IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Politics > Current Events
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How Many Prefer their Lands Under Amreeki  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

How Many Prefer their Lands Under Amreeki

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
Author
Message
Whisper View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 25 July 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whisper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How Many Prefer their Lands Under Amreeki
    Posted: 03 November 2005 at 2:58pm

Very simple question. Amreeka is the most "benevolent" thing in the world. In fact, some people (won't mention their names) take it to be Extra Additional Assistant Deputy Gaad.

Would you like your country to be occupied by Amreeka?

Back to Top
ak_m_f View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 October 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ak_m_f Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2005 at 6:13pm
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

<FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" color=#0066cc size=3>Very simple question. Amreeka is the most "benevolent" thing in the world. In fact, some people (won't mention their names) take it to be Extra Additional Assistant Deputy Gaad.


<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0066cc size=3>Would you like your country to be occupied by Amreeka?



ofcourse no one will want that
Back to Top
b95000 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 11 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote b95000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2005 at 1:04pm
American troops are in the Middle East, are in Iraq and Afghanistan for very specific reasons...if not for egregious violations of international law, do you think American troops would be present on the ground?  I'll answer that question - NO.

For America's duplicity in Saddam's past - I apologize.  For America's involvement in the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan - people of goodwill should be grateful and should participate in and promote the liberation of all peoples and nations in the ME.

Kudos to a free-er Middle East away from the compulsion of dictatorial leadership.
Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Back to Top
Whisper View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 25 July 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whisper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2005 at 3:31am

For America's duplicity in Saddam's past - I apologize. 

Thanks Bruce, for your such a bold gentlemanly step, which makes it possible for us to discuss on some shared ground.

Freedom is a great gift, it empowers people, it nourishes them. But, freedom and specially democracy works only when it's homegrown. When it's injected by a foreign power, with own interests in the region, it develops not just some serious, but extremely fatal, side effects.

The people of goodwill have the example of an imperial solution imposed on the Mid East just 80 years ago, by the then Super Power of the day. What did it create? Freedom? Peace? Stability?

Or, just plain simple terror that has overspilled al boundaries?

What about freedom and a bit of democracy for the poor people of Egypt? They have suffered the same brutal regime for two dozen years.

What about the 152 million Pakistanis being occupied by their own army?

We would have seen the American aims in a different light had the US not placed CIA operatives to head Afghanistan and Iraq + had not constructed 14 of her largest bases in the world around Iraq.

After 9/11, everything changed. The "neocon" hawks such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle saw Iraq as the anvil on which they could forge a realignment of the Middle East, favourable to the United States and Israel, would be struck. The new Iraq, they argued, would inject stable democracy into a region of tyrants.

Colin Powell may have thought the standard bearers of this strategy were "f***ing crazies", and history's verdict looks likely to be that it was terminally flawed both in conception and execution.

You be the judge and tell us who has been right in the scenario on the ground, today, the NeoCons or Colin Powell?

Back to Top
kim! View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 17 September 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2390
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kim! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 November 2005 at 4:20am
Ask the Latin Americans:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/305724.html
Back to Top
Whisper View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 25 July 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whisper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 November 2005 at 6:13am
Have you been off for your birthday? Can never miss it, you are a day younger than my younger son!
Back to Top
Community View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar
Joined: 19 May 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Community Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 November 2005 at 3:57pm

"We would have seen the American aims in a different light had the US not placed CIA operatives to head Afghanistan and Iraq + had not constructed 14 of her largest bases in the world around Iraq."

How would you have seen the American aims had the US not put more favorable people to head Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously, is it not logical that a nation who has a problem with groups in that specific region to have the wish to see people in power who would not impose a threat to it or it's interests? Another question to all of you, is it good to be a threat to the US and it's interests if freedom empowers people and nourishes them? Yes the US has problems and issues, but are these a sound basis for being a threat to them? or is freedom an open way for anyone who wishes to try and fix those problems and issues?

 I am sure many will agree when i say that people should work for betterment of their ownselves and the world, if you think i am talking about getting a better house, car or job then you should check yourself and ask yourself if that is what your life is for. Betterment instead of trying to destroy and being a threat is what a true human being does. I do not hope for an answer from Whisper, since i had enough experience with him that he rather avoids any serious questions and chooses to play the counter-cards. But nevertheless i believe these questions are worth considering.

Back to Top
rami View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Male
Joined: 01 March 2000
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 November 2005 at 9:28pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

How would you have seen the American aims had the US not put more favorable people to head Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously, is it not logical that a nation who has a problem with groups in that specific region to have the wish to see people in power who would not impose a threat to it or it's interests?

Hence the imperialist tag, it does things for its best interest regardless of the local population.


Edited by rami
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.