Iraq is totally screwed after the misadventures of George W Bush and a stooge like John Howard. Both sought to enrich themselves from death and misery of others. Now there is a chaos in the Middle East far more dangerous than any past situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk

Well - the big argument is what actually constitutes the 'will of the people' over there at the moment. 

Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge of the many seeking better conditions and rights etc.

The other side say it is a dangerous movement of Pan-Islamism and is thus dangerous to sovereign nations (such as Egypt), and to work peace, since it would create one massive and singular-minded Islamic state, if given its head.

I think world events will overtake both arguments and it will become academic in the near future, since we will be at war on a big scale again.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge

Islamism is an anti-democratic movement.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:57am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:40pm: Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge Islamism is an anti-democratic movement.

Freediver nervously dips his toe into the Islamophobia pool.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 5:57am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:40pm: Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge Islamism is an anti-democratic movement.

Not necessarily if it is the genuine will of the majority... if it is an imposed system by an elite (nothing new there) it is not democratic.  where we of the West differ is on whether or not the rote learning of Koranic verse etc means a person is sufficiently informed to make a valid decision on such a thing.

^ people can democratically decide to be undemocratic.

What do we call that?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:57am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:40pm: Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge Islamism is an anti-democratic movement. Freediver nervously dips his toe into the Islamophobia pool.

I am new to this. Please go easy on me.


Quote:

Not necessarily if it is the genuine will of the majority...

The whole point of Islamism (Shariah law) is to impose it on people from above against their will. Our very own Islamist has explained this for us. It is a quaint thought experiment to imagine that people would choose this democratically, but the reality is that they don't. Even Muslims fear Islamism, in case the wrong type of Muslim is the one enforcing it. Of course, many still want to be the one pointing the gun at people, but when given the choice, cooler heads prevail. That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. If it was the will of the majority, it would be inevitable in a democracy.

They insist that they represent the true will of the people, and a few westerners are stupid enough to believe that, but you have to really want to believe it.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

^ people can democratically decide to be undemocratic. What do we call that?

A spineless apologist's wet dream.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 3:57pm: freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:57am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:40pm: Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge Islamism is an anti-democratic movement. Freediver nervously dips his toe into the Islamophobia pool. I am new to this. Please go easy on me. Quote: Not necessarily if it is the genuine will of the majority... The whole point of Islamism (Shariah law) is to impose it on people from above against their will. Our very own Islamist has explained this for us. It is a quaint thought experiment to imagine that people would choose this democratically, but the reality is that they don't. Even Muslims fear Islamism, in case the wrong type of Muslim is the one enforcing it. Of course, many still want to be the one pointing the gun at people, but when given the choice, cooler heads prevail. That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. If it was the will of the majority, it would be inevitable in a democracy. They insist that they represent the true will of the people, and a few westerners are stupid enough to believe that, but you have to really want to believe it. polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 9:32pm: ^ people can democratically decide to be undemocratic. What do we call that? A spineless apologist's wet dream.

You qualify for this week's free brown shirt.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals.

Are you saying muslims are democratically inclined?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:12am: That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. Are you saying muslims are democratically inclined?

You are firing blanks. You are a propagandist and instigator with an empty script.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphs

"... Sunni Muslims believe and confirm that Abu Bakr was chosen by the community and that this was the proper procedure. Sunnis further argue that a caliph should ideally be chosen by election or community consensus..."

bear with me LTYC.

I am asking FD, because he has dedicated a good part of 7 years here denigrating muslims and arguing ad-infinitum that when given the opportunity, muslims inevitably strive for the autocratic, anti-freedom route, not the democratic one. I'm sure he will be only to happy to refer you to a related PEW poll of Malaysians to help articulate his thoughts about "what muslims think". Interesting though that when I expressed this sentiment of his as "democratically wanting to be undemocratic" in this thread, he attacks it as "spineless apologetics".

So you can probably understand my surprise when he turns up here declaring that in fact muslims don't actually want the autocratic, anti-freedom option. Thus the question - are muslims then naturally democratically inclined?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:12am: That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. Are you saying muslims are democratically inclined?

Muslims are tribal.

Tribal. Can you believe that?  They are tribal people. It's 2014 and they are still tribal.

Soren wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 2:55pm: freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:12am: That is why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists have been forced to use violence to achieve their goals. Are you saying muslims are democratically inclined? Muslims are tribal. Tribal. Can you believe that?  They are tribal people. It's 2014 and they are still tribal.

Scientifically speaking "tribal" does not qualify as an insult.

From Wikipedia:

"... People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages..."

"... Anthropologists such as Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.

This work is for the progression of humanity and the enlightenment of ourselves, such as that advocated by John Zerzan or Daniel Quinn. These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term "tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of humanity, and proven by two million years of human evolution..."

Quote:

I am asking FD, because he has dedicated a good part of 7 years here denigrating muslims and arguing ad-infinitum that when given the opportunity, muslims inevitably strive for the autocratic, anti-freedom route, not the democratic one.

Yet I also supported democracy for Iraq and Afghanistan, which would not make sense if I thought that the first thing they would choose is to get rid of democracy (though I did acknowledge this as a genuine risk). What I have been saying all this time is that Islam is the greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 5:28am:

Yet I also supported democracy for Iraq and Afghanistan

Ah yes, the "established" democracies  ::)

What about Egypt? We both remember you twisting yourself into knots trying to explain a pro Egyptian-democracy rally as an anti-freedom rally, and your spineless apologetics for the brutal overthrow of that democratic government.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark here - "democracy" in muslims lands is only commendable if its imposed by the west, on western terms - not when its a grassroots movement that votes in the "wrong" guys amrite?

Why don't you tell us all about the wondrous democracy we created in Libya FD?


freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Throughout the rest of Islam's traditional heartland, the arab spring appears to be a progressive lurch forward, but again there are enough Muslims who reject democracy and freedom to create a significant risk that the current dictatorships will merely be replaced with the correct Islamic flavour of dictatorship.

The biggest threat to democracy in Islam's traditional heartland is a combination of secular dictators, and US intervention. Saudi Arabia - the key sponsor of the jihadists running rampant in Syria, as well as key sponsor of anti-freedom, anti-democracy in the region, is supported almost unconditionally by the US. Their intervention in Bahrain to smash a democracy movement there, amidst deafening silence from the west (while they were feigning outrage over alleged atrocities in Libya), is a salient case study in this.

Meanwhile, the lynchpin of the arab spring - Egypt - has had their democracy destroyed - not by the big bad islamists, but the same old military autocrats. Next door, Tunisia (the other genuinely grassroots establishment of democracy), is doing pretty well without US intervention. Libya - that other noble democratic intervention - went from per-capita richest and best educated in Africa - to failed state.

Quote:

What about Egypt? We both remember you twisting yourself into knots trying to explain a pro Egyptian-democracy rally as an anti-freedom rally

No knots. Freedom and democracy are not the same thing. The Muslim brotherhood are not pro-freedom any more than Hitler was.


Quote:

Let me take a wild stab in the dark here - "democracy" in muslims lands is only commendable if its imposed by the west, on western terms - not when its a grassroots movement that votes in the "wrong" guys amrite?

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.


Quote:

The biggest threat to democracy in Islam's traditional heartland is a combination of secular dictators, and US intervention.

In Iraq, who is on the side of democracy? Who is on the side of oppression?


Quote:

Saudi Arabia - the key sponsor of the jihadists running rampant in Syria, as well as key sponsor of anti-freedom, anti-democracy in the region, is supported almost unconditionally by the US.

Crap.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 10:32am:

No knots. Freedom and democracy are not the same thing.

You spent at least 10 pages trying to argue that the demonstrators supported neither freedom or democracy - and that the presence of a massive pro-democracy banner dominating the whole protest was just cynical propaganda.

But I don't blame you for trying to worm out of this now - the idea that a party that directly benefited from democracy wouldn't want to defend it is a bit absurd. I did make the point at the time.


freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 10:32am:

In Iraq, who is on the side of democracy? Who is on the side of oppression?

I think its fair to say just about everyone involved is on the side of oppression. The sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq, which is why they are not opposing ISIS. Its only your kindergarten view of geopolitics that divides everything into big bad muslims and good everyone else.

Secularists do not hold the moral high ground here - far from it.

Freediver is out of his depth.

ISIS would not exist without Saudi finance and weapons and political cover.

Quote:

You spent at least 10 pages trying to argue that the demonstrators supported neither freedom or democracy - and that the presence of a massive pro-democracy banner dominating the whole protest was just cynical propaganda.

10 pages eh? I guess you won't have any trouble quoting me then.


Quote:

The sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq

How?

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

10 pages eh? I guess you won't have any trouble quoting me then.

Here's your take on a protest that was literally impossible to see past all the freedom, peace and democracy placards:


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2014 at 8:10pm:

I am suspicious because I have not heard anything about freedom or democracy from them, and the words were not used on any of their placards.

FD: protest was not about democracy because there was only one (oversized) democracy placard...


freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

Obviously if their main interest was democracy, there would have been more democracy placards.

Yes FD - obviously  ::)

Any more requests for embarrassing quotes?


freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

Quote: The sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq How?

Its called "de-Baathification" - read up on it.

Ooop! Sorry, I almost forgot - you don't look stuff up.

Here you go...



Quote:

The prime minister emphasized Shia dominance in state institutions and has changed the dynamics of Shia politics. In his second term, Maliki took advantage of deficits in power-sharing agreements. Using the powerful patronage available to him as chief executive, he pursued a policy of “divide and rule” in dealing with other parties. He filled vacant positions in the military and administration with his loyalists and augmented the powers of his office and of networks related to him personally, thereby creating a kind of “shadow state” within the government. He gave more influence to independent commissions such as the de-Baathification committee, the Communication and Media Commission, the Iraqi Media Network, the Central Bank of Iraq, and the Commission of Integrity. He managed to greatly subjugate the federal court and forge an alliance with its chief that helped him encircle his opponents and weaken their ability to check his power through the parliament. The fact that Iraq is a rentier state and the Iraqi economy is largely dependent on oil revenue has also tended to empower the executive branch and those forces that seek to establish a more centralized state.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/04/17/iraq-s-sectarian-crisis-legacy-of-exclusion/h8v1?reloadFlag=1#

The US sidelined sunnis from the start, which led to the revolt in Fallujah, and the protracted sunni insurgency. Maliki has further institutionalised it by cementing power though his "shadow state" described above. What little representation sunnis might enjoy in a functioning parliamentary democracy is well and trully rendered useless by Maliki's effective curtailing of Parliament's ability to check his power.

This is what you posted Gandalf:


Quote:

You spent at least 10 pages trying to argue that the demonstrators supported neither freedom or democracy - and that the presence of a massive pro-democracy banner dominating the whole protest was just cynical propaganda.

The quote you provided does not reflect that in any way and was made before the existence of the pro-democracy banner was established. Your description of what happened is a complete misrepresentation.


Quote:

Its called "de-Baathification" - read up on it.

This is not the same thing as effectively excluding Sunnis - the majority of the population - from the democratic process. That is yet another complete misrepresentation.


Quote:

he pursued a policy of “divide and rule” in dealing with other parties

In other words, they were included in the process. Just because you lost does not mean you weren't allowed to participate, and trying to build that narrative is just sour grapes.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 11:57am:

The quote you provided does not reflect that in any way and was made before the existence of the pro-democracy banner was established.

The quote about you thinking it was not about democracy came after.

Are you saying you now believe it was about democracy? No I didn't think so.


freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 11:57am:

This is not the same thing as effectively excluding Sunnis - the majority of the population

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg


freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 11:57am:

In other words, they were included in the process. Just because you lost does not mean you weren't allowed to participate, and trying to build that narrative is just sour grapes.

Right. Well why don''t you run along and learn some basic facts about Iraq so that we're on the same page - particularly those related to the sectarian makeup of the country. Then perhaps we can discuss how minorities are routinely excluded from faux-democracies when strongmen representing the majority sect/ethnicity/group systematically ensure that those minorities don't have a voice.

Quote:

Are you saying you now believe it was about democracy? No I didn't think so.

I am saying your description of the discussion is completely misleading. I conceded in the previous thread that those people probably do support democracy in principle.


Quote:

Right. Well why don''t you run along and learn some basic facts about Iraq so that we're on the same page - particularly those related to the sectarian makeup of the country. Then perhaps we can discuss how minorities are routinely excluded from faux-democracies when strongmen representing the majority sect/ethnicity/group systematically ensure that those minorities don't have a voice.

I just asked you about that. Strange that you are so reluctant to explain how the sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq. These are your words Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 5:16pm:

I just asked you about that. Strange that you are so reluctant to explain how the sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq. These are your words Gandalf.

My previous post explained it very clearly.

I'm not going to repeat myself so...


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 10:45am:

The US sidelined sunnis from the start, which led to the revolt in Fallujah, and the protracted sunni insurgency. Maliki has further institutionalised it by cementing power though his "shadow state" described above. What little representation sunnis might enjoy in a functioning parliamentary democracy is well and trully rendered useless by Maliki's effective curtailing of Parliament's ability to check his power.

I believe your initial confusion was due to your incorrect belief that sunnis are a minority, but you have no such excuse now.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 5:56pm:

Iraq is totally screwed after the misadventures of George W Bush and a stooge like John Howard. Both sought to enrich themselves from death and misery of others. Now there is a chaos in the Middle East far more dangerous than any past situation.

They the muslims themselves are in charge of the chaos no one else. Go have a cry in the corner over George and Howard.It is a shame the muslims are so violent. Nothing can help them no matter who does what to them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 5:16pm: I just asked you about that. Strange that you are so reluctant to explain how the sunnis have been effectively excluded from the "democracy" in Iraq. These are your words Gandalf. My previous post explained it very clearly. I'm not going to repeat myself so... polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 10:45am: The US sidelined sunnis from the start, which led to the revolt in Fallujah, and the protracted sunni insurgency. Maliki has further institutionalised it by cementing power though his "shadow state" described above. What little representation sunnis might enjoy in a functioning parliamentary democracy is well and trully rendered useless by Maliki's effective curtailing of Parliament's ability to check his power. I believe your initial confusion was due to your incorrect belief that sunnis are a minority, but you have no such excuse now.

So the US excluded sunnis by sidelining them? How did they do that? Better get out the thesaurus so you can give us a really detailed explanation.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 5:57am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:40pm: Some say that the Arab Spring which includes Islamism etc is a good thing since it is an uprising of the democratic urge Islamism is an anti-democratic movement. Freediver nervously dips his toe into the Islamophobia pool.

I'd say you need to work out what the word Islamophobia actually means before making such nonsensical statements.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 9:32pm:

^ people can democratically decide to be undemocratic. What do we call that?

Backward

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:49pm:

So the US excluded sunnis by sidelining them?

Ah yes... apologies I must have momentarily forgot I was discussing this with you.

The US sidelined excluded sunnis from the start...

Is that better?

How?

de-Baathification - I believe I mentioned it before.

Suggest you look it up.

Freediver is mentally filtering out the things he doesn't want to acknowledge.

There is no doubt that USA military caused a huge disruption to Sunni society in Iraq that barred them from careers and jobs and left them the ability to work only in their own Sunni communities. The process of de-Baathification, as it was called, was the beginning of intensive and extensive prejudice and discrimination against Sunnis.

If you aren't willing to talk about it Gandalf, why start a thread on it? This is your chance to complain about America messing up democracy.

Isn't this a bit like complaining that the west did not allow the Nazi party to manage West Germany's transition back to democracy after WWII, and then insisting that it equates to systematic discrimination against white Christians?

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 9:32pm: ^ people can democratically decide to be undemocratic. What do we call that? Backward

muslim

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 5:56pm: Iraq is totally screwed after the misadventures of George W Bush and a stooge like John Howard. Both sought to enrich themselves from death and misery of others. Now there is a chaos in the Middle East far more dangerous than any past situation. They the muslims themselves are in charge of the chaos no one else. Go have a cry in the corner over George and Howard.It is a shame the muslims are so violent. Nothing can help them no matter who does what to them.

true -
Quote:

.............. the muslims are so violent. Nothing can help them no matter .....

their violence is foretold in genesis.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

If you aren't willing to talk about it Gandalf, why start a thread on it?

I didn't start a thread on it, I answered a question you asked me. The elaboration that you are demanding is in reply#19 - suggest you re-read it, reflect on it, and come back with some sensible questions or debating points.

The marginalisation of the sunnis by the US is common knowledge, but it is not the subject of this particular discussion. You asked me "who is on the side of democracy" - I answered that it is definitely not Maliki, since he is subverting democracy by excluding the sunnis from the political process (again, details in reply#19). Thus the point about your simplistic dichotomy into those "on the side of democracy" and those "on the side of oppression" is that it is patently unfair, and absurd.

Quote:

The elaboration that you are demanding is in reply#19

Where you clarified that the US excluded sunnis by sidelining them? Nothing in that post demonstrates systematic structural discrimination against sunnis. It is just a whinge about them "losing" elections.


Quote:

The marginalisation of the sunnis by the US is common knowledge, but it is not the subject of this particular discussion.

Are we not talking about democracy in Iraq? What could be more relevant than excluding a religious group from the democratic process?

Hold it, Bruvvas!

It seems to me that we are dealing with a number of 'definitions' of what constitutes democracy (remember my shot at Andrei over things being determined by how you define an issue - one man's 'slacker' or ''leaner' is another man's victim of bad policy etc)...

It seems to me some here are basically advocating the democracy of the gun - those with more firepower inherit the earth...

That is most emphatically NOT the workings of democracy - it is the workings of violence and abuse of equalities and rights in the most extreme manner.

Democracy is supposed to work for all - not just for the Bolsheviks with the guns...

Maybe these clowns in Irak should look at Switzerland.......  French, German and Italian Swiss get along just fine.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

Hold it, Bruvvas! It seems to me that we are dealing with a number of 'definitions' of what constitutes democracy (remember my shot at Andrei over things being determined by how you define an issue - one man's 'slacker' or ''leaner' is another man's victim of bad policy etc)... It seems to me some here are basically advocating the democracy of the gun - those with more firepower inherit the earth... That is most emphatically NOT the workings of democracy - it is the workings of violence and abuse of equalities and rights in the most extreme manner. Democracy is supposed to work for all - not just for the Bolsheviks with the guns... Maybe these clowns in Irak should look at Switzerland.......  French, German and Italian Swiss get along just fine.

French, German and Italian Swiss weren't bombed, shot at, had their houses demolished and then barred from jobs.

Iraq is not Switzerland. At least not after George W Bush and the coalition of the killing finished with it.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

Where you clarified that the US excluded sunnis by sidelining them? Nothing in that post demonstrates systematic structural discrimination against sunnis. It is just a whinge about them "losing" elections.

The part about Maliki setting up a shadow state to facilitate the dominance of shiites in state institutions, and consolidating power through a "divide and rule" model along sectarian lines - thus effectively excluding sunnis (a minority) from the democratic process. A relevant article to this topic was quoted in post#19 for your convenience. I'm going to take a wild stab and say you haven't read this. Strongly recommend that you do.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:22am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 9:54pm: Hold it, Bruvvas! It seems to me that we are dealing with a number of 'definitions' of what constitutes democracy (remember my shot at Andrei over things being determined by how you define an issue - one man's 'slacker' or ''leaner' is another man's victim of bad policy etc)... It seems to me some here are basically advocating the democracy of the gun - those with more firepower inherit the earth... That is most emphatically NOT the workings of democracy - it is the workings of violence and abuse of equalities and rights in the most extreme manner. Democracy is supposed to work for all - not just for the Bolsheviks with the guns... Maybe these clowns in Irak should look at Switzerland.......  French, German and Italian Swiss get along just fine. French, German and Italian Swiss weren't bombed, shot at, had their houses demolished and then barred from jobs. Iraq is not Switzerland. At least not after George W Bush and the coalition of the killing finished with it.

Damn it, sir!  They had centuries of warfare before they settled on a civilised system of power sharing.

Quote:

French, German and Italian Swiss weren't bombed, shot at, had their houses demolished and then barred from jobs.

::)


Quote:

The part about Maliki setting up a shadow state to facilitate the dominance of shiites in state institutions, and consolidating power through a "divide and rule" model along sectarian lines - thus effectively excluding sunnis (a minority) from the democratic process.

So you vote him out. Divide and rule is not undemocratic. It is a standard tactic. Democracy means rule by majority, not rule by minority. You do not need a conspiracy or "shadow state" to explain a minority not getting their way.


Quote:

A relevant article to this topic was quoted in post#19 for your convenience. I'm going to take a wild stab and say you haven't read this. Strongly recommend that you do.

I read it. It contained the same sort of thesaurus waving that you have substituted for a coherent argument here. You have not presented anything close to a rational explanation for how the US excluded sunnis from the democratic process.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:28am:

So you vote him out. Divide and rule is not undemocratic. It is a standard tactic. Democracy means rule by majority, not rule by minority.

A key component of a functioning democracy is to maintain and protect the independence of key state institutions like the judiciary. Maliki has been busily interfering with them - including intimidation and arrests, and replacing these bodies with his own cronies. This has enabled him to create a shadow state that can subvert the authority of the parliament - the one democratic tool available to the minority sunnis.

You may think that a democracy is simply having a free and fair vote, which gives the winner carte-blanche to rule as they please. But it is not. Half of democracy is protecting critical independent bodies that independently adjudicate on the constitution and/or other foundations of state to protect against abuse of power - even when its done by fairly elected rulers.

Let's stick to one fallacy at a time. How has the US effectively excluded sunnis from the democratic process (beyond 'sidelining' them)?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

Let's stick to one fallacy at a time. How has the US effectively excluded sunnis from the democratic process (beyond 'sidelining' them)?

He just said that Maliki was carrying on like governments the world over, stacking his judiciary, puvlic service, army and so forth with cronies, fellow travellers and running dogs.  It's just more obvious in a non-secular state largely governed by religious ideas and prejudices.

Not a word about the US, unless we are to infer that Maliki is their lap dog and does their bidding.

under the auspices of "de-baathification". Feel free to read up on it, there's plenty written about it. You could even say its common knowledge.

And how do you suppose there is any difference between 'sidelining' and 'excluding' in this respect? There isn't.

I never said there was a difference - hence my suggestion that you were waving a thesaurus round in lieu of a rational argument.

The de-baathification is common knowledge. Using it to exclude Sunnis in general from the democratic process is not. Hence my suggestion that this is a bit like complaining that the west did not allow the Nazi party to manage West Germany's transition back to democracy after WWII, and then insisting that it equates to systematic discrimination against white Christians.

That is why you can only make vague allusions in your desperation to paint this as anything but one side defending democracy and the other attacking it.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:

The de-baathification is common knowledge. Using it to exclude Sunnis in general from the democratic process is not.

Yes it is. Please read up on it.


freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:

That is why you can only make vague allusions in your desperation to paint this as anything but one side defending democracy and the other attacking it.

No side is defending democracy FD. Pretty much all sides are trying to destroy it. I would have thought tha the "muslims hate democracy" meme you've been banging on all these years would have kicked in here. Or is your need to blindly defend anything the US touches really that pathologcal?

Quote:

Yes it is. Please read up on it.

What I have read so far is mindless drivel. I am not going to go looking for more. It does not even make sense. There is no need to make any effort at all to exclude a minority group from democratic processes. The nature of democracy itself achieves the same thing, and the arguments you have copied and pasted so far merely indicate that the author cannot tell the difference. I don't think you can either. I doubt you would be satisfied with anything short of the re-election of the baath party to power.

Bottom line is, you made the claim, but you cannot defend it. You can foresee Muslims doing exactly what I accuse them of - destroying democracy - and you are desperate to paint it as anything but, by pretending both sides were out to destroy democracy.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Quote: Yes it is. Please read up on it. What I have read so far is mindless drivel. I am not going to go looking for more. It does not even make sense. There is no need to make any effort at all to exclude a minority group from democratic processes. The nature of democracy itself achieves the same thing, and the arguments you have copied and pasted so far merely indicate that the author cannot tell the difference. I don't think you can either. I doubt you would be satisfied with anything short of the re-election of the baath party to power. Bottom line is, you made the claim, but you cannot defend it. You can foresee Muslims doing exactly what I accuse them of - destroying democracy - and you are desperate to paint it as anything but, by pretending both sides were out to destroy democracy.

Now you have appraised us of your education and information sources perhaps you can liberate your mind.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Sunnis have faced extreme prejudice in Iraq perpetrated by USA and perpetuated by the Shia.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

the arguments you have copied and pasted so far merely indicate that the author cannot tell the difference.

I'm not sure what you were reading, but the article I quoted wasn't even talking about sunnis being excluded  :P But the processes it describes does demonstrate that effect. As does the second article I linked - describing Maliki's (undemocratic) hijacking of independent institutions vital for upholding democracy. Being a minority, these sorts of moves affect the sunnis the most.

Here's another article you can misinterpret - about the barring of 9 political parties and hundreds of sunni candidates during the 2010 election - ensuring that the sunnis performed poorly in that election:

http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/01/26/de-baathification-as-political-tool-commission-ruling-bans-political-parties-and-leaders/7mt


freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

You can foresee Muslims doing exactly what I accuse them of - destroying democracy - and you are desperate to paint it as anything but, by pretending both sides were out to destroy democracy.

Both sides clearly don't want a fair democracy - Maliki continues to take an authoritarian approach to subvert the democratic institutions and exclude sunnis and other non-aligned shiites, the sunnis at this stage seem warily content to let ISIS destroy the Baghdad regime. I've presented my argument - whats yours FD? Who are the people "on the side of democracy"? The Kurds - for themselves, thats about it.

Quote:

There is absolutely no doubt that the Sunnis have faced extreme prejudice in Iraq perpetrated by USA and perpetuated by the Shia.

I doubt it. The blind insistence from you and Gandalf is hardly convincing.


Quote:

I'm not sure what you were reading, but the article I quoted wasn't even talking about sunnis being excluded  Tongue But the processes it describes does demonstrate that effect.

Is this like when you accuse me of saying things I have not actually said?


Quote:

Being a minority, these sorts of moves affect the sunnis the most.

So the Sunnis were not directly excluded by the US or Maliki - you just assume they will be affected most?


Quote:

Here's another article you can misinterpret - about the barring of 9 political parties and hundreds of sunni candidates during the 2010 election - ensuring that the sunnis performed poorly in that election:

Is this any different to us not allowing the Nazi party to manage West Germany's transition back to democracy after WWII or run for office? Were any of these people not members of the Baath party?


Quote:

Both sides clearly don't want a fair democracy - Maliki continues to take an authoritarian approach to subvert the democratic institutions and exclude sunnis and other non-aligned shiites, the sunnis at this stage seem warily content to let ISIS destroy the Baghdad regime

Of course. I can see how you would miss the subtle differences. One side is appointing judges with bias. The other is slaughtering their way to Bagdad to impose a Shariah state. Who's to say which one opposes democracy?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Of course. I can see how you would miss the subtle differences. One side is appointing judges with bias. The other is slaughtering their way to Bagdad to impose a Shariah state.

Umm nice strawman... did I ever say there was no difference between the two? Answer = no.

And its not "the sunnis" who are slaughtering their way to Baghdad as you so disingenuously imply - it is ISIS - a very small group made up mostly of non-Iraqis.


freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Who's to say which one opposes democracy?

All sides oppose democracy at this point - Maliki is establishing himself an authoritarian regime, while the sunnis seem content on letting ISIS try and destroy the regime in Baghdad. The exception is the Kurds - they are fighting for their democracy in what looks more and more likely to be their new state

ISIS wants to establish a caliphate

Their goal since being founded in 2004 has been remarkably consistent: found a hardline Sunni Islamic state. As General Ray Odierno puts it: "They want complete failure of the government in Iraq. They want to establish a caliphate in Iraq." Even after ISIS split with al-Qaeda in February 2014 (in large part because ISIS was too brutal even for al-Qaeda), ISIS' goal remained the same.

The conflict betweeen Iraqi Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS

Perhaps the single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS.

The difference between the two largest Muslim groups originated with a controversy over who got to take power after the Prophet Muhammed's death, which you can read all about here. But Iraq's sectarian problems aren't about relitigating 7th century disputes; they're about modern political power and grievances.

http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS

----------------

More BS from the pretend Sunni Imam

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

ISIS wants to establish a caliphate Their goal since being founded in 2004 has been remarkably consistent: found a hardline Sunni Islamic state. As General Ray Odierno puts it: "They want complete failure of the government in Iraq. They want to establish a caliphate in Iraq." Even after ISIS split with al-Qaeda in February 2014 (in large part because ISIS was too brutal even for al-Qaeda), ISIS' goal remained the same. The conflict betweeen Iraqi Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS Perhaps the single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. The difference between the two largest Muslim groups originated with a controversy over who got to take power after the Prophet Muhammed's death, which you can read all about here. But Iraq's sectarian problems aren't about relitigating 7th century disputes; they're about modern political power and grievances. http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS ---------------- More BS from the pretend Sunni Imam

Wasn't General Ray Odierno one of the wretches who failed in Iraq causing the current chaos?

You are a disciple of failures.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:42pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:52pm: ISIS wants to establish a caliphate Their goal since being founded in 2004 has been remarkably consistent: found a hardline Sunni Islamic state. As General Ray Odierno puts it: "They want complete failure of the government in Iraq. They want to establish a caliphate in Iraq." Even after ISIS split with al-Qaeda in February 2014 (in large part because ISIS was too brutal even for al-Qaeda), ISIS' goal remained the same. The conflict betweeen Iraqi Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS Perhaps the single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. The difference between the two largest Muslim groups originated with a controversy over who got to take power after the Prophet Muhammed's death, which you can read all about here. But Iraq's sectarian problems aren't about relitigating 7th century disputes; they're about modern political power and grievances. http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS ---------------- More BS from the pretend Sunni Imam Wasn't General Ray Odierno one of the wretches who failed in Iraq causing the current chaos? You are a disciple of failures.

You are a disciple of intellectual incapacity.

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:45pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:42pm: Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:52pm: ISIS wants to establish a caliphate Their goal since being founded in 2004 has been remarkably consistent: found a hardline Sunni Islamic state. As General Ray Odierno puts it: "They want complete failure of the government in Iraq. They want to establish a caliphate in Iraq." Even after ISIS split with al-Qaeda in February 2014 (in large part because ISIS was too brutal even for al-Qaeda), ISIS' goal remained the same. The conflict betweeen Iraqi Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS Perhaps the single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. The difference between the two largest Muslim groups originated with a controversy over who got to take power after the Prophet Muhammed's death, which you can read all about here. But Iraq's sectarian problems aren't about relitigating 7th century disputes; they're about modern political power and grievances. http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS ---------------- More BS from the pretend Sunni Imam Wasn't General Ray Odierno one of the wretches who failed in Iraq causing the current chaos? You are a disciple of failures. You are a disciple of intellectual incapacity.

Sorry old son. I don't accept your appointment as your disciple.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:45pm: Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:42pm: Mattywisk wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 8:52pm: ISIS wants to establish a caliphate Their goal since being founded in 2004 has been remarkably consistent: found a hardline Sunni Islamic state. As General Ray Odierno puts it: "They want complete failure of the government in Iraq. They want to establish a caliphate in Iraq." Even after ISIS split with al-Qaeda in February 2014 (in large part because ISIS was too brutal even for al-Qaeda), ISIS' goal remained the same. The conflict betweeen Iraqi Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS Perhaps the single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. The difference between the two largest Muslim groups originated with a controversy over who got to take power after the Prophet Muhammed's death, which you can read all about here. But Iraq's sectarian problems aren't about relitigating 7th century disputes; they're about modern political power and grievances. http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS ---------------- More BS from the pretend Sunni Imam Wasn't General Ray Odierno one of the wretches who failed in Iraq causing the current chaos? You are a disciple of failures. You are a disciple of intellectual incapacity. Sorry old son. I don't accept your appointment as your disciple.

No need for that its clear you are already a disciple of intellectual incapacity..

As you were.

Quote:

And its not "the sunnis" who are slaughtering their way to Baghdad as you so disingenuously imply - it is ISIS - a very small group made up mostly of non-Iraqis.

Likewise it was not "the sunnis" that the US excluded from the democratic process as you explicitly stated, but the Baathists - Iraq's equivalent of the Nazi party in West Germany after WWII.

I'm pretty sure there are a few Iraqis in ISIS.

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 6:54am:

Likewise it was not "the sunnis" that the US excluded

Try as you may, this is not the topic - it is the exclusion by the Maliki regime - a point that you consistently fail to address - because you can't. The best you can come up with is clever little quips about thesauruses.

In 2014, no side in Iraq is "on the side of democracy" - do you agree with that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:47am:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 7:19pm: Where you clarified that the US excluded sunnis by sidelining them? Nothing in that post demonstrates systematic structural discrimination against sunnis. It is just a whinge about them "losing" elections. The part about Maliki setting up a shadow state to facilitate the dominance of shiites in state institutions, and consolidating power through a "divide and rule" model along sectarian lines - thus effectively excluding sunnis (a minority) from the democratic process. A relevant article to this topic was quoted in post#19 for your convenience. I'm going to take a wild stab and say you haven't read this. Strongly recommend that you do.

Iraq is a basket case... An artificial state that will (probably sooner rather than later) split along sectarian lines... And if so, let it be so...

Western support should be with the Kurds, who have, despite their suffering and their being betrayed, proved the only people worthy of western support and respect by their commitment to building a peaceful political and social state.

Pressure should be put on Turkey to support a Kurdish independent state (it would test Turkey's credentials for politically returning to Europe)... Supporting a people who have come so far to prove their worth as the kind of modern nation builders that is so lacking in the region.

Australia should support the proposition of a Kurdish referendum on independence.

The rest of Iraq? Let the Shi'ites and the Sunnis carve it up between themselves as they see fit... The sooner, the better.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

Iraq is a basket case... An artificial state that will (probably sooner rather than later) split along sectarian lines... And if so, let it be so...

Couldn't agree more

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 5:56pm:

Iraq is totally screwed after the misadventures of George W Bush and a stooge like John Howard. Both sought to enrich themselves from death and misery of others. Now there is a chaos in the Middle East far more dangerous than any past situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk

We can't really blame George, he was kind of invited to attack some Muslims somewhere, let's face it. And had his fathers unfilled legacy of abandoning some of the supporters of US in Iraq following the first war there, to take care of. And Aussie Johnny too can't be held accountable, after-all helping others invade Muslim, or for that matter nations in general, is in his blood, he is an 'Aussie' after-all. And consequently part of a team that has partaken in probably more military interventions  than any other nation has, at least in modern times. No, the blame lies with the British war criminal Tony Blair, who just wanted to be 'cool', by being seen backing the Americans.

Quote:

Try as you may, this is not the topic - it is the exclusion by the Maliki regime - a point that you consistently fail to address - because you can't.

I have asked you to explain how the Maliki regime excluded Sunnis. You are yet to explain. I can hardly address the argument if it has not even been made. Nor am I going to go looking elsewhere for you argument so that I can address it. If you don't know what it is, I am not going to bother explaining why you are wrong. The closest you have come is to argue that they (the Sunnis) are more sensitive to what he has done because they are a minority. That is hardly the same thing as being excluded from the democratic process.


Quote:

The best you can come up with is clever little quips about thesauruses.

That's because the best you have done is to say the same thing with slightly different words.


Quote:

In 2014, no side in Iraq is "on the side of democracy" - do you agree with that?

So far you have said that the Kurds are on the side of democracy, that the Sunnis aren't and that the Maliki regime isn't either. Despite already conceding one group that is supportive of democracy, you have still left out the majority of the population. So no, I don't agree. I know you like to think that because they are all despicable Muslims none of them support democracy or are currently fighting for it, but we must remember that they are also humans, so it is not unreasonable to expect that there are a few non-Muslims among them. Maybe even a few gay pretend-Muslims.


Quote:

An artificial state

All states are artificial.


Quote:

The rest of Iraq? Let the Shi'ites and the Sunnis carve it up between themselves as they see fit... The sooner, the better.

I doubt that would solve their problems either, but at least there would be a conventional front between them.

Is it any wonder that Freediver's best friend is a dead fish. Freediver is a rampant muslim hate sniper who saw an opportunity to come out from hiding and indulge in muslim hate propaganda from the front instead of the rear. I wonder if Denizens Mahdi and Hermoine are actually Freediver in disguise.

Surely Islam couldn't have more than one critic?

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

Surely Islam couldn't have more than one critic?

Critic is one thing. Islam hate propagandist is another. You have been sniping from the bushes for a long time and finally exposed yourself.

The dead fish in your arms is your only friend.

Quote:

You have been sniping from the bushes for a long time

For how long?

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

I have asked you to explain how the Maliki regime excluded Sunnis. You are yet to explain.

The process of exclusion has been explained. I'm sorry if you can't grasp it, but given that you started the discussion thinking the sunnis are the majority in Iraq, and dismissed an article by criticising an argument that wasn't even in it - then its probably not surprising.


freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

So far you have said that the Kurds are on the side of democracy, that the Sunnis aren't and that the Maliki regime isn't either. Despite already conceding one group that is supportive of democracy, you have still left out the majority of the population. So no, I don't agree.

The kurds are not part of Iraq - not in any meaningful sense any more. Thats why I didn't include them.


freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 1:35pm:

I know you like to think that because they are all despicable Muslims none of them support democracy or are currently fighting for it, but we must remember that they are also humans, so it is not unreasonable to expect that there are a few non-Muslims among them. Maybe even a few gay pretend-Muslims.

Just a few? What is it FD - a majority or not?

I have no bones at all with the argument that most muslims in Iraq support democracy, but I was talking about the political leaders who are trying to establish secular autocracies and caliphates and so forth. But of course we could always just pull out the PEW survey again to point out "what muslims think" - in case we get carried away with the whole "muslims support democracy" thing right FD? I mean, its not as if you've been hammering the meme for about 7 years that whenever muslims are a majority anywhere (but especially near islam's "heartland"), they suddenly become all anti-freedom and anti-democracy.

According to today's paper, by convention the role of head of parliament is awarded to the Sunnis. Is this why you are so reluctant to explain how the Sunnis are actually excluded?

;D ;D

Hooray! all hail the awesome power of the parliamentary speaker.


Quote:

He managed to greatly subjugate the federal court and forge an alliance with its chief that helped him encircle his opponents and weaken their ability to check his power through the parliament.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/04/17/iraq-s-sectarian-crisis-legacy-of-exclus...

So you destroy parliaments ability to democratically scrutinise and check the power of the executive - but proudly declare democracy's still all good - because the speaker of that now impotent parliament is a member of the opposition.

No wonder you still don't get how sunnis are being excluded from the democracy.  :D

Quote:

So you destroy parliaments ability to democratically scrutinise and check the power of the executive

You left out the bit about drawing circles around them. Your cut and pasted criticisms are full of flowery speech and analogies, but very short on detail. Why is that? Is it up to me to disprove the claim he encircled his political opponents? What next? You will accuse him of playing politics with democracy?