Like most of humanity, I have been stunned by the sheer savagery and cruelty of the Islamic State. Yet, thousands have flocked to the ISIS forces from the West. For me, it has been a particularly shocking phenomenon. The images that repel us, attract them. Religion is clearly a release for these people. A release from the obligations of decency and humanity. Images show Islamic State fighters laughing and enjoying the torture and murder of captives. Muslim clerics with ISIS assure them that they can treat non-Muslims as lower than animals and commit rape as an Islamically pure act. It has been an incredibly depressing time for those of us who believe that humans can aspire to true greatest of spirit and caring. This Christmas, however, my daughter showed me the YouTube clip below of a man named Matt Harding who goes around the world getting people to dance with him. After watching him, my faith in humanity was restored.
What is so striking about the Islamic State and other extreme Muslim groups is that they most hate joyous expressions from dancing to singing. They throw acid on little girls trying to become educated and destroy the houses of worship of other groups.
Nothing could be a greater antithesis to the hate of these extremists than Matt Harding and people like him:
What is even more reassuring is that he is not alone. Around the world, people are spontaneously singing and dancing. These are a few clips shared by our readers this year. Watching them restores some of the faith in the future that these extremists really cannot extinguish the joy in the world.
Eric, at first I just skimmed your comments, but after reading them, one thing is abundantly clear- you’re just a verbose liar that only views responses to your propaganda as the opportunity to parrot the same lie over and over while refusing to comment on the actual substance of the objections to your lies.
po@minutebol:
Blame for the 9/11 attacks wasn’t part of the case against Saddam.
By US law and policy and the UNSC resolutions, the case against Saddam was based on Iraq’s noncompliance with the Gulf War ceasefire.
That being said, the War on Terror shared ground with the Iraq enforcement because UNSCR 687 included an anti-terrorism mandate that Saddam was violating:
po@minutebol:
Actually, the CIA couldn’t do that for the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
UNMOVIC and, further down, agencies like the UN Commission on Human Rights necessarily provided the evidence confirming Iraq’s noncompliance with UNSCRs 687, 688, etc, that “they needed to pin … on Saddam and invade Iraq”.
President Bush at the UN General Assembly, 2002:
Public Law 107-243 (2002):
UNSCR 1441 (2002):
Also, the intelligence on Iraq wasn’t manipulated.
in 2005, the Silberman-Robb WMD Commission, while as critical of the intel agencies as Gigi, concluded:
In 2008, a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence corroborated the WMD Commission finding. Although overtly partisan and thirsting to blame Bush officials for wrongdoing, the Committee analyzed pre-war statements by Bush administration officials and concluded they were largely “substantiated by intelligence”, and found no manipulated intelligence nor political pressure placed on intelligence analysts.
Google can find both official reports for you.
po@minutebol:
That staffer didn’t provide the critical data point that triggered OIF. UNMOVIC provided it pursuant to UNSCR 687. UNMOVIC was there. UNMOVIC was in Iraq.
Let it be noted than Po won this round against Nick, by forfeit! 🙂
Dear Gigi
Wherever I get my news from, is obviously a better source that yours. Obviously you do not know your terrorist groups one from the other…
Again, ISL is an enemy of Alqaeda, ,which is not the Taliban, with is not Al Qaeda in Yemen,…
Al Qaeda is the one said to have attacked us on 911, and yet we invaded Iraq to punish Sadaam for an attack committed by an enemy of Sadaam and holed up in Afghanistan?
Why are we in Afghanistan then if Sadaam was the problem?
SO now you want to excuse the Bush administration by blaming the CIA and FBI? When the facts are that the CIA was forced to give the administration exactly the false info they needed to pin everything on Saddam and invade Iraq?
Look, Gigi, I provided a source from someone who was there throughout the process, upstream, unless you can respond to that, you are wasting our time.
Gigi: “Now, why does ISL have American weapons, because they stole them before the Kurds could get to them. Don’t you watch the news or read the newspapers? Where are you getting your information.”
Again, Gigi, I get my info from valid sources, unlike you. Most of the weapons ISL has did no come from the packages we parachuted to the Kurds, it came from the Iraqis who ran away and dropped their heavy weapons, including tanks, which ISL took.
Gigi: “People like you have your mind made up and hate the very country that gives you freedom everyday. Your blaming the wrong people bro.”
Han????????????????????
“We invaded Iraq for many reasons with much proof of past illegal operations and misinformation from our CIA & FBI. Our President trusted these two important departments to give him the right information–unfortunately they didn’t.”
That’s not true at all. Bush gutted the pentagon and staffed it with civilian cronies to generate the intelligence that Bush demanded- whatever bullsh!t they could pull out of their ass as an excuse for war (the forged Nigerian uranium documents, for example). Claiming that Bush trusted intelligence to give him the “right” information, given the fact that he fired military intelligence that didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear, is revisionist history at best.
“You are correct that the post-war findings in Iraq in many ways did not match the pre-war intelligence.”
Wrong. Pre-war intelligence matched post war findings, which is why Bush fired the military personnel responsible for that intelligence and instead placed civilian political cronies in the Pentagon.
“The Gulf War ceasefire enforcement pivoted solely on whether Iraq proved compliance with the UNSC resolutions, including UNSCR 687, not the pre-war intelligence.”
And you still haven’t chosen to address the US tactic of forcing non-compliance by admittedly using UN inspectors as spies and UN inspections as opportunities to place surveillance devices. Nor have you chosen to consider that, given the reality that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMD’s, his objection to UN inspections could not have been due to hiding WMD’s but rather American foreign policy subverting the UN to force the opportunity for unnecessary war.
It’s funny how you don’t believe that your blatant hypocrisy in these regards has any impact upon your capacity to honestly assess the situation. And God forbid anyone should mention that when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds, he could only do so because he purchased the chemicals for the weapons from the US and the UK.
See if you’re capable of moral equivalency- does the accomplice to murder share any guilt with the murderer? Since the answer is yes, which nation should then be allowed to invade the US to prevent us from selling chemical weapons to tyrants to use on their own people?
Just noticed this in my comment to Anarchist 2.0 at December 28, 2014 at 6:32 pm.
Fix: Public Law 107-243
(1998)(2002)I am not interested in some faux esoteric discussion on democracy. But, thanks.
Gigi De La Paz:
You are correct that the post-war findings in Iraq in many ways did not match the pre-war intelligence. However, as I explained to Anarchist 2.0 and po@minutebol, the pre-war intelligence was not the reason we went to war with Iraq.
The Gulf War ceasefire enforcement pivoted solely on whether Iraq proved compliance with the UNSC resolutions, including UNSCR 687, not the pre-war intelligence.
In fact, if Bush had not cited any of the pre-war intelligence, the compliance-based enforcement procedure for Iraq would have been the same.
How did I learn this? By studying the December 1998 Operation Desert Fox, which was the penultimate enforcement step to Operation Iraqi Freedom and enforced on the same grounds as OIF. Clinton did not cite to the intelligence at all when he judged that Saddam “presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere”.
Instead, Clinton bombed Iraq solely on evidence of Iraq’s noncompliance, ie, the UNSCOM Butler Report.
President Bush’s version of Clinton’s UNSCOM Butler Report was the 173-page UNMOVIC Cluster Document (“Unresolved Disarmament Issues Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes”), which was presented to the UN Security Council at the conclusion of the UNSCR 1441 inspection period on March 7, 2003.
You can google the Cluster Document to read the whole thing, but here’s a cheat-sheet summary of the Cluster Document by the State Department:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/18513.htm
Read it and put yourself in Bush’s shoes in March 2003. Like I said, we didn’t go to war with Iraq because of the pre-war intelligence. UNMOVIC provided the critical data point of Saddam’s evident noncompliance that triggered OIF.
Also, I wouldn’t be as hard as you are on the intelligence agencies.
It’s true that the pre-war intel did not match the post-war findings in many ways. However, it’s also true that the Iraq Survey Group found many disarmament violations after the regime change. So while our intel agencies didn’t get the details right in many areas, they were correct that Saddam was violating UNSCR 687.
You can read the 3-volume Duelfer Report here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/
Here’s a particularly striking ISG finding:
Why is it particularly striking?
One, because the IIS was Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists and handled Saddam’s in-house black ops. Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs also started in the IIS.
Two, before regime change, neither our intel agencies nor the UN inspectors uncovered the active program being run in violation of UNSCR 687 by Saddam’s regime arm that worked with terrorists. We only uncovered it because of the regime change.
Nick, as Anarchist says, democracy is a general term assigned to any system when the leaders are elected by the population, its application however varies greatly from place to place.
So, do you think that Gaza is a democracy? Its population elected Hamas in free and fair elections?
Do you say that Iran is a democracy? Its leaders were elected by the population?
When did the US become a democracy in the eyes of the Mayor Poville? LOL! I’ll go w/ EVERY civilized country, every court, recognizing the State of Israel as a democracy. But, as Mayor of Poville, you can determine marriage being the criteria for a democracy. I heard you have determined in Poville, up is down and black is white. Being a sovereign village of one, that is within your purview. However, no one else recognizes your edicts.
“Nick, we sure were a democracy when blacks could not vote… ”
Only because the term “democracy” has no real definition in practice.
Nick, we sure were a democracy when blacks could not vote… however, only in name. The difference between us and Israel however is that we were never a theocracy…Whatever discrimination there was was not based on religion.
The same reason Iran is not a democracy is the same reason Israel isn’t either. That simple. And am sure you’d agree with me that theocracy and democracy cannot co-exist.
Secondly, why can’t I criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians without being antisemitic or hateful?
There are plenty of Jews making similar criticism, are they anti-semitic too?
Thirdly, you have yet to respond to my point about iran. Attacking Ahmadinejad is not an answer. Again, in Iran one can marry anyone while in Israel, it is not so.
I’ll give you the full length of the game to come up with a retort, a valid one.
Eric-
“Saddam’s noncompliance was more than a feeling by Bush administration attorneys.”
Since you’re well versed with the UN docs, could you please point out to me the section that explains that the US had the authority to use UN inspectors to plant surveillance devices to spy on Saddam, and the section which stipulates Saddam had to comply with that?
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=charles_duelfer_1
Your argument remind me of a bit by Bill Hicks-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6kMWA2WRk
Dear po@ minutebol–” ISL exists because we invaded and destroyed Iraq, simple as that. Much of Isl’s weapons are American made and American sourced, flooding the globe and making sure that any little group with a grievance has means and methods to express them with violence.”
Did you forget the history of 1990’s, when sects like Al Quaida and Muslins branch shoots like ISL/ISIS killed our Marines and we did nothing. How about when they blew out the side of one of our Navy Ships with a bomb–we did little to nothing. Then there was the first attempt to bomb one of the twin towers, but it failed–we did nothing. Next, another attempt to bomb the WTC, some people were killed–we did nothing. How many times do we need to be attacked before it’s okay to invade? Well the 2001 WTC attack + Pentagon + the plane hijacking were enough. We invaded Iraq for many reasons with much proof of past illegal operations and misinformation from our CIA & FBI. Our President trusted these two important departments to give him the right information–unfortunately they didn’t.
Now, why does ISL have American weapons, because they stole them before the Kurds could get to them. Don’t you watch the news or read the newspapers? Where are you getting your information.
Al Quaida, Taliban, ISIS, ISL, Hamass, etc. they are all in this together. They are militant vengeful people who are all Muslims hiding behind their religion for the purpose of gaining power. Muslims have always gotten what they wanted through violence and forceful conquest. There are peaceful Muslims, but they are afraid to speak up against the terrorist sects for fear of their lives.
People like you have your mind made up and hate the very country that gives you freedom everyday. Your blaming the wrong people bro.
Anarchist 2.0:
Add to my earlier response about the US role from the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire as chief enforcer of Iraq’s compliance with the UN mandates …
Saddam’s noncompliance was more than a feeling by Bush administration attorneys. Iraq’s material breach of the UNSC resolutions was the official determination of the UN Security Council.
From UNSCR 1441 (2002):
Iran, really??? Wow! “We have no homosexuals in Iran.” The Jew hating midget who led them for a long time. I don’t feel like Googling his name. He’s not worth it and the Packer game is on. You’re overmatched here. Not because of intellect. You are smart. Hate lowers your IQ precipitously. It is painful to watch.
Were we a democracy when blacks could not vote? When women could not vote? When blacks could not marry whites? I could go on. When in a hole, cease digging. I feel guilty kicking your ass, po. Besides hating Jews, you are not a bad sort. Hate is hurting you, po. Let it go.
At least in iran, one can marry whomever they want ans have it recognized legally.
Annnnnnnnddddddd, Dear Nick, another source…:) Democracy han?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/israel-civil-marriage-ban_n_3429764.html
A month ago, Rita Margulis and her fiancé Amit (as a career army officer he asked not to use his last name) got married at the Safari in Tel Aviv. There was a Reform rabbi and 450 guests. But according to the state of Israel, the wedding never happened.
That is because Margulis, who immigrated to Israel from Ukraine at age 4, is not Jewish according to Jewish law, because her mother is not Jewish. Jewish law states that only someone born of a Jewish mother or who had an Orthodox Jewish conversion is Jewish. And since there is no civil marriage in Israel, anyone who is not Jewish cannot marry another Jew in Israel.
Until her wedding, Margulis says it didn’t bother her much. She grew up in Israel and became a combat soldier. After her mandatory army service, she went to university and became an economist. She never seriously considered converting to Judaism, she says, and believed she should not have to.
“Getting married is a basic right that every citizen should have,” she told The Media Line. “I’ve become active in trying to get Israel to institute civil marriage.”
Israel is both a Jewish and democratic state. The ultra-Orthodox rabbinate controls all issues of personal status, including marriage and divorce. To get married in Israel to another Jew, you must prove you are Jewish. If that is impossible, as in Margulis’s case, you cannot get married.
Po, your additions to the Koran quotes do not diminish their violent commands.
This is evidenced by the Saudi textbooks I cited, which quite clearly take the hardline approach suggested by my first quotations.