Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
-
if i am recruited to some non-pakistani army which invades pakistan and I am asked to drop bombs on my own area,i won`t feel it comfortable..regardless of my faith. it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks,not baath party leaders,they are still alive and look well. i would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..these days,iran is in Focus, and Iranian president is only threatening to israel(he`s an idiot,i must say).If Iran is attacked,the US won`t be responsible for it. MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim. If the same Kurd had survived and died from an American bomb he suddenly becomes a Muslim ?
-
if i am recruited to some non-pakistani army which invades pakistan and I am asked to drop bombs on my own area,i won`t feel it comfortable..regardless of my faith. it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks,not baath party leaders,they are still alive and look well. i would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..these days,iran is in Focus, and Iranian president is only threatening to israel(he`s an idiot,i must say).If Iran is attacked,the US won`t be responsible for it. MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..t
As well as **Oil** protection :laugh: Imtiaz
-
From a newspaper article :
Some Britain-based young Muslims have described themselves as feeling "betrayed" by Britain's decision to take part in the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Saddam's (Baath Party) was a secular Arab Nationalist regime. America's first attack on Iraq was to free Kuwait, a conservative Islamic country. If the first attack wasn't seen as anti-Islam, why is the second one seen as anti-Islam ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
America's first attack on Iraq was to free Kuwait
that`s funnyt though..how would US wasn`t aware of movement of Tanks in the presence of such a hi-fi weaponry. An intresting article on about how US plants evidence http://irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg\_id=0000y6&topic\_id=1&topic=Irish Anti-War MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim. If the same Kurd had survived and died from an American bomb he suddenly becomes a Muslim ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
When a Kurd is gassed by Saddams regime isn't a Muslim.
do i need to remind you that Saddam and Osama ,both were darling of US like Musharraf in 21st century? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
if i am recruited to some non-pakistani army which invades pakistan and I am asked to drop bombs on my own area,i won`t feel it comfortable..regardless of my faith. it was not about saddam,you should realize that only muslim citizens are being killed in US attacks,not baath party leaders,they are still alive and look well. i would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..these days,iran is in Focus, and Iranian president is only threatening to israel(he`s an idiot,i must say).If Iran is attacked,the US won`t be responsible for it. MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
i would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..these days,iran is in Focus, and Iranian president is only threatening to israel(he`s an idiot,i must say).If Iran is attacked,the US won`t be responsible for it
Israel has the capability to deliver a devastating pre-emptive strike if ever it felt that an attack was imminent. So, the 'protecting Israel' argument does not hold much water. It was more protecting Saudi and Kuwait. I don't see anything anti-Islamic here. Maybe all of this was prompted by a hunger for oil. So what ? I don't see anything anti-Islamic in a hunger for oil. Do you ?
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
America's first attack on Iraq was to free Kuwait
that`s funnyt though..how would US wasn`t aware of movement of Tanks in the presence of such a hi-fi weaponry. An intresting article on about how US plants evidence http://irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg\_id=0000y6&topic\_id=1&topic=Irish Anti-War MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
If they had planted evidence then they would have found what they planted. I don't believe they are that dumb.
-
From a newspaper article :
Some Britain-based young Muslims have described themselves as feeling "betrayed" by Britain's decision to take part in the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Saddam's (Baath Party) was a secular Arab Nationalist regime. America's first attack on Iraq was to free Kuwait, a conservative Islamic country. If the first attack wasn't seen as anti-Islam, why is the second one seen as anti-Islam ?
A good point - Saddam is respinsible for the deaths of somewhere between 1 and 2 million mulsims! This includes the Iran-Iraq war which he instigated. The tigress is here :-D
-
If they had planted evidence then they would have found what they planted. I don't believe they are that dumb.
do you remember the REASON of US ,getting into MiddleEast,when iraq attacked on Kuwait,they are not using some INVISIBLE armed force..how coudn`t US find that iraqis are approaching towards Kuwait?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
I don't believe they are that dumb
the 2003 iraq war was based on false intelligence,a man went on false info and faced embarassment why are you willing to deny that it wasn`t matter of Saddam only?you talk about kurds,a LOT more muslims have been killed in current invasion than kurds.Gasing kurds is nothing but a lame excuse,alot of muslims are suffering in other part of worlds too,why dont US invade Israel on killing of palestinians..why not Kashmiri ppl are saved from Indian army violence US Administration don`t show sympathy for muslims..even bush himself admitted that Muslim world(specially arabs have haterd against USA),there would be rason for that?why not same feelings are found for Italians or others? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..t
As well as **Oil** protection :laugh: Imtiaz
i dont thnk it was matter of oil..somewhat iraqi oik was being transferred to israel by other means(AFAIK) MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
A good point - Saddam is respinsible for the deaths of somewhere between 1 and 2 million mulsims! This includes the Iran-Iraq war which he instigated. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
This includes the Iran-Iraq war which he instigated.
sweety,saddam was US ally during iran-iraq war do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
do you remember the REASON of US ,getting into MiddleEast,when iraq attacked on Kuwait,they are not using some INVISIBLE armed force..how coudn`t US find that iraqis are approaching towards Kuwait?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
I don't believe they are that dumb
the 2003 iraq war was based on false intelligence,a man went on false info and faced embarassment why are you willing to deny that it wasn`t matter of Saddam only?you talk about kurds,a LOT more muslims have been killed in current invasion than kurds.Gasing kurds is nothing but a lame excuse,alot of muslims are suffering in other part of worlds too,why dont US invade Israel on killing of palestinians..why not Kashmiri ppl are saved from Indian army violence US Administration don`t show sympathy for muslims..even bush himself admitted that Muslim world(specially arabs have haterd against USA),there would be rason for that?why not same feelings are found for Italians or others? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
US Administration don`t show sympathy for muslims
That may be true. But it isn't because they hate Muslims, it's because they are too busy pursuing their own interests. It isn't right to wage jihad on someone because he is too busy to help you.
-
If they had planted evidence then they would have found what they planted. I don't believe they are that dumb.
remember Bush discussd about Crusades[^],after 9/11 attack? if you read the date on article,its 16Sept,2001,5 days after attack..wondering how CIA found so fast about Osama and Co and coudn`t find WMD :> ? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
i would rather consider it for sake of israel protection..these days,iran is in Focus, and Iranian president is only threatening to israel(he`s an idiot,i must say).If Iran is attacked,the US won`t be responsible for it
Israel has the capability to deliver a devastating pre-emptive strike if ever it felt that an attack was imminent. So, the 'protecting Israel' argument does not hold much water. It was more protecting Saudi and Kuwait. I don't see anything anti-Islamic here. Maybe all of this was prompted by a hunger for oil. So what ? I don't see anything anti-Islamic in a hunger for oil. Do you ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Israel has the capability to deliver a devastating pre-emptive strike if ever it felt that an attack was immine
do u think jews/zions are so dumb thaty they play on front?Imagine israel attack on a muslim country,52 islamic states ppl would produce enough anger to force a Muslim state to go agains Israel and ultimately USA.. USA don`t want it..why do israel come in front when Big Daddy is around? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Trollslayer wrote:
This includes the Iran-Iraq war which he instigated.
sweety,saddam was US ally during iran-iraq war do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
sweety,
:laugh: are you going to get it !!!
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID?
As were the iranians who were financed by the USSR. AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
remember Bush discussd about Crusades[^],after 9/11 attack? if you read the date on article,its 16Sept,2001,5 days after attack..wondering how CIA found so fast about Osama and Co and coudn`t find WMD :> ? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
remember Bush discussd about Crusades[^],after 9/11 attack?
The word Crusade has two meanings
MW Dictionary
Main Entry: 1cru·sade Pronunciation: krü-'sAd Function: noun Etymology: blend of Middle French croisade & Spanish cruzada; both ultimately from Latin cruc-, crux cross 1 capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims 2 : a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm
He meant the second one. Re the real crusade : Almost all of the lands the crusades were fought over are in Israel now.
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
sweety,
:laugh: are you going to get it !!!
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
do u think iraq was capble to expand war for sveeral years against without any AID?
As were the iranians who were financed by the USSR. AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
Maximilien wrote:
AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Israel has the capability to deliver a devastating pre-emptive strike if ever it felt that an attack was immine
do u think jews/zions are so dumb thaty they play on front?Imagine israel attack on a muslim country,52 islamic states ppl would produce enough anger to force a Muslim state to go agains Israel and ultimately USA.. USA don`t want it..why do israel come in front when Big Daddy is around? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Imagine israel attack on a muslim country,52 islamic states ppl would produce enough anger to force a Muslim state to go agains Israel and ultimately USA..
They have fought two wars before.
From Wikipedia :
On May 14, 1948, before the expiring of the British Mandate of Palestine on midnight of the May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. The surrounding Arab states supported the Palestinian Arabs in rejecting both the Partition Plan and the establishment of Israel, and the armies of six Arab nations attacked the State of Israel. Over the next 15 months Israel captured an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river and annexed it to the new state. Most of the Arab population fled or were expelled during the war. The continuing conflict between Israel and the Arab world resulted in a lasting displacement that persists to this day.
The first one was fought when their country was one day old. This country has been around now for more than 50 years. They must have grown some since then.
-
Maximilien wrote:
AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy
The choices that the US faced - (a) standing by and letting the USSR control the middle east, along with the rest of the planet, or (b) resorting to a full scale nuclear exchange with the soviets or (c) supporting anti-sovient madmen as proxies against pro-soviet proxies - all seem to be lost on people. The Islamic world owes its very existence to the west, especially the US. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Well said. He seems to be so poisoned by his own anti-US/Israel hatred that he fails to see it has nothing to do with Islam. It is sad that so many people have had to die for reasons that many of us can't or don't understand. But you really can't expect a government to divulge everything ti knows prior to a war: perhaps the WMD etc was deliberate misdirection. In the meantime while there are hateful little muslims around like Adnan Siddiqi nothing will change.
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
From a newspaper article :
Some Britain-based young Muslims have described themselves as feeling "betrayed" by Britain's decision to take part in the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Saddam's (Baath Party) was a secular Arab Nationalist regime. America's first attack on Iraq was to free Kuwait, a conservative Islamic country. If the first attack wasn't seen as anti-Islam, why is the second one seen as anti-Islam ?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
Cause Saddam Hussain is an Islamic name. Now if he was called Johnny Brown or something, it'd have been a regular war :-)
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
Cause Saddam Hussain is an Islamic name. Now if he was called Johnny Brown or something, it'd have been a regular war :-)
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P