Shiites burn six Sunni worshippers alive

Cypress said:
If you really want to understand the confluence of Iraq, Islam, and the WOT, read Dr. Juan Cole. I've been reading him for the last three years.

Unlike Robert Spencer, Dr. Cole has been right about virtually everything pertaining to Iraq and the broader Jihaddist movement. He predicted the Iraq Civil war, when NeoCons were still high-fiving over the capture of Saddam; he articulately and correctly analyzed the roots and causes of the shia/sunni split (While NeoCons were assuring us we were "close" to Victory); and he correctly analyzes the Al Qaeda movement, in the broader context of the sunni-shia division (While NeoCons were erroneously asserting that the Al Qaeda movement is inspired by Iran and that one jihaddist warrior "is just like the next").


Dr. Juan Cole

Professional History

-1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University
-1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo
-1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles
-1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan
-1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan
-1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan
-1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan



http://www.juancole.com/
Click to expand...


Oh, and in addition to having impressive academic qualifications in islamic studies; subjecting his work to expert peer-review, and to correctly predicting everything the NeoCons were wrong on......

Dr. Cole is fluent in modern standard and colloquial Arabic, Urdu and Persian, and has a command of Turkish.


And he's lived for many years and traveled extensibly in the middle east and south asia.


What were Spencer's qualifications again? Was it a master's degree in Christian studies at Univesity of North Carolina, and a stint at a rightwing thinktank?
 
maineman said:
DO you think that the airlines routinely substitute auto mechanics for aircraft mechanics because, hell, both of them are mechanics, after all, and there must be crossover such that one should be considered a de facto quaisi-expert on the other simply by nature of the shared title?

Do you think this also makes this guy an expert on every other religion simply by virtue of his studies into christianity?
Click to expand...

By his having studied Christianity? No. By his having applied the same methodology to study Islam, including learning to read Arabic so as to read the original documents? Yes.
 
I will admit that I have not read his writings...and will also admit that I would be negatively predisposed to anyone writing about Islam as an inherently evil religion or antagonistic religion given my own experiences. I really found them to be charming and caring and giving and thoughtful and generally delightful people all in all.
 
maineman said:
I will admit that I have not read his writings...and will also admit that I would be negatively predisposed to anyone writing about Islam as an inherently evil religion or antagonistic religion given my own experiences. I really found them to be charming and caring and giving and thoughtful and generally delightful people all in all.
Click to expand...

He says the same, really. But that is not what so many on the left say-though do not read his works. Like I said, pick something before 9/11.
 
That sound you hear is Mr. Robert Spencer’s credibility being flushed down the toilet:


-ROBERT SPENCER, February 2004: “Saddam Hussein, contrary to media claims, was up to his teeth in the global jihad!" *

United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2
September 8 2006

Conclusion 1: "Postwar finding indicate that the CIA assessment that the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support.

Conclusion 2: "Postwar findings indicate Zarqawi was in Bagdad from May 2002 until late November 2003. Postwar assessment indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfuly to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime DID NOT have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. "

***************************************************************

-ROBERT SPENCER, February 2004: “Saddam operated training camps for jihadis from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States at Salman Pak!”*

2006: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has since established that both the CIA and the DIA concluded that there was no evidence to support these claims. A DIA analyst told the Committee, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." Knight Ridder reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel noted in November 2005 that "After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos."[Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5]



*http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12245


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
 
Last edited:
If Robert Spencer was so knowlegable about Islam and the middle east, what on God's green earth, made him think the secular socialist Saddam was "up to his neck with global jihaddists", and that he was training jihaddists at Salman Pak???

I'm no expert on the middle east, but from informing myself from knowlegable experts like Dr. Cole, I knew years ago that Saddam considered extremist jihadists a threat to his regime. He was highly unlikely to give them any real support within his own country.


How did I know something, that Rober Spender - a self-professed middle east expert - didn't know?


US Senate Bipartisan Iraq Report: "Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support."
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
I will put him on my wish list of authors....my wife is pretty responsive to that list, and vice versa
Click to expand...

I would say that he has his biases, but he also acknowledges the pluses of the culture. I've seen Cypress has followed with a couple posts trying to cite specifics to make him irrelevant.

I wonder, does he really want to use Juan Cole and expertise and honest agency and specifics? I'm kinda tired of those games. Seems to me that we all, of whatever persuasion should read and check whatever credible information is coming our way. It needn't carry a Phd., but it must be based on things one may look up.
 
I must agree with Cypress on the issue of Saddam and jihadists. There is no doubt that Saddam was supportive of terrorists...but they were either palestinian nationalists or Iranian nationalists...there was no reason whatsoever for Saddam to support a movement whose very mission was the elimination of his = and other = secular arab and muslim regimes.
 
maineman said:
I must agree with Cypress on the issue of Saddam and jihadists. There is no doubt that Saddam was supportive of terrorists...but they were either palestinian nationalists or Iranian nationalists...there was no reason whatsoever for Saddam to support a movement whose very mission was the elimination of his = and other = secular arab and muslim regimes.
Click to expand...


You have to ask yourself: What kind of middle eastern islamic "expert" is this Rober Spencer dude?

In well-informed circles, it was considered laughable long before the war that the chances of Saddam giving any real support to global jihhaddists and al qaeda was pratically nil. That is to say, this was well known knowledge among people with actual expertise on Iraq and the Middle East.

How did Spencer come to the woefully wrong conclusion that the secular Saddam "was up to his neck with global jihaddists" and was training them at salman pak? He was wrong. Way wrong. And it demonstrates he doesn't know much about Iraq, the middle east, or the relationship between arab nationalists and socialists like the Baath party, and sunni/wahhaabi jihaddists like Al Qaeda.
 
Cypress said:
You have to ask yourself: What kind of middle eastern islamic "expert" is this Rober Spencer dude?

In well-informed circles, it was considered laughable long before the war that the chances of Saddam giving any real support to global jihhaddists and al qaeda was pratically nil. That is to say, this was well known knowledge among people with actual expertise on Iraq and the Middle East.

How did Spencer come to the woefully wrong conclusion that the secular Saddam "was up to his neck with global jihaddists" and was training them at salman pak? He was wrong. Way wrong. And it demonstrates he doesn't know much about Iraq, the middle east, or the relationship between arab nationalists and socialists like the Baath party, and sunni/wahhaabi jihaddists like Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue this. Let's assume you are correct that the dude was totally missing the boat on this issue. That makes all other observations wrong? Again, I'm not saying the 'be all and end all', just another voice of opinion.
 
Runyon said:
I would say that he has his biases, but he also acknowledges the pluses of the culture. I've seen Cypress has followed with a couple posts trying to cite specifics to make him irrelevant.

I wonder, does he really want to use Juan Cole and expertise and honest agency and specifics? I'm kinda tired of those games. Seems to me that we all, of whatever persuasion should read and check whatever credible information is coming our way. It needn't carry a Phd., but it must be based on things one may look up.
Click to expand...

I simply put stock in who war right, and tend to dismiss those who were wrong.

Wouldn't you do the same?


Robert Spencer was incredibly wrong, about the relationship between the secular, nationalist Baath regime, and the sunni global jihaddists. WAY Wrong. As post-war analysis by the US Government has demonstrated.

Dr. Juan Cole was right. He was right years ago, before Bush started his war. Saddam was blood enemies with the global jihaddists like al qaeda.


I can only conclude, Mr. Spencer doesn't know much about the middle east. Or he does know, and was simply acting as a propagandist to sell the war.

Either scenario calls into question either his competence, or his honesty.
 
Runyon said:
I'm not going to argue this. Let's assume you are correct that the dude was totally missing the boat on this issue. That makes all other observations wrong? Again, I'm not saying the 'be all and end all', just another voice of opinion.
Click to expand...


It is simply fundamental to ANY well informed person to know the distinction and division between global sunni jihaddists, and secular arab nationalists. Absolutely basic and fundamental in any real understanding of the middle east.

Spencer did not demonstrate this fundamental understanding. In fact, he got it absolutly backwards.
 
Cypress said:
It is simply fundamental to ANY well informed person to know the distinction and division between global sunni jihaddists, and secular arab nationalists. Absolutely basic and fundamental in any real understanding of the middle east.

Spencer did not demonstrate this fundamental understanding. In fact, he got it absolutly backwards.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think he has that down. That is NOT what I was 'conceding', rather the Saddam and international terrorism. I didn't want to do the work that shows how many agreed with him.
 
clearly... ba'athist pan-arab nationalists and wahabbists have little to nothing in common besides their hatred for the US, perhaps,. but even that is not enough to bring Saddam to the point where he would help AQ in any way, given the overriding goal of Osama's organization.... for us to worry about Saddam giving WMD's (even if he had them -which he did not) to AQ is foolish.....
 
maineman said:
clearly... ba'athist pan-arab nationalists and wahabbists have little to nothing in common besides their hatred for the US, perhaps,. but even that is not enough to bring Saddam to the point where he would help AQ in any way, given the overriding goal of Osama's organization.... for us to worry about Saddam giving WMD's (even if he had them -which he did not) to AQ is foolish.....
Click to expand...

Well I would certainly have agreed with that not so long ago, yet it seems they are crossing those bridges via Iran.
 
Runyon said:
Well I would certainly have agreed with that not so long ago, yet it seems they are crossing those bridges via Iran.
Click to expand...

Iranian shiite persian theocrats are worlds apart from Saddam's baathist, sunni arab nationalists..... wahabbists find a better partnership with Iranians certainly than they do with baathists, even though baathists and wahabbists tend to be sunnis
 
maineman said:
Iranian shiite persian theocrats are worlds apart from Saddam's baathist, sunni arab nationalists..... wahabbists find a better partnership with Iranians certainly than they do with baathists, even though baathists and wahabbists tend to be sunnis
Click to expand...

Look more to their favorite playgrounds, Iraq, Palestinian areas, Syria, Lebanon.
 
Runyon said:
Well I would certainly have agreed with that not so long ago, yet it seems they are crossing those bridges via Iran.
Click to expand...

sunni jihaddists virtually kill shia on sight now. The shia persian theocrats have little in common with sunni jihaddists. There's no credible evidence of a shia-sunni al qaeda alliance. In fact, they are practically blood enemies. Al qaeda leaders and groups have virtually declared war on shia muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top