Saddam had a secular regime . He struck back at those who sought to assassinate him, he struck back at those who tried to depose him. He suppressed a Kurdish rebellion that was agitated by foreign provocateurs. He ended the practice of the Kuiwaiti royal house stealing Iraqi oil. He stood against the fundimentalist forces from Iran. He moved against terrorist cells. Shoulda got a metal right? But no, he had to go and declare he would trade oil for Euros! Now that was not too bright.
MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam
- Thread starter Finder
- Start date
He was a brutal dictator who was once supported by the USA. He should have been stoped but an illegal war by the USA was the wrong way!
Islamism is not a global threat. It is a movement fueled by a majority of extremists in a need to fulfill the enjoyment they share and crave openly in killing men, woman and children - an extreme obsession they satisfied only by extreme terror.
The only ones at threat are those Muslims and Islamics who are not extremists, who don't have to satisfy the need of self-gratification from others blood. Now if we could only tell who's who. Hmmm....
To "plead for the universality of freedom of expression so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas" is waste of breath. Its nothing more then an ideological illusion that fuels a debate for intellectuals who own self fulfilling need is satisfied by using words that end in "ism" "ical" and "esto".
The manifesto - "Against extremism in islam": Its entertaining for some, a waste of broadband for others, an orgasmic delight of intellectual pleasures for most.
Me? I wondering how much broadband I used up downloading it.
The only ones at threat are those Muslims and Islamics who are not extremists, who don't have to satisfy the need of self-gratification from others blood. Now if we could only tell who's who. Hmmm....
To "plead for the universality of freedom of expression so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas" is waste of breath. Its nothing more then an ideological illusion that fuels a debate for intellectuals who own self fulfilling need is satisfied by using words that end in "ism" "ical" and "esto".
The manifesto - "Against extremism in islam": Its entertaining for some, a waste of broadband for others, an orgasmic delight of intellectual pleasures for most.
Me? I wondering how much broadband I used up downloading it.
Finder said:
True, he was brutal. Samosa was brutal, Pinochet was brutal, Batiste was brutal, you betcha. But none of them were attacked by United States. Instead, the U.S. installed them and protected them. They had no oil, no economic clout. Now Iraq is a ferminent of religious fanatasism.
Don't be fooloish to believe Saddam was the only one. But you are right there have been many Brutal sctors. But you also have to remember Saddam didn't start the conflic between himself and the states. He made a gamble that the USA wouldn't care about Kuwait and he thought wrong. If he hadn't made such a big mistake he would still be in power and the American's would still see him in semi-good light and allow his terror to keep going against his own people. Because he is at least checking Iran.
Now one of the few clients of the USA who has actually striked against them is Osama.
ashley_rb, hmmmmm, you don't like Islam much anyhow do you? Or is it the people you don't like. I'm not too sure which one it is... perhaps both?
Now one of the few clients of the USA who has actually striked against them is Osama.
ashley_rb, hmmmmm, you don't like Islam much anyhow do you? Or is it the people you don't like. I'm not too sure which one it is... perhaps both?
Finder said:
RESPONSE: no Saddam had not "made a gamble". He approached the U.S. Ambassador with complaints of Kuiwaiti 'slant drilling' into Iraqi oil resources. She responded that it was 'a regional issue and would require a regional solution. The U.S. would not interviene.' It looks like the Ambassador mislead Saddam. I have not refreshed my understanding, but I believe that Kuiwait had been part of Iraq until Britain separated it. Much of the Middle East was under European occupation in the first half of the last century.
PoisonPete2 said:
I've checked every online dictionary and thesaurus I could find, googled, metacrawlered, called my librarian...nowhere could I find a reference to "a regional solution" being synonymous with "go ahead and rape and plunder the country".
Saddam may have got the wrong idea initially, but there was no mistaking Bush senior's and the world's contention that "this aggression will not stand". He had no less than six months to leave Kuwait. He chose not to.
there is no need (or time) for an "intellectual response". there IS a war going on world wide, the time for intellectualizing has passed...and most of the world has slept threw it. some are still asleep
resistance is for those that have already lost. those that are still free will fight to stay that way...on the battlefield if necessary but that really isn't necessary as long as we have the law on our side but we need to keep it on our side and use it. now!
resistance is for those that have already lost. those that are still free will fight to stay that way...on the battlefield if necessary but that really isn't necessary as long as we have the law on our side but we need to keep it on our side and use it. now!
PoisonPete2 said:
In fact it's known as being thorough. Checking to make sure I have the facts...Just the Facts. 8)
that might work if they let you take other parts out.
Surah 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Surah 8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Surah 8:73 “The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah’s religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid—these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise).”
Surah 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Surah 9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
Surah 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax* in submission.” *protection tax is called the "jizyah" tax.
Surah 9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Surah 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Surah 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Surah 8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Surah 8:73 “The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah’s religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid—these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise).”
Surah 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Surah 9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
Surah 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax* in submission.” *protection tax is called the "jizyah" tax.
Surah 9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Surah 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam
They didn't seem to agree with the UN giving land to Israel, instead the Arab armies invaded. Try again, things haven't changed much in the Middle East.
Finder said:
They didn't seem to agree with the UN giving land to Israel, instead the Arab armies invaded. Try again, things haven't changed much in the Middle East.
RE: MANIFESTO: against ex
Come on ITN things have changed all over the world, we must have world government, I for one would like to see it come about democraticly the alternative is long years of war and destruction that may result in the end of man. The age of the nation state is over.
Come on ITN things have changed all over the world, we must have world government, I for one would like to see it come about democraticly the alternative is long years of war and destruction that may result in the end of man. The age of the nation state is over.
Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against ex
Your way of thinking is about 200 years early. People and nations have to many differences (or at least that is how they view it) to even begin to trust a global government. We first need to evolve as human being before any of this is possible.
And really I haven't seen anything change anywhere in the world in the last 60 years since WWII. Wars have continued, in other areas for other reasons, but nothing has changed.
darkbeaver said:
Your way of thinking is about 200 years early. People and nations have to many differences (or at least that is how they view it) to even begin to trust a global government. We first need to evolve as human being before any of this is possible.
And really I haven't seen anything change anywhere in the world in the last 60 years since WWII. Wars have continued, in other areas for other reasons, but nothing has changed.
All these separation movements around the world aren’t protesting to bring themselves under a far removed world government....no the exact opposite; they want to have closer representation and control over their own destiny. Nation States are no where near dead, in fact it is the UN that is showing itself the door....
RE: MANIFESTO: against ex
I don,t think we have a hundred years to work on the problem. And in any case globalization is a fact not some fanciful idea for the future, are trade and commerce not global, these are as real as thay can be. Why can,t we as citizens of the world work toward universality, what prevents this necessary work. We can,t wait for evolution to provide the atmosphere for change. I heard someone in a lecture describe the modern human social condition as, thirty thousand year old hardware trying to run state of the art software. The speed of growth of information represents an enormous change, the curves going verticle, when it,s straight up it,s just going to fall over.
I don,t think we have a hundred years to work on the problem. And in any case globalization is a fact not some fanciful idea for the future, are trade and commerce not global, these are as real as thay can be. Why can,t we as citizens of the world work toward universality, what prevents this necessary work. We can,t wait for evolution to provide the atmosphere for change. I heard someone in a lecture describe the modern human social condition as, thirty thousand year old hardware trying to run state of the art software. The speed of growth of information represents an enormous change, the curves going verticle, when it,s straight up it,s just going to fall over.
I never understood why advocates for a world government are against globalization, isn't that somewhat of an oxymoron?