IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Politics > World Politics
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Osama bin Laden  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedOsama bin Laden

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 20>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
b95000 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 11 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1328
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Mishmish Mishmish wrote:

You mean the Christians who took the Holy Lands from the Jews? If we go back far enough all lands belong to Allah.

B: Are you claiming that Christians were not killed and harassed for the first 500 years of their existence?  And in part by the Jews of that time?  Come on Mishmish..Christianity grew despite its initial persecution and not primarily through violence - AT ALL.  It was not even adopted by a state til Constatine..Jerusalem, Bethlehem, et al were holy because of Jesus Christ, not because of some war!

The Muslims had political control of the Holy Lands for almost 400 years before the Crusades. During that time the Sciences and educational institutions flourished. Students from all over the world came to the Middle east to learn. There was no persecution based on religion. When the Crusaders came they killed all, Muslim and Jew alike. 

B: 'Political control' that came through military conquest.  'no persecution' as long as those religions submitted to Islam and were subjected to pay it tributes (taxes.)  That doesn't sound like freedom Mishmish.

I believe I was replying to your comment that my assertion that the US was the #1 backer of Saddam was absurd.

B: You mention a few years in the 80s. Saddam was in power 25 years or so...what about all that other time...you mean to tell me there was not a SIGNIFICANT relationship between Saddam and the Soviet Union?  There as indeed...but you ignore that..

And where are the American Indians who made treaties with the Settlers?

B: Most American Indians, South Am. Indians, etc. that died, died of germs that they were not resistant to...that is a fact...I am not saying they've had it easy...they have not.  There are American Indians all ove the US though..

I could blast the European slave-traders or the American slave-traders.  What is your point? Are you really trying to say that the US is not guilty of any wrong doing, ever?  That the Christians have never committed any crimes or atrocities. You are the one with the agenda here. Apparently Whisper was right when he said that you wanted only to cause problems.

B: Ah, but what's your point: "Muslims were minding their own business" and yet you chide me for trying to provide some balance to that exaggeration that cannot stand the light of historical fact.  How is that 'causing problems' to discuss history?  Sorry you see it that way or that you must have me agree with you for there to be 'no problems.'

Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Back to Top
Mishmish View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1694
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 8:20pm

You mean the Christians who took the Holy Lands from the Jews? If we go back far enough all lands belong to Allah.

The Muslims had political control of the Holy Lands for almost 400 years before the Crusades. During that time the Sciences and educational institutions flourished. Students from all over the world came to the Middle east to learn. There was no persecution based on religion. When the Crusaders came they killed all, Muslim and Jew alike.  

I believe I was replying to your comment that my assertion that the US was the #1 backer of Saddam was absurd.

And where are the American Indians who made treaties with the Settlers?

I could blast the European slave-traders or the American slave-traders...

What is your point? Are you really trying to say that the US is not guilty of any wrong doing, ever? That the Christians have never committed any crimes or atrocities. You are the one with the agenda here. Apparently Whisper was right when he said that you wanted only to cause problems.

It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
Back to Top
b95000 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 11 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1328
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 7:34pm
"I believe that the Indian tribes who armed themselves and fought against the Calvary were trying to survive an invasion by group of settlers who had the mind set that they had all rights to this country and everything in it."

=======================

Kind of like the Christians that fought the Muslim invaders of their holy lands and elsewise?  How can you make such turn on a dime distinctions?

As to the American Indians - there were many tribes that made treaties and peace with the European settlers and many that did not.  Indiginous peoples have had a tough road to hoe, but not just here, why aren't you blasting on the Spanish and Portuguese and the Mulsim slave traders?  I think your agenda might be leaking through?

As to the US support of Saddam - in turns, as I've mentioned already, Saddam played both ends against the middle in the cold war with the US and Russia and also with France and Germany, et al...why no mention of them in your diatribes?

Be comprehensive in your critique and perhaps I'll believe that you are trying to be honest here and not just pursue a biased agenda Mishmish..


Edited by b95000
Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Back to Top
Mishmish View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1694
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 2:13pm

Originally posted by b95000 b95000 wrote:


 Do you disagree that the Indian tribes that opposed the US Calvary at that time were armed and trying to defeat that army?

I believe that the Indian tribes who armed themselves and fought against the Calvary were trying to survive an invasion by group of settlers who had the mind set that they had all rights to this country and everything in it.

The Indians didn't invite them to their country and they certainly didn't ask them to take their lands and destroy their way of life. Heck, they probably didn't even asked to be massacred. That's something that we seem to be able to accomplish on our own without any invitations.

Throughout history cultures have long felt it their duty to go forth and spread their brand of civilization to those they deem lesser in some respect. America is no less guilty of this than any powerful nation, and much more guilty of it than  most. It is our policy of:  it's OK to do it to everyone else, but not OK if they do it to us, that has caused us to become so reviled around the world. People like you need to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OK, no matter who is doing it, or what they consider the justification.

We invaded this country and stole it from the indigenous inhabitants, killing most of them and herding the rest onto Reservations, but to you that's a war. The US winks and nods and sets up regimes around the world with half-crazed psychopaths that commit horrible atrocities and that's OK. But then when these psychos quit doing our bidding or turn on us, well that's unacceptable. Then they are EVIL and must be gotten rid of.  The US trained Osama bin Ladin and most of Al Qaeda. We made them into very efficient killing machines, and as long as they were killing the EVIL commies it was OK. But, as soon as they turned against us it was not so OK.

Wake up and smell the hummus brother. The US has sent out enough BAD to last for generations. Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim you have to believe that your deeds come back to you in this life or the next. I'm thinking some of our deeds are coming home, and instead of being SO shocked, we should be expecting it.

I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
Back to Top
Mishmish View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1694
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 1:54pm
 
 
Iraq is known to have used the blister agent mustard gas from 1983 and the nerve gas Tabun from 1985, as it faced attacks from "human waves" of Iranian troops and poorly-trained but loyal volunteers. Tabun can kill within minutes.

In 1988 Iraq turned its chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country.

Some Kurdish guerrilla forces had joined the Iranian offensive.

On 16 March 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.

Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.

Chemical weapons were also used during Iraq's "Anfal" offensive - a seven-month scorched-earth campaign in which an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared, and hundreds of villages were razed.

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

WESTERN SUPPORT 1980-1988

The West's relations with Iraq warmed throughout the war, culminating in military intervention on the Iraqi side.

The West feared the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini's radical Islamism and wanted to prevent an Iranian victory.

The US removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism in 1982.

Two years later it re-established diplomatic relations, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Iraq's principal arms source was its long-time ally the USSR.

But several western nations, including Britain, France, and the US, also supplied weapons or military equipment to Iraq, and the US shared intelligence with Saddam Hussein's regime.

But the Iran-Contra scandal - revelations that the US had been covertly selling arms to Iran in the hope of securing the release of hostages held in Lebanon - caused friction between the US and Baghdad.

In the closing stages of the war, Iran and Iraq turned their military power on commercial oil tankers in the Gulf to sabotage each others' export profits.

US, British and French warships were sent to the Gulf, where several Kuwaiti tankers facing Iranian attacks were given US flags and military escorts.

As the "tanker war" progressed, the US warships also destroyed a number of Iranian oil platforms and - accidentally, according to Washington - shot down an Iranian airbus carrying 290 civilians.

It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
Back to Top
Mishmish View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1694
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 1:45pm
Published on Friday, August 2, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
The Saddam in Rumsfeld�s Closet
by Jeremy Scahill
 

�Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.�
�Donald Rumsfeld

Five years before Saddam Hussein�s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld�s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed �topics of mutual interest,� according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. �[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,� Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. �It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.�

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States �in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be �contrary to U.S. interests� and has made several moves to prevent that result.�

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: �Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.�

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. �Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,� the U.N. report said. �The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.�

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying �available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.�

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, �We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.�

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick�s reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department �evidence.� On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, �American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.�

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld�s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld�s achievements helping to �reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.� The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan�s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

�First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.�

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department�in the name of �increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market��pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam �transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.�

In 1988, Saddam�s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they �believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.�

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq�s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an �open letter� to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate �the threat posed by Saddam.� It urged Clinton to �provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.�

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world�s attention to Saddam�s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had �available evidence� Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam�s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that �the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.�

But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld�s voice at the very moment when Iraq�s alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.

It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
Back to Top
b95000 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 11 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1328
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 12:59pm
"The US was the number one backer of Saddam and his Baathist party."

That's absurd as some of your other comments I'm afraid railing on my historicity!  If you look at Saddam he was a master opportunist...he manipulated the Russia, the US, Iran, France, Germany, the UN, et al, each in their turn...do you deny these clear facts?
Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Back to Top
b95000 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Joined: 11 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1328
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2005 at 12:58pm
Oh Mishmish, you're going to lecture us on historicity when you're claiming the Muslims were 'minding their own business' in the Crusades...

I never said there were not atrocities...re-read my comments...I will not take your insults of me unless you deal with what I wrote...yes, it was a war...many of the tribes signed treaties...am I saying to you now that they were treated 'really well' - no I'm not - and we haven't even discussed that point but you're off trying to blast the historicity of this discussion and we've barely even touched the surface!  When groups of armed men battle each other - it's typically called 'war.'  Do you disagree?  Do you disagree that the Indian tribes that opposed the US Calvary at that time were armed and trying to defeat that army?
Bruce
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 20>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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