Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is al-Sistani Simmering?
More good news from Iraq:
Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible—a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.
The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia....
A senior aide to the prime minister, [Nouri] al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the "rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle" and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.
Fatwas are theological opinions by an individual cleric and views on the same subject can vary. They gain force from consensus among experts in Islamic law and traditions....
Al-Sistani's affirmative response also carried a stern warning that "public interest" should not be harmed and every effort must be made to ensure that no harm comes to Iraqis or their property during "acts of resistance," they said.
"Changing the tyrannical (Saddam Hussein) regime by invasion and occupation was not what we wished for because of the many tragedies they have created," al-Sistani said in reply to a question on his Web site.
Al-Sistani, whose Q&A section of his website is quite a read, declaimed a different type of "strongly undesirable" occupation here.
|5.23.08 @ 8:55AM|#
Sistani held that country together by his fingertips for years
while foreign jihadists worked to set off the civil war. He's
always been a moderating influence.
This is real bad.
|5.23.08 @ 9:22AM|#
I used to think it would get worse in Iraq if we left, but now I
wonder if it actually can get any worse.
It probably can, but I don't want to find out.
|5.23.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Sounds to me like al-Sistani has made a major miscalculation
here. The most effective anti-American Shi-ite, Sadr, has been put
down, mostly by Iraqi troops. I can't imagine al-Sistani has a
bigger military organization than Sadr had, so I don't know how he
can expect this to succeed.
A question: it seems to me that calling the US presence in Iraq an
"occupation" requires denying the legitimacy of the current Iraqi
government, which does have some democratic bona fides. What is
al-Sistani's take on the current government?
I used to think it would get worse in Iraq if we left, but now
I wonder if it actually can get any worse.
Well, considering that it has been getting a lot better, I would
say that it could definitely get a lot worse. And the best way to
make that happen is with premature withdrawal.
tarran|5.23.08 @ 10:03AM|#
At this point everyone but the government they are propping up
agree that the U.S. is a destabilizing influence and not a
stabilizing one.
There are several problems:
1) The U.S. attacks militias. As often as not a militia is
providing security. So the U.S. knocks out the local defense forces
and then outsiders move in to loot and pillage.
2) The U.S. uses airpower for counterinsurgency. Bombs kill or
injure uninvolved people and wreck property. These enrage the
population and also create unemployment (if your shop is bombed you
are out of a job).
3) The U.S. forces frequently are clueless as to who their allies
are and who their enemies are. They've thus attacked friendlies as
well as neutrals.
4) The U.S. (as part of its anti-militia) campaign have tried a
degree of centralization that even Saddam didn't dare to try, to
deprive tribal leaders and check on the power of the central
government.
5) The U.S. has been hindring the development of free markets by
preserving state monopolies on gasoline, and electricity
provisioning. They've also kept the subsidies on food in place. The
central government, being incapable of actually providing these
services efficiently, there have been shortages - particularly of
energy. Energy being critical to all sorts of businesses this
attempt by the U.S. to preserve stalinist state-socialism has
hindered the development of the economy and contributed to massive
unemployment.
In other words the U.S. is actively working to keep the cluster
fuck going forward and hoping that if it can avoid losing long
enough somehow a victory will occur.
|5.23.08 @ 10:07AM|#
RC,
Al Sistani : al Sadr :: Badr Brigades : Mahdi Army
In fact, Sistani commands the loyalty of a larger, better armed,
better connected cadre of troops.
But it's good to hear that Sadr isn't going to be a problem
anymore. Again. It always makes me smile when that story gets
repeated.
|5.23.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Not to mention, the troops that engaged the Mahdi Army in Basra included the Badr Brigades, who performed much better than the Iraqi Army forces, many of whom fled or switched sides. Even the great success you claim is, in fact, just more in-fighting between militias.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 10:26AM|#
R.C. Dean,
...mostly by Iraqi troops.
The Iraqi army is chock full of militia members. One could argue
that what one sees in the Shi'ite areas is more a contest over
power amongst varying factions within the Shi'ites than anything
else.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Warty,
Well, the U.S. no longer controls the situation there (if it ever
did), so that may be the appropriate attitude.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Is it bad that I just don't care anymore?
Join the club. Pull the troops out and I really don't
care.
|5.23.08 @ 11:04AM|#
From Sistani's website:
Question: Some companies have produced an item similar to the woman's vagina that some men would place over their penis at bedtime for carnal desire. Is this classified as masturbation that is forbidden?
Answer: It is harãm if he seeks to ejaculate intentionally or ejaculation is normal [in such a circumstance] for him. Rather, based on obligatory precaution, he must refrain from it, even if he is confident of not ejaculating.
No wonder these people blow themselves up.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:09AM|#
OK, joke time:
Q: How come there are no Muslims on Star Trek?
A: Because it's set in the future.
BA DUM DUM
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 11:16AM|#
BA DUM DUM
Pretty weak.... There's no evidence of Christians or Jews either.
Actually, the future sounds kind of nice to me.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Episiarch,
Are there any Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. on Star Trek? Seems
like for humans at least that religion isn't much of an issue in
the future.
|5.23.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I wonder if this can be viewed more as a reaction against anti-civilian bombings than new found anti-American military sentiment. From the beginning of the occupation, the bombings have fluctuated from anti-American military to anti-collaborator/sectarian and back again.
BakedPenguin|5.23.08 @ 11:23AM|#
On Star Trek (TNG, anyway), every other species besides humans has some religious belief. Well, besides the Ferengi.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:23AM|#
It's a stupid joke. Jeez, you guys are a tough crowd. Or your senses of humor just suck ass.
|5.23.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Sistani's tacit tolerance of the US presence has certainly
helped whatever success the US occupation has had.
If he is turning against the US, it means the US has lost the most
important moderating influence in Iraq.
The nicest thing Sistani could do at this point is to use his
influence to force a referendum on continued US presence. It would
give the US a golden opportunity to "respect the will of the Iraqi
people" and pull out.
|5.23.08 @ 11:29AM|#
BakedPenguin | May 23, 2008, 11:23am | #
On Star Trek (TNG, anyway), every other species besides humans has some religious belief. Well, besides the Ferengi.
The Ferengi were my favorite species on ST. Any species that hadn't
fought a war in 1500 years due to their preference for negotiation
and buying off the opposition is OK by me.
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Or your senses of humor just suck ass.
Actually, I laughed. Only then did I tear it apart.
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#
OK by me
And their females walk around naked and have no rights. I'm sure
some of you are OK with that.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#
The Ferengi were my favorite species on ST. Any species that
hadn't fought a war in 1500 years due to their preference for
negotiation and buying off the opposition is OK by me.
Sure, that's great. Except for the fact that they were:
1. Unspeakably annoying
2. Ugly as fuck
3. Stupendously annoying
4. Really fucking ugly
5. A cheap Jew-parody
Other than that they were great.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Actually, I laughed. Only then did I tear it
apart.
Well that's fine then. But where's my LOLZ so I can start counting
like joe?
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I hated the Farengi on TNG, but I finally got around to watching DS9 and I like them more now.
|5.23.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Epi,
you have been here way too long not to understand the sinfullness
of a Star Trek joke. even a bad one
|5.23.08 @ 11:37AM|#
In fact, Sistani commands the loyalty of a larger, better
armed, better connected cadre of troops.
Would that be the Mahdi Army that got its ass handed to it by the
Iraqis (backed by Americans) in Basra and Sadr City before the
Iraqis pivoted to focus on Sadr? The same Mahdi Army based in
Shiite areas just recently brought under the control of the Iraqi
government?
If he is turning against the US, it means the US has lost the
most important moderating influence in Iraq.
Iraq will never be stable as long as stability is dependent on the
goodwill of people like Sadr and al-Sistani. Thataway lies
warlordism, civil war, instability, etc. As the Iraqi government
establishes itself, Sadr and al-Sistani will be marginalized, which
may be what we are seeing now. The most important moderating
influence in Iraq needs to be the government, and I think we are
starting to see that happen.
Time will tell, but I don't think this is the disaster that
everyone seems to think. A year ago, sure, but that was when Shiite
militias had the run of the place, which is no longer true.
|5.23.08 @ 11:40AM|#
A cheap Jew-parody
"Ferengi" is a play on the term "Farang," which was applied to the
traders that followed Marco Polo, and is still used in certain
Asian societies to mean "westerner."
Since the only Europeans they met were commercial traders, they
assumed we were a society of people obsessed with wealth.
It has nothing to do with Jews.
|5.23.08 @ 11:40AM|#
The nicest thing Sistani could do at this point is to use
his influence to force a referendum on continued US presence. It
would give the US a golden opportunity to "respect the will of the
Iraqi people" and pull out.
I would have no problem with that (if that's the way the referendum
went). I question whether the Iraqi people are really as stupid as
that, though.
But right now, we are there because the Iraqi government (which,
again, has at least some democratic bona fides) is asking us to be
there. That's why I think any authorization to attack foreign
troops is an implicit attack on the legitimacy of the Iraqi
government.
|5.23.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Oh, and nobody but Episiarch has a sense of humor.
Also, the women who won't date him? Lesbians.
|5.23.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Would that be the Mahdi Army that got its ass handed to it
by the Iraqis (backed by Americans) in Basra and Sadr City before
the Iraqis pivoted to focus on Sadr? The same Mahdi Army based in
Shiite areas just recently brought under the control of the Iraqi
government?
La la la la la, we really whacked those moles this time. Yes, RC,
that's the same Mahdi Army that was trounced at Karbala. In
2003.
Iraq will never be stable as long as stability is dependent on
the goodwill of people like Sadr and al-Sistani. Just ignore
the fact that the "Iraqi Government forces" consist mostly of Badr
Brigate members, and you can keep pretending that this was a blow
against militias.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, can dent the faux-optimism of the Iraq
hawk trying to save face.
|5.23.08 @ 11:47AM|#
The Ferengi were hard-core capitalists.
I put their ugliness, sexism, etc. down to Rodenberry's &
Hollywood's anti-capitalist prejudice. i.e. any negative attribute
the writers could load on the Ferengi was ok because they were
capitalists.
It is hardly surprising that the two "noblest" non-Federation
species were the Romulans and the Klingons; the former a Fascist
Republic and the latter a Feudal Aristocracy.
|5.23.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Clearly, the insurgency is being defeated.
I mean, the Good Guys captured territory! Territory, people!
No lessons. No understanding of the battle. Nothing but feel-good
stories.
people like Sadr and al-Sistani
Lol. Quite the depth of understanding of the situation you've got
there.
|5.23.08 @ 11:54AM|#
R C Dean | June 23, 2004, 12:38pm | #
I would refine your first sentence as follows, unless you want to
make real the fond wishes of the anti-Bush media:
There's no shortage of bad news reports from Iraq out there, but
reports of the good news from Iraq is hard to find.
Your phrasing makes it seem as if there really isn't much good
happening from Iraq, and there really is lots of bad going on
there. While this is what many want you to believe, it ain't
necessarily so.
Pedantically yours,
R C
sos|5.23.08 @ 11:54AM|#
RC Dean asked:
"A question: it seems to me that calling the US presence in Iraq an
"occupation" requires denying the legitimacy of the current Iraqi
government, which does have some democratic bona fides. What is
al-Sistani's take on the current government?'
My response: because Sistani issued a fatwah making voting a
religious duty for his followers, he's probably got a pretty
cynical view on the Iraqi public's enthusiasm for their
government.
If wikipedia is to be trusted, Sistani also had a role in the
replacement of al-Jaafari with al-Maliki, so he may see the
goverment as a useful tool, when suiting his purposes.
Also, the facts that the people voted for candidates whose names
were kept secret, and that the government voted in a constitution
that was still a work in progress, cannot be lost on him.
|5.23.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Skewering al-Sadr
Hanah Metchis | June 23, 2004, 12:17pm
There's no shortage of bad news from Iraq out there, but the good
news is hard to find. I think one of InstaPundit's best features is
his habit of linking to the rare piece of good war news reported in
the media. From him today, a report of how the Army's 1st Armored
Division totally destroyed al-Sadr's army.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:55AM|#
"Ferengi" is a play on the term "Farang," which was applied
to the traders that followed Marco Polo, and is still used in
certain Asian societies to mean "westerner."
joe goes directly to Wikipedia and copies this shit down. joe,
maybe you do have a sense of humor!
Also, the women who won't date him? Lesbians.
Don't project your issues onto me, dude.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 11:59AM|#
It is hardly surprising that the two "noblest"
non-Federation species were the Romulans and the Klingons; the
former a Fascist Republic and the latter a Feudal
Aristocracy.
Actually, in TOS the Klingons were anything but noble. However, the
Romulans were. Balance of Terror, baby.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 12:01PM|#
R.C. Dean,
What are the democratic bona fides of the Iraqi government
exactly?
I think joe makes a good point about the Badr brigades, BTW. This
appears to be more of a struggle for power between various
groupings within the Shi-ite community than a fight between the
Iraqi government and seperatists.
|5.23.08 @ 12:03PM|#
It's on the wikipedia page?
Wow, I guess accurate facts do find their way on therte
sometimes.
|5.23.08 @ 12:04PM|#
joe | June 24, 2004, 12:04pm | #
So let me get this straight: Sadr's military defeat (unquestionably
a defeat, the 1st Armored beat him up good) has made him one of the
most popular figures in Iraq, and he has announced his intention to
use that popularity to accumulate political power.
I guess we can't possibly lose this war, since we keep winning
every battle.
|5.23.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Rathan an ungracious response to be proven wrong.
Throwing around accusations of anti-semitism is a bad game to get
into, Episiarch.
You should just stop drawing attention to yourself at this
point.
|5.23.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Episiarch,
I think the wiki entry is more or less correct. I can't recall the
history book I was reading, but in some Middle Eastern language,
there's a word similar to Ferengi that means "Frank". If I remember
correctly, it was used to refer to westerners in general.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Aresen,
The theme of Klingon corruption and moral decay is actually quite
prominent in the post-TOS series. Indeed, that's eventually why
Worf kills the Klingon Chancellor Gowron.
The Romulan political system is also portrayed negatively, for
example in the TNG two-parter "Unification."
|5.23.08 @ 12:16PM|#
joe
While "farang" may be the word from which "Ferengi" was derived, I
think the "jew parody" has some truth in it.
I remember being very bothered by the Ferengi physical resemblance
to the anti-Semitic caricatures - short, big nose, small eyes,
pointed teeth, etc.
Epi
In TOS, yes. But by TNG, they were clearly drawn on the model of
the Samurai. And their contempt for humans in TOS was later
explained in ENTERPRISE by the "dishonorable" actions of humans (in
Klingon eyes) on the first contact.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 12:17PM|#
ProL, the point is that joe went directly to Wikipedia for his
little "factoid", then pretends he knew it and just happened to say
virtually the exact same thing in the same way.
Now that's funny.
And joe, since you seem so keen on Wikipedia:
"Some have accused the portrayal of the Ferengi of being
anti-Semitic.[5] In the book Religions of Star Trek, Ross S.
Kraemer wrote that "Ferengi religion seems almost a parody of
traditional Judaism... Critics have pointed out a disturbing
correlation between Ferengi attributes (love of profit that
overrides communal decency; the large, sexualized head feature, in
this case ears) and negative Jewish stereotypes."[6] Commentator
Jonah Goldberg wrote that Ferengi were portrayed in The Next
Generation as "runaway capitalists with bullwhips who looked like a
mix between Nazi caricatures of Jews and the original
Nosferatu."[7] The fact that the three most notable Ferengi
characters, Quark, Nog and Rom, are played by Jewish actors Armin
Shimerman, Aron Eisenberg and Max Grodénchik, contributes to this
theory."
|5.23.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Malvolio | October 4, 2007, 11:12am | #
Say, "Not just farang spicy, Thai spicy." ("Farang" being Thai
slang for "Westerner".) But yes, do this at your own risk. Those
hazmat boys were not being entirely overcautious.
Believe it or not, Episiarch, there are actually people in this
world who know things you don't.
No, really.
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 12:19PM|#
I skip all the "Klingon Lore" episodes - they bore me to
tears.
PS. The "Jew" thing has been pointed out many times by many people
over the years.
|5.23.08 @ 12:21PM|#
CC
Conceded.
However, in both cases they were still considered superior to the
Ferengi.
And, for that matter, it was also obvious by DS9 that there was
some pretty serious corruption in the Federation, too. (Section 31,
for example.)
|5.23.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Um, yoo are teh partisan?
Naw, that doesn't fit.
Lessee, "pot calling the kettle black?"
No, no, that doesn't work either.
I know I know! "Projection! Projection!"
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 12:22PM|#
In TOS, yes. But by TNG, they were clearly drawn on the
model of the Samurai. And their contempt for humans in TOS was
later explained in ENTERPRISE by the "dishonorable" actions of
humans (in Klingon eyes) on the first contact.
Absolutely, but in TOS they were lying cheating shitheads with zero
honor as was indicated on multiple occasions, most memorably in
everyone's favorite episode The Trouble with
Tribbles.
In TNG they morphed into the samurai, and the love for their
fascist society was pretty repulsive.
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 12:26PM|#
the love for their fascist society was pretty
repulsive
I never understood why Klingons seem to be Star Trek geeks'
favorite species... their culture is really quite repellent.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Aresen,
However, in both cases they were still considered superior to
the Ferengi.
I think the image of the Ferengi softens a lot over time. Compare
the Enterprise's first encounter with them (remember those whips
that they had?) with all the Quark, Rom, Negus, etc. that ensues on
DS.
Anyway, I never saw the Ferengi as being capitalists; they were in
my mind more like mercantilists.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 12:31PM|#
I never understood why Klingons seem to be Star Trek geeks'
favorite species... their culture is really quite
repellent.
Ever notice that the skinniest, weakest dudes used to play fighters
in D&D with 18/00 strength? I think it sort of relates in to
that. The whole honor/warrior bullshit seems like an overblown
locker room, but I think they like it because they have no idea how
horrible it would be if actually real.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I think the image of the Ferengi softens a lot over
time.
The Ferengi were supposed to be the new arch-enemy but they're so
laughable that Gene and crew quickly pivoted on that. Instead we
got the Borg, which are much better both in believability and
anti-collectivism.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Episiarch,
BTW, I've always wonder what influence the history, etc. of the
Spartans had on the creation of the Klingons post-TOS.
|5.23.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Maybe they should have set up the Mahdi Army as the Federation's
latest arch-enemy.
Apparently, you can stage the most dramatic and impressive battles
against them, achieve a glorious and definitive victory, and still
have them around to do it all again as ratings demand, without any
loss of cointinuity in the storyline.
What's not to love?
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Ignorant fans claim the Borg softened a lot over time too - completely ignoring the fact that such Borg are the ones who were removed from the collective.
|5.23.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Cointinuity is a perfect word for our liberation of Iraq,
joe
at the risk of increasing the turgidity of your smugness, your
12:40pm assessment is brilliant.
|5.23.08 @ 12:59PM|#
It's a Borg world after all.
Little known fact: Bjorn Borg was the progenitor of the Borg. It
all starts when he accidentally goes to a senior tournament on a
planet orbiting Procyon.
|5.23.08 @ 1:01PM|#
CC
I still maintain that the repulsive features of Ferengi culture
were Hollywood's projection of what a "pure capitalist" society
would be like. Also, the "softening", particularly at the end of
DS9, is supposedly due to their adoption of social democratic
values - i.e. morphing into what Hollywood approved of.
And I still admire the Ferengi for not fighting a war in 1500
years. (IIRC, Quark lets this drop during one of the DS9 exchanges
he has with Worf.)
Rhywun
Agree on the admiration for Klingon culture, both in the three
subsequent series (TNG, DS9, & VOYAGER) and in fandom. But
western culture has a long tradition of exalting "warriors".
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 1:04PM|#
BTW, I've always wonder what influence the history, etc. of
the Spartans had on the creation of the Klingons
post-TOS.
Actually, it would be interesting to go back and see what, if
anything, changed in the TNG presentation of the Klingons after
Gene died. If I recall, the whole series lurched into a more PC
mode once Piller and Berman took over and then with Braga coming in
sometimes it got really ridiculous. I wonder if the Klingon-worship
increased at the same time. My guess is yes.
Colin Clout|5.23.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Aresen,
Maybe. I'm just not convinced that the Ferengi were actually
capitalists, as opposed to being mercantilists. I guess that could
fit into your hypothesis though.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 1:19PM|#
I would say that to someone who hates capitalism, they probably see it in a way that is much more like mercantilism. So you could both be right.
Kolohe|5.23.08 @ 1:23PM|#
olitics in TOS were extremely simplistic - exclusively
Kennedy-esque new frontier Cold War but pre-vietnam
consensus.
Politics in the first few seasons of TNG were equally
simplistic.
Star Trek didn't achieve subtlety & nuance - and thus accuracy
- in its portrayal of politics until DS9 and the sixth TOS
movie.
I used to think that the politico-economic system presented in the
first few seasons of TNG was complete crap, a product purely of
"Rodenberry's & Hollywood's anti-capitalist prejudice," but
I've come around on this. Now, I'm not going to deny that such
prejudice exists. But a post-scarcity economy postulated by the
Star Trek universe makes such things as 'we don't believe in money,
we work to better ourselves' plausible and feasible and not just
some aging hippie nonsense.
Oh yeah, we should withdraw our troops from Iraq.
|5.23.08 @ 1:23PM|#
The Borg are the ultimate libertarians. The liberty of a single,
collective whole.
"We are the Borg. We are free to own firearms and smoke crack. We
absorb other cultures, exercising our fundamental right to
assimilate."
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 1:31PM|#
The Borg are the ultimate libertarians.
I first read that as "ultimate librarians" and found myself
agreeing. I guess that tells you about my experiences with
librarians.
Politics in the first few seasons of TNG were equally
simplistic.
Quite. When you can create anything using your transporter
technology, it sort of changes things. And they never really
explored that.
Kolohe|5.23.08 @ 1:33PM|#
I would argue that Rodenberry's death 'un-PC'ed' the franchise; there were a lot less one-dimensional characters (which represents the intersection of lazy writing and PC) starting in the last half of the TNG, and fewer still in DS9. (I will agree that this trend reversed in Voyager; I never saw an episode of Enterprise)
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 1:39PM|#
I never saw an episode of Enterprise
Enterprise, wholly a product of Berman and Braga, was so PC that
the fucking show did a 180 after the first season because it was so
widely reviled. Archer was such a mewling space pansy you just
wanted to beat the shit out of him. Then they tried to make him a
little more Kirk-like but it was pathetic and I stopped
watching.
Very bad show that, to me, indicated that the Star Trek rot came
from Rick and Brannon.
emerson|5.23.08 @ 1:50PM|#
From al-Sistani's Q&A section:
Question: I have been told that I am under Black Magic. I feel that
my mind is blocked and I cannot think and concentrate deeply. Also,
I cannot think constructively which is destroying my professional
and personal life. Kindly suggest... [what] I can do to come out of
this painful trauma.
Answer: We advise you to read the Holy Quran, particularly the four
chapters that begin with "Qul" i.e. "Qul howallahu ahad", "Qul yaa
ayyohal kaferoon", "Qul a'uzo berabbil falagh", and "Qul yaa
ayyohal kaferoon". At the same time, you should visit a doctor.
Rhywun|5.23.08 @ 2:10PM|#
particularly the four chapters that begin with
"Qul"
Are those the chapters L. Ron wrote?
al-Sistani|5.23.08 @ 2:25PM|#
How many will not notice that I recommend the questioner to see
a doctor as a direct refutation of his assertion that he is under
black magic?
I always recommend reading the Koran.
|5.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I think the doctor on DS9 was an Arab. Or something Semitic, like a Carthaginian.
|5.23.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Pro Libertate | May 23, 2008, 2:35pm | #
I think the doctor on DS9 was an Arab. Or something Semitic, like a Carthaginian.
I think his parents were middle-eastern, but the doctor was
revealed to be the product of proscribed genetic enhancement.
|5.23.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Although I actually liked Dr. Bashir, that liking went south really quickly when he took the sandtrout as his own skin and became God-Doctor of DS9. I don't care what they say, that came out of nowhere. Just like the Great Klingon Switchover. Scum, heroic warriors, whatever.
|5.23.08 @ 9:56PM|#
Now, Sistani and Sadr are meeting.
Sadr, who conditioned his agreement to disarm on Sistani, who never
directed him to.
Great. Things are about to get a lot worse.
We could have been out of Iraq years ago.
Jumbie|5.24.08 @ 1:02AM|#
RC Dean keeps talking about the 'defeat of al-Sadr'
recently.
Defense in the National Interest and the Wall Street Journal both
analyse the recent fight as a victory for al Sadr:
"The failure of Mr. al-Maliki's "big push" into Basra put Iraq's
statelessness on display. Ordered to do something it did not want
to do, the Iraqi "army" fell apart, as militias usually fall apart
when given unwelcome directives. Iraqi "soldiers" and "police" went
over or went home, in considerable numbers. Those who did fight had
little fight in them; the affair reportedly ended with the Mahdi
Army controlling more of Basra than it did at the beginning. Mr.
al-Maliki, desperate for a cease-fire, had to agree in advance to
any conditions Muqtada al-Sadr cared to impose."
Much more on whyh al Sadr is stronger than ever here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2008/04/17/on-war-258-a-confirming-moment
and here:
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2008/04/01/basra-sadr-wins-did-america-lose/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245