posted March 12, 2006 12:34 PM            

1. Feedom fighters
2. Insurgents
3. Gunmen
4. Terrorists

Attacks Kill 37 in Baghdad Shiite Slum By ALEXANDRA ZAVIS, Associated Press Writer
49 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Car bombings and mortar attacks rocked a market in a Shiite slum in Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 37 people and wounding 84, police said.

The violence came as Iraqi political leaders said the new parliament will convene Thursday, three days earlier than initially announced, with the U.S. ambassador stepping up efforts to broker the end of a stalemate over the formation of a unity government.

While moving the first session of parliament forward suggested some progress, none of those present suggested any breakthrough had been made in the deadlock over forming a new government comprising Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, a precondition for U.S. hopes to start withdrawing some forces this summer.

Two car bombs exploded at the Al-Hay market in the Sadr City slum shortly before sundown and were followed by four mortar rounds, two that slammed into the Keyara district and two more at Hamza square, police Lt. Colonel Hasan Jellob said.

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, stood by Shiite leader Adbul-Aziz al-Hakim and other Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular leaders to make the announcement about the parliament, telling reporters that meetings would continue daily until there is agreement on key government positions and other issues.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a permanent government needed to be in place quickly to fill the "vacuum in authority" at a time of continuing effort by "terrorists to provoke sectarian conflict."

"To deal with the threat, (there is) the need on an urgent basis to form a government of national unity," Khalilzad said. He added that he would be available at any time to join the political negotiations.

Al-Hakim, head of the powerful Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, agreed forming a government was imperative.

"We have to get Iraq out of the situation it is in now," al-Hakim said.

Separately, the U.S. Embassy issued an order prohibiting government employees from using commercial airlines leaving the capital's international airport, citing a "recent security incident."

The issue of forming a new government appeared to take on added urgency days before key military leaders were expected to make recommendations on the withdrawal of U.S. forces in meetings with President Bush in Washington.

Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the largest Sunni bloc and Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni representing Ayad Allawi, a Shiite and former prime minister, also attended the meeting at Kurdish Democratic Party headquarters in the heavily fortified Green Zone. Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, was not there but met earlier Sunday with Talabani.

The convening of parliament will start a 60-day clock on electing a new president, approving a prime minister and signing off on his Cabinet. The decision came just two days after Talabani issued a decree calling parliament into session for the first time since Dec. 15 elections on March 19.

The U.S. ambassador, who has expressed increasing frustration over the political bickering in recent weeks, seemed particularly eager to publicize the meeting. His office took the unusual step of announcing it in advance and inviting reporters to be on hand for a photo session and news conference that was planned when it concluded.

Kurdish parliamentarian Mahmoud Othman indicated the timing of the session may have been forced on Khalilzad by a threat from Massoud Barzani, the president of one of two Kurdish provinces, to leave the capital for home if no progress was made on negotiations over the government. Barzani, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party, also was at Sunday's meeting.

Formation of a strong central government is key to U.S. hopes to announce troop withdrawals beginning this summer.

Gen. John Abizaid, the chief of the U.S. Central Command, said earlier this month that he and Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, discussed the potential for a withdrawal of some U.S. troops this summer, but he declined to say what he would recommend to Bush when they meet.

There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The U.S. death toll since the start of the war in March 2003 exceeds 2,300, in addition to more than 17,000 wounded.

In other violence Sunday, a roadside bomb targeting a police patrol on a busy street in a mostly Sunni area of the capital killed at least six people and wounded 12, police said.

Drive-by shooters killed three occupants of a car in west Baghdad, including a member of Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party, police said. And a rocket landed near a house, killing one occupant and injuring two others.

In Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, gunmen ambushed and killed a police major as he headed to work, police said.

U.S. forces also clashed with gunmen Sunday afternoon in western Baghdad, Interior Ministry Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said. An AP Television News cameraman reported that a U.S. helicopter landed nearby to remove casualties. The U.S. military had no immediate comment.

The "warden's message" distributed to the American community about the use of commercial airlines did not disclose the nature of the security incident that prompted the ban.

posted March 12, 2006 02:02 PM              

During war the minds of some men lose all morals. Those who are killing innocent civilians are terrorists. Those who are trying to protect themselves are not!

posted March 12, 2006 03:08 PM            

Where in the Muslim religion is it written that Muslim men, women and children may be slaughtered indiscriminately to achieve a political goal?

Indeed, in what religion would you find religious sanction for those kinds of murder?

posted March 12, 2006 03:27 PM              

Now answer my questions!

posted March 12, 2006 03:44 PM              

The relationship between Christianity and politics is a historically complex subject. Christianity, like any other religion practiced collectively, has a political dimension.

Biblical foundations

The Hebrew Bible contains a complex chronicle of the Kings of Israel and Judah, written over the course of many generations by authors whose relationships and intimacy with the rulers of the several kingdoms fluctuated widely in both intimacy and respect. Some historical passages of the Hebrew Bible contain intimate portrayals of the inner workings of the royal households of Saul, David, and Solomon; the accounts of subsequent monarchs are frequently more distanced and less detailed, and frequently begin with the judgment that the monarch "did evil in the sight of the Lord."

The Christian New Testament, instead, begins with the story of Jesus, crucified as a criminal who had offended both the Jewish priesthood and the Roman imperial authorities. At least to outward appearances, Jesus was at the periphery of political life and power in the Roman province of Judea. Nevertheless, a number of political currents appear in New Testament writings.

Render unto Cæsar

All three synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as saying "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25) Jesus gives this answer to Pharisees who ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not; Jesus begins by asking them whose portrait appears on a Roman coin.

The incident can be read to support a position that Jesus announced that his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reading finds support in John 18:36, where Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." A certain quietistic indifference to earthly politics is one possible reading of these teachings.

Have all things common

The first Christian communities, as described in Acts of the Apostles, were organized along a principle of communal ownership of goods. This is first mentioned in Acts 2:44-45, then reiterated in Acts 4:32-37.

Acts 2: 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

Acts 4: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)

These verses seem to indicate that the ideal Christian society would be similar to the modern ideas of socialism or communism. They are part of the inspiration for political currents such as Christian socialism and Christian communism.

Be subject to ruling authorities

The apostle Paul takes a very conciliatory approach to earthly governments. Jesus advised cultivation of an unworldly kingdom of Heaven; Paul went further, and taught a positive duty to submit to and obey earthly governments, in several passages, most extensively in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (ESV)
All authority comes from God; even pagan rulers have been established as legitimate by divine providence, and obedience is therefore a positive obligation. These passages were much quoted by later writers who wished to establish a divine right of kings. Paul's message of submission to the established social order extends even to acceptance of slavery, as evidenced by the Epistle to Philemon.

The apocalyptic view

On the other hand the political view that comes from the several apocalyptic texts of the New Testament seems sharply contrary to the above interpretations of Paul.

Apocalyptic texts frequently couch radical criticism of existing regimes under the form of allegory; this, at least, is a frequently mentioned interpretation of the Book of Daniel, frequently interpreted by secular scholars as a second-century diatribe against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews and provoked the revolt of the Maccabees. The Book of Revelation contains even more vehement imagery, which many secular scholars believe was directed against the Roman empire. The empire, or the city of Rome itself, are identified by these scholars as the ***** of Babylon, and the Roman emperor becomes the Beast or Antichrist. Both divine punishment and economic and military catastrophe are prophesied against "Babylon", which most scholars agree is John's code name for Rome.

No call to arms is contained within the Christian apocalypse. Instead, the calamities that doom the oppressive regime represented by these allegorical figures are expected from divine intervention alone. Nevertheless, if the books are properly read in this way, they seem to evidence deep hostility to the Roman government, no doubt a reaction to the persecution of Christians by the Roman state.

What the Biblical texts do not contain

All of these Biblical sources, whether counselling separation from political concerns, submission to governing authorities, or expecting divine retribution against their corruption and oppression, share one thing in common. They all assume that the Christians will be members of a religious minority, outside of power, without great political influence. Similar assumptions underlie Jesus' advice to his followers to avoid lawsuits (Matthew 5:25) and Paul's advice that they should avoid litigation before pagan judges (1 Cor. 6:1-8)

There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests that any of its writers anticipated that Christians would themselves wield political authority, and no specific advice about how to manage things if they do ascend to political power.

The Christian empire

When the Roman persecution of Christianity was ended under Constantine I, and Christianity became the favoured religion of the Roman empire, Christians confronted issues that they had not hitherto had to confront. Could a Christian ruler legitimately wage war? If Christians were discouraged in Scripture from entering litigation against one another, how were Christians supposed to function as officers within a judicial system? What civil rights were to be afforded to non-Christians in a civil commonwealth governed by Christians?

The City of God

Saint Augustine of Hippo was one religious figure who confronted these issues in The City of God; in this work, he sought to defend Christians against pagan charges that the abandonment of official sponsorship of pagan worship had brought civil and military calamities upon the Roman empire by the abandoned pagan deities. Augustine sought to reaffirm that the City of God was a heavenly and spiritual matter, as opposed to an earthly and political affair. The City of God is contrasted with, and in conflict with, the city of men; but the City of God's eventual triumph is assured by divine prophecy.

Christians, war, and peace

Christians historically have had a wide variety of positions on issues of war and peace. The historical peace churches are now the chief exponents of Christian pacifism, but this was an issue that first came to light during the Roman Empire.

Soldiers in the Roman military who converted to Christianity were among the first who had to face these issues. The Christian in the Roman military had to confront a number of issues, that go beyond the obvious one about whether the institutionalized homicide of war could be reconciled with Christian faith. Paganism saturated Roman military institutions; idols of the Greco-Roman gods appeared on the legionary standards, and soldiers were expected to revere these idols. Military service, then as now, involved oaths of loyalty that may contradict Christian teachings even if they did not invoke pagan gods. The duties of Roman military personnel included law enforcement as well as defense, and as such Roman soldiers were sometimes obliged to participate in the persecution of Christians themselves. Sexual licentiousness was considered to be a moral hazard to which military personnel were exposed.

The conversion of Constantine I transformed the relationship of the Christian churches with the Roman military even as it transformed the relationship of the churches with the Roman state. A strongly contrary idea, sometimes called "caesaropapism", identified the now Christian Empire with the Church militant. The Latin word Christianitas originally meant the body of all Christians conceived as a political body, or the territory of the globe occupied by Christians, something akin to the English word Christendom. Apocalyptic texts were reinterpreted; the Christian empire was no longer the "***** of Babylon," but was the armed force of saints, depicted in Revelation as participating in the triumph of God and Christ. The idea of a Christian empire continued to play a powerful role in Western Europe even after the collapse of Roman rule there; the name of the Holy Roman Empire bears witness to its claims to sanctity as well as to universal rule. An apocryphal apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, written during the seventh century, depicts a saintly Last Roman Emperor who holds his earthly kingdom in anticipation of Christ's return. According to Pseudo-Methodius, the Last Emperor will wage war in the last days against God's enemies, including Gog and Magog and the Antichrist. He will surrender his imperial dignities to Christ at the Second Coming.

In Western Europe, after the collapse of Roman rule, yet more issues arose. The Christian church expressed periodic unease with the fact that, in the absence of central imperial rule, Christian princes made war against each other. An attempt to limit the volume and permitted times of warfare was proclaimed in the Truce of God, which sought to set limits upon the times and places where warfare could be conducted, and to protect Christian non-combatants from the hazards of war. Because the Truce actually provided a military incentive to gain the element of surprise by breaking it, the Truce was not successful.

On the other hand, greater success attended the proclamation of various Crusades, which were at least in theory the declaration of war by the entire armed body of Christendom against an enemy that was implicitly labelled an enemy of God and his church. Most Crusades were proclaimed to recover Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims; other Crusades were proclaimed against the Cathari, and by the Teutonic Knights against non-Christians in the Baltic Sea area. In Spain, the Crusader mindset continued for several centuries after the last crusade in the Middle East, in the form of the Reconquista, a series of wars fought to recover the Iberian peninsula from the Muslim Moors. These latter wars were local affairs, and the participation of the entire armed body of Christians was only theoretical.

from wikipedia.com

------------------
I want to turn the whole thing upside down
I'll find the things they say just can't be found
I'll share this love I find with everyone
We'll sing and dance to Mother Nature's songs

posted March 12, 2006 04:20 PM            

However, you failed to supply the so called christian teachings which sanction the indiscriminate murder of civilian populations, including women and children.

One of the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein...contained in the Iraqi War Resolution passed by the Congress of the United States was Saddam's continued oppression of the Iraqi population. Indeed, Saddam is responsible for more killing of Muslims than anyone alive on the earth.

It is nothing but sheer bullsh*t to suggest the United States and/or Americans want Muslims to kill Muslims. They are engaged in that endeavor all on their own. I invite you to offer some proof in support of your allegation.

posted March 12, 2006 04:39 PM            

America is guilty of permitting Saddam to kill Iraqis and other Muslims and America is also guilty for removing Saddam for killing Iraqis and other Muslims.

posted March 12, 2006 04:50 PM              

quote:

---

Is this arguing out of both sides of one's mouth at the same time?

---

No. But I have no doubt you'll always be convinced it is.

quote:

---

America is guilty of permitting Saddam to kill Iraqis and other Muslims and America is also guilty for removing Saddam for killing Iraqis and other Muslims.

Can't have it both ways with me.

---

Yes Saddam is guilty, and America is guilty for putting him in power and keeping him in power for as long as he helped serve their interests, even while he was killing his own people.

America is not guilty for removing Saddam. Just for indiscriminately killing innocent Iraqis under the pretense that they were out to get and destroy WMD when there never were any.

posted March 12, 2006 05:00 PM            

The fact Saddam was engaged in a war with Iran...the nation which violated the provision that embassies are considered part of the nation which they serve, held embassy personnel hostage for more than 400 days, those facts did not discourage the US from assisting Saddam in his war with Iran.

posted March 12, 2006 05:08 PM              

The day we incited the Kurds to revolt, then refused to help them was a dark and shameful day in our history, Jwhop.

posted March 12, 2006 05:35 PM              

Tink, you're right America didn't literally put in him power. They did help raise his power to a degree, along with Britain and Russia when it came time to fight the spread of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Pentagon did issue Saddam the documents to make chemical/biological weapons to kill Iranians.

posted March 13, 2006 07:38 AM              

quote:

---

Indeed, in what religion would you find religious sanction for those kinds of murder?

---

quote:

---

the bible perhaps?

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry, is that an answer to my question about the Muslim religion...or any other?

---

Perhaps it doesn't exactly sanction suicide bombings (although reading the texts it may make you wonder if the technology had been around at the time, whether the Bible's God wouldn't have "seen that it was good" and instructed it's use as a weapon with which to smite his enemies) but there is indeed rather an alarming amount of death ordered in "the Good book". Indeed if one is to condemn 'jihad' as a solely Islamic invention, then what about Deuteronomy chapter 13 verses 1-5 which states: -

"1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."

And there is a indeed a rather viscious array of instructions against women and children: -

Numbers 31:15

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Nice attitude to women eh?

Joshua 8
Ai Destroyed

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

and neither for reasons of politics nor war, but seemingly for purposes of parenting advice...

Exodus 21:17

17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

and not women and children but certainly more sanctioning of death.

Leviticus 20:13

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This is a link to the website of someone who practises the Wiccan religion. http://st09.startlogic.com/~pendrago/questions-christians.html Now admittedly, there is a tremendous amount of venom and not more than a little hatred present in the way the author directs the questioning to Christians about their religion, (something that if you are a 'true Wiccan' you are encouraged to rise above I believe, as respecting other's faiths is a key principal of Wicca) but the despite the methods used and the sentiments expressed, the questions are still valid. There are many anomalies, double standards and quite frankly plainly revolting aspects within the Bible.

By pointing this out, I'm not trying to label all Christians as murdering maniacs; on the contrary, there are many genuinely good Christian people and I'm sure if we look hard enough we will find other religions with similar questionable instructions.

My point is that the problem with religion is that it's interpreted (or misinterpreted) and operated by human beings, and thus is always open to mistakes and misuse. My own personal opinion is that 'worship' itself is the sin, as it often causes relinquishment of responsibility for your own actions and to blindly follow without question or suggestion.

To return to the title of this thread and it's question, I believe it's impossible to label all those reponsible for the car and suicide bombings under one heading; the reason being that it would appear the violence occurs due to all of those reasons.

Some of the population who oppose the Coalition forces involvement in their country, no doubt see those who have joined the Iraqi police or who have gained positions on the new Iraqi government as US sympathisers and as such, consider them legitimate targets for their 'fight for freedom'. It's not enough to tell them that elections put them in place, as they possibly don't understand the process of democracy, having had it 'thrust' upon them rightly or wrongly.

Others who are Sunni or Shiite may be engaging in these acts due to their age old differances. And others (who are not even Iraqis but very often Jordanians, Syrians or Saudi Arabians) may simply be using these attacks to further the goals of the terrorist organisations they belong to.

posted March 13, 2006 09:09 AM              

quote:

---

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to throw the Old Testament at the feet of the Christians and ask them to explain it.

---

Yep absolutely Tink I think the author of the article on the site that I gave a link to needs to make that distinction. And as I say, there are many genuinely good Christian people. However, I've always wondered why the Old Testament is even included in the Bible anymore if Christianity is now based on the New Testament.

My post was merely responding to the request for examples of a religion that sanctions murder. Of course as I said, there are no doubt many more but the Bible was mentioned as an example and I chose to research that a little.

posted March 13, 2006 09:28 AM              

It's because many references to and prophecies of the coming Messiah are in the Old Testament. For Christians, certain elements of those prophecies prove that Jesus was that Messiah. Of course Jews feel differently , but what better way to try to prove them wrong then to use their own words? The point being that the prophecies help legitimize Christ and Christianity - he didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

Also, for cultural reasons. Most of the early Christians were Jews, so the evolution from the Old, literally and figuratively, to the New was an important one to keep in mind.

posted March 13, 2006 09:50 AM              

And not to excuse the more violent aspects of the Old Testament but a few thoughts on that as well ...

The New Testament is a terribly mistranslated thing and the Old Testament is even worse. Plus, the difficulty of understanding the cultural norms, thought processes and actions of a Mideastern tribe several thousand years ago is apparent. Right? If we could compare the holy books, so to speak, of the Philistines, Assyrians, etc. with the Jews, the Old Testament would probably come out smelling like roses.