Fallujah Iraq.

It does, but surely that will be achieved when an area that is mostly Sunni elects Sunni MPs (for want of a better word), and the North vootes in Kurdish MPs, etc.

When you start deliberately laying down 'Minister X must be Sunni, Minister Y must be Kurdish' you can easily start resentment.
Not saying they have, just following a possibility.

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. And I agree, the matter does need to be handled delicately and as fairly as possible. One big problem, though, is that everyone's emotions are (understandably) running high right now, and I don't see that situation getting better anytime soon.

 

I re-read the article very closely indeed.

First up - the author was rather obviously biased, every reference to 'America' was linked to the word 'Imperialist' :roll:

Her arguments were mostly those that I have discovered. She also warned about the risk of making elections into a 'if a Sunni wins, then the Kurds will lose' scenario (which she acknowledged they are not yet).

 

Seems like everyone has an ax to grind against America nowadays. And yes, I can blame them for that. They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but I object to them trying to whip everyone into a frenzy against America and Americans. More to the point, it's not like we've landed in their countries and tried to take them over.

 

Well, I did also read an excellent article that slammed everybody for the use of 'Imperialist' alongside 'America' - because the last case of true Imperialism America ventured on was over 100 years ago. Not bad for a 230 year old country.

Since then, whenever they have invaded somewhere, it has ben with the pledge to leave later, and they have done so.

Cultural Imperialism is another matter, but we won't go there!

So, do you reckon that (Imperialist verbal diahorrea aside) the original article has a point?

Grieg says no - There is not enough divisiveness occuring (I hope I got his point correct).
I say maybe... If we're not careful.

 

Latest update - Iraqi 'rebels' kill Egyptian envoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 660909.stm

the kill has been claimed by Al-Qaeda.

What effect do you reckon such high-profile killing of Arabs will have on the Iraqi sitution and Al-Qaeda?

I notice that the kidnappers previously stated:
"A statement also released on Wednesday in the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq said Mr Sherif would be killed because he was an "apostate", who had betrayed his faith."

 

kill every one with anything that can be used as a weapon




in sight and see what there dumb god is going to do about it

 

Oh, please...

That's ludicrous. Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon by anyone, in the hands of an infant who just wants to harm you even a safety pin or a paper clip can be dangerous.

Shoot everyone in Iraq? Oh, yeah, that's going to bring peace to the world...

"see what there dumb god is going to do about it"

An offensive and inflamatory comment that seems to stem from ignorance more than knowledge.

If I were you TD I'd think about my posts before clicking on the "Submit" button.

 

:lol: Is that possible?

I want to think all it can do is alienate Al-Qaeda from much of the Middle East, but Egypt is, after all, an ally of the US and I imagine much of the country does not agree with Egypt's cooperation with the US and US supported Iraq.

This may also cause a massive recruitment into the Al Qaeda ranks as these high profile killings show the terrorist group as a highly organized, highly effective, "Liberation" machine.