# Would a different justification have made the Iraq war more credible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079 "2004-09-25T21:23:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/81 "2004-10-07T23:42:37Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, it does not. He specifically mentioned the containment of the communists and North Korea. He specifically mentioned missile systems. He did not mention WMD possession or ties to terrorists. Perhaps you can point me to the part of that interview in which he did take these into consideration? > > Please don’t accuse me of merely assuming something when I clearly posted quotes and my interpretation of them. If you disagree with my analysis, show me which part is flawed. > > Again, I will agree that to a certain degree, he was considering world safety. But I contend that he was considering it from too much of a cold war mentality for my taste. As I said, not a disagreement on substance, but on value. Have you had any updates to your opinion on the in efficacy of sanctions in the light of the Duefer report? This might be your sterling opportunity to establish a reputation for integrity. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/82 "2004-10-08T00:53:49Z")
Well, hey, we’ve got ourselves a [new justification](http://home.frontiernet.net/newsdetail.asp?cat=3&id=58262936): > [@](#): > > “The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions,” Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. “He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.” > > Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word “intent” three times in reference to Saddam’s plans to resume making weapons. > > This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. I’m holding out for when they come up with the justification that Saddam was abusing his dog. Then, I’ll bite. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/83 "2004-10-08T01:04:50Z")
Hasn’t **Iran** been systematically gaming the oil sanctions for the last couple decades? Don’t they actually _have_ some semblance of a nuclear weapons program? What’s stopping us? ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/84 "2004-10-08T05:03:46Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > Although, 9/11 happened _before_ either Afghanistan or Iraq. And prior to 9/11, there was a decade of al Qaida related terrorist attacks on the US. So clearly _something_ was annoying these people 13 years before America invaded Iraq. > > And during all this time people were flocking in increasing numbers to Afghanistan to train in camps. > > The Israel situation has been going on since 1947 without provoking islamist attacks on the US. What happened during the 90s to really piss them off? > > Whilst I don’t doubt that the Iraq war will certainly have caused hostility, it cannot be said to be the original cause of this hostility. No one with any shred of knowledge on the matter would claim that the Iraq war was the original cause of hostility, merely that it has been the most severe propaganda blunder in recent history. Anti-americanism has been a growing force for decades, and militant Islamic fundamentalism is one of its vectors – one that the US helped set up and fully encouraged when it suited American needs against Communism. So we know this problem has been in existence for a while, and we know, roughly and generally, its causes. You list a number of them above, but seem to be implying that just because problems existed prior to the Iraq war, then the Iraq war must necessarily be of lesser significance, or eclipsed entirely. Of course, this is not at all the case. > [@](#): > > Since the terrorists had reached the point where they were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people, I think we can deduce that their hatred of America was already fully-formed two years before the Iraq war. Nowehere near it. You have today sentiments against America that are considerably more severe than the situation three or four years ago (and possibly ever), as I have also argued. > [@](#): > > This hostility was caused by a number of factors. One of these factors was the sanctions regime and none of these factors was the Iraq war (since that hadn’t happened yet). The Iraq war might have made them angry but they were already as angry as it is possible to be (obviously since they want to kill as many innocent people as they can). Ah, yet more reaching spin on this tired topic? Iraqi sanctions were a small element – I would not say a cause – **employed** by some Islamist propagandists to incite anti-americanism. The anti-americanism itself was fueled rather more by American interference in the region, the whole Israel problem, US troops stationed on land considered holy, etc. These are the issues of particular import. Iraqi sanctions as I said were of far lesser relevance and quite a recent development, on top of which it was aid agencies and human rights groups who seemed chiefly concerned with such; that some Islamists employed sanction-related propaganda can’t be denied, but this is hardly _that_ relevant. > [@](#): > > Personally I would throw in islam’s dubious moral teachings which make hatred of the infidel come very easily to those with a mind to hold such beliefs. Combine this with notions of jihad. Mix in a couple of genuine causus belli. Leave to bake for a few years et voila - we get the Twin Towers. Here you go again with your customary claims – the above generalizations are actually contributors to the situation, you know. Islam doesn’t have “dubious moral teachings” per se any more than any other religion, nor is it monolithic to the extent that you can speak of it as you do. It is certain suspect, extremist forms of Islam that are the problem, the state support granted them for a variety of reasons, and the popular support engendered by a mixture of Islamist propaganda and foolhardy American foreign policy. So in Saudi Arabia you have Wahabbism and even more extreme forms such as al Qaeda’s creed, which comes from the Ikhwan, the rabid assholes that the house of Saud defeated when they founded the kingdom. That said, I have already linked materials showing how some Saudi elite view America, and it is **hardly** an unreasonable view with regards to the Iraq war, which is but the latest and greatest in a series of clumsy foreign policy blunders. There **are** genuine grievances involved along with the ones whipped up by frothing Islamists, and there are issues of systematic humiliation and dishonour… A complex situation, and summing it up with convenient capsules like “dubious moral teachings” is facile and wrong. And if you think that things were already as bad as they could be by 9/11, you are deluding yourself. As we have seen, anger has risen considerably since then, and it has the potential to rise further still. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/85 "2004-10-08T05:34:54Z")
> [@Aldebaran](#): > > What is it you do not agree with? I don’t give **my** “characterisations” as you call it. I give you an idea of people’s sentiments and the reasoning behind them. Relax! I say that some of the sentiments you quote – I don’t dispute them because I know very well they exist – are among the more extreme ones. > [@](#): > > Whis _is_ “overblown” (but obviously knowingly and obviously with very specific and calculated reasons) is the idiotic blaming on “Al Qaeda” - especially in the US media reflecting like good slaves the declarations of US administration - of no matter what happens or no matter what goes wrong these days, whenever someone (or a group)with Muslim background is involved. Well, al Qaeda (and related organizations) do appear responsible for a fair share of atrocities, although I try not to base such assesments on US intelligence when there are alternatives, given how open to manipulation we have seen US intelligence agencies are. > [@](#): > > I think you also give these criminals far too much credit; as if they would ever be ready to actually lend their ear to people who do have knowledge and insight in the region and who did predict everything that is happening right now (and that includes me and by God I still hope that time shall prove all of us to be completely wrong, although I am coming close to desesperation). They’re consistently ignorant and arrogant about everything they do, but they’re just Neocon idiots, not demons, nor do I think they have especially bad intentions other than greed, Israeli bias, and a few other assorted tidbits. What can we realistically expect when the way Bush defines “steady” is to refuse to admit mistakes, refuse to consider alternative opinions, refuse to take into account all the factors, etc.? That is “steady” indeed. You know, the Bush campaign should use that line from Shakespeare, though I don’t expect an illiterate would be familiar with it: “I am constant as the northern star, Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality There is no fellow in the firmament.” –Julius Caesar (III, i, 60 – 62) That was the beginning of the speech with which Caesar sealed his fate, as senators were begging him to reconsider an issue or two; but he would not change his mind, **he** was right regardless of anything at all, and he was the best. By the end of this speech Caesar is self-importantly comparing himself to a god and his audience, having had enough, sets on him and stabs him to death. One wonders whether the same could happen to our Misleader in his presidential campaign, of course with his “death” being a political rather than a bloody one, the weapons ballots rather than knives. I suspect that may be asking too much from the average voter though. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/86 "2004-10-08T06:50:35Z")
Third post in a row, sorry. > [@jshore](#): > > Well, hey, we’ve got ourselves a [new justification](http://home.frontiernet.net/newsdetail.asp?cat=3&id=58262936): > > I’m holding out for when they come up with the justification that Saddam was abusing his dog. Then, I’ll bite. 😉 This spanking new “justification” is probably the most amusing development in this entire sorry affair. The NYT has an editorial about the Duelfer report that is right on the money: > [@](#): > > [NYT: The verdict is in](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/opinion/07thu1.html?oref=login) > > Sanctions worked. Weapons inspectors worked. That is the bottom line of the long-awaited report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, written by President Bush’s handpicked investigator. > > In the 18 months since President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, justifying the decision by saying that Saddam Hussein was “a gathering threat” to the United States, Americans have come to realize that Iraq had no chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. But the report issued yesterday goes further. It says that Iraq had no factories to produce illicit weapons and that its ability to resume production was growing more feeble every year. While Mr. Hussein retained dreams of someday getting back into the chemical warfare business, his chosen target was Iran, not the United States. > > The report shows that the international sanctions that Mr. Bush dismissed and demeaned before the war - and still does - were astonishingly effective. Mr. Hussein hoped to get out from under the sanctions, and the report’s author, Charles Duelfer, loyally told Congress yesterday that he thought that could have happened. But his report said the Iraqis lacked even a formal strategy or a plan to reconstitute their weapons programs if it did. > > For months, administration officials have tried to deflect charges that they invaded Iraq under false pretenses and have urged critics to wait for Mr. Duelfer’s verdict on the weapons search. The authoritative findings of his Iraq Survey Group have now left the administration’s rationale for war more tattered than ever. It turns out that Iraq destroyed all stockpiles of illicit weapons more than a decade ago and had no large-scale production facilities left after 1996, seven years before the invasion. This was a matter of choice by Saddam Hussein, who desperately wanted an end to sanctions and feared that any weapons programs, if discovered by inspectors, would only keep them in place. > > Even after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a period when Western intelligence experts assumed the worst might be happening, the Hussein regime made no active efforts to produce new weapons of mass destruction. The much-feared nuclear threat - that looming mushroom cloud conjured by the administration to stampede Congress into authorizing an invasion - was a phantom. Mr. Duelfer found that even if Iraq had tried to restart its defunct nuclear program in 2003, it would have needed years to produce a nuclear weapon. Of course, the disingenuous and the propagandaphagi will insist – in the mistaken impression that they have a point – that this is proof that Iraq _wanted_ WMDs and all that cagal. Well, of bloody course it is! The sanctions were there **precisely** because Saddam wanted these weapons and the international community decided he should not have them. It’s the sanctions that prevented Saddam from obtaining and developing the weapons, the same sanctions that the uninformed claim shrilly and repeatedly were not working. As mentioned previously, the evidence suggests (and has suggested for years) that Saddam appears to have been willing to abandon the unconventional weapon programs he craved so much rather than have longer or harsher sanctions levvied against him. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/87 "2004-10-08T07:34:25Z")
> [@Catalyst](#): > > My question is, if liberating the Iraqi people had been the war’s justification from the beginning, would the war have more credibility today? If you’re invading Iraq for that reason, you’d have to ask a really unfortunate question: “why now?” Meaning 'if we were worried about Iraq’s people, why not go in during the Gulf War or when the Kurds were being slaughtered after it? And you’d also have to ask “why Iraq?” In what way was that ruthless dictatorship worse than other ruthless dictatorships so that an invasion was required, and required now? You’d also have to wonder “why should we” - we meaning the United States, or the world at large if you think this line of argument would be any more credible - “divert resources to Iraq now, especially when we have this more pressing terrorism issue to deal with?” > [@](#): > > To put it another way, do we (as a nation or as people) have a moral responsibility to help the oppressed that supercedes the rights of state sovereignty? I’m inclined to agree with conservatives that sovereignty goes out the window when you’re talking about dictatorships. But no matter how you frame it, I don’t think you can make it sound like this matter was so urgent that Iraq had to be invaded, and quickly. Human rights was not a pressing issue in Iraq because, like I said, those had sucked for decades. If we had said we wanted to invade Iraq because Saddam was an evil dictator, if anything, it would have been LESS credible than the WMD argument. It would have been obvious bullshit. Nobody had paid anything other than lip service to human rights in Iraq prior to that point. If we had said in early 2003 that this was an urgent matter we cared so much about that we were willing to go to war over it, everyone would have known it was just a pretext. Weapons of Mass Destruction and links to terrorism are pressing issues and that’s why they were at the forefront of the case for the invasion. Drastic times call for drastic measures. War is a drastic measure, so if you’re arguing for one you need to prove it’s a drastic time. Iraq’s human rights situation continuing to suck is not drastic, and Iraq having WMDs and giving them to terrorists is. That would represent a serious threat to the United States and other countries. Or at least it would’ve, if any of it had been true. Oops. > [@](#): > > Regardless of the answer to the previous question, would our actions be more credible if we were making more progress in Iraq? Domestically, maybe, because this was supposed to be an easy war with minimal costs, and the Iraqis were supposed to welcome American troops and thank them for freeing their country. Internationally I don’t think it would have made this course of action any more credible. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/88 "2004-10-08T11:59:20Z")
> [@](#): > > No one with any shred of knowledge on the matter would claim that the Iraq war was the original cause of hostility, merely that it has been the most severe propaganda blunder in recent history. As propaganda, you are correct. Obviously the war would not play well, wars rarely do. However propaganda is not the most important factor, eradicating anti-western terrorism is. > [@](#): > > Anti-americanism has been a growing force for decades, and militant Islamic fundamentalism is one of its vectors – one that the US helped set up and fully encouraged when it suited American needs against Communism. So we know this problem has been in existence for a while, and we know, roughly and generally, its causes. You list a number of them above, but seem to be implying that just because problems existed prior to the Iraq war, then the Iraq war must necessarily be of lesser significance, or eclipsed entirely. Of course, this is not at all the case. There are other causes aside from those mentioned by me or you. Al Qaida’s aims can be divided into two parts - pro-islam and anti-west. The pro-islam side is more important and concerns the desire of these groups to overthrow regimes in the middle east and elsewhere and replace them with fundamentalist, taliban-style regimes. This is more of an internal problem and explains the bombs in Saudi, Morocco etc. > [@](#): > > Nowehere near it. You have today sentiments against America that are considerably more severe than the situation three or four years ago (and possibly ever), as I have also argued. True but I would argue that these sentiments will die down as the years go by and Iraq becomes more stable and richer - something that could not have happened with the sanctions in place. > [@](#): > > Ah, yet more reaching spin on this tired topic? Iraqi sanctions were a small element – I would not say a cause – employed by some Islamist propagandists to incite anti-americanism. The anti-americanism itself was fueled rather more by American interference in the region What are the sanctions if not American interference in the region? In fact, what American interference are you referring to (if not the sanctions)? I think you are underestimating the effect they were having. Islamist propaganda made a huge deal about the half a million dead children, all muslim political demonstrations in the 90s had the sanctions as one of their main rallying calls, Osama cited them as one of three ways in which America is harming muslims in his fatwa against the US. > [@](#): > > Iraqi sanctions as I said were of far lesser relevance and quite a recent development The sanctions were put in place after GW1 in 1991. The first al Qaida attack on America was in 1993 (the first World Trade Center bombing) - see this [timeline of islamic terrorism against the United States](http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Timeline%20of%20Islamic%20terrorism%20against%20the%20United%20States). The evidence that the sanctions were a major factor is pretty overwhelming really. By claiming that they were not an important factor, you have to ignore: a. what the terrorists said themselves b. what the general muslim population were saying through the 90s c. the practical fact that islamic attacks on America (in terms of al Qaida) began two years after the sanctions were imposed d. the increasing numbers of people travelling to training camps in Afghanistan during the late 90s What evidence do you have that they were not a major factor? So far you have offered up none. The only evidence you have provided is that the Iraq war has pissed people off - no one disputes that, we all know that. > [@](#): > > Here you go again with your customary claims – the above generalizations are actually contributors to the situation, you know. Islam doesn’t have “dubious moral teachings” per se any more than any other religion Really? Well this isn’t strictly a thread about islam so we don’t need to rehash all those arguments again. But in islam it is the case that jews and christians are offered dhimmi status (whereby they pay a tax to muslims so that the muslims don’t kill them). Those people who are not jews and christians don’t even get the chance to pay the tax. I would argue that this (and many other things) can create an impression that non-muslims are of much lesser importance (sub-human?) in the minds of people who wish to hold such views. Add to this the profusion of quotes in the quran about killing or subjugating the infidel, waging jihad against them etc “ye do not like fighting but it is prescribed for you” etc As for your remark that: > [@](#): > > the above generalizations are actually contributors to the situation, you know. Well diddums, I don’t give a shit if muslims are offended by anything I say, just as I don’t care whether communists or fascists are offended by anything I may say about them. If people don’t want to get offended then they shouldn’t have ridiculous, supremacist, authoritarian belief systems. Their belief system is their problem not mine. > [@](#): > > nor is it monolithic to the extent that you can speak of it as you do. I know it is not monolithic but there are things that are common to all forms of islam. It’s lack of monolithity does not mean that there is nothing you can say about the subject as a whole. But anyway, I only cited islam as one of a number of reasons why extremist muslims find it easy to hate infidels. It provides scriptural justification (if they wish to find it). I certainly wouldn’t defend American foreign policy in general. My view is quite simple: The sanctions caused massive and increasing affront in the muslim world. This affront was exploited and magnified by the extremists. This situation was only going to get worse so one way or another the sanctions had to go. As a practical fact, the west were never going to get rid of the sanctions while Saddam was there. So the only way to get rid of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam. An extreme measure, I know, but it was the only option open to them. In any case, the Iraqis hated Saddam and so most of them were up for it and (far as I can tell) the vast majority are still glad it happened. In a sense, what the muslims in Egypt, Saudi or Pakistan think means nothing - they didn’t have to live under Saddam. The resistance we are seeing now is no more than was to be expected. The foreign fighters are irrelevant since they are just al Qaida trouble makers. The Falluja lot need to be treated with more respect since they are espousing Iraqi (and arab) nationalism and their opposition is entirely understandable but, even so, they don’t represent more than a small minority. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/89 "2004-10-08T12:14:15Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > True but I would argue that these sentiments will die down as the years go by and Iraq becomes more stable and richer - something that could not have happened with the sanctions in place. If that happens. And everybody will overlook the American military bases in Iraq and have no concerns about America’s future in the region and not blame America for civilian casualties in this war. > [@](#): > > The sanctions caused massive and increasing affront in the muslim world. This affront was exploited and magnified by the extremists. This situation was only going to get worse so one way or another the sanctions had to go. I see. So you’re now arguing that the war and its results are going to generate less hatred than the sanctions? I’ll take that bet any day of the week. > [@](#): > > As a practical fact, the west were never going to get rid of the sanctions while Saddam was there. So the only way to get rid of the sanctions was to get rid of Saddam. An extreme measure, I know, but it was the only option open to them. This seems totally backwards to me. The whole point of having sanctions was to keep Saddam from having weapons without invading the country. Now you’re saying we had to invade the country to get rid of our own sanctions? The US invading a Middle Eastern country is aggressive and definitely caused more of a stir than more sanctions would have. The problems with justifying the war made it even worse. > [@](#): > > In a sense, what the muslims in Egypt, Saudi or Pakistan think means nothing - they didn’t have to live under Saddam. The resistance we are seeing now is no more than was to be expected. The foreign fighters are irrelevant since they are just al Qaida trouble makers. The Falluja lot need to be treated with more respect since they are espousing Iraqi (and arab) nationalism and their opposition is entirely understandable but, even so, they don’t represent more than a small minority. This is confusing to me. The war is a good thing that will reduce hatred, but you have to ignore the opinions of most Muslims? ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/90 "2004-10-08T15:29:06Z")
Thanks, **marley23**. Getting carpal-tunnnel syndrome here. **Jojo** , I’m not going to get bogged down in another multi-page discussion in which I demonstrate repeatedly why certain of your generalizations of Islam range from forced malicious interpretation to the wildly inaccurate. But I will mention this one time that _dhimmi_ refers to a minority individual of _protected_ status in a Muslim country, and is not “a tax to muslims so that the muslims don’t kill them” as you allege. The word itself means literally “protected individual”, and extremely few countries today apply this otherwise theoretical concept. Now, in the hope of illuminating you on yet another aspect of Islam you seem to have picked up from god knows what scrofulent ultra-biased source, here is the [Wikipedia entry on _dhimmi_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi). Relevant citations: > [@](#): > > edited from [Wikipedia entry on _dhimmi_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) > > ## very few Islamic nations (Iran being a notable exception) actually have any legally defined special status for dhimmis at the present. > > Muslims living in less conservative or more multiconfessional nations typically present the dhimmi as being equal to Muslims. > > ## In contrast, Muslims living in more traditionalist or monocultural nations, particularly those that practice Sharia, usually present the dhimmi as being a second to Muslims. > > dhimmis: protected citizens under Islamic law, allowed the rights listed below on condition of loyalty or acquiescence to the government and paying the taxes mentioned below: > > Rights: > > Protection of life, wealth and honor by the Muslim state (even against other co-religionist states) > Right to reside in Muslim lands > Right of worship according to their own religion > Right to work and trade > > Exemptions: > > Exemption from paying zakah “alms to the poor” > Exemption from being drafted in military service > Exemptions from religious duties specific to Muslims > Exemptions from personal Muslim laws (e.g. marriage, divorce) > > Obligations: > > Paying jizyah (Poll tax) > Paying land tax I hope this explains why your interpretation of _dhimmi_ is just plain wrong, and I would strongly suggest an expansion of your reading list. _Dhimmi_ is actually – like much of Islam – a complex piece of social engineering with some admirable aspects. That a few countries and peoples abuse this concept is undeniable, but then again (as you ought to remember) I have spoken out before against the revolting and fundamentalist official religions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, which abuse in an outrageous manner the basic tenets of Islam, often towards goals that are xenophobic, paternalistic, intolerant, and misogynistic. You can abuse anything at all in religion, as we established in our discussion on honour killings. Regarding the sanctions, let me repeat my point, indeed the very reason I joined this discussion: the sanctions were perceived in MENA (and by Muslims in general) as tender loving care when contrasted to the Iraq war. There are a number of reasons why. First, they were **international** sanctions. They were not American sanctions as you keep implying, they were imposed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 661. This differs drastically from the diplomatic and military offensives against Iraq, which were overwhelmingly American. Second, the sanctions bore a high degree of legitimacy, granted thanks to the leading international diplomatic forum – the very same the Misleader was forced to evade with low-brow macho bluster because he didn’t have the necessary evidence to argue his case. Third, the sanctions had a clear, evidenced purpose, as described in [the document itself](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/11/IMG/NR057511.pdf?OpenElement) and approved by the Council 13-0 with two abstentions. The sanctions were not perceived as unneccessary, outrageous, and unfounded acts of aggression the way the Iraq war was. Fourth, opposition to the sanctions was mostly limited to comparatively few sources, whereas the war on Iraq has been almost universally (and certainly fairly thoroughly in MENA) condemned, including by _states_ in the region, not just thundering clerics. Leverage that! Your thesis on the sanctions’ impact (like your thesis on _dhimmi_) hinges on a set of fundamentalist interpretations of specific concepts; I have already said the sanctions were leveraged by agitators and fundamentalists, and condemned by human rights organizations, but by and large they bore the gravitas and legitimacy conferred by international consensus in response to a clear threat. The sanctions have been justly and unjustly criticized, sure, but – once again – they were simply not comparable with the Iraq war in terms of stirring anti-american sentiments (not just among Muslims or in MENA, but across the globe). Their impact compared with that of the Iraq war may be somewhat magnified by their greater length, but that’s about it. I’m not sure if many people properly understand yet what a frightful development this war was in terms of image and similar currencies, specifically in MENA. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/91 "2004-10-08T15:48:56Z")
I’ll add as coda that I hope the best scenario somehow results for Iraq and this whole thing repairs itself, but I have not been discussing optimism/pessimism for the long term, I have been referring to the damage done to date (which doesn’t bode very well for the present and immediate future). ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/92 "2004-10-08T16:04:24Z")
Hm, I seem to be developing a penchant for trios of posts. I have to add: > [@Jojo](#): > > Well diddums, I don’t give a shit if muslims are offended by anything I say, just as I don’t care whether communists or fascists are offended by anything I may say about them. If people don’t want to get offended then they shouldn’t have ridiculous, supremacist, authoritarian belief systems. Their belief system is their problem not mine. Interesting. In this self-righteous little outburst you are calling Muslims ridiculous, supremacist, and authoritarian, and equating them to communists and fascists. I should point out that communist and fascist ideologies are ALSO subject to various interpretations, so your outburst seems more silly than bigoted, but I’ve heard this kind of intolerant, egocentric bullshit verging on hate speech from you before, and all I can say is take it to the Pit where similar output belongs… or not “belongs”, but “is most tolerated”. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/93 "2004-10-08T17:43:22Z")
Marley: > [@](#): > > This seems totally backwards to me. The whole point of having sanctions was to keep Saddam from having weapons without invading the country. Now you’re saying we had to invade the country to get rid of our own sanctions? Yeah, insane isn’t it? Don’t blame me, I didn’t start all this shit. Maybe they should have just got rid of Saddam in the first gulf war but there wasn’t the international consensus for it at the time. Abe: > [@](#): > > Jojo, I’m not going to get bogged down in another multi-page discussion in which I demonstrate repeatedly why certain of your generalizations of Islam range from forced malicious interpretation to the wildly inaccurate. But I will mention this one time that dhimmi refers to a minority individual of protected status in a Muslim country, and is not “a tax to muslims so that the muslims don’t kill them” as you allege. The word itself means literally “protected individual”, and extremely few countries today apply this otherwise theoretical concept. What muslim countries do or don’t do is not the issue. Islam _is_ a theory. Islamists will be the first to admit that they are engaged in an ideological struggle. Most muslims will say that there is no true islamic society currently on earth ie that there is no country that is implementing islam in it’s true form. You’re right about dhimmi meaning “protected individual” - the jezyah is a protection tax (or racket, if you prefer). Problems with the dhimmi concept abound. Aside from the idea of having a theory of taxation that is connected to what religion you are, there is also the fact that the only people who are granted “protected” status are jews and christians. Occasionally zoroastrians and very rarely hindus (in some interpretations). Atheists, buddhists, animists etc are not included. The reason it only extends to jews and christians is because they are considered to be followers of revealed texts. In other words they follow some of the same texts as muslims. In other words only people who follow texts that are in some way connected to islam have any worth. So once again it all comes back to islam and the primacy of islam. I also don’t particularly want to get into an in depth discussion of the dhimmi concept. My main point is that, _amongst the militant islamists_, a dhimmi person is a second class citizen. With rights not equal to those of a muslim. And that this is just one concept in islam that lends itself to a supremacist interpretation. And that wikipedia article does not give a full picture. Try to build a new church in Egypt - you need permission from the President himself and there are other restrictions (there must be a certain number of christians living in the area, there must not be a mosque within a 5 mile radius etc). In the dhimmi concept espoused by the more conservative muslims, a non-muslims word is worth half that of a muslims in a court of law and many other things. > [@](#): > > You can abuse anything at all in religion, as we established in our discussion on honour killings. I don’t think I’ve ever discussed honour killings with you. You must be thinking of somebody else. I’ve certainly never claimed they are a part of islam. > [@](#): > > First, they were international sanctions. They were not American sanctions as you keep implying, they were imposed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 661. True but they were perceived as American imposed by most, and they were being most vigourously enforced by America, and they certainly would have never been removed without American say so. > [@](#): > > Second, the sanctions bore a high degree of legitimacy, granted thanks to the leading international diplomatic forum This legitimacy was being eroded by the day as more children died and as the impoverishment in Iraq grew. > [@](#): > > Third, the sanctions had a clear, evidenced purpose, as described in the document itself and approved by the Council 13-0 with two abstentions. The sanctions were not perceived as unneccessary, outrageous, and unfounded acts of aggression the way the Iraq war was. Maybe they were not perceived as such by you but then you’re not an aggrieved young muslim. Whatever purpose they may have had at the start, by the end they were being perceived as an example of American imperialism in the middle east and an attack on an islamic country by the west. > [@](#): > > Fourth, opposition to the sanctions was mostly limited to comparatively few sources, Poppycock, balderdash and horse manure of the finest quality. If 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq had never happened, Aldebaran would be in this forum constantly complaining about the sanctions. I’m not picking on Aldebaran, just using him as an example of an average muslim. > [@](#): > > Interesting. In this self-righteous little outburst you are calling Muslims ridiculous, supremacist, and authoritarian, No, I’m calling islam ridiculous, supremacist and authoritarian. Unlike you, I can differentiate between an ideology and it’s adherents. Muslims themselves are great. In many ways I prefer them to christians. Of the many muslims I know personally, I can only think of maybe one or two I don’t much like (and that is for reasons unconnected to islam). I even like the extremist, militant ones I know. As far as I’m concerned, they’re enslaved by an ideology - I don’t hold it against them. But then I’m an anarchist - I think almost everybody is enslaved by an ideology (except other anarchists). I don’t hate anybody, I don’t even hate any ideologies - I just think that some are more mistaken than others. When you’re an anarchist, you kinda get used to disagreeing with people’s ideologies - it comes with the territory. > [@](#): > > and equating them to communists and fascists. I probably used bad examples. I wasn’t equating them to communists and fascists, merely to holders of any ideology. Why should I care what a holder of an ideology thinks? If I don’t agree with that ideology then I can’t be expected to worry overmuch about whether they are offended or not when I disagree with them. > [@](#): > > I should point out that communist and fascist ideologies are ALSO subject to various interpretations Of course, but likewise this does not mean that one is unable to make any remarks at all about, say, communism in general. > [@](#): > > so your outburst seems more silly than bigoted, but I’ve heard this kind of intolerant, egocentric bullshit verging on hate speech from you before What you say here actually raises an important issue but it’s a bit of a hijack from this thread. There’s lots of concepts in islam I could criticise - the brotherhood concept, the “apostacy is bad” concept, the place of women, the position of non-muslims, the legal system, the logical contradictions that occur within the ideology, the lack of historical evidence for some of it’s claims, even circumcision. But according to you, any criticism is “hate speech”. Weird. Would you take a similar view if I criticise aspects of national socialism, or democracy, or christianity? Do you then take the view that there should never be any criticism of ANY ideology ever? What a strange soulless world you must inhabit. And what a dangerous one too, if you think that criticism is a bad thing. Personally I think it’s a good thing, the more the better. Anyway, let’s not lose sight of the original point I was making - that islam is one factor (amongst others) that is responsible for the resentment AQ (and the muslim world in general) bear towards the west. I’m not saying it’s the only factor. If you are denying that then you are being wilfully blind. Of course there’s nothing we can do about islam. All we can do is remove any other things that are pissing them off, things we actually might have some control over. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/94 "2004-10-08T20:42:05Z")
Well, what a surprise, **jojo** drops a load of false and unsubstantiated claims in the thread. Ask him to clean up and he just brings more. After a clear, factually-supported response showing very clearly why Jojo’s definition of _dhimmi_ was severely flawed and embarrasingly simplistic, this is what he regales us with. For anything on that particular topic, I refer you to my existing analysis. Allow me to quote from the discussion you fail to remember, where I addressed at least four or five times very similar points you repeat here. I described your methods thus: > [@](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=214384&page=3&pp=50](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=214384&page=3&pp=50) > > A classic example of the Jojo Technique: make a hare-brained assertion in the hope that most people won’t bother stooping to such stupidity; when the assertion is disproved by real citations and real argument, commence waffling and shuffling around the point, then issue another hare-brained assertion that must fail to address the original point. Repeat ad nauseam until everyone with good sense has fled the vicinity. The citations you are ignoring in this case, of which I have provided rather more than my share, are already in this thread. Read them, put aside your tattered copy of _White Nile_ (the entertainment book presenting biased accounts that was the one single “historical” source you cited in the linked discussion) and read up on something worthwhile. Since I have already addressed your obvious personal problems against Islam in that last thread (and elsewhere if memory serves), and I have likewise clearly identified your bias, and I am ignoring the token claims of “some of my best friends are Muslims”, I won’t bother with the assertions (of the same structure as our other discussions’) that you provide here on religion. But I do note that you backtracked and specified that you were referring to militant Islamists rather than insiting on your previous blanket statements. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Interesting. In this self-righteous little outburst you are calling Muslims ridiculous, supremacist, and authoritarian, > > No, I’m calling islam ridiculous, supremacist and authoritarian. Unlike you, I can differentiate between an ideology and it’s adherents. Well, perhaps that may have something to do with what you wrote, which I quote again: > [@Jojo](#): > > Well diddums, I don’t give a shit if muslims are offended by anything I say, just as I don’t care whether communists or fascists are offended by anything I may say about them. If people don’t want to get offended then they shouldn’t have ridiculous, supremacist, authoritarian belief systems. Their belief system is their problem not mine. In context of your record of cheaply fallacious anti-Islam jabs, this makes perfect sense, and I note at least two direct and rather negative references to “Muslims” as opposed to one vague one on “Islam”. In the highly unlikely eventuality that I am wrong on this matter, I will retract my objections on this paragraph, since you already admitted you were incorrect to generalize, and that you used poor examples. Now, there isn’t really anything of substance in your reply and I’ve spent my time in this thread batting down objections that have become increasingly silly, so I will move to just a few excerpts: > [@](#): > > Maybe they were not perceived as such by you but then you’re not an aggrieved young muslim. Whatever purpose they may have had at the start, by the end they were being perceived as an example of American imperialism in the middle east and an attack on an islamic country by the west. I find it fantastic that you are telling me what happened in a region the people, cultures, and religions of which you have not demonstrated understanding of. I have already addressed the issues with the sanctions, and you haven’t provided any arguments or support to invalidate what I stated, explained, clarified, repeated, etc. Again, here we have a reiteration of the pattern established in previous discussions. But I will emphasize again: Iraq war \> UN sanctions in terms of impact on terrorist activities, recruitment, etc. The evidence of the severe impact of the Iraq war etc. is here in this thread, including a report by the highly respect IISS. Unless your contention is that UN sanctions were more relevant than the war – also already addressed – why and what are you arguing? > [@](#): > > What you say here actually raises an important issue but it’s a bit of a hijack from this thread. There’s lots of concepts in islam I could criticise - the brotherhood concept, the “apostacy is bad” concept, the place of women, the position of non-muslims, the legal system, the logical contradictions that occur within the ideology, the lack of historical evidence for some of it’s claims, even circumcision. But according to you, any criticism is “hate speech”. Interestingly, I have _already_ outlined and shot down the bigotry/bias/misinformation that you express among your arguments on brotherhood, apostasy, the place of women, the position of non-Muslims, the legal system, female circumcision, etc., in Islam. Read up on our past exchanges, it might jog the memory a bit. Your consistent pattern of using deliberately twisted “information” is already addressed, here and in the older thread I linked. So, perhaps you simply don’t remember the times when someone has gone to considerable length to expound arguments following your little snipes at Islam, only to have you reply with non-arguments and worse. But it has happened, rather more than once. As for the sensitivity you allege I have towards Islam, well, I have a history in MENA and actually know what I am talking about, so when someone like you throws their putrid little venomous darts at a people, culture, or religion, I happen to have the tools for the job. I am certainly no authority on Indian politics or Mormon ideology, so you won’t see me address those topics with quite the same level of confidence. I do happen to believe, with ample reason, that understanding is a better factor in multireligious or multicultural relations than the uninformed and inflammatory commentary you regularly provide to the accompaniment of abundant hand-waving. Particularly at this particular time, where, as I have argued, it is quite possible for things to get a lot worse. I have actually worked to foster multicultural and multireligious understanding, and it is particularly **galling** to witness insistent biased and inaccurate proclamations in GD. You, speaking of sensibilities, seem to focus intently on denigrating Islam using any desperate measure, so spare me the talk about your even-handed approach to all ideologies. > [@](#): > > Anyway, let’s not lose sight of the original point I was making - that islam is one factor (amongst others) that is responsible for the resentment AQ (and the muslim world in general) bear towards the west. I’m not saying it’s the only factor. If you are denying that then you are being wilfully blind. And here we have another important component of your technique: the resort to absurdly reductionist interpretations of complex situations so that they may fit a prejudice, in this case your need to link, wholesale, Islam with the evil of terrorism. More mature and informed analysis would read that some forms of Islam have been co-opted by specific tribes of extremists to serve relatively recent anti-American purposes, just as they and/or others have throughout history co-opted Islam towards existing primitive xenophobic, misogynistic, patriarchal, etc., tendencies diffuse in specific ethnic and tribal groups. Of course, saying this doesn’t allow you to vent quite as much poison or utter your usual sweeping indictments, so I can see why you would avoid analysis of any meaningful depth. Al Qaeda now has a life of its own, as is discussed in one of my cites from an earlier post. 1) Capturing all their leaders and 2) mitigating the factors that drive up terrorist recruitment, thereby crippling the movement, is shortly going to be the only hope left, if it isn’t already. In a sense, Al Qaeda has become **its own** religion, and the Iraq war has proved valuable fuel for its exponents and recruiters. In fact the Iraq war proved the most combustible fuel in al Qaeda and militant Islamic history, if you link the Iraq war to the spate of terrorist attacks the world has endured since the thoroughly (and with good reason) poorly-perceived invasion (this material and related claims are also cited and discussed in previous posts). ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/95 "2004-10-08T23:38:10Z")
Abe: Why not drop the personal attacks and concentrate on dealing with the points I make? If I say something that is wrong then please feel free to try to explain why I am wrong. See, I have no problem with criticism. Far as I can work out: a. I haven’t actually said anything that’s wrong and b. if I have, you haven’t made any attempt to correct me > [@](#): > > Well, what a surprise, jojo drops a load of false and unsubstantiated claims in the thread. Ask him to clean up and he just brings more. Personal attack with no real point to it. > [@](#): > > After a clear, factually-supported response showing very clearly why Jojo’s definition of dhimmi was severely flawed and embarrasingly simplistic What? You mean that Wikipedia article? You think that that Wikipedia article says all there is to be said about the subject of dhimmitude within islam? I think you’ll find there’s a bit more to it than that but in any case, I think you fail to understand where I’m coming from. I don’t like the whole idea of discriminating between people on the basis of religion. Even using the article which you cited, I can find something I would object to. Immediately after the bit you quoted comes this: > [@](#): > > Other points: Later legislation in the Sharia codified the rule that Jews and Christians were forbidden to blaspheme the Quran, the religion of Islam, or their prophet Muhammad. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to ask Muslims to join their faith, but Muslims were allowed to ask Jews and Christians to convert to Islam (see proselytization). Violation of these rules could invoke the death sentence. > > Dhimmis were sometimes subject to other restrictions. Each of the following were forbidden to dhimmis at some point somewhere in the world: > > Holding public office. This was very rarely enforced: in reality, many non-Muslims held high positions in Muslim states, including Shmuel Ha-Nagid in Spain, as well as others in Egypt and Iraq > Bearing weapons > Riding camels or horses. Also rarely enforced - in reality, the average dhimmi in a Muslim state was more well-to-do than an average Muslim, a disparity that continues till today in many Muslim countries. > Building houses of worship higher than mosques > Mourning loudly > Dressing in the same way that Arabs dressed. Dress codes, such as forcing all Jews to wear a yellow badge, were sometimes enforced, so that dhimmis would be visibly distinct from Muslims. Note that the practice is not found in the Quran or hadith. First of all I can tell you that that article is incorrect. There IS a hadith that says that non-muslims should be forced to wear something to show that they are not muslims and, further to this hadith, the taliban started making hindus wear yellow armbands. So straight away, on my first brief glance at your cite, I can tell that it has made a mistake. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence does it? Secondly, I’m not really interested in how well or badly dhimmis get treated. I don’t approve of the whole idea of religious discrimination. It can very easily (and often does) get used as a basis for persecution of religious minorities. Thirdly, the phrase in your quote that dhimmis are “protected citizens under Islamic law, allowed the rights listed below on condition of loyalty or acquiescence to the government” is problematic and can cover a multitude of sins. I don’t “acquiesce” to any government. In an islamic state the government will (presumably) be islamic. Well it just so happens that I don’t agree with various islamic beliefs and so, if I lived in such a country, I would probably want to change various laws. However this could be interpreted as not showing “loyalty or acquiesence to the government”. > [@](#): > > Allow me to quote from the discussion you fail to remember I remember the discussion. I just don’t remember ever saying anything about honour killing. In fact, I don’t think I have ever said ANYTHING about honour killing being part of islam to ANYONE ever on this message board. Why would I when I don’t think it does have anything to do with islam? You are trying to attribute to me an irrational hatred of islam which I don’t have. I have certain rational criticisms (which I’m not afraid to bring up) but I don’t hate islam. The quote you give is just you dishing out more personal vitriol which doesn’t really address any point in particular. Please understand you can dish out all the vitriol you like, I don’t mind. > [@](#): > > The citations you are ignoring in this case, of which I have provided rather more than my share, are already in this thread. Read them, put aside your tattered copy of White Nile (the entertainment book presenting biased accounts that was the one single “historical” source you cited in the linked discussion) and read up on something worthwhile. I didn’t really present the White Nile as a “cite” I just wondered what you thought of it. Remember, I wasn’t doing cites in that thread. I’m not really doing them in this one either because I think they can get used as a substitute for critical thinking. Since we both seem to be fairly up on islam, I don’t think we need to worry particularly about them, unless someone makes a remark that is completely bizarre. > [@](#): > > I won’t bother with the assertions (of the same structure as our other discussions’) that you provide here on religion. But I do note that you backtracked and specified that you were referring to militant Islamists rather than insiting on your previous blanket statements. Well I wouldn’t say I backtracked. What I am saying is that the things that are in islam are imprecise enough to allow militants to draw extremist conclusions from them. So it is definately islam that’s at fault, even if most muslims are perfectly nice people. If islam comes from God then it is presumably perfect. And yet how can it be perfect when it seems to be so easy for people to draw horrendous beliefs from it? Personally I think that if God gave us a religion then it would be so perfect that it wouldn’t be possible for organisations like al Qaida to exist, or extreme forms of the wahabbi, or the Iranian mullahs, or the taliban. A perfect religion would be just that, perfect. If the religion is not perfect then it can’t come from God. QED. > [@](#): > > But I will emphasize again: Iraq war \> UN sanctions in terms of impact on terrorist activities, recruitment, etc. The evidence of the severe impact of the Iraq war etc. is here in this thread, including a report by the highly respect IISS. Unless your contention is that UN sanctions were more relevant than the war – also already addressed – why and what are you arguing? Well I didn’t particularly intend to get into an argument about it. You just have a tendency to bring that out in people with your endless personal attacks and abrasive style. My point (which I’ve explained numerous times) is that, yes, the Iraq war will have an impact on terrrorist recruitment and increased hostility. I have no doubt of this. I thought this would happen long before the war but we’ve just got to ride it out. I am saying that the sanctions had to go. Politicians do not have the luxury of political commentators (like yourself). It is very easy for you to sit there and be critical but imagine that you are the President of the US and have to decide what to do to lessen muslim hostility toward the United States. You know that the sanctions are in place and are causing increasing amounts of hostility. You know that something has to be done about the sanctions. The hostility of al Qaida is already at the point where 9/11 happened so I would say that we had reached crisis point where something drastic was required. You said earlier: > [@](#): > > I have not been discussing optimism/pessimism for the long term, I have been referring to the damage done to date Unfortunately, as a politician, the future IS your concern. You have to make decisions about the future. There’s no point in sitting around worrying about the past. Yes there is clearly a problem in that there is resentment of the islamic world toward America and the west. The ONLY relevant question to a politician is “What do I do about it?” It’s easy for you to sit around bemoaning the current situation but if you are going to be a proper politician then you need to consider what is the best thing to do next. The hatred of some sections of the muslim world had reached the point where they had formed terror groups that were flying planes into buildings. God knows what they are going to do next. As a politician, you need to look at the things that may be causing resentment in the muslim world and do somethng about them. What may be causing resentment? Well there’s Israel but that’s a complicated intransigent problem that only obliquely involves America anyway. But in any case you do what you can and hence we saw the introduction of the Road Map. There’s the troops in Saudi. It’s understandable that infidel troops in the muslim holy land may cause offence so you get rid of them and hence they have now all been moved. Then there’s the sanctions. They need to go but the problem is you (as President) still don’t trust Saddam. How do you get rid of the sanctions while still containing Saddam? The answer is you can’t. Thus Saddam had to go. This wouldn’t be all bad news since the Iraqis hated him anyway (and few muslims had much love for him). And getting rid of Saddam opens the door for a new era in Iraq. New eras are always a good thing (if the last one was shit). And anyway the Iraqis will have a democracy after the war. If they decide they don’t like democracy, they can always elect a dictator back into power. That’s the thing about democracy - if you don’t like it it’s very easy to get rid of. Unlike a dictatorship - if you decide you don’t like a dictatorship then you’ve got a problem. They are almost impossible to get rid of. So the arguments for getting rid of Saddam are pretty good, the arguments for keeping him there are not so good (what with increasing muslim resentment and all). As President you need to decide what to do next. Obviously a war will piss people off but then people are already pissed off. And as wars go, wars to get rid of dictators are the best. Now I’m not defending Bush’s prosecution of the war, or what has happened since the war. I think he’s made some major mistakes. But I can see why he did it and even sympathise with his reasons. You, Abe, are just some anonymous chatterer like me. It’s easy for us to provide running commentaries but as a politician you have to actually decide what to do based on the facts available at the time. I also think that I am more optimistic than you. Whilst I think Bush has made a bit of a mess of the whole thing, I haven’t seen anything yet to make me think that Iraq has a bleak future. Once they get themselves sorted out, I think they will do just fine. But I think America has to get out asap. I admit this is just my own impression but the Iraqis strike me as being more like the Turks than the Saudis. I don’t think they will go the way of religious fundamentalism unless something goes seriously wrong. America being too heavy handed could drive them in this direction though. Left to their own devices, we’ve got the kurds in the north who have already set up their own secular democracy, we’ve got the shia in the south who traditionally keep religion out of politics (the current Iranian bunch being an exception), and the sunni in the middle who are pretty sophisticated and well educated. Then we’ve got the second largest reserves of oil in the world and a people who are not afraid of hard work (unlike the Saudis). I can’t see how Iraq can fail unless something goes badly wrong. They just have to sort out this temporary terrorist problem. Anyway, back to your arguments: > [@](#): > > Interestingly, I have already outlined and shot down the bigotry/bias/misinformation that you express among your arguments on brotherhood, apostasy, the place of women, the position of non-Muslims, the legal system, female circumcision, etc., in Islam. Read up on our past exchanges, it might jog the memory a bit. You ain’t shot down shit. For one thing I’ve never mentioned female circumcision, ever. This, like honour killing, is another attempt by you to portray me as an irrational muslim hater. I don’t think female circumcision is a part of islam and I never have thought this. I was talking about male circumcision (which I don’t agree with). In the thread which you linked to in your last post I was arguing about Quran 4:34 which says that a man can beat his wife for being disobedient, nothing to do with honour killings or female circumcision. And I’m not sure you answered any of the other points because I don’t think I raised them in that thread (although I just quickly scanned it so I may have missed it). > [@](#): > > I do happen to believe, with ample reason, that understanding is a better factor in multireligious or multicultural relations I agree totally. But the difference between you and me is that I want to understand people’s motivations so that I can disagree with them, you seem to want to kow-tow. Understanding other people does not mean you have to necessarily agree with them. I’m just as argumentative with muslims face to face as I am here (honest). I think it does them good to meet people who disagree with everything they say, since they are used to only hanging out with people who agree with them (on fundamentals at least). See, I think multireligious relations are better served by people being honest with each other rather than by people being too scared to say what they think. This is one of the problems with most muslim countries - criticism of islam is either officially banned or socially disapproved of. If I think something’s horseshit, I just come right out and say it. I haven’t been killed yet and I _think_ most muslims I know like me in spite of it. But then I have a winning smile. At least they know where I stand. With you they wouldn’t be so sure. > [@](#): > > As for the sensitivity you allege I have towards Islam, well, I have a history in MENA You once went on holiday to Tunisia? > [@](#): > > And here we have another important component of your technique: the resort to absurdly reductionist interpretations of complex situations so that they may fit a prejudice I don’t have a prejudice. If I am factually wrong about something, how about pointing it out? > [@](#): > > in this case your need to link, wholesale, Islam with the evil of terrorism. I didn’t make the link. Al Qaida did. > [@](#): > > More mature and informed analysis would read that some forms of Islam have been co-opted by specific tribes of extremists to serve relatively recent anti-American purposes, just as they and/or others have throughout history co-opted Islam towards existing primitive xenophobic, misogynistic, patriarchal, etc., tendencies diffuse in specific ethnic and tribal groups. Of course, saying this doesn’t allow you to vent quite as much poison or utter your usual sweeping indictments, so I can see why you would avoid analysis of any meaningful depth. Look there is, for example, the concept of jihad. Now I am aware that the concept of jihad has been misused by these groups in the sense that they use the concept to justify any perceived affront. In truth there has not been a valid jihad since the time of Mohammed (when there were attempts to wipe out the tribe of islam). This is the belief of the vast majority of muslims. BUT these groups do use the jihad idea to fight against anyone and everyone. And the jihad idea IS unique to islam. SO therefore it is possible to lay some blame at islam’s door for even having the concept of jihad in the first place. Since this concept is obviously open to abuse. Thus islam is not entirely innocent in the existence of terrorist groups such as al Qaida. If islam did not exist then al Qaida would not exist. The quran is so full of anti-infidel quotes that it is not particularly surprising that such groups spring up from time to time. While you see a future where all religions live together in harmony, I see a future where all religions cease to exist under the weight of their own ridiculousness. But then I’m not just an anarchist, I’m a _revolutionary_ anarchist. This doesn’t mean I support the use of terror just that I think ideologies have to be confronted at every turn rather than appeased. Ah well, this post is far too long but then I had nothing better to do tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/96 "2004-10-08T23:45:23Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > Yeah, insane isn’t it? Don’t blame me, I didn’t start all this shit. Maybe they should have just got rid of Saddam in the first gulf war but there wasn’t the international consensus for it at the time. Of course, it wasn’t there this time either. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/97 "2004-10-09T05:19:21Z")
Jojo, the points you make have already been demonstrated to be the rubbish you have already demonstrated to be particularly fond of. I am not interested in educating or debating with someone who displays wilful and vulgar ignorance at every turn, and whose memory and reading skills are obviously highly selective. Since it’s obvious you have nothing better to do than bog down these discussions when you feel you must pipe up and let the world know about your idiotic prejudices and baked arguments, take it to the pit where your bullshit belongs and I may deign to address your silliness there as it richly deserves. And read the thread instead of (yet again) gesticulating that you are right. You have wasted thousands of words and demonstrated nothing, just as you have routinely failed to successfully argue your inane preconceptions or support them factually. That’s why I don’t have to address your points (if cheap, forced rhetoric may be called that) yet again. You provide no material whatsoever against the existing arguments and evidence in this thread (or the other ones where you were thrashed for that matter), no support for your many flawed claims, and no good faith whatsoever given that this is hardly the first time you raise very similar points with your trademark pretense at false innocence and carefully channelled bias. Nor do you appear to have any idea what a debate is, since you just nitpick (without factual support, let’s remember) and hijack at every opportunity when you think you may demonstrate your agenda. Who needs this? Certainly not me, certainly not GD. To summarize. Iraq war = more severe impact than Iraq sanctions, certainly today, and I provided evidence and arguments in support of the severity of impact of the Iraq war. In your various dances on this subject you have, true to form, failed to demonstrate any of your claims. I have shown why your concept of _dhimmi_ was plainly, maliciously, and factually wrong (the best you can do in response is provide your usual unsupported allegations and sidewinding). I have showed why your understanding of apostasy, status of women, etc. in Islam are systematically biased and wrong (I did so most thoroughly but it appears you lack the good sense to know when your arguments have been destroyed). I have shown why your arguments hinge on speaking out against Islam by taking the worst extremist representatives thereof and then generalizing like a three-year old about a sizeable chunk of the world’s population. In the previous discussions, since you have resorted to outright lies in an attempt to defend yourself, you employed only a couple of inaccurate and highly biased cites, including your chief citation _White Nile_, which, you will remember, you brought up as a historical reference to make an ignorance-based claim on the spread of Islam in North Africa. In fact, let me post again what I said before about this source you now seem to want to distance yourself from (after posting hundreds of words from it in an attempt to fortify your crumbling contentions): “A book that treats Africans in general as backwards primitive savages, Islam as a loose religion not demanding of any effort or honesty (unlike, surprise surprise, the Christianity of the writers), and its audience as historically uneducated. Somehow I am really not surprised you have brought this forward, Jojo. The other points of view you have espoused also seem to come from equally questionable sources of historical information.” Your other cite was a rabid anti-Muslim web site that I also strongly criticized. You have provided no cites here, of course, so we can’t even discuss that this time round. You don’t demonstrate the basic understanding to know when your arguments have been laid to rest, or, for that matter how to conduct such arguments in an honest and informed manner. If my style is abrasive it’s because I am tired of playing table-tennis with a barrage of spin-crap. And I can safely say that, unlike yours, my style is not malicious and insidious, and does not need to rely on bias, inaccuracy, and falsehood. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/98 "2004-10-09T07:37:33Z")
Incidentally: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As for the sensitivity you allege I have towards Islam, well, I have a history in MENA > > _Originally posted by **Jojo** _ > You once went on holiday to Tunisia? I should thank you for posting this, so as to give me another opportunity to mention that maturity in arguments thing I brought up earlier. The above, properly, is an unsubstantiated personal attack. You whine that when I point out your evident bias and flawed arguments, indeed, your basic _techniques_, I am attacking you personally, but I am not dismissing your arguments because you are ignorant (which would be a personal attack); I am dismissing them because they themselves are of manifest ignorance (and already largely addressed to boot). I have indeed been on holiday in Tunisia. Beautiful, as is Morocco. I have also travelled quite extensively in the region, learned to read and write Arabic, and spent years in total either living in or visiting extensively (for a variety of reasons) Egypt, Dubai, Lybia, Israel, etc., before I ended up in Hong Kong. I also lived in the US and Canada, as well as a fair number of European countries, learned six languages, and found myself several times in the UN head offices of Geneva, Vienna, and New York. Not to make a point of it, I bring this stuff up only to highlight why it is a choice of questionable wisdom for you to impugn my credentials of international awareness, particularly when you yourself express unsupported, often provincial and parochial opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/99 "2004-10-09T16:27:30Z")
Huh? You’re bizarre. That was just a barrage of waffle. Let’s try and dig out the one or two concrete points you make: > [@](#): > > Jojo, the points you make have already been demonstrated to be the rubbish you have already demonstrated to be particularly fond of. I am not interested in educating or debating with someone who displays wilful and vulgar ignorance at every turn, and whose memory and reading skills are obviously highly selective. Since it’s obvious you have nothing better to do than bog down these discussions when you feel you must pipe up and let the world know about your idiotic prejudices and baked arguments, take it to the pit where your bullshit belongs and I may deign to address your silliness there as it richly deserves. > > And read the thread instead of (yet again) gesticulating that you are right. You have wasted thousands of words and demonstrated nothing, just as you have routinely failed to successfully argue your inane preconceptions or support them factually. > > That’s why I don’t have to address your points (if cheap, forced rhetoric may be called that) yet again. You provide no material whatsoever against the existing arguments and evidence in this thread (or the other ones where you were thrashed for that matter), no support for your many flawed claims, and no good faith whatsoever given that this is hardly the first time you raise very similar points with your trademark pretense at false innocence and carefully channelled bias. Nor do you appear to have any idea what a debate is, since you just nitpick (without factual support, let’s remember) and hijack at every opportunity when you think you may demonstrate your agenda. Who needs this? Certainly not me, certainly not GD. Waffle. Can be safely ignored. > [@](#): > > To summarize. Iraq war = more severe impact than Iraq sanctions, certainly today, and I provided evidence and arguments in support of the severity of impact of the Iraq war. You provided some cites as to the severity of the impact of the Iraq war yes. I’ve never argued against this. Your statement that Iraq war = more severe impact than sanctions is just your opinion. Not supported by your cite. > [@](#): > > In your various dances on this subject you have, true to form, failed to demonstrate any of your claims. I (and pervert) pointed out that the sanctions were one of the three things cited by osama in his fatwa against the us. I pointed out that through the 90s every single muslim political demonstration had the sanctions as one of their main rallying calls. I pointed out that the anti westren feeling was increasing through this time as evidenced by the increasing numbers heading off to Afghanistan to train in camps. I pointed out that al Qaida’s campaign against America began in 1993, two years after the sanctions were imposed. What is all this if not evidence to demonstrate my claims? Now maybe you don’t think that evidence is good enough to demonstrate that the sanctions were a major problem. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. But to say that I have produced no evidence to support my claims is just plain wrong. > [@](#): > > I have shown why your concept of dhimmi was plainly, maliciously, and factually wrong Huh? No you didn’t. I showed you that your cite was factually wrong. You haven’t dealt with that. > [@](#): > > (the best you can do in response is provide your usual unsupported allegations and sidewinding). I have showed why your understanding of apostasy, status of women, etc. in Islam are systematically biased and wrong (I did so most thoroughly but it appears you lack the good sense to know when your arguments have been destroyed). Destroyed? guffaw. You haven’t done any such thing. I don’t think I’ve ever even talked about the apostacy issue with you so you’re just plain wrong there. And women, I think we discussed this to some extent. I mentioned quran 4:34 which says that a man can beat his wife. You had no argument against this as I recall. > [@](#): > > I have shown why your arguments hinge on speaking out against Islam by taking the worst extremist representatives thereof Huh? No. I never do this. I always try to be careful to single out when I’m talking about extremists and when I’m talking about something that is common to mainstream islam. Quran 4:34, for example, is not an extremist thing. It’s mainstream. I’m not sayiung that all muslims beat their wives (I should imagine very few do). Just saying that the quran gives them scriptural justification for those that wish to do it. This therefore equals a poor moral teaching (in my view). > [@](#): > > and then generalizing like a three-year old about a sizeable chunk of the world’s population. In the previous discussions, since you have resorted to outright lies in an attempt to defend yourself, you employed only a couple of inaccurate and highly biased cites, including your chief citation White Nile, which, you will remember, you brought up as a historical reference to make an ignorance-based claim on the spread of Islam in North Africa. In fact, let me post again what I said before about this source you now seem to want to distance yourself from (after posting hundreds of words from it in an attempt to fortify your crumbling contentions): “A book that treats Africans in general as backwards primitive savages, Islam as a loose religion not demanding of any effort or honesty (unlike, surprise surprise, the Christianity of the writers), and its audience as historically uneducated. Somehow I am really not surprised you have brought this forward, Jojo. The other points of view you have espoused also seem to come from equally questionable sources of historical information.” [/quote] waffle. I didn’t post the White Nile as a “cite”. I’ve already said that. I wasn’t doing cites. I just posted it as an interesting thing I’d read. And in any case you didn’t actually say why it was wrong, you just came out with more waffle. > [@](#): > > Your other cite was a rabid anti-Muslim web site that I also strongly criticized. You have provided no cites here, of course, so we can’t even discuss that this time round. You don’t demonstrate the basic understanding to know when your arguments have been laid to rest, or, for that matter how to conduct such arguments in an honest and informed manner. Maybe if you actually came up with some counter points to the points I make instead of just reaming off pages of waffle, we might be able to get somewhere. > [@](#): > > If my style is abrasive it’s because I am tired of playing table-tennis with a barrage of spin-crap. And I can safely say that, unlike yours, my style is not malicious and insidious, and does not need to rely on bias, inaccuracy, and falsehood. waffle. waffle. waffle Although this is interesting: > [@](#): > > my style is not malicious and insidious, So once again you are saying that any criticism of islam is “malicious and insidious”. Wow. I don’t hate islam but I think there are criticisms that can be made about it. Quran 4:34 is one such example. What’s “malicious and insidious” about that? > [@](#): > > I should thank you for posting this, so as to give me another opportunity to mention that maturity in arguments thing I brought up earlier. The above, properly, is an unsubstantiated personal attack. You whine that when I point out your evident bias and flawed arguments, indeed, your basic techniques, I am attacking you personally, but I am not dismissing your arguments because you are ignorant (which would be a personal attack); I am dismissing them because they themselves are of manifest ignorance (and already largely addressed to boot). waffle. > [@](#): > > I have indeed been on holiday in Tunisia. Beautiful, as is Morocco. I have also travelled quite extensively in the region, learned to read and write Arabic, and spent years in total either living in or visiting extensively (for a variety of reasons) Egypt, Dubai, Lybia, Israel, etc., before I ended up in Hong Kong. I also lived in the US and Canada, as well as a fair number of European countries, learned six languages, and found myself several times in the UN head offices of Geneva, Vienna, and New York. Not to make a point of it, I bring this stuff up only to highlight why it is a choice of questionable wisdom for you to impugn my credentials of international awareness, particularly when you yourself express unsupported, often provincial and parochial opinions. waffle. Answer any points made, don’t give me a travelogue of your life. I’ve travelled around a bit too, so what? Anyway I’m bored of this. You’re objectivity is in question. When I have conversations with Tamerlane about islam we don’t go through all this horeshit. He just answers points made objectively (agreeing with me sometimes and disagreeing with me at other times). He doesn’t post page after page of meaningless waffle and personal attacks. Go forth and try and learn to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079/100 "2004-10-09T17:18:39Z")
I resisted going in to your rants **Jojo** , also because **Abe** has tried very hard to provide you with enough information on the issues. But you still don’t get it, do you? > [@Jojo](#): > > You provided some cites as to the severity of the impact of the Iraq war yes. I’ve never argued against this. Your statement that Iraq war = more severe impact than sanctions is just your opinion. Not supported by your cite. It is supported by what is called **reality on the ground**. And that is to be read as including **my** ground. Maybe you should take a few steps into the realities of the real world. > [@](#): > > I (and pervert) pointed out that the sanctions were one of the three things cited by osama in his fatwa against the us. 1. bin laden is not an Islamic scholar, he is not an Imam, he is not an authority on no matter what touches the study of Islam, its history, its teachings. In short: he is in no position to issue any fatwa on no matter what or about no matter what. 2. people like OBL use no matter what grievance they can use to make their point coming across to their target audience. > [@](#): > > I pointed out that through the 90s every single muslim political demonstration had the sanctions as one of their main rallying calls. (Oh how I love to do this:) CITE? > [@](#): > > I pointed out that the anti westren feeling was increasing through this time as evidenced by the increasing numbers heading off to Afghanistan to train in camps. There were Integrist indoctrination camps in Pakistan and later also in Afghanistan **decades before** anyone in the West was ready to even take a look at the reports on them. I even wrote a short study on this as part of my study curriculum when I was 18 and that was 13 years ago. There is no link between this and what you want to link it at. The rise of what is popularly called “Islamism” has other foundations/causes/reasons then what you seem to think it has. > [@](#): > > Quran 4:34, for example, is not an extremist thing. It’s mainstream. I’m not sayiung that all muslims beat their wives (I should imagine very few do). Just saying that the quran gives them scriptural justification for those that wish to do it. This therefore equals a poor moral teaching (in my view). Sorry, have to leave go watch my spouses to be beaten. Of course I don’t do that myself, it makes me sweat. If you want to have a serious discussion about this verse (and others, eventually) then I suggest you open a thread for it. (And on this particular one, or better said on the verb that is used, I have as researcher my own views and ideas because I see it as expressing clear contradiction with the rest of the message of AQ) > [@](#): > > I didn’t post the White Nile as a “cite”. I’ve already said that. I wasn’t doing cites. I just posted it as an interesting thing I’d read. Well, I didn’t read that book, but the quote you gave was already enough to have it classified the way Abe describes it. The fact that you find that an “interesting thing your have read” says something about you. > [@](#): > > I don’t hate islam but I think there are criticisms that can be made about it. Quran 4:34 is one such example. What’s “malicious and insidious” about that? Nothing. But it becomes so when you refuse to accept the explanation you (repeatedly) receive from people who show in their posts very clearly that they have more knowledge and background in the matter then you show to have. Salaam. A [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-different-justification-have-made-the-iraq-war-more-credible/266079.md?page=6)