Hope in Iraq

Hank C Cheyenne
#1
Eight killed in U.S. offensive launched against Al-Qaida insurgents in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 19:32 on October 1, 2005, EST.
By MOHAMMED BARAKAT

QAIM, Iraq (AP) - About 1,000 U.S. troops, backed by attack helicopters and tanks, swept into a village near the Syrian border Saturday in a new offensive aimed at rooting out al-Qaida militants and stemming violence that has shaken Iraq ahead of a crucial vote on a new constitution.

Missiles fired by helicopters struck cars, sending plumes of smoke into the sky as the force moved into Sadah, residents said. In the evening, marines clashed in the streets with insurgents, and a Humvee was seen burning, they said.

Eight militants were killed in the day's fighting, the military said in a statement. In one clash, insurgents pulled up in vehicles, got out and opened fire on U.S. troops; the subsequent battle left four gunmen dead. The military said there were no U.S. casualties in the assault's first day.

The U.S. military said "al-Qaida in Iraq", the country's most prominent militant group behind a wave of suicide bombings, had taken control of Sadah. Foreign fighters were using it as a way station as they enter from Syria to join the insurgency, the military said.

The assault was the fourth large U.S. offensive in the border area since May. But militants who run rampant in large parts of western Iraq have proven difficult to drive out, moving back in to towns after the assaults are over and the bulk of troops withdraw.

Al-Qaida and other waged a stepped-up campaign of violence, killing at least 205 peopleSunni-led insurgents have this week in an attempt to wreck the upcoming Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution, a vital step in Iraq's political process.

Iraq's Sunni Arab minority opposes the draft charter, fearing it will split Iraq and consecrate Shiite and Kurdish domination.

Al-Qaida's group in Iraq has on April 28, suicide bombers have killed at least 1,345 people, according to an Associated Press count.declared "all-out war" on Shiites. Since a Shiite-majority government took power in Iraq
 
Hank C Cheyenne
#2
.....its always good when the army pounds the militants and none of coalition troops get killed..... its still a long way to go but good news like this is refreshing.... especially with the constitutional vote comming up....

one aspect that bothers me is that the Sunni minority population seems to be trying to undermine the constitution....the Sunni population seems to want to undermine the constitution because they are a minority and will not rule under the new Iraq....... but democracy has to prevail.
..... its is also interensting that the Sunni population had teh most power when Saddam Hussein was in power........some things are hard to let go of even if for the good of the majority.
 
Andygal
#3
why is this in the Canadian politics section?
 
Hank C Cheyenne
#4
oops my fault ...wrong section

but andygal do you have anything to contribute or you just worried about the sections of the forum?
 
Reverend Blair
#5
How may women and children killed in this offensive, Hank? How many of them were shipped off to detention centres to be raped? How DU was spread around the ground? Did the US use napalm, a banned weapon, again?
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#6
Quote:

Eight killed in U.S. offensive launched against Al-Qaida insurgents in Iraq


and this gives ya "hope" ???? -Hank??? (a tad sadistic, ain't it?? and particularly in an invasion that should never have happened) Has anyone ever considered the situation in reverse??? Would amerikans fighting an invader be called "insurgents" or would they be simply defending their country??? If you can tell us just who these 'insurgents" are.......ready to listen.

what makes it all even more wicked.......is that Iraq posed NO damned danger to the US and had nothing to do with 9-11. Most of the terrorists of 9-11 were Saudis............and yet Saudi Arabia is virtually unscathed.

there is far too much that is NOT reported to gauge a proper assessment of what is REALLY going on in Iraq. and the bush regime has the media/press by the short hairs.......so it cannot report truths..
 
Ten Packs
#7
8 militants down - and nearly one hundred innocents dead in bombings north of Baghdad.

Yeah, this is working REAL well....
 
Hank C Cheyenne
#8
Quote:

8 militants down - and nearly one hundred innocents dead in bombings north of Baghdad.

Yeah, this is working REAL well....

Quote:


well hey... who knows how many more innocent civilians would of been killed if these 8 terrorists were still alive? Now they are in hell and can't kill anyone else.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C Cheyenne

Quote:

8 militants down - and nearly one hundred innocents dead in bombings north of Baghdad.

Yeah, this is working REAL well....

Quote:


well hey... who knows how many more innocent civilians would of been killed if these 8 terrorists were still alive? Now they are in hell and can't kill anyone else.


ASSUMING the ones killed were "terrorists" aren't you??? Seems they were "insurgents". How do you get "terrorists" out of that???
 
JomZ
#10
Too add to what Rev said:

Quote:

How may women and children killed in this offensive, Hank? How many of them were shipped off to detention centres to be raped?

We don't know how bad this battle was. For 1000 U.S. (Not coalition, nor Iraqi National Guard) troops, backed by helicopters and tanks entering a combat zone and killing only 8 is highly unlikely.

We also don't know:
How many insurgents (a.k.a. Militants, Terrorists, Freedom fighters, Rebels, or whatever the name of the week is) were wounded or captured?

How many civilians killed, maimed, or injured?

How many U.S. troops were wounded?

Quote:

well hey... who knows how many more innocent civilians would of been killed if these 8 terrorists were still alive? Now they are in hell and can't kill anyone else.

Are they terrorists or insurgents. There is a difference:

Quote:

A Terrorist is:
One who systematically uses terror especially as a means of coercion

An Insurgent is:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Also how many more insurgents/rebels will be born because their town was smashed by U.S. military might. I don't know about you but if a foreign invader entered my city, and destroyed it. I'd be more sympathetic to the insurgency.

The use of military force is one that must be carefully utilized. This event maybe the catalyst for more attacks on civilians, Iraqi police, or maybe a renewal of heavy conflict with U.S. troops.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#11
Quote:

I don't know about you but if a foreign invader entered my city, and destroyed it. I'd be more sympathetic to the insurgency.

so would I. ANd this is the very excellent point , that most warmongers refuse to acknowledge or address. In their minds , it is all about "themselves" and "their wins" etc. and whoever "they " define to be the "enemy " of the day. (whether there really is an enemy or not...or what type it might be)

The USR has blurred a terrorist attack.....with a military invasion..( they attacked us).... in order to follow up on other political agendas they had in mind. Yet these acts are totally different ...in substance, content , and definition.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#12
Only a complete and utter idiot, devoid of any semblence of reason could think that the US can possibly win a war of attrition against the insurgents...what you are praising Hank, is a huge part of the problem, no where near any sort of solution...get your head out of your ass and think for a feckin' change...
 
Hank C Cheyenne
#13
....I am praising the death of these bastards........... they are both insurgents and terrorists.

If someone invaded my country I sure as hell would not go and blow myself up and kill my own people....shit if I knew fellow countrymen who were attacking my own people I would not hesitate to put 2 bullets in their temple.

The vote on the constitution is coming up this month....... and Shiite and Kurdish hopefully will support the new constitution.....the Sunni are the minority yet believe they should control the country solely.

My question to you guys is what if the majority of Shiite and Kurdish people support the constitution but the Sunni keep slaughtering these people? will you then support staying and helping the Majority??????
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C Cheyenne

If someone invaded my country I sure as hell would not go and blow myself up and kill my own people....shit if I knew fellow countrymen who were attacking my own people I would not hesitate to put 2 bullets in their temple.

Before you say that think about it, and don't be stupid...things are never as black and white as you neocons would like them...

If your country was invaded by a superior army with high tech weaponry, what resistance would you have to offer? You could blow yourself up in the middle of a squad of soldiers and maybe take our a few of them with you, provided you didn't get shot up trying to get close enough...but in the end it would have accomplished nothing...because as I said, that the US can't win a war of attrition against the insurgency, and neither can they win a war of attrition against the US...so fighting them in the streets, while it happens from time to time, would not be the preferred method of attack...

So who do you attack? You attack police, you attack iraqi soldiers and anyone else who is seen to be aiding the occupation...

Then when they've all got their heads down, you attack civilian populations, because that is what will affect change...nothing else will...when the occupying force is seen by the population to be unable to provide security, then the populace will rise up against them...in this case, it will be to cast their vote for someone who has promised to end the occupation and send the US forces packing...

Now, I don't condone the attacking of civilians in any way, but I can see the logic in doing so...
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#15
Quote:

....I am praising the death of these bastards........... they are both insurgents and terrorists

and just HOW do you KNOW that for a fact???? ( the neo fascist media told you??)

.......if you were attacked the way Iraq was attacked/invaded .....and for no damned good reason......you don't KNOW for a fact just how you would react.

IF the USR invaded Alberta because they decided Alberta would be a fine addition to their statehood.......(due to its wealth and natural resources ).......one has to suppose that you would be the first one waving a white flag of surrender. .......and taking that further......one would suspect that you would side with the US and kill your fellow Albertans. Again.....that is just one possible reaction....

btw: the fact that you "praise" anyone 's death........speaks volumes about your level of civility./humanity.----or lack of.. How tragic.
 
JomZ
#16
Its all so vague, thats what a lot of us do not like about this war. It seems almost surreal that all this is happening.

What is written on that constitution that makes the Sunni's so disenfranchised? What if only 51% of the people support the constitution, that would mean that their are 49% of population who disagree, and yet it is still a majority. Thats not a good sign.

Why does the western media lump all these groups together into one major insurgency. Where they have a command structure and organizational development.

When more likely these are all just factions fighting the U.S. occupation in different ways. Some kill the Iraqi populace who back the invasion, some kidnap foreign and domestic dignitaries and hold them for ransom or execute them, some plant roadside bombs. Some are the Al-Qaida like terrorists, some maybe just don't want their lands occupied. Even Al-Qaida is considered an exagerated organization by western powers.

Quote:

shit if I knew fellow countrymen who were attacking my own people I would not hesitate to put 2 bullets in their temple.

What if your fellow countrymen were helping the invasion and giving information that killed many other countrymen who formed armed resistance? What if they were profiting from this? would you hesitate then.

We have to be clear on the situation in Iraq, Its not a cut and dry, black and white, good and evil battle. The U.S. is facing a country that has factions, warlords, gangster like organizations, and now foreign guerilla fighters, wach who approach this conflict differently.
 
Hank C Cheyenne
#17
...if Alberta was dictated by Saddam Hussein I would want the US to come liberate us.

....jsut picture 5 or 10 years from now when there is a democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan & and the countries are safe and prosperous! It will happen, and that is the reason me and many people have voted for Bush. I know he pisses people off but he is there for a reason........why do you think he was reelected? God it makes me soo happy he was reelected..... for you people who put thier nose up at the US will seem like fools in time...
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#18
Quote:

why do you think he was reelected?

because he and his goons "fixed" the elections.?......( even tho , "they" either can't or don't want to bother.....to prove it???

heck the last TWO US "elections' have been "suspect"....
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C Cheyenne

...if Alberta was dictated by Saddam Hussein I would want the US to come liberate us.

Well that's because you're an idiot...and have no concept of international law or sovereignty of nations...
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#20
Quote:

and that is the reason me and many people have voted for Bush.


hold on a sec. YOU VOTED for bush??? Don't you live in Calgary?? Dual citizenship???
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C Cheyenne

...if Alberta was dictated by Saddam Hussein I would want the US to come liberate us.

Well that's because you're an idiot...and have no concept of international law or sovereignty of nations...
 
Reverend Blair
#22
Iraq hasn't been run by Saddam for a while now, Hank. It was the Americans who put him into power in the first place. The new Iraqi "constitution" was written largerly by Americans, but even if the new Iraqi "government" wants to change things that the US did, they can't...Paul Bremer's edicts over-ride everything.

The US has done what it always does. It set up a puppet government to look after the business interests of campaign donors. When an Iraqi attacks that puppet government, it is attacking the United States, who illegally invaded a sovereign state.
 
Gary
#23
The Iraqi people are screwed no matter what happens.
The insurgents represent the minority that benifited under Sadam Hussien and want that power back and will do anything to get it. 100's of thousands, perhaps as many 1.5 million Iraqies were murdered under Sadam's regime. There are now other religous groups joining in on the carnage along with Al-kiada (did i spell that right?)
The US will be forced to leave eventually and the country will then probably deteriate into civil war.
I'm sure the majority of Iraqies just want peace and the US out as soon as possible but fear what will happen when the US leaves. It's one hell of a mess that the US should'nt have gotten into and wish now they had'nt.
 
Gary
#24
Reverend....the US did not put Saddam in power, he was a brutal dictator that murdered anybody that got in the way.
He rose to power in Iraq because he was ruthless enough.
 
Reverend Blair
#25
Quote:

Reverend....the US did not put Saddam in power, he was a brutal dictator that murdered anybody that got in the way.
He rose to power in Iraq because he was ruthless enough.

You really do need to learn some history, Gary. The US supported a failed Baathist coup, then a successful one. They stood by Saddam when he gassed the Kurds, keeping the international community from imposing sanctions. They armed Iraq and encouraged the Iraq/Iran war even while illegally selling arms to Iran.

Saddam is very much a monster that the Republican Party created.
 
Gary
#26
You need to learn some history Rev.
The Soviet Union and France were the 2 biggest arms suppliers to Iraq. You must recall that during the first gulf war that the US wanted to know what their military hardware would be like against Soviet equipment.
Or do you think that it was the US that made all those T-72 tanks that they were blowing up in the desert ?
That this was the closest thing they were going to get to Soviet equipment versus western equipment war.
The US severed ties to Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds.
Did you really think that Iraqi/Soviet equipment came from America ?
 
Reverend Blair
#27
The US never severed ties with Iraq until he invaded Kuwait. There are pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam AFTER he gassed the Kurds.

The Reagan administration actually claimed that it was Iran who did the gassing and stuck with that position right up until the rhetoric before the latest illegal invasion.
 
Gary
#28
Ok Reverend I'll admit that regarding the gassing of the kurds that the US did not try to stop it and continued relations with Iraq after it....I did some investigating.
The Kurds were gassed with cyanide based gas which Iran was using during the Iran - Iraq war at that time, the Iraqi's were using mustard based gas which is why some think the Iranians did it.
But there is evidence that the British and Americans supplied Saddam with chemicals that could make cyanide gas and it was this they used.
The US wanted to continue their relations with Iraq because Iraq was a major importer of American Agricultural products and was an opponent to Iran which was important to the US.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Gary

Ok Reverend I'll admit that regarding the gassing of the kurds that the US did not try to stop it and continued relations with Iraq after it....I did some investigating.
The Kurds were gassed with cyanide based gas which Iran was using during the Iran - Iraq war at that time, the Iraqi's were using mustard based gas which is why some think the Iranians did it.
But there is evidence that the British and Americans supplied Saddam with chemicals that could make cyanide gas and it was this they used.
The US wanted to continue their relations with Iraq because Iraq was a major importer of American Agricultural products and was an opponent to Iran which was important to the US.

Right...so it's all well and good that they gassed the Kurds then, with Rummy kissing Saddam in the ear...
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#30
Quote:

Iraqi Government Totters

- US Goes it alone Against Mighty Sadah
- British Leave Basra Base

By Juan Cole

10/02/05 "ICH" -- -- The wrangling between President Jalal Talabani (a Kurd) and Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari (a religious Shiite) may after all threaten the stability of the government. Aljazeerah says, "Kurdish officials warned on Saturday they would consider pulling out of the government if their demands are not met. That would cause the collapse of the government and put a new layer of political instability and fragmentation between Iraq's main communities." The Kurds are angry because they say the Shiite government had pledged to begin a major resettlement of Kurds in Kirkuk, but has not. Kirkuk is about a quarter Turkmen (mostly Shiites), a quarter Arab and a half Kurdish. Many Kurds and Turkmen were expelled from the city by Saddam Hussein, who brought in Arabs (many of them Shiites from the south) as settlers to "Arabize" Kirkuk, a major petroleum producer. The pledge given by the Shiite majority to resettle the expelled Kurds would threaten the interests of the Shiite Turkmen and the Shiite Arabs, and they surely have put enormous pressure on PM Ibrahim Jaafari to drag his feet on it.

There will eventually be a referendum on the future of Kirkuk in which Kirkuk residents will vote, according to the interim constitution. The Kurdish parties are desperate to flood the city with their supporters, so that when the referendum is held it will go in their favor (i.e. Kirkuk province would join the Kurdistan provincial confederacy along with Irbil, Dohuk, and Sulaimaniyah. The Shiites, by holding up resettlement, are placing that outcome in doubt. The Turkmen and the Shiite Arabs desperately do not want to be in Kurdistan, and the Turkmen have demanded a semi-autonomous Iraqi Turkmenistan instead if it looks as though that might happen.

The Iraqi government is unlikely to fall, since 54 percent of the delegates in parliament are religious Shiites who will support Jaafari, and a government can remain in power with a simple majority. But if even a few Shiites defected, Jaafari could be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. For the Iraqi government to fall at this point might well hurl the country into a maelstrom of political discontent and even more violence. Kirkuk is a powderkeg.

Al-Hayat: The Sunni Arab members of the constitution drafting committee said Saturday that they are negotiating with US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad to make some final amendments to the new Iraqi constitution. Ali Saadoun, a member of the National Dialogue Council (Sunni), said that Khalilzad "promised to add these amendments to the draft that is printed, and to broach them through an appendix to it." But the head of the constitution drafting committee in parliament, Shiite cleric Humam Hammoudi, objected that "These are not alterations or additions but are rather just affirmations and clarifications in the draft language, especially with regard to the unity of Iraq and its Arab identity." In an interview with Aljazeerah, he was in fact alarmed at Khalilzad's maneuvering, and angrily said that no changes could be made to the constitution at this late date.

The UN is supposed to be printing millions of copies of this document, which nobody has yet seen outside parliament, so that the Iraqi public can study it before the October 15 referendum.

I got a lot of flack for calling the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq a sick joke because there had been no campaigning and the names of the candidates were not known until the last minute, and because the Sunni Arabs wouldn't be represented. But now everyone in Iraq is complaining about the sectarian and do-nothing government that resulted from those anonymous elections (however bravely and however imbued with national spirit the Iraqi public went into them), and of course the absence of the Sunni Arabs has pushed them ever further into violent opposition.

Let me now risk some more flack and say that given that it is two weeks before the referendum and no ordinary Iraqis have seen the text of the new constitution, and given that the Sunni Arabs reject it to a person even just from the little they know of it, this constitution is another sick joke played by the Bush administration, which keeps forcing Iraq to jump through hoops made in Washington as "milestones" and "tipping points" to which the Republican Party can point as progress. Not to mention that the draft we have all seen of the constitution is riddled with fatal contradictions that will tie up the energies of parliament and the courts for decades trying to resolve them.

Let's see. AP also reports that One thousand US troops go into the small town of Sadah, block it off, bomb it, displace its inhabitants, comb through it looking for foreign jihadis. Since there are only 2,000 inhabitants of Sadah on a good day (it is a tiny border settlement near Syria northwest of Baghdad), the Marines have a certain advantage. You figure half of Sadah is women. Some further proportion is boys too young to fight and old men. Could they muster 300 local fighters (would all of them be in the guerrilla movement)? And how many foreign jihadis could live in a town of 2,000? Would you guess 50? So have we thrown 1,000 Marines at between 50 and 300 local fighters, who are poorly armed and lack real organization? Meanwhile entire districts of Baghdad, a city of 5 or 6 million, are controlled by the guerrillas. Wouldn't they be a bigger priority, since 95 percent of the violence in Iraq is plotted out by Iraqis?

This operation strikes me as odd. Perhaps they think a high-value target like Zarqawi is there, and the thousand Marines are to make sure that he does not escape?
Personally, I'm not sure Zarqawi exists, so I'd be reluctant to send a thousand Marines after him and to majorly inconvenience (and from the video on Aljazeerah, partially flatten) poor little Sadah.

Then there is the question of why only US troops are being deployed. In the recent Tal Afar operation, the US asked Iraqi troops to take the lead.

There's a funny thing about that, too. SecDef Rumsfeld and Gen. Casey were saying not long ago that there were 3 Iraqi units (a brigade and two battalions) that would and could take the lead in fighting the guerrillas. A brigade doesn't have a fixed number, but let's say it is 1500 to 3000. Now, the press said that the charge at Tal Afar was led by 4,000 to 6,000 Iraqi troops. Was that the level-1 units plus some level 2s? Were these the units who could fight on their own? They were said to be mostly Kurdish Peshmerga, with some Shiites along (Badr Corps?)

Now Rumsfeld and Casey say there is only one battle-ready brigade in the Iraqi army. We'd be back down to 1500 to 3000 men who could and would fight on their own. And Casey now says it isn't even one of the 3 units earlier so identified. What happened to them?

Question: Did some melt away at Tal Afar? We know that the guerrillas mostly escaped the city through tunnels, and few engagements were fought (though 500 or more people were killed in the city, some proportion of them innocent civilians caught up in bombing raids) The US military claimed 150 guerrillas killed and 400 captured, but it is not at all clear that the 400 apprehended were actually guerrillas as opposed to Sunni Turkmen who had some pressing reason to try to stay in the city. The stated objective had been the foreign infiltrators. What happened to them? AFP reported on Sept. 13, "An Iraqi army lieutenant colonel suggested that up to half the rebels might have managed to flee to neighbouring villages. Among those arrested were some 30 foreign fighters, including around 20 Syrians, as well as four Afghanis and two Saudis, he told AFP requesting anonymity." That is, 200,000 inhabitants were driven from their homes, neighborhoods were flattened, and 500 people were killed so that the US could capture 20 Syrian villagers so angry about the US military occupation of Iraq that they slipped over to Tal Afar to fight it.

But wait. This battle was supposed to be a major one. How how did at least half of the guerrillas (I suspect many more) escape from the city? Could it be that they were tipped off by officers in the Iraqi army? How did the US find out about the infiltration? Was it when they got to Tal Afar and nobody was there? Or was it when there were a few firefights, and everybody but a few gung-ho Kurds held back?

If the US military did think that Zarqawi and some fighters were in Sadah, then, they might well have refused to involve the remaining reliable Iraqi brigade, for fear that some elements in it were not in fact reliable, and Sadah would be gone when they got there, the way Tal Afar was.

Meanwhile, in the real world terrorists have struck at tourist sites in Bali again. The people in Sadah were never dangerous to US interests in 2000, or 2001, or 2002. Now a thousand Marines are tied down there while the real al-Qaeda has the run of London and Bali. I guess Rumsfeld thought there are no good targets among al-Qaeda. But they can see lots of good targets.

Another two US soldiers were killed in Iraq on Saturday.

A Danish soldier was killed by a roadside bomb on a bridge in Basra.

The brother of Interior Minister Bayan Jabr (Sulagh) was kidnapped in Baghdad on Saturday. Jabr is himself a Shiite Turkmen and the Shiite Turkmen of Tal Afar had pleaded for the military operation against the city launched in mid-September, on the grounds that the 70 percent Sunni Turkmen majority was allied to the guerrillas and was persecuting the Shiites. The killing of over a hundred Shiites with a bomb in Kazimiyah was explicitly announced by the guerrilla movement as revenge for Tal Afar. One wonders if the abduction of Jabr's brother is another reprisal. Of course, the Interior Ministry has organized special security police with names like the Wolf Brigade, who target the Sunni Arab guerrillas, so their are lots of motives for payback.

The Scotsman reports, "Meanwhile, British troops yesterday handed control of a small military camp outside of Basra over to Iraqi forces. "It's a real sign of progress, of the increasing capability of Iraqi forces," said British Army Major Mick Aston, as the 10th Division of the Iraqi army was given control of Camp Chindit Az-Zubayr, southwest of Basra. About 100 British soldiers had been based at the camp, which was used for training Iraqi troops."

Looks more like the beginnings of a British withdrawal from the South to me.

Likewise, on the American side, the US withdrawal from the Shiite holy city of Karbala this week is a weather vane.

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Visit his blog http://www.juancole.com/

 

Similar Threads

23
A New Hope
by KanBob | Jan 23rd, 2006