Explain please

[Jon L. Obscene]

Suicide bombers.

I don't get it.

I mean these guys blow themselves up with the belief that they are going to a better place. Last time I heard, no bible (or whatever you wanna call it) states that you kill a shitload of people (innocent people) and you will go to the promise land. In actual fact I always thought it was a worldwide recognition that if you do good you go to heaven (or whatever version you believe in), if you're bad you go to hell.

Have I missed something somewhere?

I simply don't get it, please enlighten me.

Or is it simply that these people are just stupid?

Jonno :cool:

[Guillaume]

In Islam, martyrdom gives you a direct access to Heaven (no time to spend in Purgatory), allows you to see Allah's face, guarantees the access to Heaven of 70 of your loved ones and 72 virgins to serve you for all eternity.


In Arabic, a martyr is termed "shahid" (literally, "witness"). The concept of the shahid is discussed in the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad; the term recurs frequently in the Qur'an, but usually with its literal meaning of "witness". The first martyr in Islam was the old woman Sumaya bint Khabbat, the first Muslim to die at the hands of the polytheists of Mecca (specifically, Abu Jahl). A famous person widely regarded as a martyr - indeed, an archetypical martyr for the Shia - is Husayn bin Ali, who died at the hands of the forces of the caliph Yazid I at Karbala. The Shia commemorate this event each year at Aashurah.

Muslims who die in a legitimate jihad bis saif (struggle with the sword, or Islamic holy war) are typically considered shahid. This usage became controversial in the late 20th century, when (due to the Islamic strictures against suicide) it began to be applied to suicide bombers, e.g. those belonging to Islamist and Palestinian nationalist groups, whose victims often included civilians.

[Snee]

Where teh fook do all the virgins come from, and do they keep being virgins for all eternity, that's what I'd like to know.

And does it say how they look, or what gender they are?



Imagine going to heaven and finding all of gameworld waiting for you :pinch:
That'd explain why they keep being virgins, I suppose.

[Guillaume]

Where teh fook do all the virgins come from, and do they keep being virgins for all eternity, that's what I'd like to know.

And does it say how they look, or what gender they are?



Imagine going to heaven and finding all of gameworld waiting for you :pinch:
That'd explain why they keep being virgins, I suppose.

Fun, but inaccurate. I should have said 72 houri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri).

[Jon L. Obscene]

So basically it does get you into heaven by murdering innocent people.

I see.

Jonno :cool:

[Snee]

Where teh fook do all the virgins come from, and do they keep being virgins for all eternity, that's what I'd like to know.

And does it say how they look, or what gender they are?



Imagine going to heaven and finding all of gameworld waiting for you :pinch:
That'd explain why they keep being virgins, I suppose.

Fun, but inaccurate. I should have said 72 houri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri).
That sucks.

My version would have been more in line with what they deserve.

[Guillaume]

So basically it does get you into heaven by murdering innocent people.

No, sacrificing your life in the service of God does.

Problem is, what precisely constitutes serving God?
The Qu'ran and all the other books containing the Word of God are imprecise or fragmentary enough too allow every madman or remorseless politician/wannabe conqueror to twist it as he desires.

edit: I'm not satisfied with this reply, but it's the best least bad I can do tonight. Maybe someone else will be better at explaining this.

[sArA]

Fun, but inaccurate. I should have said 72 houri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri).
That sucks.

My version would have been more in line with what they deserve.

It will really piss them off if they discover it is is a 'juicy fruit' alright, but they aint quite the 72 sultana they were expecting in paradise! :lol:






I'll erm.....yes.......coat anyone? :blushing:

[lynx]

The Koran specifically forbids suicide.

They supposedly get around this by dying ritually beforehand, so that at the time of their act they are already "dead" so it isn't suicide.

Somehow, I doubt God would be quite so easily fooled.

[bigboab]

The Koran specifically forbids suicide.

They supposedly get around this by dying ritually beforehand, so that at the time of their act they are already "dead" so it isn't suicide.

Somehow, I doubt God would be quite so easily fooled.

Why does he not 'step in' and stop it then? It would save all those innocent lives and make a lot more people turn to religion.

[GepperRankins]

Suicide bombers.

I don't get it.

I mean these guys blow themselves up with the belief that they are going to a better place. Last time I heard, no bible (or whatever you wanna call it) states that you kill a shitload of people (innocent people) and you will go to the promise land. In actual fact I always thought it was a worldwide recognition that if you do good you go to heaven (or whatever version you believe in), if you're bad you go to hell.

Have I missed something somewhere?

I simply don't get it, please enlighten me.

Or is it simply that these people are just stupid?

Jonno :cool:
they're trying to get the west out of the middle east. thinking you go to heaven for killing us just make the pill easier to swallow (if that's the right term).


i'd be surprised if the 'religious leaders' actually believed anything they preached

[RioDeLeo]

If Germany had won the last war and occupied Britain, and if they were attacked by suicide bombers, would the bombers be terrorists or heroes?

[Jon L. Obscene]

Well they would be hero's if it pushed Germany out of Britain, but these people are in Britain already, so it's a completely different scenario.

Ok so I'm right, it does all come down to religion and some form of belief that they are doing the right thing.
Killing pregnant women and children and innocent people just trying to get to work is their lords wish, and altho they are actually physically stopping their own life functions, they have had a ceremony to say they already dead, so in essense they are ghosts.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh........t....

I would really like to talk to one of these people and actually see if they have any brains whatsoever, because as far as I can see they are led by something they don't really understand and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is horrendously flawed and basically just really stupid, just shows that these people have yet to evolve to catch up to the rest of the civilized world.

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

If Germany had won the last war and occupied Britain, and if they were attacked by suicide bombers, would the bombers be terrorists or heroes?Indiscriminate murderers of civilians is what they would be, if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers.

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.

For ANY reason.
We have armed forces to fight battles, bringing a fight to the streets in such a way is bullying, their armed forces fighting our civilians, bit unfair and not quite cricket.

I do know one thing however, reading stuff accross the net this morning, this attack on london seems to have hieghtend the hatred which lives in Britain for the Asian community.
I think what we will get is another wave of random attacks by "native" (for want of a better word) british people on more innocent people due to the colour of their skin.
So what they are doing by attacking the us and uk etc is making life hell for asians who do live honest lives and work and have families, because they will now be targetted.

Another example of how these bombers have no reguard for anyone reguardless of where they come from or what beliefs they have.
They have no reason for doing this, they are just randomly murdering people.

Jonno :cool:

[RioDeLeo]

If Germany had won the last war and occupied Britain, and if they were attacked by suicide bombers, would the bombers be terrorists or heroes?Indiscriminate murderers of civilians is what they would be, if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers.

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.

What if they were attacking the occupying German forces, and not civilians? Terrorists or freedom fighters?

[manker]

Any reasonable person would not hate the Asian community in the UK because of what happened in London.

Idiots may use it as an excuse to express their prejudices in a violent manner but we have police to deal with this.


Btw, if you agree with my quote. Why did you say that UK people attacking hypothetical German settlers with suicide bombers would be fine.

Seems a bit weird.

[JPaul]

If Germany had won the last war and occupied Britain, and if they were attacked by suicide bombers, would the bombers be terrorists or heroes?Indiscriminate murderers of civilians is what they would be, if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers.

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment I can't wholly agree with the second paragraph, because the murder is totally indiscriminate. They kill people of their own creed, colour etc. They really don't care whether their bomb kills a 5 year old of their own religion.

Freedom fighters, or resistance forces attack military targets. Or destroy property, for example an empty bridge, or a train during the night when no-one is about.

The discriminating factor to my mind is the choice of target.

[manker]

Indiscriminate murderers of civilians is what they would be, if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers.

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.

What if they were attacking the occupying German forces, and not civilians? Terrorists or freedom fighters?You mean like the kamikaze tactics of the Japanese or similar suicide missions our own soldiers were sent on in WWII.

I would morally disagree.

People being sent to their assured deaths by superiors sitting behind desks is always wrong too. I don't consider it a valid tactic - wartime nor peacetime.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Any reasonable person would not hate the Asian community in the UK because of what happened in London.

Idiots may use it as an excuse to express their prejudices in a violent manner but we have police to deal with this.

I know that, but you know as well as me that is the way many people think in this country.


Btw, if you agree with my quote. Why did you say that UK people attacking hypothetical German settlers with suicide bombers would be fine.

Seems a bit weird.

No no, I possibly worded that wrong, I would'nt agree with attacking settlers, but if we were occupied by Germany with their ideals then fighting back at the armed forces would be acceptable. Not blowing up innocent people.



What if they were attacking the occupying German forces, and not civilians? Terrorists or freedom fighters?

But they are not attacking forces, they are mudering innocent civilians.
We're not complaining about the forces in Iraq being attacked, they are at war and there to fight. People in London and various other places are just going about their lives.

You cannot compare the 2, for a start the English occupy England, so as far as I can see you're saying that these terrorists are trying to force british people out of their homes?
So it's an invasion?

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

Indiscriminate murderers of civilians is what they would be, if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers.

Worthy of condemnation. Being of a different skin colour, different creed and being for a different cause cannot dress up the fact that killing civillians for a political cause is wrong.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment I can't wholly agree with the second paragraph, because the murder is totally indiscriminate. They kill people of their own creed, colour etc. They really don't care whether their bomb kills a 5 year old of their own religion.

Freedom fighters, or resistance forces attack military targets. Or destroy property, for example an empty bridge, or a train during the night when no-one is about.

The discriminating factor to my mind is the choice of target.I did say 'if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers'.

The second paragraph is simply an extrapolation of my condemnation of contemporary suicide methods such as letting off a bomb on a bus.

[RioDeLeo]

.. so as far as I can see you're saying that these terrorists are trying to force british people out of their homes?
Jonno :cool:

Not at all, l'm replying to this ..

Suicide bombers.

I don't get it.

I mean these guys blow themselves up with the belief that they are going to a better place.

l'm merely trying to ascertain whether it's the act of suicide bombing you don't understand, or the targets they choose.

[GepperRankins]

what alternative course of action can they (suicide bombers) take?

well apart from getting off the bus first. suicide is a pretty pointless waste of a foot soldier if you ask me

[JPaul]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment I can't wholly agree with the second paragraph, because the murder is totally indiscriminate. They kill people of their own creed, colour etc. They really don't care whether their bomb kills a 5 year old of their own religion.

Freedom fighters, or resistance forces attack military targets. Or destroy property, for example an empty bridge, or a train during the night when no-one is about.

The discriminating factor to my mind is the choice of target.I did say 'if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers'.

The second paragraph is simply an extrapolation of my condemnation of contemporary suicide methods such as letting off a bomb on a bus.
I understand, it just read to me as if you were saying they were specifically targeting people of different creed, colour etc. Whereas they don't even do that, it's just anyone who happens to be there.

Crossed wires and so forth.

[manker]

what alternative course of action can they (suicide bombers) take?

well apart from getting off the bus first. suicide is a pretty pointless waste of a foot soldier if you ask meThey can have a chat about it.

However just the cause, the indiscriminate taking of civillian life is wrong.

[GepperRankins]

yeah killing is definately wrong but haven't they already tried talking about it?

[manker]

I did say 'if they used the same methods as contemporary suicide bombers'.

The second paragraph is simply an extrapolation of my condemnation of contemporary suicide methods such as letting off a bomb on a bus.
I understand, it just read to me as if you were saying they were specifically targeting people of different creed, colour etc. Whereas they don't even do that, it's just anyone who happens to be there.

Crossed wires and so forth.I read that paragraph again, after I replied to you, and realised that my sentence was badly worded. I was going to mention it.

However, I hate those ugly edit marks :shutup:

[manker]

yeah killing is definately wrong but haven't they already tried talking about it?Yeah.

I agree suicide bombing is their most potent weapon to grab the attention but that doesn't make it right and could be counter productive. In fact it is counter productive.

No-one will be willing to negotiate with a group that encourages it's members to specifically target civillians but if a group renounces the practice, and sticks to it, then their voice would become that much louder in political circles.

[BawA]

So basically it does get you into heaven by murdering innocent people.

I see.

Jonno :cool:
"every thing is fair in love and war"
i belive u guys made this sentence, protecting our freedom, country and specialy islamic nation in anyway is fair and in order to do that some sacrifices are needed. both inocent and sacrificer r considered as a martyr, and as promised will goto heaven.
its considered a holy war if u try to cut the invasion from the islamic country.
and once again, living and dieing is in god's hand so its just a matter of time.

[manker]

So basically it does get you into heaven by murdering innocent people.

I see.

Jonno :cool:
"every thing is fair in love and war"
i belive u guys made this sentence, protecting our freedom, country and specialy islamic nation in anyway is fair and in order to do that some sacrifices are needed. both inocent and sacrificer r considered as a martyr, and as promised will goto heaven.
and once again, living and dieing is in god's hand so its just a matter of time.So you're one of these morons who think that by bombing a cafe, you'll go to heaven.

Why are Islamic religious leaders renouncing suicide bombings, calling them unjust and not in accord with the Qur'an? Do you know more about the subject than they do.

No, you don't ... you're a brainwashed fool.

[JPaul]

There are several points to remember here;

1. Just because a group claims to represent people, does not mean they actually do. The very people the murderer claims to be fighting for often actually decry their actions. They may not even want the same end as the murderers, far less approve of their means

2. mankers point re laying down of arms is a good one. Progress was made in Ireland when a ceasefire was called and people spoke to each other. It's an ongoing process but it does seem to be carrying on in the right direction.

3. The most succesful protests and actions I can think of have been non-violent. One thinks of The Mahatma and of Martin Luther King. They changed the World thro' non-violent means.

4. Any solution which is not a compromise will not work, at least not in the long run. This is part of the problem with fundamentalists. They think that they are 100% correct and that their God will not allow them to compromise. It is fortunate that most people can learn to live together. Using Muslims as an example, the vast, vast majority (certainly those who have settled here) live at peace with their neighbour. They may still think everyone else an infidel, but they live with it.

5.Murder is wrong, there are no "what ifs" or "there was nothing else I could do", it is just wrong.

[BawA]

So you're one of these morons who think that by bombing a cafe, you'll go to heaven.

Why are Islamic religious leaders renouncing suicide bombings, calling them unjust and not in accord with the Qur'an? Do you know more about the subject than they do.

No, you don't ... you're a brainwashed fool.

i dont have that guts to blast my self, killing inocent is not what they want... i said sacrifices, meaning that with killing some inocent they can bury some people who they belive thier invaising thier country.
tell me how do u guys feel when army bombs inocent people to kill some bad guys?
doesnt that just looks the same.
its just like in US when u rape a black 11 year old girl and nobody cares but in same case when a white girl gets raped every fucking red neck stands up.

[GepperRankins]

So you're one of these morons who think that by bombing a cafe, you'll go to heaven.

Why are Islamic religious leaders renouncing suicide bombings, calling them unjust and not in accord with the Qur'an? Do you know more about the subject than they do.

No, you don't ... you're a brainwashed fool.

i dont have that guts to blast my self, killing inocent is not what they want... i said sacrifices, meaning that with killing some inocent they can bury some people who they belive thier invaising thier country.
tell me how do u guys feel when army bombs inocent people to kill some bad guys?
doesnt that just looks the same.
its just like in US when u rape a black 11 year old girl and nobody cares but in same case when a white girl gets raped every fucking red neck stands up.
the rape thing is just wrong. don't know where you heard it.



there is a difference. while thousands of civilians have died at the hands or western soldiers, none of them were intended to kill just civilians. british civilians aren't invaders, in fact the vast majority opposed the iraq invasion.

[manker]

So you're one of these morons who think that by bombing a cafe, you'll go to heaven.

Why are Islamic religious leaders renouncing suicide bombings, calling them unjust and not in accord with the Qur'an? Do you know more about the subject than they do.

No, you don't ... you're a brainwashed fool.

i dont have that guts to blast my self, killing inocent is not what they want... i said sacrifices, meaning that with killing some inocent they can bury some people who they belive thier invaising thier country.
tell me how do u guys feel when army bombs inocent people to kill some bad guys?
doesnt that just looks the same.
its just like in US when u rape a black 11 year old girl and nobody cares but in same case when a white girl gets raped every fucking red neck stands up.So you're one of these morons who thinks people who bomb cafes go to heaven - but you're without the guts to do it yourself.

That is slightly better. Wait, no it's not. You're simply a moronic coward - which puts me in mind of the leaders of Hamas et al who encourage their members to blow themselves up in buses but won't do it themselves.

I don't believe the coalition forces deliberately attacked civilians so that makes it a different thing, however, I didn't agree with the Iraq invasion in the first place. The example you gave of white girls and black girls getting raped is something only racists could distinguish between. To me they're equally heinous.



I ask again; what makes you more of an authority on the Qur'an than the Islamic leaders who have denounced suicide bombings?

[Peerzy]

So you're one of these morons who think that by bombing a cafe, you'll go to heaven.

Why are Islamic religious leaders renouncing suicide bombings, calling them unjust and not in accord with the Qur'an? Do you know more about the subject than they do.

No, you don't ... you're a brainwashed fool.

i dont have that guts to blast my self, killing inocent is not what they want... i said sacrifices, meaning that with killing some inocent they can bury some people who they belive thier invaising thier country.
tell me how do u guys feel when army bombs inocent people to kill some bad guys?
doesnt that just looks the same.
its just like in US when u rape a black 11 year old girl and nobody cares but in same case when a white girl gets raped every fucking red neck stands up.


So terrorists are really trying to rape white people :blink:

The Qur'an says no one must take a life unless it is in repayment for an equal sin.

Terrorists read this is American's bomb us, we gonna fuck them.

Im sure if every country kept its troops in itsown country and no one bothered to try to "Make peace in the middle east" the world would be a better place. Let them sort out there own issues, as long as they don't bring the fight to us don't brng it to them.

[manker]

There are several points to remember here;

1. Just because a group claims to represent people, does not mean they actually do. The very people the murderer claims to be fighting for often actually decry their actions. They may not even want the same end as the murderers, far less approve of their means

2. mankers point re laying down of arms is a good one. Progress was made in Ireland when a ceasefire was called and people spoke to each other. It's an ongoing process but it does seem to be carrying on in the right direction.

3. The most succesful protests and actions I can think of have been non-violent. One thinks of The Mahatma and of Martin Luther King. They changed the World thro' non-violent means.

4. Any solution which is not a compromise will not work, at least not in the long run. This is part of the problem with fundamentalists. They think that they are 100% correct and that their God will not allow them to compromise. It is fortunate that most people can learn to live together. Using Muslims as an example, the vast, vast majority (certainly those who have settled here) live at peace with their neighbour. They may still think everyone else an infidel, but they live with it.

5.Murder is wrong, there are no "what ifs" or "there was nothing else I could do", it is just wrong.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.

The ceasefire in Ireland was exactly what I had in mind when I made the point about negotiations, too.

[BawA]

Im sure if every country kept its troops in itsown country and no one bothered to try to "Make peace in the middle east" the world would be a better place. Let them sort out there own issues, as long as they don't bring the fight to us don't brng it to them.

why cant bush think of this.
why always westreners want to interfare in other bussnies while all they bring is more disstruction.
bush said lets stop Afghanistan so there wouldnt be any more 9/11, then iraq, instead it brought more of 9/11's.
we simply refuse to go under westren rule, we have our own way, this is the thing u guy should accsept it. iraq was peacefull untill american bad lucks steped in, now not only iraq but all neighbours have prolems(lebanon, seria...)

[sArA]

Iraq peaceful??? give me a break!!

If peace is at the cost of a brutal dictatorship that murders its own people then I for one don't want that kind of peace.

I doubt if the Kurds and other oppressed people of Saddam's regime would agree with you.

[BawA]

what u saw in tapes was in early age of saddams regim, i dislike saddam also but people life was much more better then what it is.
before saddam used to kill them now every forgin gun man kill them on daily bases. at age of saddam regim only political perisnors were murdered but now no matter who is who they would die.
which one is better?

[Barbarossa]

what u saw in tapes was in early age of saddams regim, i dislike saddam also but people life was much more better then what it is.
before saddam used to kill them now every forgin gun man kill them on daily bases. at age of saddam regim only political perisnors were murdered but now no matter who is who they would die.
which one is bettre?

Yay! Lets hear it for brutal dictatorships! After all, they only kill political prisoners, so that's OK. :frusty:

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator... :ph34r:



The difference is, the new Government of Iraq is not responsible for the killing. I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.

[BawA]

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator...
not same thing, a man could just live with his life without getting himself in the political thing at saddams time so he wouldnt be killed but now the same guy living same life(minding his own life) can die for no reason altho in saddams time he needed a reason to be killed.
the only diffrence is that a man would die for some reason in saddams time but he doesnt need a reason now days.

[manker]

what u saw in tapes was in early age of saddams regim, i dislike saddam also but people life was much more better then what it is.
before saddam used to kill them now every forgin gun man kill them on daily bases. at age of saddam regim only political perisnors were murdered but now no matter who is who they would die.
which one is bettre?

Yay! Lets hear it for brutal dictatorships! After all, they only kill political prisoners, so that's OK. :frusty:

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator... :ph34r:



The difference is, the new Government of Iraq is not responsible for the killing. I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

[Busyman]

Yay! Lets hear it for brutal dictatorships! After all, they only kill political prisoners, so that's OK. :frusty:

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator... :ph34r:



The difference is, the new Government of Iraq is not responsible for the killing. I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.
....or a British one.

[manker]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.
....or a British one.:P

Like Blair decided anything.

[NikkiD]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.
....or a British one.

That is a very good point. If a country asks for help from other governments that's one thing. But for a country, or in this case the coalition, to decide what's best for another country without that plea for help just doesn't sit right with me.

Who are we (western culture) to say that we have it right and that Iraq had it wrong? Sure, we feel that we have a better society, but then most people have a sense of pride in their way of life. That is something for the people of Iraq to decide, they have to live there, not us.


I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.

I feel the same way. Is that the way Iraqi citizens feel?

[Barbarossa]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

I'm not naiively suggesting that the US and the UK thought they were going to invade Iraq to make things better for the people. That was just something that was said afterwards, to try and justify it.

The original so-called justification for the invasion was suspected WMD.

However, once they were in, regime-change happened, and there was then a power vacuum..

If they'd left the Iraqi's simply to get on with it after Saddam was ousted from power, there'd have been uproar in the International community. That vacuum had to be filled.

Now, you can fill this in a number of ways. e.g. an occupying army, a puppet dictator, governor, whatever, maybe even UN peacekeepers, anyway, rightly or wrongly, they decided to go for free democratic elections.

Now if the Iraqi's wanted to, they could vote in another dictator. That's the beauty of democracy. :dry:

It's simpler for the people to decide to alter things in a democracy, that in an autocracy.

[RioDeLeo]

Talking of democracy; Condo Rice was talking in Egypt a few weeks back, she ran down the Lebanese style of democracy, calling it undemocratic. She showed no understanding of how their system works, where each religious or ethnic group had guaranteed positions in the government. Even though the European observers declared the elections free and fair, she still felt the need to criticize.

The thing was, l have never heard her stand up and condemn China's government, not one word, China can do what they like as far as the US is concerned, including the execution and persecution of political opponents.

[yonki]

No1s gonna go to hell. Were all going to heaven, thats why Jesus died, to save us all. So it doesnt matter if you kill 1 or 100 people, well meet there.