Opinion | Columns

Deciphering De-Baathification

In less than two weeks, millions of Iraqis will take to the polls to elect the 325 members of the Iraqi parliament. From afar, all the election indicators appear encouraging: 3,000 polling stations have been primped and primed, international monitoring teams have arrived, 18.9 million Iraqis are registered, and over 6,000 candidates will partake in the vote on March 7. But a closer look at today’s Iraq will reveal a much gloomier picture: a tense political environment characterized by Sunni-Shiite antagonism, a defunct electoral commission, flagrant corruption, and a notably brutal spike in beheadings and suicide bombings.

While all of this has occurred, the United States has effectively taken the back seat, deciding that it’s better to watch the election naturally unfold than to interfere and risk being labeled as intrusive. But just as the prognosis of a democratic and viable election becomes slimmer by the day, so too does the chance that a coalition government will form. America cannot afford the fallout that is bound to result from the injustices being committed by the Iraqi government.

The most notable injustice is the disqualification of 511 candidates by the Iraqi Accountability and Justice Commission, a subset of the Iraqi Elections Committee. The board is run by two dubious politicians, Ahmad Chalabi and Ali al-Lami, both prominent Shiites who have been accused by top U.S. commander Raymond Odierno of having intimate ties with Iran. But their suspect backgrounds don’t end there: Al-Lami was arrested in 2008 for alleged ties to a Baghdad bombing that killed four Americans and six Iraqis, and Chalabi is the man accused of providing the Bush administration with faulty information on Iraq’s weapons program.

It’s no surprise, then, that the commission would bar the 500-odd candidates, the vast majority of whom are Sunni politicians with former ties to the Baath party of Saddam Hussein. Both Chalabi and al-Lami acted as key figures on the 2003-2004 Supreme National De-Baathification Commission created by Paul Bremer. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the current justice commision is a continuation of the McCarthyite de-Baathification procedure—McCarthyite for its arbitrary firing of 30,000 ex-Baath politicians, thousands of intelligence officials, and all military officers above the rank of colonel. There exists no constitutional basis for the disqualification of candidates by the election board. If the elections are to move forward with a substantial number of Sunnis missing from the ballots, how could results possibly be representative of Iraqi society?

The Obama administration needs to reassess its silence on Iraq’s election and begin three key processes: limiting Iranian influence in Iraq, condemning candidate disqualification, and undoing de-Baathification. Iran has used bribes and threats to support its preferred candidates. U.S. intelligence has implicated key Iraqi government officials like Chalabi and al-Lami in having direct ties to Tehran and using Iranian clerical influence and support. Remarkably, Chalabi is both cochair on the Iraqi election committee and leader of one of the political coalitions partaking in the March elections—the Iraqi National Alliance. Another INA leader, Ammar al-Hakim, has modeled his political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, on the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The last thing the United States needs in the Middle East is an Iranian puppet state.

When Vice President Biden visited Iraq earlier this month, he requested that elections be transparent and inclusive, but failed to offer any suggestions or proposals as to how to resolve the disqualification situation. An election that produces a Shiite-majority government will brew resentment targeted not only at bureaucrats in Baghdad but also at the Obama administration, which implicitly supports the sectarian inequity in Iraq. While Biden’s visit did cause the Board to drop 28 individuals off of the no-run list, 483 remain on the list with no removal in sight.

The Obama administration needs to loudly and clearly condemn the de-Baathication process that has become synonymous with de-Sunnification. A catastrophic problem with U.S. perception of Iraqi politics is that it automatically associates Sunni politicians with the inhumane policies of Saddam, when, in fact, there exists a salient distinction between the religious community and the former leader. Yes, the majority of Saddam’s party consisted of Sunnis, but Shiites were also members of the political party. A little known fact is that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself was a member of the Baath party under Saddam. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, secularists, and all Iraqis need to be included in the political process regardless of creed, ethnicity, or former political association.

This administration must break its silence and provide concrete solutions for democracy-building. We are witnessing the formative years of Iraq’s post-invasion life. If we fail to support the foundation of a truly multi-sectarian Iraqi government now, we will bear the brunt of more sectarian violence in the future. While the winners of March elections are unclear, it is palpably clear that instability will ensue in Iraq if we fail to act immediately.

Rhonda Shafei is a Columbia College sophomore. She is the publisher of the Columbia Political Union and the director-general of CMUNCE. The Politics of Hummus runs alternate Thursdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Arafat posted on

Rhonda,

What you suggest is all well and good if only it were doable. If there is one thing we as Americans have hopefully learned it is that Muslims are not “open” to suggestions, guidance, nor much anything else we might care to give them. In fact, it seems abundantly clear, Muslims are only governable by varying degrees of brute force and repression. (See Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Mauritania, Algeria, Yemen as just some examples of this.)

America tried and failed to create a Marshall-like Plan in Iraq (and at huge cost to America, not to downplay the incredible cost to Iraq too) but was met with nothing but hostility for our efforts. Unlike Germany or Japan, the offer of democracy was pissed on by the Muslims; for as it turns out democracy and Sharia Law are incompatible. Muslims would rather live by their 7th century traditions, regardless of how cruel and undemocratic they are, than open up to something new. So be it.

In any case, maybe I’m wrong. Why don’t you explain for me how you see America being able to make the changes you recommend, and back up your argument with examples of where any outside nation has helped influence an Islamic nation accept a true and open democracy with all that this means.

+1
0
-1
ddmka posted on

you are quite the racist, arafat. re-read your comment and google the nazi speeches of the 1930's and 40's, and i think you will find more similarity than you think.

+1
-1
-1
Arafat posted on

Type your reply...Ddmka,

I’d rather consider myself akin to Winston Churchill who said:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. ...The fact that in Mohammedan law [sharia] every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British Prime Minister

+1
+3
-1
ddmka posted on

fyi, churchill was also a racist who supported the use of poison gas en masse. =)

+1
0
-1
Arafat posted on

Type your rDdmka,

Wow, you’re pretty good at playing the racist card. Let me try another one of my soul brothers to see if they pass your litmus test.

I consider myself as much a racist as the following three gentlemen, which is to say not a racist at all.

“Qur’an… an accursed book… So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.” —William Gladstone (1809-1898) Prime Minister of Great Britain 1868 – 1894

And,

”[Islam] is essentially an obstructive, intolerant system… It has consecrated despotism; it has consecrated polygamy; it has consecrated slavery. It has declared war against every other creed; it has claimed to be at least dominant in every land… When it ceases to have an enemy to contend against, it sinks into sluggish stupidity and into a barbarism far viler… It must have an enemy; if cut off…from conflict with the infidel, it finds its substitute in sectarian hatred of brother Moslems…”—Edward Augustus Freeman (1823-1892) British historian

And finally an America soul brother,

“Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to, and including, the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over, the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.
Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could, and would, fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.”
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia, exists today at all, only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization—because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel, in the eighth century, and those of John Sobieski, in the seventeenth century. ...There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.”—Teddy Roosevelt (1858 -1919) Twenty-sixth President of the United States
eply...

+1
-1
-1
ddmka posted on

i suppose then, that you fully support ted roosevelt's lack of respect for the legitimate columbian government when he used dirty politics to incite a rebellion in panama to build the canal. and i also suppose you think he was right to steal the credit for the decisive victory that sealed the cuban war, when it really belonged to an african-american battalion. get over it: every "legit" person you quote has a dirty racist history.

+1
0
-1
Arafat posted on

.Ddmka,

By your standards Winston Churchill, William Gladstone, Teddy Roosevelt and Edward Freeman are all racists. I’m beginning to think you are the sort of person who claims Islam is a tolerant and compassionate religion and that the sun rises in the west. Here is the way I will test my hypothesis. Do you consider the following people racists, or do you think these people are decent, kind, compassionate, tolerant people? Please answer my question.

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital. . . . This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas." -- Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunus al-Astal, 2008

Or,

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

Or,

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qu’ran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”—Omar Ahmed CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) Founding Chairman

+1
0
-1
dissapointed1 posted on

I agree that the government in Iraq is rife with corruption, and that Ahmed Al-Chalabi is to say the least, dubious.

I have a problem, however, with the assumption you make American interference is better than, or more preferable than say Iranian influence. What is lacking in this article is the recognition that the Iraqi people have a right to vote for what they want. It is written from such a typical American media point of view. You say "The last thing the United States needs in the Middle East is an Iranian puppet state." Half of the countries in the Middle East are our puppet states! Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? To extract oil and wealth, and exert OUR influence.

This comment is not in particular defense of Iran or Shiites, it is in opposition to the message in thsi article that is in accordance with American imperialism.

+1
0
-1
ddmka posted on

amen to this. =)

+1
0
-1
Arafat posted on

Ddmka,

Why did you not respond to my question? You’ve called ma a racist and have also called Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt racists. But when I ask you if the following men are racists you refuse to answer. Let me ask you again, are the following men racists, or is it just me and Winston and Teddy instead?

Is the following man a racist?

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

Is the following man a racist?

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital. . . . This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas." -- Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunus al-Astal, 2008

Is the following man a racist?

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qu’ran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”—Omar Ahmed CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) Founding Chairman

+1
0
-1
duur posted on

Arafat you are an unsophisticated bigot. We have exposed you before, you hate Muslims period. You do not know anything about Islam or Muslims or about world politics. You frequent cheap Islamophobic websites and post their drivel wholesale. Ddmk this Cretin is a waste of your time. He is as good as illiterate completely logic proof. He has his parochial mind long ago sealed, deaf to reason, blind to evidence. He will repeat the same bilge ad nauseam. he kept repeating Muslims have committed genocide in Thailand, have killed thousands of Budhists. But could not provide a single citation for his claim. When I pressed further all he pulled was some obscure cult kkkk type blog and Wikipedia. For the record wikipedia refuted his baseless claim as well.

+1
-3
-1
dissapointed1 posted on

I agree that the government in Iraq is rife with corruption, and that Ahmed Al-Chalabi is to say the least, dubious.

I have a problem, however, with the assumption you make American interference is better than, or more preferable than say Iranian influence. What is lacking in this article is the recognition that the Iraqi people have a right to vote for what they want. It is written from such a typical American media point of view. You say "The last thing the United States needs in the Middle East is an Iranian puppet state." Half of the countries in the Middle East are our puppet states! Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? To extract oil and wealth, and exert OUR influence.

This comment is not in particular defense of Iran or Shiites, it is in opposition to the message in thsi article that is in accordance with American imperialism.

+1
0
-1
Arafat posted on

Type your reply...Disappointed,

You’re playing the relativism game, eh? Iran is no worse than America. Let Iraq do what they want. Etc…

By your logic Hitler we should have let Hitler do what he wanted just as we are letting the Islamists do what they want in Sudan, eh?

I hate to disappoint you Disappointed, but as imperfect as America is –and it is plenty imperfect—it’s a galaxy better than Nazi Germany, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

You see, don’t you, that despite all our failings –and I’m sure you will happily point all these out for us—we do try to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We often fail but we often succeed. I’m confident your eyes are closed to our successes. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far, far better than what all Islamic countries subscribe to, i.e., unless you think Nazi Germany is a pretty good example of humanity, decency and civility.

In contrast all the nations mentioned above (All the Islamic nations, that is) refuse to sign this Declaration and instead subscribe to the Cairo Delegation of Human Rights, which is akin to Nazi Germany’s approach to Human Rights, which is to say it is a supremacist Declaration which treats all others as inferior. Here are a few highlights from these VERY different Declarations. But before I list them off may I suggest you move to Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia if you’re so unhappy living here and find their values more to your liking.

Our western civilization is defined by the values which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These values are, in short:
•will of the people is basis of authority of government
•right to life, liberty, security of person
•abolish slavery in all forms
•right to enjoy the arts
•equal rights of men and women
•freedom from torture or cruel treatment and punishment
•freedom of thought, conscience, religion, including freedom to change religion, freedom to manifest religion in public
•right to marry regardless of race, nationality or religion
•equal rights in marriage
•freedom or expression, impart information through any media
•right to take part in government through freely chosen representatives
Now, let us look at the values of Islam. Not a single Moslem country supports the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! ALL 57 Moslem countries have subscribed to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which declares:


• Reaffirms role of Islamic UMMAH which God made the best nation
• The Ummah should guide humanity
• Freedom and right to dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shariah
• All human beings are united by submission to God (meaning of "Islam")
• Right to life guaranteed "except for a Shariah prescribed reason"
• Prohibited to violate right of safety from bodily harm 'without Shariah prescribed reason"
• "Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform."
• "Husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family."
• Parents have right to choose education for their children "provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with the ethical values and the principles of the Shariah"
• Education "so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam"
• "Prohibited... to exploit poverty or ignorance in order to convert ..to another religion or to atheism"
• Right to freedom of movement "within the framework of Shariah"
• "... right to enjoy fruits of one's scientific, literary, artistic or technical production... provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shariah."
• "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah"
• "Taking of hostages for any purpose is expressly forbidden." (Enforced???)
• "Right to express opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah"
• "Right to propagtate what is good and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of the Islamic Shariah."
• Freedom of information, but "may not violate the dignity of Prophets or.. corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."
• "All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subjecty to the Islamic Shariah."
• "The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."

+1
0
-1
duur posted on

Arafat you are an unsophisticated bigot. We have exposed you before, you hate Muslims period. You do not know anything about Islam or Muslims or about world politics. You frequent cheap Islamophobic websites and post their drivel wholesale. Ddmk this cretin is a waste of your time. He is as good as illiterate, completely logic proof. He has his parochial mind long ago sealed, deaf to reason, blind to evidence. He will repeat the same bilge ad nauseam. he kept frothing Muslims have committed genocide in Thailand, have killed thousands of Budhists. But could not provide a single citation for his claim. When I cornered him all he could pull was some obscure cult kkk type blog and Wikipedia. For the record wikipedia refuted his baseless claim as well.

+1
+5
-1
duur posted on

Arafat this is the esteemed scholarship you had posted as your intellectual source. This is what you gave me when I asked you to provide an evidence of genocide in Southern Thailand.

WARNING: this is extremely gruesome, pornographic violence beyond any measure of tolerance. This is what the masquerade named Arafat reads for his Political and philosophical regime. This is the extent of his scholarship. I profusely apologize for re posting his link but I want other readers to have an idea this bigot's mind.

http://barenakedislam.wordpres......

+1
+2
-1
duur posted on

Arafat this is the esteemed scholarship you had posted as your intellectual source. This is what you gave me when I asked you to provide an evidence of genocide in Southern Thailand.

WARNING: this is extremely gruesome, pornographic violence beyond any measure of tolerance. This is what the masquerade named Arafat reads for his Political and philosophical regime. This is the extent of his scholarship. I profusely apologize for re posting his link but I want other readers to have an idea this bigot's mind.

http://barenakedislam.wordpres......

+1
-1
-1
Arafat posted on

,Durr,

I have provided five or six links testifying to the Muslim violence against Buddhists and the Muslim violence advancement northward up the Malay Peninsula. The links I provided at your request included articles from the NYT, Wikipedia, Seoul Times and others. If you choose to believe all these sources are false and are acting in collaboration against Islam than that is your prerogative. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, too, that is also your prerogative.

One of the things I find interesting about you and ddmk is that it appears you are unable to admit Islam cannot any wrong, even when the evidence against Islam is overwhelming.

I also find it interesting that you and Ddmk constantly call me racist and suchlike. Ddmk also discredited Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill among others. Yet when I ask him to give me/us an opinion about whether the following men are racist or suchlike, he will not answer. Is that part of Islamic programming: Never admit any fault. Never.

In any case, Durr, since Ddmk won’t answer me do you think the following men are racist or are just Muslims speaking honestly and openly for all Muslims?

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

Or,

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital. . . . This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas." -- Hamas MP and Islamic cleric Yunus al-Astal, 2008

Or,

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qu’ran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”—Omar Ahmed CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) Founding Chairman

+1
0
-1
duur posted on

You provided the above Islamophobic pornography as your source for your bigoted claim. The New York Times article did not say Muslims have committed genocide, neither did it say thousands of Buddhists were murdered by Muslims. Non of the sources made such claims except the pornographic ones and the kkk type blogs. Why is it so hard to find evidence for something that happened few years ago? Show me a credible source not discredited cult kkk virtual support groups. As for Seoul Times you gave some opinion by some unknown person which lacked basic journalistic credence. Look at his language. There is absolutely no evidence, no reference to anything. This newspaper would not publish something like that for example. If your claim is true, show me where NYT explicitly writes Genocide had been committed in S Thailand. Show me a US government, UN, Human Rights Report. Show me for example finding by International Crisis Group, or Chatham House. Show me a BBC report, EU, or even Thai government report. Don't throw at me cheap pamphlet by non persons, in some alley newspaper. You are simply ridiculous.

Secondly, Yes Churchill was the most unrepentant of racists. He was racist towards black people, native peoples. He believed in White supremacy. Hel was imperialist who committed war crimes all over the colonized world, from Africa to Asia. Here are some of what your hero had said.

Speaking in the House of Commons, autumn 1937

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

Churchil denies the genocide that had been committed against the Native Americans

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

Churchil worried about too many colored people in Britain (Never mind that he is colonizing their land and looting their wealth.
'Problems wh. will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.'
Churchil is worried about inferior races.

"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."
Churchill to Asquith, 1910

Churcill wants to take Greece

"So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?"
Addressing Stalin in Moscow, October 1944

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theg...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2...

+1
+2
-1
Arafat posted on

Type your reply...

+1
-1
-1
duur posted on

You either cannot read or you deliberately misrepresent. New York Times does not say thousands of Buddhists have been killed. To the contrary it points out that this area is Muslim majority independent MALAY Sultanate that has been annexed to Thailand. The Malay people, continues the article, complain about discrimination and political marginalization and forced assimilation from the part of Bangkok. The article further points out that Muslims and Buddhists have coexisted peacefully before the political conflict. So you are caught lying, misrepresenting the paper. It does not say anywhere what you are claiming. It says half of the two thousand victims are Muslims, but that is a grave under estimation because 20000 strong Thai army is deployed against what is mainly sporadic at most hundreds of militias. Where is the genocide? You are telling us that poor marginalized rural population has fought strong modern army such us the Thai army and ethnic cleansed the majority. This is only possible in your irrational illiterate imagination. Fortunately, Thai state is much more rational than you are. It recognizes the political economic grievances of the MALAY people and has promised to work to address them.

Secondly, of the millions of credible sources that exist, all you can bring is some South Korean opinion, or another unknown electronic chat room. I ask you evidence, facts and you desperately scrambled through the internet, putting key words like "Muslims killing in Thailand", and this is all you can get. Can you show a US government report, a UN, a Human rights report, even Thai government report. International Crisis Group has written on it.

Arafat, you have zero credibility and that you are bigot anti Muslim is not hidden to any one!

+1
0
-1
Arafat posted on

Durr,

I can only point out again that I find it interesting ( and I would guess Homleand Security also finds it interesting, assuming they are monitoring this site) that you focus your energy criticizing Churchill --one of the great leaders of the 20th century-- while refusing to acknowledge whether any of the Muslims I have sited in previous comments are racist.

I can only conclude that you condemn Chruchill but support Khomeini, and Ahmed and Muhameed Faheed and their ilk. This tells me you are essentially an Islamist. Correct me if I am wrong about this.

In any case, do you find the following words to be "racist". I anxiously await your reply.

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says, kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! ...Whatever good there is, exists thanks to the sword, and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient, except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! ...Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”—Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989—the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation.

+1
+5
-1
Arafat posted on

Durr & Ddmk,

I just read this article and it reminded me of our debate. It is amazing to me how Islam not only wants to eliminate all non-Muslims from its domain (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Algeria, Mauritania and Yemen have no non-muslim citizens) but Islam also wanst to destroy any remnants of what existed before Islam's conquest. Talk about total and complete racism, Islam has perfected the ugly "ism".

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010...

+1
+3
-1