Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
-
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
-
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
What the US needs to do, to confirm with its own elated standards of political correctness, is to have as its next President, a Muslim woman of African and Asian lineage, who is also gay. Then the rest of the world will have to shut up for 4 years :-D
-
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ??? :P
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
And look like this ? :-D
-
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
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
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
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
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
-
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
And look like this ? :-D
Would he have to deliver a "State of the Union Fatwah"? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Psssssssst, duplicate post :-D
-
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."
Reverend Satan wrote:
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.
Let's see now. Absent the Iraq-Iran war (which was started by Iraq, not Iran), the USSR would have controlled the Middle East? Is that right? How would this have come about exactly? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
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.
Let's see now. Absent the Iraq-Iran war (which was started by Iraq, not Iran), the USSR would have controlled the Middle East? Is that right? How would this have come about exactly? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
The Soviet's stated ambtions were world domination. As the last time I checked, the middle east was part of the world, it follows that it was included. The Soviets were very active in the middle east, one of their most critical long term ambitions was (1) to control western access to oil supplies, and, (2), even more importanly, to control that area in order to have easy naval access to the Indian ocean since one of their largest problems militarily was that they only had access to international waters via the North sea. Most of our cold war activities in the middle east were designed specifically to thwart those ambtions. From supporting Israel, to establishing the Shah of Iran, to Saddam, we played a chess game with them in the region that, for all of our bad moves, ultimately had the desired affect (well, I mean unless, like most lefties, you actually wnated the Soviets to win). "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
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."
Just apply historical hindsight to see that military meddling in the area (or any area, one could say) is almost always a bad idea. The Soviets wouldn't have had any better luck "controlling" the Middle East than we've had. Our involvement in Afghanistan was minimal, and yet Soviet ass was thoroughly kicked (just like ours in Viet Nam). The only controls any nation can exert on another that seem to have any lasting power or positive effect are economic and cultural, and the Soviets had neither deep pockets, nor a culture of personal freedom. We have both, although both are currently being depleted at an alarming rate.
-
What on earth does your reply have to do with his question? :confused: Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic. This is not the place to flex your non sequitur muscles.
Ah, but you forget...he does this ALL the time. This is why it is futile to discuss anything with him. Besides, according to him, it's all in the Qu'ran anyways so it's actually irrational to question anything.
-
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
-
The Soviet's stated ambtions were world domination. As the last time I checked, the middle east was part of the world, it follows that it was included. The Soviets were very active in the middle east, one of their most critical long term ambitions was (1) to control western access to oil supplies, and, (2), even more importanly, to control that area in order to have easy naval access to the Indian ocean since one of their largest problems militarily was that they only had access to international waters via the North sea. Most of our cold war activities in the middle east were designed specifically to thwart those ambtions. From supporting Israel, to establishing the Shah of Iran, to Saddam, we played a chess game with them in the region that, for all of our bad moves, ultimately had the desired affect (well, I mean unless, like most lefties, you actually wnated the Soviets to win). "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I note that you have made no attempt to answer the question. I can give you points for consistency, however. Just as the problem of anti-US terrorism provides Bush with an excuse to invade a country not involved in it, so the problem of Soviet expansionism provides an all-purpose justification for any and all US foreign policy interventions. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
I note that you have made no attempt to answer the question. I can give you points for consistency, however. Just as the problem of anti-US terrorism provides Bush with an excuse to invade a country not involved in it, so the problem of Soviet expansionism provides an all-purpose justification for any and all US foreign policy interventions. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
I answered your question directly, the Soviets would have taken the region by default given a power vacume created by the US not acting through what ever proxies in the region were the most convinient for our purposes or that could be propped up by us by what ever means necessary. Say what you want to about the means, the end was not a nuclear holocaust or a world subjegated to Moscow, so obviously we did something correctly. And, BTW, you're welcome. But you are correct, just as the left never appreciated the danger of the USSR, and was horrified at its final defeat which gave the US unparalleled hegemony, any success we might have elsewhere, including a perfectly justifiable and legal invasion of Iraq, is also seen as a dangerous increase in AMerican hegemony by the left. It is perfectly understandable that the left would feel threatened by such an overt exercise in American exceptionalism. Nothing is more important to the left than 'balanceing out' the capitalistic and social power of the US - regardless of how dangerous the threat that is required to do it. But get used to it, we saved the world from fascism, we saved the world from communism and we are going to save the world from Islamic fundamentalism, and in the process we are going to save it from the totalitarian leftists of the west. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
