Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
-
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."
-
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.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
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.
Help?what kinda help?what sorta help do you get by War?don`t get ignorant delibrately.. do you even know the meaning of jihad? A/C to me iraqis are just fighting to getrid of *ENEMY* from their homeland..if saving of land is *Jihad* which is actually *Holywar* ,a/c to people like you then i find no intrest to respond you..what yo have been discussing,beeen said lotsa of time on Media. A quick question 4u, why uS attacked on iraq ,whats your thought,i would like to hear what kinda stuff come from your side comeup with your own views,rather being next Mohd.Al-bardai (IAEA guy) 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.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Really, you want to continue the discussion, stay on topic.
buzz of lame man,i have experienced yo more than one time here,you don`t know stuff about your own country and preaching me here,really,i woudn`t even bother to respond you further MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
sweety,
And now I guess I'll use camel dick as a condescending, cutesy name for you. Oh, wait. I already do. :mad: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
hahaha,stay away filthy animal 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. If the same Kurd had survived and died from an American bomb he suddenly becomes a Muslim ?
-
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
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
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
And in a wheelchair. Don't forget the handicapped!
-
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.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
From Wikipedia : On May 14, 1948, before
do you need somenoe to educate you about 48 war? situation was very different in 1948 than today..at that time ,israelities and arab fought cos jews captured the palestine land by showing wickedness dont go so far man,its about 91 i thnk when persian gulf got started,saddam fired Scuds on israel..why on earth israel didn`t respond back?are you gonna say that jews were being darling towards iraqis that they FORGAVE iraqi govt? remember patriot missile? US has always protected Israel and still doing..how come Iraq was threat to USA?sounds funny..same gonig with Iran..lots of resolutions were vetoed by USA who were against Israel. Dude,don`t try to make impression anyway that this war was for Saddam only,or Kurds shit.. BTW,do you think existance of israel is legtimate? 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
Maximilien wrote:
AFAI(Understand), the Iran-Iraq was a war between the USA and USSR with proxy.
I might not disagree that if it was b/w US and USSR..but its not point iran was aided or not..it is tht same saddam was met by Rumsfeld during war and no doubt Iraq was aided by US govt.. MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
've seen Adnans spelling. It could've been worse!
does it matter here? 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.
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
He meant the second one. Re the real crusade : Almost all of the lands the crusades were fought over are in Israel now.
:laugh: did he come to tell you after searching MW dictionary?make some sense man, if he really meant something else,he woudn`t have twisted the statment later,if you remember,he was told not to dsicuss Crusades stuff in such hot situation MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
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 :-)
:laugh: agree Nish,lets name him as Mr.Sam Bush MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
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
do u know meaning of fatwa?just curious 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.
are u trying to justify American Invasion which was opposed by millions of people? y0u need to make some searches on net to know the stuff[^] going on MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Rutger Ellen wrote:
So the next US president should call himself abdulla al america bin USA ???
And look like this ? :-D
looks a typical pathan MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
've seen Adnans spelling. It could've been worse!
does it matter here? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
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 :-)
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????:laugh: Bikash Rai
-
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."
Reverend Satan wrote:
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.
This is a complete non sequitur. No doubt the Soviet Union wished to extend its influence, but the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran, for example, did not have obvious common cause with the atheistic communists of the Soviet Union, nor did any other nation in the region. I don't believe for a second that the neglect of human rights considerations was a strategic necessity; rather, it resulted from a lack of concern for human rights.
Reverend Satan wrote:
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.
Actually, I would be delighted to see Iraq fulfill George Bush's predictions of a thriving secular democracy, acting as a model for the rest of the Middle East. That would be something substantial to balance off against the illegal Iraq war, the associated damage to international institutions, the increased incentive for defensive nuclear proliferation among countries fearful that they will suffer Iraq's fate, the loss of moral authority resulting from US military aggression and its resort to torture, and the substantial boost to international terrorism resulting from outrage at the US invasion. Alas, a thriving secular democracy doesn't appear to be in prospect. Rather, it seems likely that Iraq will have an Islamic government that oppresses women and has strong theocratic elements. Far from saving the world from Islamic fundamentalism, the Iraq war has reinforced it, both within Iraq and elsewhere. And of course things could get worse, all the way up to a civil war and destabilisation of the whole region. John Carson
