2 posts tagged “shia”

I think the question should be easily answered. No major scientific breakthroughs in investigative science are required, so we should have an answer once they clear the rubble from the four houses that were destroyed. A battle with militia turned into an air raid. So the battle must have been a heavy one. The funniest thing is that residents (according to my sources) were not aware of any BATTLE, NO EXCHANGE OF GUNFIRE, NO SMOKING GUN, NO MILITIA SMOKING MUSHROOM CLOUDS. But then this could be because the sound of gunfire no longer wakes these residents from their early morning sleep. It happened before the Fajr prayer (pre-dawn). My sources say the 14 killed were ALL women and children, and that none of them were sleeping with weapons in their pajamas or even under their beds.

But we will have to wait for the full report if it ever sees the light of day.

Here is an extract from the famous and reliable sources most people who also watch CNN and FOX will be familiar/comfortable with:

David Rising of Associated Press reporting from BAGHDAD on Sept 6th, 2007 --American and Iraqi Special Forces clashed with suspected Shiite militiamen Thursday in western Baghdad before calling in airstrikes, the U.S. military said. Residents and police said at least 14 people were killed.

As the troops entered the area, they came under fire from more than a dozen militiamen firing from the rooftops.

"Iraqi and U.S. forces then responded with well-aimed and suppressive fire," the military said. "Forces also directed proportional aerial fire onto targeted buildings against positively identified armed gunmen directing small arms fires onto the assault force."

The military reported that four buildings were damaged, "including two enemy strongholds that sustained major damage and two surrounding buildings that sustained moderate damage."

My guess is that the US terrorists are engaged in a campaign to soften the community into ejecting the militia who now control this area. Watch the press for further details about this incident. Search term for your own follow-up:

i would expect this posting could be classified as "hate speech" in less democratic nations. Frankly speaking, i couldn't care less if it is. let me say only that i don't hate anyone, i just don't support some people's choices, and i reserve the right to say so. if and when those choices begin to affect my own life and the life of my family, then my voice will become louder. the right to speak out and to do what i can to establish a community in line with my values, is non-negotiable. if it is not too much to ask for, let those who agree with me also be heard. of course, we have a long way to go before people begin to speak without fear. but let us make a start. open the can of worms so to speak.

Nigeria's Anglican congregation, is second in size only to Britain's. That is news to me. News.24.com carried a report in 2003 in which the typical African opinion was expressed concerning people who choose to engage in homosexual practices:

The primate of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter Akinola, has described the appointment of gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex marriage as "a Satanic attack" on the church.

More recently, (News.24 URL http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2162306,00.html)

Abuja - Eighteen men face charges of sodomy in a Nigerian Islamic court after authorities arrested them as they prepared to take part in a gay marriage, state media reported.

On Tuesday (August 21st, 2007), Ugandan's staged a protest calling for tougher measures by police against people who choose to engage in this particular sexual deviance, actions which are banned in the conservative Christian country. The protest seems in part to have been triggered, by a press conference held by sexual deviants (known as smug) a few days before. The protesters also took the opportunity to object to a report made by the US intern Katherine Roubos in the Daily Monitor, in which she dealt with the experiences of people who choose the homosexual lifestyle in Uganda. The newspaper is owned by Aga Khan, currently visiting East Africa. The Daily Monitor intern has denied campaiging for people who choose a gay lifestyle, saying she was simply doing her job:

I was assigned a story by the editor and I did it objectively. My job is to report on events, not my personal opinions

Notwithstanding the conservative views of Africans, some religious leaders, seeking to impress upon the world  their allegiance to an idea of modernity perhaps at best,  or to satan at worst, continue to insult Africans. In South Africa, conservative religious views are also ignored by the church leadership who is increasingly out of step with political, moral, and generally most social and economic realities in Azania and Africa at large. A major part of this scenario is coloured perhaps by an ingrained racism, even self hatred, which disregards Africans as backward, seeing them as needing to be led, cajoled, and if need be, whipped into a world of modernity.

In a letter to Southern Africa's Anglican Archbishop Ndungane, Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria said:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/10519

What you cited as top priorities are in this context clearly misplaced. I ask, are the issues of peace, hunger, shari'a, and HIV/AIDS, serious and prevalent, as they are, more important to the Church than faithfulness to the plain truth of Scripture?

Ugandans are rightly making some much needed noise on this issue, but they may be missing the point just a bit. Far more damage is being done by media outlets across the continent and no doubt inside Uganda as well. It may be easier to attack the Daily Monitor and it's staff, yet the real culprits are left smiling. The Daily Monitor report may just be the straw that breaks the camels back, yet i would venture to say, the camel needs a back breaking.

Aga Khan's visit is more significant however. He will officiate at the inauguration of the Bujagali hydro-power dam, a multi-national project supported by the World Bank. The Bujagali project will bring many opportunities to Uganda (Mail & Guardian, Azania), and it also symbolises in itself, new alliances and prospects for development. My strange personality smells a rat once again. Our progress as Africans is often hampered by outside influences, who see benefits in sowing division. The Daily Monitor is carrying other significant stories at the moment, yet this one report has become the cause perhaps, of many Ugandans setting the newspaper aside as an unreliable tabloid.

After reading Roubos' report, the mention of so called abuse and oppression and referring to people who choose this lifestyle with the term "gay and lesbian" seems to suggest that the reporter was perhaps out of step with African sentiments. Being American, such errors are to be expected. In Africa, (the topic being taboo from Nigeria and Ghana to Uganda and Azanian) most of us do not consider this to be abuse or oppression at all. Neither do we consider that such people are a natural category of humans, as is the popular belief in some western societies. The term criminal would suffice instead of "gay and lesbian". Roubos should have worded her report differently, and perhaps spoken more in terms of preventing inhuman treatment of those who choose to violate Ugandan law.

Those interested in reading more about the Anglican communion in particular, may wish to visit a blog entitled BOLIVIANBEAT : Building bridges, engaging Truth

p.s.

I would have liked to post this article in the "Gay group" at vox, unfortunately i have been banned from the group for some reason. My hope is that the post reaches the audience it is intended for. The view that this issue is a closed one, is unfounded. Let it be known there are many voices in places where there exist no restrictions on the expression of opposition to this issue as is the case in less democratic western societies where certain views are seen as hate speech.

Expressing these views puts one at risk of losing some alliances and some friends in the process, yet it is any person or community's God-given right to decide it's own course of action, according to it's own values. The fact i am an African, fundamentalist Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or any other number of labels shouldn't make my view any less valid.