hmm
are you refering to the period when saddam was in power?
when we had a man in iraq?
when the cia had a stooge?
yikes
something good did come out of this meddling?
Sciforums Muslim/Arab Bias
- Thread starter nirakar
- Start date
- Status
hmm
are you refering to the period when saddam was in power?
when we had a man in iraq?
when the cia had a stooge?
yikes
something good did come out of this meddling?
Does it matter what Hitches position was in some unknown past, when his positions now are despicable?
Are we supposed to be gratified by what he used to think?
If you mean did intermarriages come about only in the 25 years when Saddam was in power, that would be a No.
See the reference to the Khilafat movement already posted.
I read that quite recently. I agreed with some of his positions [regarding her position on suffering pain for example, which is quite ludicrous] but this is the same Hitchens who did not consider waterboarding torture until he was subjected to it himself. These are the kind of morons who drive public opinion. I give him credit for retracting his opinion, but he took his time about it and it is to his credit as much as any neocon's that we are in the ninth year of war in Iraq with its attendant tortures and not counted collateral damages.
only?
asking if saddam's rule was the period you refer to does not necessarily exclude other periods in time
in any case tighten up your rhetoric
it would be logical to give first consideration to the period immediately prior to the event that you picked, ja?
i mean once you get pass all this....
The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, especially that of Saddam Hussein. Under Saddam public Shia festivals such as Ashoura were banned. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount. In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979-1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq. They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989. Shia opposition to the government following the first Gulf War was reportedly suppressed
...the commoners probably went about their merry way, ja?yes there is a reference but i fail to see any signs of intermarriage as a feature of that movement. dont bother looking cos i did
Yeah, good for him, that bitch is the scourge of mankind.
hence my use of the word "if"
I cannot find any reference to it just now, but I would guess off hand that intermarriage between any communities whether Muslim-Muslim, Christian-Muslim, Christian-Christian, Jew-Jew, Jew-Christian, Jew-Muslim, etc. would be as common in Arab lands as they are in Asia [where they would also include Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, Jains] to a similar extent at any point in their history.
What would you call someone who advises poor people not to use birth control? Some kind of sadist, I think.
She's evil masquerading as good, the worst kind.
No. There are far too many other factors going back to Reza Shah Pahlavi and his ideological leanings. There was enough internal heat to bring the pot to the boil. External heat expedited the process.
Mizrahi. :m:
ahh
i see i put hitchen's teresa to use at one point...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=389394&postcount=14
i see i put hitchen's teresa to use at one point...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=389394&postcount=14
No, I agree with Niraker, he is a bit of a chameleon, overrated, and not an authority of note. He`s best friend with Martin Amis for G_ds sake.
Again, I detect an establishment voice, in utter denial of the finer details.
How did you know?
Respect is earned. I have yet to hear a justifiable reason.
One can have a respectful discussion without respecting a view.
He has pro-militaristic views. He views and/or justifies military solutions to political/geo political problems as equitable. IMO we live in a militaristic world, where war is the norm and is naively and nonchalantly accepted and glorified. I strongly disagree.
Yes, granted, and I mentioned that sometimes I read his articles with pleasure.
Yes, of course, and I have appreciated some of your views in this regard.
Nonsense. Being at liberty to disrespect the views of others does not equate to locking them up for holding such views.
Due to the overeager, knee jerk reactive, Bush admin, (USA), thousands of Afghans woke up one morning to a shattered world. That 9 years later they are trying to evict foreigners who have overstayed their "unwelcome", is not a free pass.
Like I said, I don`t hate the guy, but methinks he is a tad unrealistic.
yes
an absolute sordid and unconscionable affair
“It was the spark of divine will in the heart of Eisenhower that he signed off on a plan to trade a nation's freedom for a 40 percent share in the [oil] consortium. For this exchange to be workable, first the notice of my dismissal was issued and the coup of the night of 25 Mordad 1332 [August 16, 1953] was begun.
When that did not accomplish their goal, a second attempt was launched and $390,000 American dollars was distributed among some corrupt ulama [theologians] and unprincipled commanders and officers. Every one of those common people that the Shah-in-Shah mentioned received a pittance and, one for all and all for one, under the lead of the same officers and non-commissioned, proceeded to plunder my house, arrest and deliver me to the military court.” (link link)
so ah strawWhen that did not accomplish their goal, a second attempt was launched and $390,000 American dollars was distributed among some corrupt ulama [theologians] and unprincipled commanders and officers. Every one of those common people that the Shah-in-Shah mentioned received a pittance and, one for all and all for one, under the lead of the same officers and non-commissioned, proceeded to plunder my house, arrest and deliver me to the military court.” (link link)
is a war with iran imminent?
.
war on iran, is coming sooner or later, but iran want be the only country that would be in war, it would be a huge war, i bet many other muslim countries will be with iran if it was their war, a huge war, and deffereenlty israeil will loose, because iran is stronger than israeil, and israeil, if it use nuclear that means it sucieded. iran can get over a nuclear hit,n but israeil can't.
war on iran, is coming sooner or later, but iran want be the only country that would be in war, it would be a huge war, i bet many other muslim countries will be with iran if it was their war, a huge war, and deffereenlty israeil will loose, because iran is stronger than israeil, and israeil, if it use nuclear that means it sucieded. iran can get over a nuclear hit,n but israeil can't.
- Status