Why is the Iraq invasion seen as anti-Islamic?
-
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
-
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????:laugh: Bikash Rai
Bikash Rai wrote:
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????
No it would have been deemed a "big mistake" :-)
-
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!
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
And in a wheelchair. Don't forget the handicapped!
Oops, good catch, Ed.
-
Bikash Rai wrote:
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????
No it would have been deemed a "big mistake" :-)
-
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????:laugh: Bikash Rai
Bikash Rai wrote:
Just curious, but had US attacked India, would it have been deemed as Anti-Hinduic??????
Depends on why a country is invaded,you should have comeup with reasons other than that MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
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 ?
Because 30 thousand innocent Islamic men, women, and children have been killed. This war is also a betrayal of Britain and the values we hold, honesty, fair play, supporting the under dog etc. We have suffered, and will suffer, because of Blairs decision to take this country into a war with no legal or moral backing. Nunc est bibendum
