Just like the Christians and Jews they all think God is on their side..what stupidity..excellent article..

Very excellent & knowledgeable article, but unfortunately it only confirms my growing opinion that most muslims are religious maniacs, and the muslims in this area especially so. Not brought up in the article is the fact that internecine violence is an old, old tradition in this area, among this people; if they didn't have foreigners to target, they'll go for each other, and have been for over 6,000 years, by their own records & traditions. Basically a population of barbarians (they think it's peachy fun to shoot off AK-47s at weddings) who are only at peace when a larger, meaner barbarian like Hussein has an iron grip on the scruffs of their necks.

For articles about the state of the Christians in Iraq

One has to wonder how long it will take before Islamic extremists establish bases in various western countries. Few decades ago they could not afford a camel now they can buy any kind of weapon or technology from the west to produce it and use it against the infidel west.

Islam is a religion of conquest and the domination of none Muslims. It was that way until few centuries ago but fell into disarray because of poverty and backwardness. The Persian and the Eastern Roman empires, the super powers of those days were conquered by Muslim Arabs in the 7the century and were both wiped out later on.

While most westerners think the war between Arabs and Israel is about Palestinians or land in reality it is about driving out the infidel out of Mohammed's land, otherwise why the Islamic Republic of Iran would be the worst enemy of the Jews. When the Palestinians were part of Jordan they never asked for their own country.

Extremist Muslims like the Christians believe in the judgement day. According to their religion on the Judgement Day Immameh Zamman (The lost prophet) returns to take the devote Muslims to Paradise, they look forward to his return and hope to hasten it by their confrontation with the West and dying like mrtyars.

Saddam's regime absolutely worked with al Qaeda and not only invited jihadists/salafists into Iraq before the war he had started doing so in 1993. After the war with Iran, Saddam was blasted as an infidel by Iran and wound up recruiting and funding THOUSANDS of Wahhabi clerics and Salafists.
Read here for more... regimeofterror.com. It's full of links of UN inspectors and Saddam relatives talking about Saddam's movement to ENFORCE the Sunni religion on his country with stricter laws, religious exams to get in the government, funding Sunni mosques, clerics, etc. Saddam and Izzat al Douri tried to purge the country of Shia in the "Return to Faith" campaign, quite similar to their postwar targeting of Shia. They've been doing it for close to twenty years. To say it started postwar is viewing the invasion of Iraq as the end-all, be-all, one size fits all easy target of blame. In thise case its just flat not true.

Regarding Saddam's links to al Qaeda...Why have 40 defectors/detainees said the two cooperated? Are they all lying or does this author just CHOOSE to be ignorant of the evidence? The list is here... frontpagemag.com

It's one thing to be against this war and against the United States, it's an entirely different thing to flat out lie (or pretend to know something you dont) about Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. They were there, it's a matter of getting beyond BDS to see the facts. 2/3 of the country is aware of the facts... regimeofterror.com

"Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious history has held the population together for centuries, despite many wars, uprisings and internal struggles."

No...authoritarian rule held Iraq together for decades, DESPITE (not because of) the heterogeneous population inside Iraq's arbitrarily-drawn borders...

Dear Travis C.

Sorry that the poll you mentioned doesn't include me; im not from America. More importantly neither am I against the United States. Nor am I even against the presence of US forces in Iraq at this current moment.

I was however against unilateral invasion. It severly weakens the authority of the United Nations.

But this does not matter to my argument; Please remember that in my view as is evident in the article Salafi (Wahabbi if you prefer) Muslims ARE extremists. The essay is not meant to infer that Saddam had no connection and no deals going with Islamic extremists; in fact I believe I even state this at one stage.

It does however state a very simple fact. During Saddam Hussein's reign, anyone who showed a sign of prominance or an ability to resist were squashed by the regime. There was no plan for Salafi extremism to flourish in Iraq before the war (at least; not by the mostly secular population and leadership of Iraq).

You ruined your argument by getting personal at the end; but I like the constructive critisism, the links and the logical reasoning of your argument. Please continue to comment on my posts! :)

In reply to RJ Elliot- please use some evidence to back up your claims. I will attempt to respond in detail to your claims in my other upcoming posts about Iraq.

And last but not least Nancy: Please. You are judging a whole population on a small portion of people who do these actions. Between all of the Iraqi's I know I would say less than 10% of them has ever fired an AK47, let alone during celebrations or at a wedding.

thanks for the enthusiastic comments and for more information and news from the mouths of the Iraqi people please check out The Olivebranch Network

Luke(y) Skinner

As per the less than 10% figure given above; That would have been true at least until 2003- I would say the figure would be significantly higher now but would still only be a minority of the population.

For anyone who picked up on it; I mistakenly labelled the Yazidi religion as Christian; it is actually an old Kurdish religion which incorportates elements of Judaism, Christianity and in some cases even Islam (though I believe it predates Islam).

Great post

"In reply to RJ Elliott - please use some evidence to back up your claims."

Here are my claims:

"Authoritarian rule held Iraq together for decades, DESPITE (not because of) the heterogeneous population inside Iraq's arbitrarily-drawn borders."

Cite 1 - "Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the League of Nations granted the British and the French temporary colonial administration over former Ottoman provinces south of present day Turkey. These regions had been called vilayets under the Ottomans, but were referred to as mandates at the time, after the process that allocated them. The two powers drew arbitrary borders, dividing the area into four sections. Three of these -- Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon -- survive to this day as states."

Cite 2 - "Iraq was a misbegotten nation, cobbled together from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire with spit, bailing wire and the British Army after World War I. The Britons crowned as their puppet king the Hashemite son of the Sharif (chief religious official) of Mecca, who had aided Britain against the Turks. The royal house of Iraq lasted only for as long as the British Army was there to hold things together.

"The king was ousted in a revolution in 1958. A succession of hard-line military rulers culminated with Saddam in 1978.

"Saddam, being a member of the minority Sunni Arab community, found he could only rule effectively over the larger ethnic and confessional communities by terror. The unruly majority Shiites, the separatist Kurds and other ethnic groups threatened his rule at every turn. His response was ruthless suppression. Internal political conditions were horrendous, but the nation held together."

Great; so you can come up with a few quotes from unnamed sources to support the simple fact that Iraq; like nearly every other non-western nation in the world; has been ruled by ruthless dictators for the last just under 100 years.

This does not prove a single thing about Iraq's population being unable to live with one another. It does not prove that these rulers were only in place to keep the populations under control; infact it was because of these rulers and their views that the "unruly majority Shiites" would rebel and fight.

You can't produce sourcing without links or at least names of the people you are quoting and expect people just to accept it as correct.

The fact that Saddam Hussein had trouble from the Shi'ite had less to do with his being Sunni; and more to do with his being SECULAR and opposed to Sharia (Islamic) Law being enforced in Iraq.

And; in response to the suggestion that Iraq has only existed since the British imposed new borders on the former Mesopotamia ("The Land Between Two Rivers" as it had been known to the Western World for milleniums), I say this:

Mesopotamia has in the past had central ruling and political control from Baghdad, From Kirkuk, From Samarra, from Kut and from parts of the South. The history of Mesopotamian civilization is longer than that of any other known civilization in the Middle East or most of the Western World (with very few exceptions). It is not possible to seperate thousands of years of Mesopotamian history from modern Day Iraq. It's like suggesting that South American history only goes as far back as the Spanish invasion; it's simply not true.

Also; Iraq itself may survive to today but the borders which were drawn up in 1917 DO NOT remain today. For one thing half of the shatt al-Arab river (after the Tigris & Euphrates combine) is Persian land. In the north other parts were given to Iran during, before and after the Iran-Iraq war in order to obtain Iran's support in the constant struggle against Kurdish Independance.

These 1917 borders should probably never have even been set on mesopotamia; because they were set for ease-of-economic control by the British (they wanted the oil of course)- and I get tired of hearing this same argument "Iraq never existed before Britain came along".

Pull your head out of the sand and start looking at things from a realistic, humanistic point of view. The culture which dominates Iraq, which is highly religious (though not previously extremist), very tolerant, and very, very ethnically, politically religiously mixed; has existed since long before the land the USA is on was ever even thought to exist by European civilizations.

"Great; so you can come up with a few quotes from unnamed sources"

Cite 1 - Wikipedia

Cite 2 - William Orman Beeman, professor of anthropology at Brown University.

"to support the simple fact that Iraq; like nearly every other non-western nation in the world; has been ruled by ruthless dictators for the last just under 100 years."

Actually, my citations back up my claims that Iraq's borders were drawn arbitrarily, and that its diverse population was only held together by authoritarian rule.

Those were my claims. You demanded that I back them up with sources. And then I backed them up. You are the one moving the goalposts here...

"The fact that Saddam Hussein had trouble from the Shi'ite had less to do with his being Sunni; and more to do with his being SECULAR and opposed to Sharia (Islamic) Law being enforced in Iraq."

Saddam was "secular" only in the relative sense. He was, after all, strongly in favor of having a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.

Wanna cite for that? Is the BBC good enough for ya?

Salafis are not extremists. Salafis follow traditional Islam. There are Qutubis who claim Salafiyya but there claims are inaccurate. See The Wahhabi Myth

ew. kill.

the muslims who think they are being religios by killing others are wacko - seriously dudes, gain some common sence. osama is not god - he is far worse than the devil.