Wit is wasted on you.

Wit is wasted on you.

Wit is wasted on you.

"honest discussion" When you feel you are up to honest discussion let me know- until then keep quoting your Islamophobic comics and displaying your know-nothing views.

Looks like you had the keyboard equivalent of a petit mal. What's the matter, Sorkoi, still unable to address a simple question? Show in my article that you toss off as a parody where it's inaccurate or draws incorrect conclusions. Until then, you will be treated by me and other people on these boards as just another pedant wannabe that is totally clueless and can only resort to twitches and sputterings to back up your frothings and bankrupt analyses. swhitebull - in the immortal words of Benjamin Grimm - It's clobberin' time.

I have read the article. I have already made a comment about it several posts before; but I like to add some more. First of all the writer is a culturalist (a new form of racist). In fact all the intelligent people who seriously says the war at Iraq anything to do with clash of civilisations are culturalists. Iraq and Kuwait had problems. Saddam after a meeting with US Iraq ambassador, thought that USA will not help Kuwait if he invaded. Ever being an oppurtunists, he took his chance. He was wrong USA did help Kuwait but as the political atmosphere was not right US army did not pursue the war to its logical conclusion the invasion of Iraq. They thought that they can end Saddam regime by the CIA covert operations which was very succcessful against Soviets. But Saddam was a talented man when it comes to stopping a coup. He killed all the leaders of the coup which included his son-in-law. His still staying on his chair was giving the impression that enemies of USA can hold to their chair if they are durable enough. Main reason of the 2nd war was the prestige and oil. Every other reason was to legitimate their attack. It does not matter if they were true or not. Al-Kaide connection was probably wrong. Weapons of mass destructions were probably true. But as I say that was not important as they were not the main reasons. It is nothing about Clash of Civilisations. It is about power. But invasion of Iraq also triggered another plan of USA. The plan which I call Balkanisation of Middle-East. Simply to divide ME countries into as small countries as possible to control them better. For this USA will use every ethnicity differance as possible. That is how Rome had invaded Mediterreanian. It is how Britain built his empire. Divide them as small pieces as possible. Then rule them. This is what this article is about. USA government is trying to confuse people, trying to gain public support. The war against Al-Qaide is one thing, the war against Iraq is another. They are trying to make you believe that there is a world-wide Islam conspiracy against USA. As if that can be done. There are as much different factions in Islam countries as there is in Christian countries. That is impossible to accomplish. So the responsible ones of that position, that there is a clash of civilisations are lying. The sad thing is there are many that are ready to believe this lie. There are many who needs to hate something. In the end SWhiteBull, you are a culturalist and they are using you. Like they had used the other kind of racist before our time.

>>There is one truth: all 3 religions and most of their sects (there are some bloodthirsty radical sects in all 3 religions that are exceptions) believe in the same God and same ideals. The others are all details.<< The details, in the case of Christianity and Islam are: 1.) Christians believe "...in one God the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in the one holy catholic (Christian) and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." [The Nicean Creed] 2.) Muslims believe the Quran is the infallible word of God, and the Quran states in various places that all of the above listed Christian beliefs in the divinity of Jesus Christ and his death and ressurection are false. "People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" [Quran 4:171] and "Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" [Quran 112:1-4] and ""Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is" [Quran 19:34-35] and "They did not kill him [Jesus], nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did." (Quran 4:156) 3.) The Bible commands Christians who are spreading the Gospel "Don't even take along a walking stick," he [Jesus] instructed them, "nor a traveler's bag, nor food, nor money. Not even an extra coat. When you enter each village, be a guest in only one home. If the people of the village won't receive your message when you enter it, shake off its dust from your feet as you leave. It is a sign that you have abandoned that village to its fate." 4.) The Quran instructs Muslims who are spreading Islam "They ask you concerning the new moon. Say: They are times appointed for (the benefit of) men, and (for) the pilgrimage; and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard (against evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, that you may be successful. And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." Details, details. In 1.) and 3.) above we see that Christians believe in the crucifixion and ressurrection of Jesus Christ and that those who turn away Christians and refuse to recieve the gospel message should be left alone, abandoned in their unbelief. In 2.) and 4.) we see that Muslims reject the Trinity, do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, do not believe Jesus was the son of God, that Christians who believe such things [i.e. the CENTRAL tenets of Chrsitianity] have "exceeded the limits of their religion" and that those who turn away Muslims and refuse to recieve Is

>>But invasion of Iraq also triggered another plan of USA. The plan which I call Balkanisation of Middle-East. Simply to divide ME countries into as small countries as possible to control them better.<< I beg to differ. One of the reasons that the US did not continue the war in 1991 was because it would have a hard time keeping Iraq together after the war. As has been stated many time before, the current boundaries of the Middle East were drawn on essentially blank maps by imperial bureaucrats at the end of World War I. Turkey is one exception to this, because it was so ably defended by Kemal Attaturk in the aftermath of the war. Egypt is another. Syria has fought to achieve what it thinks are its natural boundaries. Unfortunately for the Lebanese, the Syrians’ idea of its natural boundaries includes all of Lebanon. Iraq considered its natural boundaries to include all of Kuwait. It threatened to invade a number of times, and finally did so in 1990. The first Gulf War made Saddam withdraw his armies, but not abandon Iraq’s claim to Kuwait. If the US had overthrown Saddam in 1991 and then withdrawn, a whole series of “border correcting wars” would have been launched. That would cause as much chaos as the Kuwait invasion in August of 1990. In considering this, the Bush ‘41’ administration knew it would either have to commit itself to a long occupation, fighting a civil war and rebuilding Iraq, or limit its war aims. It chose the latter. After 9/11 the US recalculated the level of risk it would accept. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had invaded 2 neighboring countries. He was consistently evading the terms of the ceasefire agreement that he had signed. He was still threatening to invade neighboring countries. He was training terrorists in his own army bases. He was sending millions of dollars yearly to terrorists (I don’t care whether he sent it out of the goodness of his heart or it was extorted from him). At any rate, what was acceptable before 9/11 was not acceptable afterwards. The US does not want a clutch of petty state in the place of Iraq. A power vacuum like that would invite more wars. There would be wars because ethnic concentrations hardly ever have neat boundaries. There would be wars because there are many conflicting claims on these areas. Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Assyrians, Persians, Armenians and Lord only knows how many other minorities are all jumbled together in that small territory. Everyone has ruled that area at least once, given that there are 5,000 years of recorded history in that area. Heck, the Martians probably even have a claim! What a jar of worms… No, the US does needs a strong and stable Iraq. That’s what we are working for. Lord willing, we shall achieve it.

"Saddam after a meeting with US Iraq ambassador, thought that USA will not help Kuwait if he invaded. " I did research on the above claim a long time ago, and it is a myth: a) The Ambassador (April G.) in question always maintained that she never said that. b) The first Iraqi transcript of the meeting in question never showed -anything- like the Ambassador claiming the US would not interfer in any Iraq-Kuwait dispute. c) The later Iraqi transcripts added the part which had the Ambassador saying the US had no opinion on the matter. In my (and others opinions who have examined this issue in detail) the initial transcript was correct, the Iraqis later added the additional statement in an attempot to discredit and embarrass the US. So it is a fabricated/bogus claim. NewGuy

If Saddam is not a madman or a traitor, why would he attack Kuwait if he thought USA will support Kuwait. What she did not say is as important as what she said.