1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeSo you think thats worse than Saddam killing hundreds of thousands
Which state currently lead by a fundamentalist has armed forces currently occupying significant holy cities of another religion?
Hmm, let me think, three words, first begins with U......second begins with S.......anyone got it yet?
with gas and torture? You don't consider that terrorism?
Originally posted by PeachyWhy don't you tell that to the Taliban? I didn't see them as exactly
Such aggression is against Islamic Law. I personally condemn this act, and don’t consider it part of Islam, or the message that Islam brings. There is a very well known verse in the Quran that roughly translate: “There is no force in religion”. We respect Christianity and Judaism and shouldn’t be raging a war against our brothers of the Book.
Such act only pollutes the name of Islam and all its peaceful message.
peaceful or tolerant, especially the way they stomp women into the
ground.
Or how bout Bin Laden, nice peaceful fella....
Originally posted by PeachyIt means he considers the US and Britain to be equally at blame for
Thank you for that site, brings the topic into conclusion.
"And which pot is calling which kettle black" means that pots and kettles are alike,
both burnt black, both in the same boat. One can't attack the other for both have the
same defect.
the offenses against Islam.
I think it was a useless war, Bush should have been concentrating
all his efforts on Bin Laden, the known criminal in the 9-11 attacks.
Instead he goes after a minor player he knew he could whip.
Problem is the insurgents, over 15000 of them, mainly from Iran
are ruining his nice pretty plan. I can't help but think if he had taken
those 100,000 odd troops he put in Iraq and used them to hunt for
Laden, he would have found him by now. Let me ask you this:
Why do you think it is so fundamentally terrible for bush to attack
Iraq, even with both of us knowing he should not have, why is that
so much more terrible than what Saddam was doing to his own people?
Why do you ignore his barbaric regime?
Is it because you don't care if a bunch of Kurds got gassed and killed
by the thousands, tens of thousands because they are Kurds and not
worth worrying about? Is it because Sunni's are more important in
the world of Islam than Shiite? Is it because its better somehow if
Muslims kill muslims than Christians kill muslims? Does the dead
muslim care? What is the message under all the propaganda going
on here? Why do you consistently ignore the atrocities that
Saddam did to his own people? Was that an acceptable consequence
of having Muslims rule Muslims? I would like to know.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy all the hostility? Nobody thinks that the atrocities you mentioned are ok. As long as there are places in the world where these kinds of things happen we are not going to have peace.
It means he considers the US and Britain to be equally at blame for
the offenses against Islam.
I think it was a useless war, Bush should have been concentrating
all his efforts on Bin Laden, the known criminal in the 9-11 attacks.
Instead he goes after a minor player he knew he could whip.
Problem is the insurgents, over 15000 of them, mainly from Ira ...[text shortened]... eople? Was that an acceptable consequence
of having Muslims rule Muslims? I would like to know.
The only way these things are going to end though is if there is a world effort. A handful of countries cannot do what the world needs to do. America would never have had to go into Iraq if there wasn't so much opposition from the UN. Saddam could have been dealt with through diplomacy.
Libya is a recent success story, and the recent progress with North Korea is another promising sign. Wars, religious or otherwise, only happen because people think that it is none of their business.
Should America do it alone? No, of coarse not, nor could we. We don't have the military for that, and diplomacy coming from one country is not likely to work. The world will have peace when the major countries act in the interest of the world and not just their own country.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThank you for your thoughtfull reply. I am sorry if it looked hostile.
Why all the hostility? Nobody thinks that the atrocities you mentioned are ok. As long as there are places in the world where these kinds of things happen we are not going to have peace.
The only way these things are going to end though is if there is a world effort. A handful of countries cannot do what the world needs to do. America would nev ...[text shortened]... peace when the major countries act in the interest of the world and not just their own country.
I have had so many conversations about Saddam and the atrocities
he commited which seemed to fall on deaf ears I am a bit shell
shocked by it all. I don't like Bush and I don't like his attack on
Iraq but I don't think its the end of the world the fact that it happened.
There are clear positives to come from this besides all the hate
mongering against americans. How can anyone say a democratic
Iraq is worse than the low life animal who controlled life there for so
long? How can anyone think the coming Iraqi government is going to
be a US slave? They sure don't act like it even now before they
are fully formed. They want us out of there in the worst way but they
also know if we left tommorow they could not withstand more attacks
from Iran. They are in no position to govern themselves right at this
moment, having had no experience in this department for the 30 years
that animal Saddam had control. Iran would be in that country in a
heartbeat if we left before the Iraqis could defend themselves, I would
not be suprised they launch an attack when we leave even if the
Iraqis are strong.