sms2003 wrote: I would like to know people's opinions about the American Troops in Iraq.  I am researching for a school project and would like to hear different perspectives about the American Troops and what they are/not accomplishing.

what are they accomplishing? making american oligarchs even richer. creating the image around the world of america as a rogue nation and terrorist state.

American troops are great and we love them - as long as they are kept under lock and key in their own country. When Muslims find them in their lands, they are tempted to use them for target practice.

I wonder if many Americans know that 9/11 happened in response to US placing troops in Saudi Arabia.

US troops have accomplished a hell of a lot, they have given US a very filthy image.

Shamil,  I am from the U.S. and I agree with you that the American Troops are accomplishing nothing in Iraq.  I also agree that they are making it seems like Iraq is nothing but a terrorist region, and they are trying to enforce a new system that the muslims do not believe in.  Can you tell me how this is making the American oligarchs even richer?

Rami,  I also agree with everything you said.  I have always felt that the American Troops were there just to enforce a new government and belief system on Iraq.  I don't believe that they should be doing this because ironically America was supposed to stand for freedom of religion, oppression, and freedom of your own beliefs.  So why would we go into another country and do just the opposite?

Thank you both for your input on the matter. I appreciate your comments and you have helped greatly with my project.

sms2003 wrote: Shamil,  I am from the U.S. and I agree with you that the American Troops are accomplishing nothing in Iraq.  I also agree that they are making it seems like Iraq is nothing but a terrorist region, and they are trying to enforce a new system that the muslims do not believe in.  Can you tell me how this is making the American oligarchs even richer?

The contracts for rebuilding Iraq were all awarded to American companies without any bidding. The companies simply stated a price and they got it. Iraqis were given no chance to participate. Halliburton, whom the vice president once worked for, reported profits of over 130 percent this past year as a result. Bechtel received billions for reconstruction, none of which they have begun.

Those are only two examples but that's the pattern.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml - http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9248 - http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9248

The Connections between Saddam and terrorist groups like Hamas, and al Aqsa Martyr's brigade and most notoriously al Qaeda,

If you could prove that you should be granted the Medal of Honour because even your President could not prove anything of this sort despite all his attempts.

Do you get your briefing from Sharon or just from the Tel Aviv disinformation brigade?

Leave something for us to respect you with, please.

sms2003

Do not think American troops are in Iraq helping Iraqis. They are there to help modern day East India Companies. You need to see how East india company helped itself in occupying India. It is just not the Iraq issue. You would need to study Euoropean /British colonialism. The oil producing middle east is divied up likes of colonial British India. Where few thousand soldiers occupied the whole sub continent. They had puppet nawabs and Rajas ruling on behalf of brits,with army cantonment all over to scare the hell out of locals ;divide and conquer was the rule and is the rule in Iraq today. In Iraq they have played the Sunni vs Shia card in a big way. The animosity generated by secular Shias the likes of Ahmed Chalabi and others who pushed  the Christian Zionist-Neo-con group WMD propaganda machine, to attack Iraq, is not going to die down any time soon.  http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm - http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm  

I will give yankees credit for picking a weak link in Muslims in general but Arabs in particuler. Just this issue won't let the hostilities die out any time soon. Historically this shism has been attributed to jewish agent Hassan Bin Sabbah for creating the Shia doctrine and setting up the chasm in the ummah. Now the Shias brought the American boots on Sunni's throats with old arch enemy in toe (Brits) I see this fiasco will take some big disaster to clean up. Right now it is low level civil war. The  shock & awe has not worked other than amount of civilian deaths for miles above. The black glod is going to kill lot of yankees, Brits, Iraqis Shias and Sunnis one way or other. Can't have will let them have a black gold rich colony for peanuts with traitors as accomplices---but that was not the case going to be. These people are in big trouble--thay r going to destroy each other, these people have unearned wealth & greed and now americans are part of this stew. I have read Prophet Mohammud has prophesised about the this blackgold and warning for the people to not be greedy about it or it will be a poisen for them.  It will be to the detrement to american public. Uncle Sam is borrowing from the communist China and blowing billions of dollers on this venture,

american companies in cohot with neocon gang will rob the tax payer blind. If Enron can rob State of California, Iraqi situation is the Devil sent.

American weekend warriors are a naive bunch are stuck with the gamble they opted for. Too bad when end up in body bags, they wanted fun shooting civilians in a muslim country. Get and read some of the books the former vets have written about their experience in Iraq.

Subhan Allah!

O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya�(protecters to whom you are subordinate to). They are awliya� to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them. Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk. (Quran, 5:51)
Thanks Rami for this piece of ammunition. Next time our Community shows up I will shoot him with it.

Whisper wrote: The Connections between Saddam and terrorist groups like Hamas, and al Aqsa Martyr's brigade and most notoriously al Qaeda, If you could prove that you should be granted the Medal of Honour because even your President could not prove anything of this sort despite all his attempts. Do you get your briefing from Sharon or just from the Tel Aviv disinformation brigade? Leave something for us to respect you with, please.

Yes, this is an absurd statement. Even the US government has acknowledged no such connection to al Qaeda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

This fellow obviously has adopted the strategy of spouting as many lies as possible in hopes that some of them will be believed.

As for the other groups, that is for the occupiers of Palestine to worry about, not the US government.

As for Saddam's murderous behavior, here is information on America's material and moral support for him:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/29/155243 - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/29/155243

Shamil wrote: sms2003 wrote: Shamil,  I am from the U.S. and I agree with you that the American Troops are accomplishing nothing in Iraq.  I also agree that they are making it seems like Iraq is nothing but a terrorist region, and they are trying to enforce a new system that the muslims do not believe in.  Can you tell me how this is making the American oligarchs even richer? The contracts for rebuilding Iraq were all awarded to American companies without any bidding. The companies simply stated a price and they got it. Iraqis were given no chance to participate. Halliburton, whom the vice president once worked for, reported profits of over 130 percent this past year as a result. Bechtel received billions for reconstruction, none of which they have begun. Those are only two examples but that's the pattern.

Yeah? ever heard of "spoils of war"? al anfaal in arabic...

Like the prophet said some fight out of anger, some fight for honor, some fight for the spoils of war, but he who fights so that the word of Allah becomes the highest word and their word the lowest is he who fights in the way of Allah, so there 4 fighters...fighting the same war but only 1 of them fights in the way of Allah, let me remind you that fighting against opressors of men women and childeren is also the way of Allah as it is said in chapter THE WOMEN.

The support of big businesses and corporations is needed when waging a war as you probebly understand and ofcourse they will wish to see some kind of profit for their partaking in the war. Ofcourse most of the contracts will go to businesses from the US, it was afterall the nation that took it upon itself to go in, also other nations who took part in actions against Saddam and his regime got contracts...

Iraq will be rebuilt, some companies went in and got their workers killed by the insurgents so it kind of came to a halt, but let me assure you, a stable Iraq means a healthy society and this will be in the best interest of the Iraq it's neighbours and the world as a whole, and those who are involved in the oil business and contracting have an interest in a stable Iraq also ofcourse.

I do not know what world view you hold when it comes to war but you should try to be reasonable instead of listening to some unreasonable voices out there who try to use everything in their efforts to stop progress.

Community wrote: Shamil wrote: sms2003 wrote: Shamil,  I am from the U.S. and I agree with you that the American Troops are accomplishing nothing in Iraq.  I also agree that they are making it seems like Iraq is nothing but a terrorist region, and they are trying to enforce a new system that the muslims do not believe in.  Can you tell me how this is making the American oligarchs even richer? The contracts for rebuilding Iraq were all awarded to American companies without any bidding. The companies simply stated a price and they got it. Iraqis were given no chance to participate. Halliburton, whom the vice president once worked for, reported profits of over 130 percent this past year as a result. Bechtel received billions for reconstruction, none of which they have begun. Those are only two examples but that's the pattern. Yeah? ever heard of "spoils of war"? al anfaal in arabic... Like the prophet said some fight out of anger, some fight for honor, some fight for the spoils of war, but he who fights so that the word of Allah becomes the highest word and their word the lowest is he who fights in the way of Allah, so there 4 fighters...fighting the same war but only 1 of them fights in the way of Allah, let me remind you that fighting against opressors of men women and childeren is also the way of Allah as it is said in chapter THE WOMEN. The support of big businesses and corporations is needed when waging a war as you probebly understand and ofcourse they will wish to see some kind of profit for their partaking in the war. Ofcourse most of the contracts will go to businesses from the US, it was afterall the nation that took it upon itself to go in, also other nations who took part in actions against Saddam and his regime got contracts... Iraq will be rebuilt, some companies went in and got their workers killed by the insurgents so it kind of came to a halt, but let me assure you, a stable Iraq means a healthy society and this will be in the best interest of the Iraq it's neighbours and the world as a whole, and those who are involved in the oil business and contracting have an interest in a stable Iraq also ofcourse. I do not know what world view you hold when it comes to war but you should try to be reasonable instead of listening to some unreasonable voices out there who try to use everything in their efforts to stop progress.

I am sorry to tell you that the only voices that support your point of view are those coming from the parties in the United States that stand to profit. The entire world outside the US, as well as a sizeable portion with the US unanimously agree that the US is pillaging Iraq.

As for your misuse of a Qur'anic quote to defend actions by the Kuffar, I pray Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala forgives you and guides you aright.

4:75 And what do ye have that ye fight not in the way of Allah and they way of those weakend, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, who say: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee a savior!" [Chapter the women]

Now i really am convinced people under Saddam said prayers like these don't you think?

 

 

As for joining the US army, i can not promote that anymore since i have seen a soldier in a program called "gunner palace" dressed up as a muslim and mocking at the call to prayer :5:57 O ye who have faith! take not for awliyaa (protectors to whom you are subordinate to ) those who take your deen(way) for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). 58. When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding.

[/QUOTE]

As for your misuse of a Qur'anic quote to defend actions by the Kuffar, I pray Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala forgives you and guides you aright.

[/QUOTE]

May Allah forgive you and guide you too.

Shamil wrote: I am sorry to tell you that the only voices that support your point of view are those coming from the parties in the United States that stand to profit. The entire world outside the US, as well as a sizeable portion with the US unanimously agree that the US is pillaging Iraq

5:100 Say: "Not equal are things that are bad and things that are good, even though the abundance of the bad may dazzle thee; so fear Allah, O ye that understand; that (so) ye may prosper."

Nice to have you back after you vanished since my response to your "Amreeka has Ameer in it" post!!

Where do you get your ayaats from? Some CD and then a quick copy and paste job?

Kindly, translate your posts in simple plain English and without any reference to the Qur'an for we find your terribly personalised interpretations extremely offensive. 

Spoils of war means the same thing in all the languages. You don't have to make an utter ass of yourself trying to impress upon us that you have somehow managed to grab a few Arabic words from somewhere by placing these in your posts.

Just tell us; what was your great Ameerka doing when the same people of Iraq were praying for their salvation when Saddam was their basatard and had not started trading oil in EUROS?

At least right now, the same very people are praying for aomeone to save them from your masters - they are not crying against anyone else right now.

Respect this forum and the intelligence of the members of this forum. The Arabs and the Muslims are not really as stupid as your Dutch mother might have put in your head for her own very personal reasons.

Above all, stop abusing Qur'an. This is my last warning to you.

[quote]

Kindly, translate your posts in simple plain English and without any reference to the Qur'an for we find your terribly personalised interpretations extremely offensive. [end Quote]

I think intollerant people who would burn those who hold other opinions while refering to the koran like some of your people would do with "people like me" as you said before should sease their intollerance or be destroyed....i think i am clear enough here. I can back it up with quranic verses but since you hate that so much i will do it anyway.

6:47 Say: "Think ye, if the punishment of Allah comes to you, whether suddenly or openly, will any be destroyed except those who do wrong?

Qul araaytakum in atakum 'adhaabu Allahi baghtatan aw jahratan hal yuhlaku illa alqawmu alththalimoona.

I can back it up with quranic verses but since you hate that so much i will do it anyway.

Come on show us one ayaat that requires us to accept invaders and occupiers. Sorry, my mother never infused anyone's hatred in me.

O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya�(protecters to whom you are subordinate to). They are awliya� to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them. Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk. (Quran, 5:51)

CLEAR ENOUGH DECREE. SHOW US IT'S ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OTHER THAN IN YOUR CONVOLUTED MIND.

oops

Community wrote: May Allah forgive you and guide you too.

Jazakallah akhi.

Look, I don't want this to escalate into a bitter conflict between the two of us. I should have been more polite in my reply. Can we agree to forget this initial exchange, and then discuss this as brothers Insha'Allah?

Whisper wrote: I can back it up with quranic verses but since you hate that so much i will do it anyway. Come on show us one ayaat that requires us to accept invaders and occupiers. Sorry, my mother never infused anyone's hatred in me.

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Now the Ameericans did not fight you for your faith, there are muslims in the United States and they live in freedom without the threat of being burned because they choose another opinion.

 The US did not drive you out of your homes, but welcomes the opressed who have to flee their homes, the US military came for the reason of fighting the enemies of the US and those who wish to defend their enemies. Sure there are supporters of the war who saw profit in it. But you do not have any business with that. Your business is clearly with the US military.

Use them for target practice you say? you have a big mouth and i am sure a mother who has a son in the military and  reads your words would wish you out of this world, how dare you joke around about killing.

your mother may not have infused hatred in you, but would she be proud of you? who infused hatred in you then? the one you spoke about saying:"it is a shame that they do not recognize Karl Marx as a messenger?" or the one who convinced you Carl Marx was a messenger from Allah?

Community wrote: Shamil, all praise is to Allah lord of the worlds, you do not need to regret the past brother, let us both start from here and work for betterment of ourselves before Allah and with this better the world as a whole, let us strive to gain victory over our ignorance and our intollerance and anger that comes out of this ignorance. This is what i seek and i assume you seek the same from what you just showed me, so i welcome you and in no way am i offended by your comments.

Jazakallah Khairun, akhi.

OK, here is my perspective. All states operate in their own self-interest. Clearly it is in the self-interest of the United States to control the oil in the Persian Gulf. Petroleum from the former Soviet Union will never be assured and there is only a fraction there of the Persian Gulf supplies.

However, the government of the US does not see democracy in Iraq as being in their self-interest. A truly democratically elected government in Iraq would be virulently anti-Israel and therefore anti-US. The petroleum supplies would not be assured.

Additionally, there is ample evidence that the United States will in fact subvert democracy when a democratic movement is not in its self interest. The CIA assisted overthrow of the Mossadegh government in the 1950s, the US assisted overthrow of the Allende government in the 1970s, and most recently Bush's friendly overtures to Ilham Aliev in Azerbaijan, who was elected in an election that was unanimously declared neither free not fair by all respected international election observers, are only three examples of the US acting against democracy when it was in its national interest.

This is not to say the US is worse than any other nation. In fact, this is exactly how one would expect any nation-state to behave, and in some ways the US has been less violent than other powerful nations in similar circumstances. The Soviet Union and the current Russian Federation have committed atrocious acts against democratic states.

So, based upon this, it is completely logical to assume the United States will install a government compliant to its will in order to assure a steady flow of oil from Iraq. It is also logical to assume, based upon US actions in other states such as Chile, where tens of thousands were slaughtered by the American-backed Pinochet, and Vietnam, where abominable weapons were used against peaceful villages, the the American government will have no real concern for the people of Iraq as long as its leaders supply the US with oil and will, as in past wars, use horrific weapons against the population of Iraq if it is required to achieve their goals.  

It is true that nations operate from their own self-interest, it is in the self-interest of the US, the west, the east and the world in general that the middle east is stable and preferably at peace with eachother.   

Our opinions may differ on how to achieve a stable middle east, but one option the west does not consider is the anihilation of the state of Israel and does not aprove of regimes that use hate and anger against this nation. The west sees democracy as the best and most just system of governance and it will never work against a government that is democratic. I remind you that there are arabs in the Israeli government and arab israeli's, these arabs are mostly ignored by the media because they can not be used in the propaganda, there is even a community of jews and muslims who live together in Israel and they are seen as traitors by both sides, but i believe the way forward through understanding and respect. You must understand that with this world becoming ever more populated things such intollerance will have to sease to exist.

Through out history we find this: that those who do not improve on justice are ruined, look at the Pharao who refused to improve on justice in respect of the childeren of Israel, or the pagans of Mecca who refused to give the prophet and the faithful religious freedom and thus killed and persecuted them for their faith, or the kings of the middle ages who treated their workers as slaves and their slaves as less then cattle, and lived in luxury while their own people starved, they are no more. In this is a lesson to be learned, that the only way forward is to improve on justice, and those who fail sease to exist.

Wether the destruction of the unjust comes through a natural desaster or another people or...... it is by the will of Allah. Because the righteous will inherrit the earth, and Allah is The Inherritor and His righteous are ofcourse those who wish to better themselves and the world around them, through being as just as they can be, thus injustice will gradually come to an end. The threat is real, and the threat is from His side, improve on justice or sease to exist...this has always been the reality.

your mother may not have infused hatred in you, but would she be proud of you? who infused hatred in you then? the one you spoke about saying:"it is a shame that they do not recognize Karl Marx as a messenger?" or the one who convinced you Carl Marx was a messenger from Allah

Who claimed Karl Marx is a messenger of Allah? Show me. I need a laugh or a sigh on your attempt now to twist posts.

The west sees democracy as the best and most just system of governance and it will never work against a government that is democratic. What happened to your west when the ALGERIANS went DEMOCRATIC and won an election with 92% vote? What was "west" doing then?

Is it only Arabs who are intollerant? West is a model of tollerance?

We don't mind difference of opinion in any field. The only thing I won't stand is someone, anyone, not just you, twisting ayaats for your own purpose - hiding behind a page from the Qur'an.

Or,telling the Indians that Brit rule was the best medicine they had, that tea with milk and they learnt to speak - as if they didn't speak with each other before the Ingleesh came.

Or, telling an Afghan to move on. You have every right to move on or do whatever you fancy if your country is occupied by the US or anyone else for that matter.

You hold no right ever to tell an Afghan to tolerate idotic Amreeki (the word is Amreeki - there is no Ameer in it) occupation. Best for you to keep your fear of the US might to yourself. For me, the US lost the day it started to think its Gaad or some extra Additional Deputy Gaad.

Just my advice, don't twist ayaats. You can twist America to any combination, but keep from twisting any single ayaat from the Quran.

Now tell me when did I say Karl was a mesenger of Allah?

Thank you to everyone who voiced their opinions about the American troops in Iraq.  You have all helped a lot with the progress of my project.  There were many different perspectives and I have to say that they were all enlightening.  Some things were mentioned that I had never even thought to consider before. 

I appreciate all of your help! It was great to get to know the opinions of people other than those in the U.S.

With sincere gratitude-   sms2003    & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;     

with regard to those who fight you not

The emphasis is on FIGHT YOU NOT my dearest fake Maulana. You interpret it to mean Great Amreeka obviously with AMEER put in by you.

Use them for target practice you say? you have a big mouth and i am sure a mother who has a son in the military and  reads your words would wish you out of this world, how dare you joke around about killing.

I am sure you are enough to worry about all the soldiers' mothers. I hold no desire fr any such fancy words. They are more than welcome to wish me out of anywhere, their sons are doing the job of killing as many people as they desire - list them as Al-qaeda or Talibaan.

I am not some half-backe ayaat twister, I fear not the US, I don't treat US as a Deputy Gaad or something. 

You have still to show us WHO said Karl was a messenger of Allah. Or, apologise to me unconditionally for such malicious slur.

Now i really am convinced people under Saddam said prayers like these don't you think?

If they did then why are approx 71% of them now praying to get rid of the Americans?

And, why do 45% believe it's okay to strike the occupiers?

Coalition Forces survey - not Al-Qaeda's

It is true that nations operate from their own self-interest, it is in the self-interest of the US, the west, the east and the world in general that the middle east is stable and preferably at peace with each other.

Only some absolutely idiotic people would attack an area they wish to keep stable. People who fail to see beyond their noses.

So, now the Mid East has become stable?

It's not turned into hotbed and a training institute of terror?

You really think we are idot and believe anything you post, especially, with a few ayaats studded here and there?

The west sees democracy as the best and most just system of governance and it will never work against a government that is democratic.

Walahay, promise west (you mean just the US) has never acted against or broken a DEMOCRATIC government?

. . . In this is a lesson to be learned, that the only way forward is to improve on justice, and those who fail sease to exist.

Thank you for proving my point though without your intention - the US has not been just with the world - specially with the man in the street - so they are at the brink of ceasing to exist. (the word is "cease")

You know there is a search option on here, just type in Carl Marx and go read your previous posts, i do not feel the urge to read through all your bitter tasting junk.

Just for the record, the west did not do much when they saw a fundamentalist regime being democratically elected in Algeria, this was because of their strong anti western rethoric, they had strong links to the resistance fighters of Afghanistan who tasted victory against the Soviets and felt confident enough to take on the west, how would you feel if you were in the shoes of lets say France or Spain or any other European and North African country (minus all your conspiracy theories and anger) i am sure France was not too thrilled about Algeria becoming a fundamentalist state since it has such a big Algerian immigrant population and also it being so near to Europe. The neighboring countries where not too thrilled about it.

Maybe Algeria was proof that Democracy does not work in the arab world...but a fundamentalist regime with strong anti western rethoric will not be acceptable by the western and eastern world for that matter. So what is the solution? simple, Cease hostility to either side (east or west) and be a source of safety instead of a threat. Remember the prophet and the faithful were not a threat to the non-muslims, but the non muslims chose to be a threat to the faithful. And this was the reason why the faithful had to migrate and then the first permission was given to the faithful to fight because they where killed in raids and when the pagans of Mecca started to form alliances with other tribes after being defeated in a battle it became an obligation to fight, simply because the existance of the faithful and thus the faith was at stake.

Why the west did not say anything when the fundamentalists victory in Algeria was declared void is because they rather not have to deal with another state like Iran or Afghanistan that sought an eventual confrontation with the west. If Algeria became fundamentalist eventually they would wish to spread it over the borders to other North African nations, and clearly the ideology which these regimes hold and preach indicates a confrontational attitude towards the west and non fundamentalist nations. I am sure any reasonable humanbeing would understand that people rather not have such hostility towards them so close to their homes. And rather have it dealt with then it becoming even greater and eventually errupt into a war which would cost the lives of much more people. The west does not seek confrontation and seeks to deal with those who do before it gets bigger and would be the source of much more conflict and suffering. Europe does not agree with the course the US has taken, as in "taking the war to those who wish to wage it." Opinions can differ on what the best way to handle it, i am not going to judge wether Europe is right or wrong looking at it's handeling of it's immigrant population. Opinions differ.

What is this with muslims seeking confrontation with people who do not fight them for their faith and implement relgious freedom in their own nations?

Allah does not love the hostile (inna Allaha laa yuhibbu al mu'tadeen)

Al bagiy is also forbidden by Allah in the koran, and al baghiy means conquest.

So the only conclusion is that those who seek to conquer and are hostile are wrong and should better themselves. And for the world is to watch and see and act when necissary. The point where it is deemed necissary to act is not agreed upon by the world. France and other nations see the point as not there yet, the US clearly did. Wether waiting would be better in respect of human suffering or acting now costs more human lives i leave up to you.

If you are calculating and making a judgement on this issue of when to act you have understood the sides, so do not act like you can not understand them.

community:

I see your huckstering on behalf of crusaders / Taghoots  based on out of context ayaas which is preposterous and disgrace to this discussion group. I don�t know your background and don�t care tonow but your agenda is obviously designed on colonial attitudes. Your underhanded Qadiani style Fatwas can easily be ripped apart by any knowledgeable member. 

 Read what 39th US President Carter has to say on what is going on !!
President Carter blows away all of perverse polemic. State your stand clearly instead of abusing god�s words.

This isn't the real America

The first mistake you make is to label me as Qadiani like, i am sure you label yourself a certain way and are content with that label, but i however do not aprove of being labeled because that is the first hostile move one can make.

I will tell you in clear language where i stand in all of this, and i hope atleast some will understand my views if not you.

On one extreem side you have the expansionalist muslims who see it as their religious duty to take over the world by any means necissary. They have been preaching against the west for years and have started commiting terrorist attacks against the west and western targets, specifically the United States of America.

On the other extreem side you have those who react to this trend of expansionalism by these muslims.

One feels threatened by the other, and this fear is on both sides. The west sees itself as attacked and threatened by these muslims through observing their preaching and actions, and the muslims fear the west by grabbing back in time to the history of the crusades as a justification for feeling threatened and by holding to certain conspiracy theories and a negative interpertation of political and social realities in the arab and muslim world.

Now i am sure you have an idea of what the real reality is but for the people who trust their government or their religious leaders each have their own view on the reality.

"The west"

They hold democracy as the best way of governance except for few small groups in western society, they see democracy as a better way of governance then lets say monarchies and fundamentalist regimes, they have a bad experience with both of these forms of government in their history and so they do not wish to go back to such opressive forms of governing. They see islamic extreemism as a threat for obvious reasons.

"The islamic expansionalist movement"

They see the injustice in their lands as a result of western colonialism, they do not stop to think how this colonialism happened while once they were themselves colonizers. Ofcourse they see their side as righteous in doing so, because they came to free people from opression and gave them freedom, religious freedom. After all the prophet and the faithful fought for this same reason, to be able to practise the faith and call to it without being persecuted for doing so. What we should ask ourselves is how could Europe colonize the islamic and arab world? the answer would be for the islamic expansionalists: the corruption of the leadership in these lands. There where dictatorships obviously set up all over the islamic and arab world, because armies of dictators usually are very weak. Why? because a dictator rules through the fear of the people for this dictator and his esteblishment. A dictator fears losing power so what he does is encircle himself with what he preceives as loyal people and thus soldiers will be under officers who work in the best interest of the dictator, and these officers on their turn will rule through fear with the men under them, in this kind of military that acts out of fear for their officers(set up by the regime because they are favorable to them) instead of respect and higher moral values will prove very ineffective in a defensive battle, these soldiers will not wish to die for the cause of these opressors and their esteblishment so they will not be able to be effective as a defensive force. Take Saddam and his military as an example. An army of a dictator in the world of today would not even prove effective in a offensive war anymore because they have become more and more limited in their area of control. The issue that is threatening is the nuclear bombs that are around and could possibly fall into the hand of such dictators. So...that's why there is such a thing as a pre emptive war, it comes out of a fear. I am sure you can understand this fear when there is clearly groups of muslims preaching against the west and do not shun the use of terrorism, and you may see terrorism and the anti western movements found in the arab and islamic world as a western invention but what are you doing about it?

You can not blame shaitaan for your own choices, you are responsible for yourself.

The bottom line is this, stand for justice even against your ownselves and do not let the hate of another people make you serve from being just and truthful.

Misplaced fear truely makes people unjust, if one fears losing power he will be opressive and killing anyone he sees as a threat, had he feared Allah alone instead of losing power and realized all power belongs to Allah, the messenger and the faithful as Allah clearly states in the koran, he would not have sought after power and certainly not killed and opressed others to keep it, he would have realized that Allah does not love the unjust and that He will ask him concerning all his deeds and actions made in this life. Same goes for the fear of losing wealth, one who has this fear will do injustice to others and even take the others share just so that he can stay wealthy, basically fearing anything or anyone other then Allah is unjust and makes people unjust. Fear Allah alone so that you may prosper.

Community wrote: Just for the record, the west did not do much when they saw a fundamentalist regime being democratically elected in Algeria, this was because of their strong anti western rethoric,

You see, akhi, here you contradict yourself. For earlier in this thread you said:

"The west sees democracy as the best and most just system of governance and it will never work against a government that is democratic."

But the US did in fact fail to do anything to support a democratically elected government in Algeria because it was not in its national interest.

And this has been my point all along. The US only supports democracies that will be pro-US. Otherwise, democracy will not be a concern for the US. This is why the US devised the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran: in fact, in that instance Mossadegh was not particularly anti-US; he nationalized the oil industries to the detriment of US companies. And since a democratically elected Iraqi government would most likely be hostile to the US, the US will not allow democracy there.

Shamil wrote: Community wrote: Just for the record, the west did not do much when they saw a fundamentalist regime being democratically elected in Algeria, this was because of their strong anti western rethoric, You see, akhi, here you contradict yourself. For earlier in this thread you said: "The west sees democracy as the best and most just system of governance and it will never work against a government that is democratic." But the US did in fact fail to do anything to support a democratically elected government in Algeria because it was not in its national interest. And this has been my point all along. The US only supports democracies that will be pro-US. Otherwise, democracy will not be a concern for the US. This is why the US devised the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran: in fact, in that instance Mossadegh was not particularly anti-US; he nationalized the oil industries to the detriment of US companies. And since a democratically elected Iraqi government would most likely be hostile to the US, the US will not allow democracy there.

I get your point, i must add that neither did France or other european nations support the democratically elected islamic fundamentalist government of Algeria.

And yes i do not think anyone would get support from the "homefront" for backing what profiles itself as an enemy.

And yes when trying to secure oneself against loss in wealth or life can result in injustice too, mistakes are made on daily basis by individuals and by nations. The thing with a "super power" is that it's mistakes have a greater effect in the world.

You know there is a search option on here, just type in Carl Marx and go read your previous posts, i do not feel the urge to read through all your bitter tasting junk.

You attributed something to me in your post. I know what I have said about Marx. I don't treat anyone and everyone as Allah's messenger or "Ameers" just out of sheer awe of their might or anything else.

It is now your responsibility to substantiate your words or apologise to me unconditionally on this board.

If this were wholly true, as you claim, then how did the Iraqi economy grow by over 50% in 2004 and slated for double digits again for 2005 and why is Iraqi unemployment down dramatically as well?
What Shamil is saying is absolutely true. The iraqi or anyother oil exporting ECONOMY GREW FAR MORE THAN EVEN 50% BECAUSE OF THE GLOBAL OIL PRICE HIKES IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I do not bow down nor obey unjust people like you, i never asked you to apoligize to me for twisting and misinterpreting my words and never will, i do not hold such arrogant pride. If you wish you could search for your words post them and substantiate or explain them, that is your responsibility not mine. Forum Search.

And i am really done with your attempts to subdue others by your lengthy rethoric and not even relevant reactionary posts. You clearly think that if you scream the loudest your voice is what people will remember and act upon, not because it is reasonable but because it plays into the dissatisfied attitudes some individuals have and for which extreemists like Hitler were famous for to get followers.

community:

Your camouflaged anti Islamic rhetoric is jarring and other members need to take  a good look at it.   

Instead of  rebutting (if you had any thing worthwhile)  significant and important issues raised by President Jimmy Carter you are coming up with the self styled theories on� The islamic expansionalist movement" what  humbug !! What planet are you on ? Who died and left you in-charge of political theory department?

I will have to go over your previous posts to see where you are coming from and what is your constructive contribution to this Islamic form other than playing both ends against the middle Fatwas. 

There hardly is a Muslim country free enough from colonialist bonds or you would say �Infal� to make any practical choice about the governing model or construct an Islamic economics. And here you are accusing them or their phantoms of expansionist movement without any basis or proof but you own convoluted sermon..

Are you a reincarnation of Mr. Machiavelli or what?

Here you are approving the fleecing of Eraq by invaders  contractors ( By the way just not Iraq but US tax payers also) And mockingly  quote- Infal--   

Sign*reader, don�t be so peligroso.

I promise, he is definitely not a Qadiani.

Had you seen his post of a few weeks ago you would have come to know that he is an Amreekiani. He posted: you know why the Arabs calls America, Amreeka?

Because, it has Ameer (leader) in it!!

In another, he posted an ayaat advising the occupied Iraqis and Afghans to behave with the �sent one� � you know meaning who!

He is just a one off, a prototype.

The model didn�t take off in these days of intense anti-Americanism so further production was stopped.

He twists everything to serve the Neo Con agenda.

Other than that, he is a sheer nobody. Ever heard of the Homeland Security? Just guess how many agents would they infiltrate into sites like these?

Or, our battered Karen Hughe�s � assigned by the great President to stitch together the torn US image. Her department must have devised a �plan� (I agree, it doesn�t seem to be working, but then what NeoCon plans have worked these days?) to �lead� Muzleems to her way. (won�t say her way of thinking for she has not ever been accused of that, as yet)

But, like his Great Ameer, the US President, he keeps shooting himself in the foot so often that we begin to loose count. He gets entangled in his own twisted ayaats and falls over, head first, in the gutter of his own words.

Just watch, he says �the west� never acted against democratic governments and in the same breath he tells us that Muslims should never have a democratic government � unless it suits his masters!

And, the US never demolished the democratic government in Iran for their own interest?

The west does not seek confrontation and seeks to deal with those who do before it gets bigger and would be the source of much more conflict and suffering.

What a laughable twist.

The west does not seek expansion?

Allah does not love the hostile (inna Allaha laa yuhibbu al mu'tadeen) Al bagiy is also forbidden by Allah in the koran, and al baghiy means conquest.

Agreed.

This joker has taken it for granted that the west doesn�t seek expansion on it�s own and through its proxy planted in the Mid East � on lands that did not belong to the Brits to giva away to anyone.

They have been preaching against the west for years and have started commiting terrorist attacks against the west and western targets, specifically the United States of America.

They just started preaching against your masters.

Your masters had no role at all in their oppression? They did not seek to control and actually place their troops in Saudi Arabia?

The �west� did not foment the First Gulf war?

The facts as follows:

The Gulf War began with a dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over ports in the Gulf and over oil export quotas. Iraq�s plan to invade Kuwait appeared initially to have been condoned by the US, so the real motives for the entrance of the United States into the conflict were unclear.

President Bush (Sr.) had sent his emissary Henry Shuyler to persuade his then-ally Saddam Hussain to intervene in OPEC to hike oil prices for the benefit of his Texas constituents. Bush and his advisors knew that OPEC cheated and fell on the idea of a border incident whereby Iraq would take the southern end of the Rumaila field, from which the Kuwaitis were pumping.

On the eve of the invasion, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, said, �We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait�

� a statement countersigned by Secretary of State James Baker in Washington.

Saddam assumed he had a wink and a nod to invade his neighbour.

Speculations about the reasons underlying the devastating US military intervention that followed had to do with control of Iraq�s oil reserves, which were second only to those of Saudi Arabia � where the US installed permanent Military bases during the war!!

In his book Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf, national security affairs analyst Stephen C Pelletiere examined US motives in the war in depth, concluding that the Gulf War represented a forcible expression of America�s resolve to consolidate its control of the Middle East. Iraq�s decisive victory over Iran in 1988 had come as a shock to Washington, and neither the US nor Israel was about to tolerate a strong, independent, militarily competent Arab nation in the region.

Your masters protected, promoted these dictatorships to the FULL when it was in their interest. They still do that. Look at Egypt and Pakistan.

Let�s get down to the fact that they act just for their gaad the dollar.

Period.

You must understand that policy making is a very hard thing to do when the guidelines are set up by people of a certain government. Especially with a complex region like the middle east. Try yourself to make up a foreign policy in respect of the middle east, and then try to imagine having to agree upon that with the different individuals who represent groups in policy making.

Forgot your own preaching?

Why not a JUST foreign policy for a change?

Are you a reincarnation of Mr. Machiavelli or what?

No, of Leo Strauss, the father of the Neo Cons.

But that will be elevating him to a very high status. He is just dead scared of the Dead US Military Might.

Community wrote: You must understand that policy making is a very hard thing to do when the guidelines are set up by people of a certain government. Especially with a complex region like the middle east. Try yourself to make up a foreign policy in respect of the middle east, and then try to imagine having to agree upon that with the different individuals who represent groups in policy making.

I understand, akhi. The government of the United States is acting in what it perceives as the interests of its people. My point is not that this is evil, but rather that as Muslims we must be aware of the true motivations of the US and take precautions to defend ourselves when these motivations directly conflict with our faith. By claiming that the US sincerely cares about the people of Iraq one takes the risk of creating trust in the US. Regardless of what one thinks of the relative decency of whoever happens to be in power in the US, American national interests will always override all other considerations. Since the Persian Gulf contains resources of tremendous importance to the US, this self-interest factor will dominate US policies in the region.

Try yourself to make up a foreign policy in respect of the middle east, and then try to imagine having to agree upon that with the different individuals who represent groups in policy making.

Could you kindly enlighten us on what YOU KNOW about the Middle East. We don't wish to know what Fox News say about it. That we well know.

Kindly, without any Twisted Ayaat Massala.

Whisper wrote: You must understand that policy making is a very hard thing to do when the guidelines are set up by people of a certain government. Especially with a complex region like the middle east. Try yourself to make up a foreign policy in respect of the middle east, and then try to imagine having to agree upon that with the different individuals who represent groups in policy making. Forgot your own preaching? Why not a JUST foreign policy for a change?

Let us hear this just foreign policy if you have one. And about your lies and distortions about me and about others in your lengthy post above, you can gain listeners through lies i am sure, but do not forget that when truth comes all the lies disappear in the face of it, either with the people who become enraged by the truth because they held their beliefs as more important then the truth or with them repenting, it will come to an end.

Allah is The Truth, and He is The Inherritor so all the lies end, This is a warning and a reminder to you.

The truth is from Allah who is also the Almighty, to Him belongs all power and might. The armies of the heavens and the earth are His, and He was Mighty and Wise.

The protection of Allah is upon the faithful because they are upon the truth and truth is what remains and falsehood vanishes. He is The Inherritor and His righteous servants He causes to inherrit the earth. Those who are upon the truth like the prophet and the faithful before us were not people who felt threatened, they proclaimed the truth and those who were upon a lie became frustrated, some understood later on and joined the ranks of the faithful, and some persisted in their pride and arrogance and holding to the beliefs of their forefathers, the leaders of them used this to arouse them against the faithful, because the leaders where the esteblishment and did not wish to lose it's power and control over the people. Imagine how such a people choosing to oppose the truth and even fighting and killing those who are upon the truth must have been on a battlefield....they where wiped away, the faithful went right through them clearing the way of Allah from those who blocked it by forbidding them to practice their faith and persecuting them for it. Religious freedom became a reality, and people understood this lesson in the west after long wars against the muslims. The faithful would have never stopped fighting them had they not implemented religious freedom. Religious freedom means: to practice the faith and call to it without being killed or persecuted for it. This was the way of the prophet and the faithful, and this is called jihaad. It is not conquest of land or the defence of land but the freedom to practice the faith and call to it. Our land is in the hereafter by the permission of Allah.

 So the faithful had to defend themselves, they fought and gained victory. Because they were upon the truth and lies can not last in the face of truth.

Whisper, what is the JUST foreign policy of Afghanistan (prior to the fall of the murderous Taliban)? 

Murderous Talibaan! Are we dutybound to accept all typical ugly American spin as the Gospel Truth? Go to Afghanistan and see for yourself how the poor Afghanis have started to pray for Taliban, again, after knowing the Americans for a wee while.

We are discussing the US foreign policy. I did NOT start on it. Your side kick initiated this topic under his obvious awe of the his Neo Con masters. He is totally confused. Please help him since you both work for the same agency.

And about your lies and distortions about me and about others in your lengthy post above,

Yaar Community, you don't give anyone any chance to distort anything about you. You always seem to be in some great hurry about exposing your own twists and lies. And, almost always in the same breath, in the same very post you shoot yourself in exactly the foot you stand on.

Sir, that's not my fault if you fail to hide your spite of Islamic content and your deep rooted hatred of anything Arab.

Why must anyone effort when you are the best at demolishing your own stands? Just the most recent example. You posted that I called Karl a messenger of Allah. It's a sheer matter of commonsense not just of plain simple norms of communication that when you accuse someone of something THEN the ONUS is on you to substantiate your claim.

I have challenged you to substantiate your claim. You have failed / refused to do so for the sheer reason that you can't do it. It's impossible for you or anyone else to produce something I have not said or even implied.

Instead, you have told me to start some search engines here on this site - to see "what I have said or written?" Unlike you I know my stand in life, on life and all other matters that matter to life, mine and as well as others. I don't have to kickstart some "search engine". THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR LIE.

I won't go through the stupid motion of calling you a liar for you happen to hold no integrity, no honour or even a bare shred of shame. Plus, in all your posts you have proven yourself to be worse than a liar. And, we are glad that you are with the Neo Cons, you will definitely cause their destruction as you often do your own.

Best regards and thanks for always proving my points, regularly, without fail and always.

O' Great Community, art thou again talking to yourself?

Or, are you just addressing the heaven above?

You told me that you were only half-Dutch then how come you produce so much of double Dutch for us to decipher? Pray, tell us at least what ye sayeth? 

Allah is The Truth,

And, you hold some sort of Master Franchise for disbursing Truth?

What are "Islamic economics?"

We know what Islamic economics are and I am sure there is no need for us to share such precious knowledge specially with people smelling so gutterly of spite.

I have informed you (in some other section) that we hold the perfect RIGHT to live the way we choose to live.

Your ONLY interest in us and our world is pure simple petroleum and that you will get at the going market rate - our camels still drink water and there's very slim chance of switching them over to drinking crude.

The Neo Con dream of controlling the global oil market (for trading profits + for thwarting other countries' growth) seems to have come to a dead crash.

My condolences.

Is this a lie? If you can prove it a lie I will give you the author's particulars, go and sue him - he lives in C A L I F O R N I A and is one of the most respected professors in the US.

Not some chipmunk without any identity who can say anything at any time merely to score some points in utter desperation.

The Gulf War began with a dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over ports in the Gulf and over oil export quotas. Iraq�s plan to invade Kuwait appeared initially to have been condoned by the US, so the real motives for the entrance of the United States into the conflict were unclear. President Bush (Sr.) had sent his emissary Henry Shuyler to persuade his then-ally Saddam Hussain to intervene in OPEC to hike oil prices for the benefit of his Texas constituents. Bush and his advisors knew that OPEC cheated and fell on the idea of a border incident whereby Iraq would take the southern end of the Rumaila field, from which the Kuwaitis were pumping.

On the eve of the invasion, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, said, �We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait�

� a statement countersigned by Secretary of State James Baker in Washington.

Another dose of "lies" for our resident prophet who runs into a trance of twisted ayaats when unable to continue of the reality on the ground front!

Blair should stop playing fall guy in Rumsfeld's war games
Britain is throwing up a stooge's smokescreen to cover US withdrawal from Afghanistan. There is no need for such folly in Iraq
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday November 16, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ - The Guardian
Iraq is miring all who touch it. What does Tony Blair say when he reads that American forces at the siege of Falluja used "shake-'n'bake" shells on residential areas? White phosphorus, as reported by George Monbiot on these pages yesterday and confirmed by the Pentagon, is worse than napalm. Since it is "chemical" in its effect on humans, it falls under a ban by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention for use against "areas of high civilian population".

< = =text/>

Hence the rising tempo of Whitehall's search for an exit strategy. Yesterday Downing Street picked on the suggestion of the old Kurdish warlord Jalal Talabani that he might let Britain go home by the end of next year. On Monday John Reid had in effect rejected Talabani's offer. "A process of British withdrawal", he told the Commons, may start by the end of next year or it may not. When asked by MPs what would decide the date, he said it would depend on the strategy. What was that? Not to fail but to succeed, was the reply. It is astonishing that MPs buy such rubbish. But by yesterday the government was clearly distancing itself from granting the Iraqis any right of veto on British departure. Everything now depends on "security".

If Blair wants an exit strategy, one is staring him in the face. It is being adopted by his comrade in arms, Donald Rumsfeld no less. The Rumsfeld doctrine was that if you want to beat hell out of a place, do so and get out. If you want to punish the Taliban for hosting Osama bin Laden, smash them to pieces. Bomb their cities, kill their families, but do not stay. Staying is for pinkos and social workers.

Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy may have been full of holes, but it originally stuck to the same principle. Eliminate Saddam Hussein, obliterate his regime, but do it "lite". Never get bogged down in nation-building, whatever the neocons or neoimperialists may say. Find some stooge such as Ahmed Chalabi and leave him to sort the place out. Avoid large armies of occupation and, above all, avoid allies with moral scruples. As Condoleezza Rice told George Bush during his first election campaign: "We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten."

In Afghanistan Rumsfeld's plan is now almost complete. From the start Washington insisted that once it had fixed the election of its puppet, Hamid Karzai, to office, it would get out fast. Democracy was in place. Afghanistan should be left to Karzai, the warlords, the Pashtun mullahs and the drug runners. If the Taliban returned, too bad. Find some stooge ally to throw up a smokescreen and get out.

Who is that smokescreen? The answer is John Reid. He is sending 4,800 British troops allegedly to wipe out the world's most lucrative opium trade and bring democracy, stability and protection to southern Afghanistan. How re-impoverishing Afghan peasants will encourage them to defy a resurgent Taliban is unclear. The identical strategy failed after the 2001 invasion. Already Nato's byzantine diplomats are fighting like rats in a sack over who will do what and where in the mountains of Khyber and the wastes of Helmand. Nato and Britain have been suckered to the miserable task of covering America's retreat. The Pentagon must be laughing fit to bust.

How the same strategy will play in Iraq is harder to see. Talabani seems to accept what has long been the view of the British army, that foreign troops will no longer be needed in the south of Iraq by next summer. Since army training is in coalition hands, the coalition can notionally decide when that army is ready. Iraqi troops have no problem being trained, only in being motivated, a quite different matter.

Most intelligence regards any exit strategy based on a revived Iraqi army as fantasy. Its brigades will not be deployable outside their areas of primary recruitment, if only because the defence ministry is not that stupid. The ministry, like the police, is increasingly in thrall to one or other party militia. Army units deployed in possibly hostile provinces, at least without coalition cover, will almost certainly refuse to fight. Indeed the federal constitution appears to give regional governors the right of veto over such deployment. The reality is internal security in each of Iraq's three regions will be in the hands of police and unofficial militias. This has already been recognised in Kurdistan.

Talabani is accordingly inviting Britain to declare the Iraqi army (in which, as a Kurd, he has little interest) to be a "superb fighting force" and leave next year with its head high. This offer is worth taking. But it will require the coalition forces to hack deals over bases and equipment with whatever local power structures emerge as dominant in next month's elections.

These deals will be tough further south because the occupation has injected the poison of insurgency into both Sunni and Shia areas. They will get tougher the longer the occupation continues. By late next year, one intelligence analyst told me, "We may as well negotiate an exit strategy direct with Tehran".

Reid claims that if Britain leaves soon there will be "civil war". I find no intelligence to support this classic imperialist excuse. There will be bloodshed in places, but there is that now. As Talabani knows, the occupation is protecting his ministers, but it is fostering militancy everywhere and hopelessly undermining his authority. The one hope for Iraqis is to own their country and be free of the humiliation of foreign rule. That cannot come too soon.

The default mode of American foreign policy is isolation and of British policy continued intervention. America is shrewdly retreating from Afghanistan, knowing that the place is heading for trouble. Britain is the fall guy. Will the same happen in Iraq?

Reid should explain why he is really committing 4,800 troops to act as Taliban targets in Helmand and why he is so sceptical of Talabani's offer. He might also ask himself why Rumsfeld is laughing.

I ask, and you don't answer...I'll ask again - what is "Islamic economics?"

You claim to know everything about Islam, in fact, you prescribe the way Muslims must live so you must know what is the proscribed Islamic Economic system.

Are we duty bound to accept this typical ugly communist's spin on world history and the state of current affairs?
You mean the state of current NeoCon affairs? The state the world has been consigned to by the abuse of Military Might be it communist or Cap It Allist?

Is there any difference when it comes to brutality or imperialist greed?

No one can deny the existence of certain criminal elements in the Muslim world, but the percentage is no larger or smaller than criminal elements elsewhere in the world. We just need to see how these elements have been aided and abetted by oppressive policies.

Let's take Kashmir for an instance. The Brits sold it to the Dogras for a mere Rs.7.5 millions! (as if it were a part of their mother's dowry) The kashmiris have been an independent sovereign country for ages before the Brits moved in - but the potbellied impotent White Hall mandarins attached it to India.

The Kashmiris rose in fullscale rebellion. The world Community promised them their Right of Self Determination through a plebesite! Now that was in 1948. They have been waiting ever since for us to fulfill our promise with them.

Would you blame them if they chose to take it all in their own hands at some stage?

We see a similar, in fact, far worse thing in Palestine.

But, when it comes to East Timor, the global masters carve out a state for them in five minutes!

Placing US troops in Saudi Arabia was a mistake to put it mildly. How else would OBL rise to the status of a global Muslim hero?

Injustice, far more than anything else, is the breeding ground of terror and death cultists. It's very easy to take a life. It is extremely hard to lay one's own on the line. We culture suicide bombers by denying them justice and human considerations.

B: Sorry, not as familiar with this - what plebesite was promised?
UN resolved to hold a plebesite if the Kashmiris stopped fighting - that was in the first half of 1 9 4 8.

B: You tell me Sasha - how has this happened - at all - regardless, especially with all the Muslims killed by AQ over the years?

He was a nobody before the troops were positioned in Suadia. Even Pentagon realised that and that is also one of the reasons for attacking Iraq - to use it as the primary Anglo-American Mid East garrison. Time seems to indicate that won't work out the way it's planned.

  Hawk Democrat Calls for Immediate Pullout

John Murtha, a Vietnam Veteran, Voted for Invasion of Iraq

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 17) - One of Congress' most hawkish and influential Democrats called Thursday for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, sparking bitter and personal salvos from both sides in a growing Capitol Hill uproar over President Bush's war policies.

"It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."

The comments by the Pennsylvania lawmaker, who has spent three decades in the House, hold particular weight because he is close to many military commanders and has enormous credibility with his colleagues on defense issues. He voted for the war in 2002, and remains the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

In a biting response, Republicans criticized Murtha's position as one of abandonment and surrender and accused Democrats of playing politics with the war and recklessly pushing a "cut and run" strategy.

"They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.

Underscoring the rising emotions of the war debate, Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments this week that Democrats were spouting "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges" about the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the war.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," said Murtha, a former Marine. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Referring to Bush, Murtha added, "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

The White House fired back from Busan, South Korea, where Bush was meeting with Asian leaders.

"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

"The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists," McClellan said. "After seeing his statement, we remain baffled - nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

Murtha once worked closely with the vice president when Cheney was defense secretary. During Vietnam, Bush served stateside in the National Guard while Cheney's five deferments kept him out of the service entirely.

Just two days earlier, the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting mushrooming questions from both parties about the war, though, the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. He introduced a resolution Thursday that would force the president to call back the military, but it was unclear when, or if, either GOP-run chamber of Congress would vote on it.

On the Senate floor Thursday, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called on President Bush and the White House to stop what he called an orchestrated attack campaign.

"It's a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war," said Reid, who spoke while Bush was in Asia.

The rhetorical dueling came in a week in which Bush and other top administration officials lashed out at war critics, saying they advocate a strategy that will only embolden the insurgency.

Some Senate Democrats have already laid out plans for bringing home U.S. troops. Other House Democrats have called for the military to pull out, but none has Murtha's clout on military issues.

With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Murtha's shift from an early war backer to a critic advocating withdrawal reflects plummeting public support for a war that has cost more than $200 billion and led to the deaths of more than 2,000 U.S. troops.

Known as a friend and champion of officers at the Pentagon and in the war zone, it is widely believed in Congress that Murtha often speaks for those in uniform and could be echoing what U.S. commanders in the field and in the Pentagon are saying privately about the conflict.

Murtha, who normally shuns the spotlight, said he spoke out because he has grown increasingly troubled by the war and has a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.

But Republicans said Murtha does not represent the views of U.S. troops or military leaders.

"This falloff of support among Democratic ranks is not shared by the war-fighting forces. It's not shared by our troops," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Several times a year, Murtha travels to Iraq to assess the war on the ground, and sometimes he just calls up generals to get firsthand accounts.

His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related stories of one of his visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

One man, he said, was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries.

"I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two.

11-17-05 22:10 EST

I was on my way here to post this article.  Rep. Murtha is from the district in Pennsylvania where I grew up.  I have voted for the man.  I have met the man.  If he says its time to get out and that the leadership is incompetent.  We should listen.  He's very active with the Pennsylvania Veterans and he's a good man.  The president is losing this war on two fronts.  He's not gaining anything by being there and he's losing what respect the US had as a humanitarian country that helps in a time of need. 

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll this week said 63 percent of Americans oppose Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and 52 percent say troops should be pulled out now or within 12 months.

The question becomes....other than hoping and asking Men like Murtha to speak for us.  What can the average American (not Amreeki) do?  We aren't barbaric enough to start strapping bombs to ourselfs and targeting Washington cause we don't agree.   What are we to do, to show that the average American is a good person with a good heart? 

Its my understanding that elections are to be in the month of December.  The shear number of troops we have there would require a strategic and steady pull out.  It would not be.  "Hey boys, we're going home, flight leaves tomorrow."   But, once the elections are over, I don't think we should have more than a few training troops left to help the Iraqi police and guards with their training, and then they need pulled too.  Because we've fallen into a trap.

They don't like us there, they kill us, we stay to fight the insurgents, which gives them more recruits to kill us, which means we have to stay longer to hunt them....and the cycle continues.  Once the elections are over in December, we have no need of being there.  Period.

The Geneva Convention requires we rebuild a country we invade, but if they don't want us there, then we need to leave.  Iraq is not the 51st state, once they have their own government.  They have every right to expect us out of there.  Iraq is not ours, it belongs to the Iraqi people.  If they want to continue to bomb each other, its their problem not ours.  The insurgents cannot blame the deaths of innocent men and women in prayer at a mosque on the US.  They will have to face the fact they are killing muslims for their own agenda.  We need out of there so the Iraqi people can get on with their lives.

Question becomes Bruce, have you ever served in the Military or been to war???  If so, were you a commanding officer?  Have you worked as an intelligence analyst or been and elected official who has a responsibility towards your people? 

The problem with why he is saying these things now is Bush's come hell or high water, stick to the path and don't reassess anything.....

The administration refuses to give a timeline to get out of Iraq and they don't show any signs they care about what anyone else thinks. 

The elections are close, not its time to start talking timeline and specifics.  Have you noticed that both the Republican and Democratic parties are pushing for Bush to actually lay out an exit strategy?  There is a reason that Americans are getting annoyed with Cowboy Bush.  He keeps talking in terms of political agenda and moral obligation but never gives a specific strategy for accomplishing his goal.  And he refuses to accept responsibility for the mistakes made by his administration.

Not to mention, he likes rewriting history to make his case.

From The Nation

Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Antiwar Critics

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said,

Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.

More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported,

"There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again."

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not.

For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"?

Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at http://www.davidcorn.com/ - www.davidcorn.com . Read recent postings on Ahmad Chalabi's weak defense, the Rove/Libby scandal, the slow Phase II review of prewar intellience, and other in-the-news matters.

******

On the key issue of Saddam Hussein's alleged connection to al Qaeda, Bush also made statements that went beyond the intelligence. This link was crucial to the case for war, for Bush and other hawks were arguing that Saddam Hussein could slip his WMDs to his pal Osama bin Laden. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community?

Bush's Veterans Days comments addressed none of this.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

The people with the most hands-on information regarding WMDs in Iraq did not. The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, concluded weeks before the war (after their inspectors had returned to Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had not revived the nuclear weapons program that the IAEA had dismantled in the mid-1990s. And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspectors in Iraq, repeatedly said that his team was not finding evidence of chemical or biological weapons stockpiles.

...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs. Even the John Kerry quote that Bush cites contains the to-disarm condition. And several Democratic members of Congress have claimed that they did not see all the intelligence that was available to the White House.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges.

It's hard to argue with that.

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.

Who said that "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize" the "decision [to go to war in Iraq] or the conduct of the war"? That was Bush, moments earlier, in the same speech. So which is it? Is it okay to criticize the conduct of the war or not?

By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise--that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs--and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.

The Sarsawati (Indus Valley, Moen Jo'dharro, Matriarchal society) women entrusted men with no more than the simplest most menial tasks. After reading above posts I have reached the conclusion that they were dead right. Wish we could have them back running our world. It would become much better a place.

The only snag; they used to part exchange or sell off surplus men to their best mates!

I once told my husband he had two jobs in the home....car repair and lawn care....