> I'm thinking that the inclusion of the word 'muslim'
 > each time
 > an Iraqi does something like this is not necessarilly
 > accurate.

    Charles, if you only wished to point out that I was off topic for one
paragraph, all you had to do was say so. Now you have started a hare. I
hope you enjoy chasing it.

    In this case the inclusion is accurate. The people taking the hostages
are the followers of Mukhtar as Sadr. He is an Iraqi muslim religious
leader leading a sectarian militia. That militia can be seen on TV firing
automatic weapons from the minaret of a mosque, deliberately provoking your
kind of response when your own troops return fire to defend themselves. You
seem to fall into this trap rather a lot.

    The allegation that the mukhtar is a sociopath and a vicious tyrant may
explain why he was not included in the governing council, so starting a new
civil war may well suit him. That is how warlords get rich.

    Furthermore your use of 'each time' in relation to me is faintly
insulting. I have no bias for or against muslims, jews or christians, and
have not made any previous comment on the subject, as you well know. But
now that you have brought it up, I do think that religious nuts are as nuts
as any other kind of nut. Some are even dangerous.

    I am not really surprised at you, Charles. You are not usually so badly
misinformed, but you do tend to play the blame game where you can, and
always chase any distraction to the point of absurdity. I wish you joy of
it. Why not go the whole hog and chase your own buggering bishops? Muslims
don't have a monopoly on evil.

    I make no comment on the conduct of the occupying forces, or on the
armed resistance to the invasion and occupation of the Iraq. Both
occupation and resistance are sanctioned by law and custom. They have their
jobs to do. Let them get on with it. Meantime let us get on with discussing
C.

Best Wishes,
Bill.

---