The Upcoming Slaughter

Quote from Saham:


Now flip over to Genesis chapter 22. Here is Abraham preparing to take a knife and kill his child Isaac, offering him as a sacrifice to "God."

Why? "God" told him to.

hey! keep us out of it! you're taking the abraham story totally out of context. 4000 years ago blood sacrifice of the firstborn was normal and expected throughout the region. the shocking aspect of the story isn't that abraham was going to chop up his son - that would have been *normal* for the time - the shock is that he heard G-d say - stop! wait a minute, boy! what do you think you're doing?! and then replaced outright killing with a little below-the-waist snip-snip.

rest of post, no quarrel with.
 
Quote from Saham:

Yet, the general Iraqi population cheerfully rioting over the mutilated corpses of the 4 American contractors didn't appear to match Bush's utopian vision.

those 4 where not contractors in the usual sense, they were mercenaries. soldiers of fortune. live by the sword, die by the sword...
 
Quote from damir00:

....SNIP ....the shock is that he heard G-d say-

"stop! wait a minute, boy! what do you think you're doing?!"

and then replaced outright killing with a little below-the-waist snip-snip.

rest of post, no quarrel with.

damir,

Meatloaf said that phrase if I recall, in "Wasted Yourth" and it went:


"My father woke up, screaming "Stop!"
"Wait a minute! Stop it boy!
What do ya think you're doin'?
That's no way to treat an expensive musical instrument!"
And I said: "God Dammit Daddy!
You know I love you,
But you got a hell of a lot to learn about Rock 'n Roll""



DS
:)
 
...

At first, Bremer responded to Sadr's growing strength by ignoring him; now he is attempting to provoke him into all-out battle. The trouble began when he closed down Sadr's newspaper last week, sparking a wave of peaceful demonstrations. On Saturday, Bremer raised the stakes further by sending coalition forces to surround Sadr's house near Najaf and arrest his communications officer.

Predictably, the arrest sparked immediate protests in Baghdad, which the Iraqi army responded to by opening fire and allegedly killing three people. At the end of the day on Sunday, Sadr called on his supporters to stop staging demonstrations and urged them to employ unnamed "other ways" to resist the occupation - a statement many interpreted as a call to arms.

On the surface, this chain of events is mystifying. With the so-called Sunni triangle in flames after the gruesome Falluja attacks, why is Bremer pushing the comparatively calm Shia south into battle?

Here's one possible answer: Washington has given up on its plans to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, and is creating the chaos it needs to declare the handover impossible. A continued occupation will be bad news for George Bush on the campaign trail, but not as bad as if the hand-over happens and the country erupts, an increasingly likely scenario given the widespread rejection of the legitimacy of the interim constitution and the US- appointed governing council.

But by sending the new Iraqi army to fire on the people they are supposed to be protecting, Bremer has destroyed what slim hope they had of gaining credibility with an already highly mistrustful population. On Sunday, before storming the unarmed demonstrators, the soldiers could be seen pulling on ski masks, so they would not be recognised in their neighbourhoods later.

The coalition provisional authority is increasingly being compared on the streets to Saddam, who also didn't much like peaceful protests, or critical newspapers.

In an interview yesterday, Iraq's minister of communication, Haider al-Abadi, blasted the act that started the current wave of violence: the closing of Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawzah. Abadi, who is supposedly in charge of media in Iraq, says he was not even informed of the plan. Meanwhile, the man at the centre of it all - Moqtada al-Sadr - is having his hero status amplified by the hour.

On Sunday, all these explosive forces came together when thousands of demonstrators filled Firdos Square. On one side of the plaza, a couple of kids climbed to the top of a building and took a knife to a billboard advertising Iraq's new army. On the other side, US forces pointed tanks at the crowd while a loudspeaker told them that "demonstrations are an important part of democracy but blocking traffic will not be permitted".

At the front of the square was the statue that the Americans put up in place of the toppled one of Saddam. Its faceless figures are supposed to represent the liberation of the Iraqi people. Today they are plastered with photographs of Moqtada al-Sadr.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1186566,00.html
 
Quote from hapaboy:

I don't think this situation comes as a surprise to the soldiers or policy-makers. They knew before the invasion that the Shi'ite were the majority and that there are several radical mullahs that may be hostile to the US.

I have faith that plans existed beforehand to deal with this contingency and that they will be carried out. One way or another, al-Sadr will be taken care of. If he's smart and not suicidal (which is probably a 50/50 proposition) he'll tone down the rhetoric; if not, and he incites more violence, he'll get to test the 72 Virgins in Heaven Theory, or, if we take him alive, perhaps exiled.

There are always going to be radical mullahs to deal with. When they become the voice of the MAJORITY, ala Khomeini, is when we'll be in deep s**t. I don't believe the majority of the Shi'ites in Iraq - and thus the majority of the Iraqi population - want to fight us right now. Maybe that'll change after we've given them cable TV, Hooters, repaired all the oil lines and built up the infrastructure. For now they're going to take as much from us as they can.

I have been hearing this all along, and all along I have doubted it. I really hope you are right, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the authorities have let things get out of control. They should have arrested this guy al-Sadr right off the bat and not let him build his power. Now they have to deal with him, one way or another.

Most of the posts on this thread don't address the real issue, which is what to do now? We have two unappealing choices. One, we can withdraw either quickly or gradually, with the knowledge that some sort of radical shiite regime aligned closely with Iran will take power eventually. Or we can suppress al-Sadr and the sunnis in Falujah, which will require largescale use of military force and result in tens of thousands of casualties. Those appear to me to be the two options now.

I fault Bush and his strategists for getting in this position. By their poor planning and ineffectual action, they have backed themselves into a corner where a return of Saddam is beginning to look like an attractive choice.

I'm sure part of the reason for their relatively passive occupation was to placate domestic and international critics and not run up a big body count of Muslims. Unfortunately that policy left our troops as the fall guys. That is the part of it I find very troubling. Wasn't that the real lesson of Vietnam? Of Somalia? Don't send our troops into a situation unless you are prepared to do what is necessary to protect them and to prevail in the conflict.
 
"god" specifically told Abraham to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:1-2).

His context is PERFECT.

JB

Quote from damir00:

hey! keep us out of it! you're taking the abraham story totally out of context. 4000 years ago blood sacrifice of the firstborn was normal and expected throughout the region. the shocking aspect of the story isn't that abraham was going to chop up his son - that would have been *normal* for the time - the shock is that he heard G-d say - stop! wait a minute, boy! what do you think you're doing?! and then replaced outright killing with a little below-the-waist snip-snip.

rest of post, no quarrel with.
 
Quote from Turok:

"god" specifically told Abraham to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:1-2).

His context is PERFECT.

no it is not: "god" wasn't just telling abraham to do that, "he" was telling *everyone* in those days to do that. what abraham heard that was different was the "stop!" part of it. it's the NOT going through with it that makes abraham's story different from all the other sacrificial stories of the era.
 
Ok, let's cut the crap, I'm tired of people posting pages of waffle to justify their political position. As in the markets, anyone can have an opinion.

So, let's starting making markets. I want bids and/or offers on the following spreadbets:

1) total Iraq bodycount (coalition + Iraqi violent deaths) before handover
2) number of days late the handover is
3) number of weeks before Al-sadr gets arrested or killed
4) number of months true democracy lasts in Iraq after handover
5) post-handover bodycount (total deaths from non-natural causes in Iraq)

Make the market as wide as you like. We can't enforce payment, so it's "sportsman's honour" on these bets. Here's my opening call:

1) 100 - 3000
2) 1 - 300
3) 3 - 52
4) 6 - 60
5) 3000 - 1 million
 
Quote from Cutten:

Ok, let's cut the crap, I'm tired of people posting pages of waffle to justify their political position. As in the markets, anyone can have an opinion.

So, let's starting making markets. I want bids and/or offers on the following spreadbets:

1) total Iraq bodycount before handover
2) number of days late the handover is
3) number of weeks before Al-sadr gets arrested or killed
4) number of months true democracy lasts in Iraq after handover
5) post-handover bodycount

Make the market as wide as you like. We can't enforce payment, so it's "sportsman's honour" on these bets. Here's my opening call:

1) 100 - 3000
2) 1 - 300
3) 3 - 52
4) 6 - 60
5) 3000 - 1 million

My Markets --
1) 350-1400 (I'm assuming the bodycount is for Coalition forces)
2) 30-150
3) at 2 -- Not even 1 bid, this will end in the next few days
4) 12-48
5) 800-2000 (I'm assuming the bodycount is for Coalition forces)

Vega:D
 
Back
Top