another one

Submitted by Sword of Islam (United Kingdom), Feb 22, 2006 at 22:02

Basically, the fundamental problem is that so much media material is misreported (either deliberately or by lazy journalists). I would encourage you to investigate further the remarks that were attributed to the Danish Queen in her autobiography.

You have to remember that these remarks were translated by a journalist and it has since been shown that this was a mistranslation. The Danish queen was mis-quoted as having said "We have to show our opposition to Islam." She actually said nothing of the sort. She actually said 'counter-balance' rather than 'opposition' - they are similar phrases but obviously have a radically different meaning. 'Opposition' implies an aggressive, defensive confrontation whereas 'counter-balance' is obviously much more benign. She is therefore innocent of the racism that she has been labelled with. She comes across as being concerned by Fundamentalism, but who isn't? She also expresses admiration for certain elements of religious faith.

But this is all left out as it's not as interesting to read and it doesn't serve the purposes of those who have a different agenda. I urge you to research the story and you will soon see that this story has been manipulated. This has been blended into the whole cartoon controversy when it is entirely unrelated. You have to remember that the newspaper that printed these cartoons is generally described as a 'facist' newspaper with a very small circulation - they obviously wanted to sell more newspapers. The only reason that this has exploded and such support has been shown for them by Europe as a whole is because of the idea that the press should be intimidated by a religious sect. You will find very few people of any faith who would regard them as being intelligent or in good taste. I would like to see the imams who aggravated this situation receive some of the shar'ia law that we often criticise in the West - they're indirectly responsible for people dying in exchange for what I can only regard as an attempt to boost their own prestige.

As for the 'cartoons' themselves, the actual Danish newspaper that printed them is a 'far-right' publication with a very small circulation. Unfortunately, the Danish imams who inspired this global controversy could not have done this newspaper a bigger favour if they had been paid employees of the Jyllands-Posten! Now everybody has heard of it! And why? I cannot believe that they were doing anything other than trying to enhance their own status.

"for god's sake even war has rules !!!!!"

In an earlier post you refer to the various war crimes that have taken place in Iraq, etc. I couldn't agree with you more. However, this is part of the problem. In the past, two opposing armies would line up against each other is different uniforms and the opposing sides would be easily distinguishable from the other - as well as from civilians. The rules of war, ie the Geneva Convention have always been very clear on this. However, by these very same rules, any enemy soldier who was captured and not wearing a uniform could expect to be treated as a spy. These same rules also allow for instant execution of such captives. If one side fails to follow the 'rules of war' it puts the other side at a considerable disadvantage. That doesn't make this TINY number of abuses right but the perpetrators of these crimes are generally court-martialled and/or imprisonned. There aren't many occupiers that could make the same claim.

Despite the various images that we've seen of 'prisoner abuse' I think that they are quite mild compared to scenes that have taken place in other conflicts. But now everybody has a camera phone so we get to see the pictures. It doesn't excuse it but war is never a pleasant business. These soldiers are brutalised. They have to be. They're no angels, but their behaviour, as a whole, is amazingly good when you consider how many of them are there in Iraq. Especially if they've seen their comrades killed or wounded. And who's to say that none of these prisoners are guilty?

As for 'rumors' about the motives for the US invasion it is worth pointing out that these 'rumours' were also in circulation during the 1st Gulf War, ie we were after the Kuwaiti oil, the motive for attacking Afghanistan was the huge gas reserves that we wanted in that country, etc. I'll believe it when I see it. The chief beneficiary of Iraqi oil will be the Iraqi people. People might complain about the fact that U.S. companies are getting the contracts for rebuilding Iraq but given the many billions that have been spent in undertaking the war I can't see USA plc emerging with a huge profit from the affair. But it's so easy to buy into conspiracy theories because a) they're notoriously difficult to disprove b) they're always plausible as nobody trusts their governments.

As for WMD, NOBODY thought Saddam didn't actually have them. He couldn't account for tonnes of chemical and biological material that WERE found during the initial inspections. They simply 'disappeared'. He certainly wasn't prepared to explain this so he deserved everything he got.

The reasons given to the public for the invasion were bogus, obviously, but public opinion isn't going to back a war for philanthropic reasons - they're too selfish, so they have to be scared into doing the right thing. I'm no genius, but I never thought that WMD was the issue in the first place. However, I did think it about time that action was taken as the only people who were being hurt by the economic sanctions were the Iraqi people. Obviously, these sanctions couldn't be lifted as this could only be seen by Saddam as a sign of victory. Therefore, invasion was the only alternative. That's my logic, anyway.

There are many factors involved in the Iraq campaign. Some them you may laugh at, some of them you may want to think about. You may remember that North Korea was being very belligerent about it's nuclear program when the UN was making empty threats. You will have noticed that North Korea suddenly went very quiet when the US and UK showed their teeth and took action against Iraq. Irrespective of any ulterior motives, the fact of the matter is that the Iraqi's surrendered during Gulf War I and then broke the terms of that surrender. End of story. If Saddam had co-operated as he was compelled to by his own agreement we wouldn't have been able to invade in the first place. The only author of Saddam's downfall was Saddam himself.!

The fact of the matter is that if the oil from Iraq starts flowing into the global economy we'll all be less dependant on the Saudi's, who everybody (on both sides of the argument) seems to think are corrupt, and make them answer a few difficult questions! After all, if any country can be described as a State Sponsor of terrorism it is surely them. That doesn't mean invasion, but it does mean that we (The West) can be a lot tougher with them politically & economically if we are less dependant on them. That can only be a good thing for both sides. But irrespective of the reasons for it and who's to blame, etc, I think that we've all come to the conclusion that the Middle East needs to be sorted out - for everybody's sake. And if anybody is to blame for 'collateral damage' we need only to look in one direction, not in the direction of Bush, not in the direction of Blair, not in the direction of Israel, and not in the direction of Mecca. Osama Bin Laden poked a stick into a beehive and if there are a lot of angry bees flying around (on both sides) then the families of the people that are stung can blame him!

Right now, my main concern is the potential for conflict between the Sunni's and Shia's in Iraq. The people who are responsible for bombing the holy shrines of Muslims of both sects must have a very distorted vision of Islam if Mosques are not safe. That particular situation could get very nasty, very quickly. I think it safe to say that we can both agree on that particular point!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".