it sort of depends. It's hard to hate Islam if you're in Kurdistan, but I find it dreadful in Egypt. It's a different animal in each place, even though the source book is the same.

"Mikek, I think your statement that you don't hate people who are Muslims, you just hate the religion (which as you know is something of an all encompasing way of life to the faithful) is as weak and pathetic a distinction as when the Iranian government say that their deeply offensive slogan "Death to America" isn't aimed at American people per se, but the US government and its foreign policy."

I do hate islam. I think it is the worst religion in the world (followed by #2. christianity, T-3 scientology, mormons and the nation of islam, T-4 all the other random religions). My neighbor shouldn't be killed simply because he exists (don't hate the person), but if he attempts to force a barbaric and primitive culture (the all encompassing way of life) on my country and culture he needs to be removed.

Creamy Goodness,

Ya, and all the other potentially nice people around the world who don't necessarily fit the mold of evil Islamic Jihadist. One silly thing I seem to be missing is where is the outcry, from common people, not the few elite spokespeople who have been threatened and some murdered, about the "hijacking" of Islam? Makes me think these sorts of things really do represent the spirit of the religion. Maybe not what it was intended to be (or maybe it is afterall).

Either way, you completely missed the point of my previous post. My point, since I seem to have to lay it out in black and white, is that this guy equated unintentional labeling of some potentially innocent people, with the INTENTIONALLY INDISCRIMINATE KILLING of civilians. Now if you're ok with making that link, go right ahead, but don't act surprised when people are a little insecure around you.

Michael,

It's hard to hate Islam if you're in Kurdistan, but I find it dreadful in Egypt. It's a different animal in each place, even though the source book is the same.

In my experiences with you on three continents (so far) I would say that you are fine with religion and despise fundamentalism. You don't like Vienna for many of the same reasons that you don't like Halbja, over-adherence to religion constraining the capacity of humans.

I was hard pressed to understand how you survived your time in Iowa so well until I recently saw a map circa 1903 showing the 160 cities in the US with a population of over 25,000. Iowa had more urban areas a century ago than California did. Even though it was uncomfortably close to the bible belt, Iowa has had the capacity to support liberalism more than most of the rest of the country for longer.

Edgar,

I might have jokingly questioned DPU's parentage, but at least I didn't assert that anybody was poxed.

Johndakota:

One silly thing I seem to be missing is where is the outcry, from common people, not the few elite spokespeople who have been threatened and some murdered, about the "hijacking" of Islam?

One thing I seem to be missing is why people like you and mikek are cowering in fear of the American Muslim population. There are 1-6 million of them, and they're apparently too busy living the American dream to attack. What are you so terrified of?

"They" aren't even a "they". Muslim-Americans are "us". Watching Matt Ghaffari on the medal stand in 1996 was a deeply moving experience. I thought to myself, "that immigrant is ten times more American than many natives".

In contrast, I think the suggestion that certain people don't belong here because of their religious affiliation... is downright un-American.

Looking forward to it Michael.

Regards,
Mark

Creamy Goodness,

The problem of radical islam precludes the acceptance of any Islam because it is so loud and so psychotic. Perhaps if those muslims who are much more moderate would speak out and join the fight against these freaks, people would be a bit more forgiving.

Patrick,

I like Vienna just fine. It's cultured and nice to look at, it's just also a bit dull and there aren't very many "third places" like restaurants and pubs to hang out in. There are some, of course, but fewer than I am used to.

London and Paris are more stimulating.

But it goes without saying that Vienna is a much nicer place than Halabja.

And you're right about me and religion. Religion is fine, fundamentalism is detestable. That's why Islam doesn't bother me in Kurdistan while I find it dreadful in Egypt.

John: Perhaps if those muslims who are much more moderate would speak out and join the fight against these freaks, people would be a bit more forgiving.

They do. Read my next article, from Anbar Province, which should be published here tomorrow.

Creamy Goodness,

Thanks for showing up and missing the point yet again. I really wish there was color and bold text here for extra emphasis. Although missing obvious point two times in a row really has no excuse.

I'm not afraid of the average Joe Muslim down the street from me, who I say hi to while mowing my lawn. I'm worried the millions of them who scream Death To (Insert western country here.. usually America) on a daily basis. Hell they scream it even when America isn't involved in something that's pissing them off (reference Danish Cartoons.. American media outlets even refused to show them.. yet these muslims around the world screamed for the death of America then too).

Does it need to be spelled out better than that? Here, I'll qualify it a little more so you can't whine again.

It's not the american muslims who are happy to be american. It's not canadian muslims who are happy to be canadian. It's muslims who don't associate themselves with anything other than Islam and consider anyone who isn't muslim inferior and deserving of death if they refuse to accept allah, or pay the Jiza. Now if you're willing to spew that out every single time you come into this discussion that happens on almost an hourly basis on the internet, go right ahead, but i'll settle for the shorter version that may appear to blanket undeserving peoples, but that will appear so only to fools who haven't been around long enough to know it's not the case or intention.

Michael,

You didn't love Vienna on Sunday because the shops were all closed on Sunday. That, plus you were completely cratered by jet lag. Vienna is not so stimulating because it adheres to the forms of intolerant clericalism that it used to rule an empire for the better part of a century. They still haven't gotten a vibrant identity worked out for themselves since the fall of the Hapsburg dynasty in 1918.

John, the easiest route to your shorter version is to say Islamists instead of Muslims.

Michael,

Ya, I agree, but I'm pretty sure there will be someone else out there with an example of a cute Islamist child, or Olympic hero, and crying bloody murder.

Can you live with MJT's formulation, Johndakota?

[d'oh, waited too long to hit "post".]

Maybe there will be someone out there who brings up such things, but it's unlikely to be me.

As far as Islamists go, there are still gradations -- Abdullah Gul is usually classified as such. But A) he's considered moderate, and B) he's considered moderate despite his Islamist roots.

I think Islamist vs. Muslim is an excellent distinction to make.

I really wish there was color and bold text here for extra emphasis.

You mean like this?

There's also italic. Both done with standard HTML.

Testing 1 2 3

Neither color or font size worked

Patrick Lasswell: I might have jokingly questioned DPU's parentage, but at least I didn't assert that anybody was poxed.

Patrick, do you play baseball?

By Scott Ott (2007-09-07)
Just hours after the release of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden’s latest video message inviting all Americans to convert to Islam, U.S. President George said he would “seriously consider the offer, because it sure would simplify the war in Iraq.”

“If I convert to Islam and order all of our troops to do the same,” said Mr. Bush, “we can stay in Iraq indefinitely, drop the restrictive rules of engagement, save a lot of money by using cheap, unguided bombs, clear neighborhoods flat out, blow up mosques with impunity and still go to heaven — not to mention that I’d get more favorable coverage from the U.S. news media.”

The president added that he might convert to Islam just to “find out what it’s like to be a man who wears a dress and a bonnet and dyes his hair like a girl.”

Neither color or font size worked

You can test via Preview as well. Only bold and italic seem to work. Headline tags, font tags, image tags, javascript trojans, underline, and strikethrough are all filtered out.

But here's something fun that I noticed a while ago.

( c ) = ©
( r ) = ®
( tm ) = ™

Not sure how many of them there are.

John,

Perhaps if those muslims who are much more moderate would speak out and join the fight against these freaks, people would be a bit more forgiving.

For a weekly dose of liberal Muslim sanity, I recommend Irfan Husain of the Pakistani daily Dawn.

I first discovered his column on October 20, 2001, when he mercilessly dismantled a number of conspiracy theories regarding the twin towers that were popular in the Muslim world at the time. I've been reading him ever since.

http://desouzasdailydigest.blogspot.com/

very nice site, please comment to get it working a bit.

I just read some of Irfan's columns and can't help but wonder how many death threats he receives on a regular basis.

I once asked him something along those lines, and his reply was, roughly, "I have detractors, but I also have supporters". Pakistani liberals don't seem to be an endangered species. Dawn publishes a second liberal columnist, Ardeshir Cowasjee, though I find him far less readable.

You might find the column Husain wrote about his email inbox interesting. Few if any of the critics he mentions seem to be motivated by Islamist ideology -- Pakistani nationalism is more prevalent. He used to publish using the pseudonym "Mazdak", but this was under Bhutto and ideological enforcers don't appear to have been what he was worried about.

'raptor:

"just because my point of view is different from yours doesn't mean it's "spin."

And doesn't mean it's not. In any case, you didn't respond to my question, spin or no spin. I take that as confirmation of my assertion that you couldn't answer it to suit your agenda. Thanks.

Edgar,

I suggest we just ignore each other from now on. I acknowledge that my longer posts might make that more difficult because you are at greater risk of getting into my writing before you see my name. I would appreciate it if you could make the effort.

There are people in the military, in my own unit, that I just don't get along with, and that seems like it is happening here. Working out the details of an amicable understanding is going to be tedious beyond comprehension. I don't want to fight with you anymore.

DPU,

You are still in play.

Patrick Lasswell: Edgar,I suggest we just ignore each other from now on.

DPU, You are still in play.

You just don't get it, do you?

Stop issuing orders. Stop annoying people, and stop insulting people (especially using homophobic/misogynist language - even if you're "just joking").

I'm perfectly happy to ignore your ridiculous analyses of the Iraq situation. I won't ignore, however, your meaningless and obnoxious comments meant to insult other posters, including myself.

I can and will put you in your place if you step out of line again.

Dismissed.

Edgar and Patrick,

I get along with both of you just fine. I do suggest you both chill out or ignore each other. Your arguments looks incredibly petty and personality-driven to me.

Petty and personality-driven still beats "adolescent jackassery," I guess.

Hehe.

Edgar,

I can and will put you in your place if you step out of line again.

That is exactly the kind of careerist garbage the convinced me to leave active duty in the first place. I really wonder how many other people you are convincing to leave the military? If you cannot lead, try not to scold. It is tedious and does not accomplish your goals.

What's really irritating about this is that you are defending several known trolls who have been kicked from this blog. I was rude to trolls, and you are offended.

Patrick, what did you think of active duty? What branch were you serving in? Were you "dismissed" in the same manner Edgar has "dismissed" you as a professional soldier?

I really wonder how many other people you are convincing to leave the military?

Sigh.

做个友情连接
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
rolex replica
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
warcraft gold
warcraft gold
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
香港六合彩
搬家公司
在职研究生
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
飘零月
飘零月
rolex replica
布衣学子
飘零月
灵水之刀
巡海之神
沧天一笑
清日无痕
无水之河
秋去冬来
大海
飘零月
水无痕

As usual great reporting MJT ;-)

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

Enjoyed your article, it reminds me of comments from my husband who is a Civil Affairs Captain down around Al Asad. I have questioned photos of him, without armor etc...but he assures me that all is well.

Certainly there is one opinion on the state of affairs for each foreigner and iraqi in iraq, one definition of baathist, and probably one definition of success. Thats true anywhere and everywhere, as is the notion that subjectivity has replaced objectivity as the new world order.
What I'm really curious about, and can't seem to find in the state media, right wing media, left wing mediaor the 'alternate media' are :
1) Whats going on in local government in these newly sanctified provinces? Whats changing structurally?

2) Whats all this has meant to the so-called traditional extended family structure in iraq?

3) How comfortable are the iraqi's with the american mouthpieces proclaiming their intent to start an even bloodier war with Iran right on their border?

4) Given the history of 'intervention' in iraq,iran and afghanistan, do the iraqi's you're dealing with now feel that america won't walk off and forget their very existance like reagan did with the marsh arabs,kurds, and afghanis? Would they be amenable to this?

5) If the tide turns, and the ruling shia majority can't seem to 'rehabilitate' iraq's infrastructure, what role do the iraq's believe america will play in the ensuing struggle (if any), given its self applied title of 'peace makers'?

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold