Word for the Day - Fitnah

I came across an interesting new Arabic word in the blog of an Iraqi I follow.

Fitnah, is one of these words that I find difficult to translate succinctly; perhaps there is an English synonym unknown to me. Fitnah is sawing discord that results in conflict and violent antagonism. But in Arabic the word has much stronger connotation. There is a verse in the holy Koran that contains the following expression: “Fitnah is worse than murder”. What is happening in the land of the two rivers right now is one of the worst Fitnahs in our long eventful history. We have known in the past, persecution, intimidation and murder; but that was always organized and perpetrated by the state and its repressive organs. We have never seen though, neighbor turning against neighbor and friend upon his erstwhile friend, even kin against kin; not in our recent history at any rate.

I have bolded the section of one his paragraphs that I find very important.

The vision of the enemy is to engulf the country in a quagmire of medieval bestiality that would completely abort all efforts of reconciliation and utterly thwart and bring down the elected government; and encouraged by noises coming out of the U.S. they hope to disgust and confuse the Americans out of Iraq with the help of the antiwar camp in the West, and some foolish councilors in America who think they know better when in fact, they understand nothing. With this main obstacle of the U.S. military removed, they can then unleash their full offensive and bring in all the "Jihadis" from all over the world and together with the Saddamists and local aroused Sunni tribesmen, they imagine they can overrun the country and massacre everybody and establish their Taliban style Emirate or perhaps Caliphate or whatever their sick minds are hallucinating.

Chargers vs. Titans - Game 2

Well, the Chargers once again dominated their opponent this week with the score of 40 to 7. The game had only 3:09 left in the game before the Titans scored in garbage time against mostly Charger back-ups to prevent the shutout.


LaDainian Tomlinson scored 2 touchdowns in the first half and mostly rested in the second half of the rout as Michael Turner did a great job running out the clock and going over 100 yards himself.

Phillip Rivers did a good job in his second start. He passed for a lot more, throwing for 25 completions out of 35 passes and 1 touchdown. He barely missed a couple of long touchdown passes that would have given him a perfect game.


The defense was just as dominate this week as last. Instead of piling up the sacks, they had two interceptions and held the Titans to 0 passing yards in the first half.

Next week, the Chargers have a bye before facing their first real test against Baltimore in two weeks.

California Environmental Laws

This is a very informative article in the New York Times about the new law on reducing greenhouse emissions by 25% and other environmental laws here in California.

This is the state that in the early 1970s jump-started the worldwide adoption of catalytic converters, the devices that neutralize most smog-forming chemicals emitted by tailpipes. This is the state whose per capita energy consumption has been almost flat for 30 years, even as per capita consumption has risen 50 percent nationally.

I think this is a good idea. California has always been the leader in environmental issues in the US and with the clout as the most populous state in the country, industry has to follow the new guidelines if they want to be in the California Market. This makes California a good test case for this country for this type of regulation to see if it is effective in decreasing greenhouse gases without hurting the economy.

Perhaps the most ambitious measure California has undertaken is the newly mandated 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If we do it right, Mr. Schwarzenegger said at a news conference, it can be an example for the rest of the world and the rest of the country to see. If not, the concept could be discredited.

If California of all places can't pull it off than no one can. I think this new law has a side effect of helping the reputation of the US after we pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. After all action speaks louder than signed treaties.

BBC Comments on Afghanistan

They was a wide range of comments on NATO's request for more troops for Afghanistan in the Have Your Say on the BBC website. Some were smart and some were very stupid.

Of course other nations should do more. I understand and agree with the opposition to participation in Iraq, but Iraq is not Afghanistan. It is ironic, because, during the Cold War, some Europeans questioned whether or not the US would really defend Europe and accept the casualties of a Soviet invasion. Now, in a much less costly conflict, some of these same nations are not meeting their commitments that they had agreed under the NATO founding document. Afghanistan is not Iraq!

He is right in that the war in Afghanistan was a direct response to the Taliban's hosting of the terrorist group who attacked the US on 9/11. Whether you agree that the war in Iraq was necessary or not, the Taliban's Afghanistan was already a failed state that allowed terrorists free reign to attack the rest of the world from it's territory.

The current Afghan government was elected with a higher election turnout than most western democracies and we can't leave them to armed insurgents who would love to retake power before this democracy's army and police force are rebuilt.

Anyway, all the recent fighting against the Taliban is because the Afghan Army and NATO Forces are moving into previous areas that they didn't previously control. The Taliban are not making some big comeback in Afghanistan, they are just fighting for these lawless areas where they had previously been hiding out.

-----

NO. Take our troops out of there. Stop interfering with people who are different to you.

For centuries, white people have invaded other cultures, forcing our ideas onto them about what is 'civilised'. It happened with the Plain's Indians, the aboriginies, etc.

Stop interfering. Let them change on their own if they want to.

I guess this person is saying that the when the Taliban took power, they didn't force their ideas on Afghanistan. The Taliban blew up ancient monuments in Bamian, forced Afghan women from the workplace and schools, outlawed traditional Afghan sports, songs and traditions that went against their strict version of Islam. If anything, removing the Taliban was the best way to allow the Afghans to be able to practice traditional activities freely instead of those being forced upon them by religious police.

-----

In the EU surrounded by the Human Rights legislation it is easily forgotten the suffering of women under the Taliban. Since the invasion women teachers & doctors have been able to resume their careers and schoolgirls to rerun to their education. Can the free world afford to turn its back on Afghanistan and return to the days where multiple hangings at the city football stadium were a regular occurences. Ask yourselves that from the comfort of your living room?

This is an excellent response to all the commenters who want to pull out of Afghanistan because it is getting a little tough.

-----

It's all about oil; rather, it's all about blood for oil.
Think about that every time you fill your car.

This guy is so enamored of inaccurate anti-war slogans that he can't even keep track of the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.

-----

Why don't the West just buy the opium harvest in Afghanistan each year and burn it? Surely that way everyone would be happy (except the Wests drug dealers of course).

My first response is great idea, why don't they? If the military can buy weapons back from militants, why not drugs. As a short term solution to wean the farmers away from the Taliban in the south and take opium off the market, it would probably work great. But it would probably need to have some kind of program where the farmers would have to guarantee to use the money to switch over to new crops in a year or so. One problem is you would probably get an influx of opportunists growing opium just for the cash.

Jimmy Carter on Blair

Jimmy Carter is another who mistakenly thinks that Blair is just Bush's poodle in a story on the BBC.

But Mr Carter told Newsnight: "I have been really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government's policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have been originated in Washington."

Mr Carter, an opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, added: "No matter what kind of radical or ill-advised policy was proposed from the White House, it seems to me that almost automatically the government of Great Britain would adopt the same policy without exerting its influence.

Actually, I think his comment about the British government is pretty insulting. He is not just saying he disagrees with it's policies which is perfectly normal, but insinuates that the British government doesn't even agree with it's own stance and is too weak to do anything about it.

Why do people keep confusing agreement on the issues as subservience? If anything, watching many of Blair's answers on Prime Minister's Questions over the years shows that he is more passionate and eloquent on the subject of democracy in the Middle East than even Bush.

For me personally, it was Blair's arguments, not Bush's, for invading Iraq that convinced me that it was the right thing to do.

Bush, a great President?

The foreign editor, Greg Sheridan, of The Australian newspaper gives his opinion on George Bush's legacy against terrorism in this article.

Some key sections:

LET me be the first to offer a bold, revisionist view. George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in foreign policy, especially in the war on terror. This consensus won't form for 20 or perhaps 30 years.

Bush understands much better than his critics the war on terror and the way the world works more broadly. Above all, he has had the courage to confront reality. The key planks of the Bush doctrine - regarding terrorists not as criminals but as a force at war with the US and its allies; holding state sponsors of terror responsible for the actions of their terrorist surrogates; seeing the root of terror in the profoundly dysfunctional political culture of the Middle East and fighting the ideas behind terror with an agenda of democracy and human rights; reserving the right to take pre-emptive military action against threats that could involve weapons of mass destruction - all these will be maintained by Bush's presidential successors.

One of Bush's key decisions, and this was truly the insight of the much derided neo-conservatives, was that the status quo ante in the Middle East did not produce stability but produced growing terrorism. I believe Bush was right to take action against Iraq and Australia was right to join this action, in part because everyone believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also because Saddam was the most prolific state murderer of the second half of the 20th century and threatened his neighbours. He also supported much international terrorism and rejoiced in the al-Qa'ida attacks of 9/11. The danger of his co-operating in WMDs with terrorists was great.

None of this is to diminish the Bush mistakes: the fatal disunity between the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department in the first administration, the lack of post-conflict planning and many other errors in Iraq.

But any strategy by any president in the Middle East would look messy. Much of the judgment on Bush is absurdly unrealistic in its failure to acknowledge that the enemy gets a say in what the battlefield looks like. The war on terror is an epic struggle. Any epic struggle you care to think of - the US Civil War, World War II, the Cold War - involved many mistakes and many lost battles. All war, including the war on terror, is very, very messy. It is not conducted in bow ties by well-mannered air forces, shaking hands first and then meeting for well-ordered battles off shore and far up in the sky.

I agree with his article about Bush's foreign policy. I was about give my take on it but this person's comment about it on The Australian's website captures my thoughts exactly.

Sheridan is right again; he will be roundly lashed for this, but he is right. Bush’s biggest weakness has been his inability to communicate with the broader international community. However, he is a transformational president for transformational times. He will be remembered, more likely than not, fondly, for linking political freedom and development to security outcomes. Iraq is a disaster, but it will fade, and what will be left will be a new security architecture, designed by so-called neo-cons, that will produce a more prosperous and secure world.Well done, Dubya, and don’t listen to those short-sighted nay-sayers on the left and the right.

Annan on Iraq

Interesting comments here from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the Middle East in the New York Times today.

Most leaders in the Middle East believe the United States-led invasion of Iraq and its consequences have been catastrophic for the region, Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday.

Honestly, most of the leaders I spoke to felt that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them, Mr. Annan said. They believe it has destabilized the region.

I am not surprised. Authoritarian regimes upset that a free democracy has been set up right in their neighborhood, what a shock. I guess an Iraq that was under the fist of a brutal dictator, Saddam, who attacked his neighboring countries and gassed his own people was not considered a disaster to these guys. In fact, destabilizing the dictatorships in a moribund region by introducing democracy was one of the main reasons for the Iraqi invasion.

He said the officials he met were of two minds about whether the Americans should leave Iraq. Many leaders felt the Americans should stay until the situation improves and that, having created the problem, they cannot walk away, he said.

Then, you have another school of thought, particularly in Iran, that believes that the presence of the U.S. is a problem and that the U.S. should leave, he said. He added that the Iranians had offered to help the Americans leave, but, asked to elaborate, said, I didn't get into details as to how they intend to help.

At least some of them are smart enough to realize that if America leaves before the new elected Iraqi government can secure it's own country, a civil war could erupt. The American military is necessary to try and keep the peace between the different Iraqi groups as they learn how to share power in a non-violent way. The necessary removal of Saddam released a lot of pent up anger in Iraq that needs to vent in a controlled environment.

Chargers vs Raiders - Monday Night Football

The Chargers kicked ass on Monday Night Football against the Raiders. It was complete domination up in Oakland as the Chargers shut out the Raiders, 27 to 0.

LaDainian Tomlinson had a great game, running for 131 yards and a touchdown. Philip Rivers didn't have to throw that much in his first game as a starting quarterback, but he had a great 38 yard throw to Eric Parker right before getting leveled by Warren Sapp. This set up his touchdown pass to Antonio Gates in the 4th quarter to give the Chargers 20 points. This was the final nail in the coffin and the Raiders pulled Aaron Brooks and put in his back-up.


The main stars of the night for the Chargers was the defense completely shutting down the Raiders offense. Shawne Merriman lead with 3 sacks as the defense racked up 9 sacks total. When the Chargers have more sacks than the Raiders have completions, that is domination.


I think the Chargers should do well against the Tennessee Titans next Sunday.

MSNBC - Marines facing Murder Charges

MSNBC - Marines could be charged with Murder

I am not surprised it happened. American soldiers have committed atrocities in practically every war they have fought in. War is a stressful place and all military/political leaders can due is try to contain it and punish those responsible.

The thing is that the American military is held to an almost impossibly perfect standard, and while that is is a worthy goal, it is idealistic and unreasonable. The Iraqi insurgency commits mass killings every other day of innocents, but if it isn't Americans doing the killings, no one seems to bats an eyelash. Practically every car bomb is reported as a failure of the US Military to prevent it, instead of the blame being put where it belongs, on the shoulders of the insurgents.

I thought this guy at The Times gave a reasonable analysis.

The challenges in Iraq for these young men and women are overwhelming. In the past three years more than half a million American troops have been rotated through the country. They have been fighting a suicidal counter-insurgency in a battle for which they are ill-equipped and ill-trained. While barbarity cannot ever be condoned, it beggars belief to think that in these conditions, with these numbers, outrages will never occur.

You could put half a million Buddhist monks into the mantrap that is Anbar province and I guarantee you’d get an atrocity or two. With most of the painstaking nation building and counter-terrorism efforts of these Americans virtually unnoticed by a critical world, a signal victory such as the al-Zarqawi killing is critical.

How the US responds to the mistakes of its military is the most important thing. The American military punishes its soldiers who commit war crimes, which is the opposite of the behavior of the insurgents who are glorified for attacking civilians on purpose.

Iraq: Al-Zarqawi killed

Maybe bigger and more important news is that on the same day the Iraqi Prime Minister announced the death of Al-Zarqawi, the last three cabinet ministers, the Interior, Defense and National Security were appointed and received parliament approval. The three most important and the hardest to fill. The constitutionally elected Iraqi government is now complete.

With Al-Zarqawi out of the way, I think the new Iraqi government will have an easier job of negotiating with the Sunni insurgent groups, but we'll see.

Iraq Civil War?

Here is an article posted today (from Al-Jazeera, no less) explaining the reasons why Iraq won't descend into a civil war.

Many Iraqis dismiss the possibility of civil war in their country saying the Iraqi tribal, ethnic, religious and sectarian mosaic is interconnected through blood and marriage.

Despite widespread speculation at home and abroad that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, couples from different backgrounds have been defying the theory by marriage.

Young men and women – as was the case before the US-led invasion three years ago - from different ethnic, religious and sectarian backgrounds still flock to the civil courts every morning for marriage contracts.

Personally, I think without the American presence, violence between Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents groups and Kurdish Peshmergas would escalate and there would be more overt fighting instead of low-level bombings and assassinations. The presence of the American Army keeps the leaders at the political negotiating table and acts as the backbone of support and training for the Iraqi Army and Police which is slowly over time growing stronger than and also absorbing the militias.

If the Americans left before the 4 year Iraqi unity government is in place and before the Iraqi Security forces can stand on their own feet then everything could fall apart like a house of cards and a true all-out civil war would start. I think the Iraqi inter-marriages are a glue that helps hold the country together as long the Americans help keep the violence at a "relatively" low-level between the sectarian groups.

You have to allow the cement to set before you remove the supporting props.

Here is in interesting comment from Iraq the Model.

What caught my attention recently was a statement made by the national security advisor in the interim government Mowafaq al-Rubai'I and an response to this statement from Dhafir al-Aani the spokesman of the Accord Front.

Al-Rubai'i was speaking enthusiastically about a plan to coordinate the withdrawal of MNF from Iraq with the leaders of the coalition. He said they're working on a plan to significantly reduce the number of foreign soldiers in the course of 2006 and said he expected all foreign troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007 since "Iraqi security forces will be ready by then".

Al-Aani didn't like this statement and apparently feels that getting Iraqi troops trained and equipped isn't the main thing we need to do before the MNF can leave. He said that "we don't want the MNF to start leaving until all militias are disbanded…".

Here I see a great change in positions from what we used to see in the past two years. And especially on the Sunni side. None of the Shia leaders-except for the Sadr-were really interested in seeing the MNF leave soon and had been only talking about asking the MNF to leave because of pressures from the Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs.

But now we hear the same government happily announce that ending the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is near at the same time that Sunni Arab politicians began to change their tone and started to view the American military presence as a balancing factor!

What I see here is that Arab Sunni leaders have rearranged their priorities; except for a year or two after 2003 the Sunni never considered America their greatest enemy. Their greatest enemy had always been Iran and whoever allies with her while America ranked 2nd or 3rd (that's if not viewed as an ally) and I think this is how they view things right now.

First Post

I have decided to name my blog after a great line by Bill McNeill on NewsRadio, played by the late great Phil Hartman.

"Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust."

I started this blog so I can comment on any interesting, stupid or funny thing I see going on in the world. You can visit my other blog, Noah the Stud (barely!) , where I mostly post pictures on my travels or fun activites I am currently doing.