Fatwa Issued

[JPaul]

A fatwa has been issued by Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group proclaiming the July 7 London transit bombings as the work of a "perverted ideology."

In issuing the binding religious edict, the Sunni Council said Sunday the bombings were anti-Islamic and that the Koran, Islam's holy book, forbade suicide attacks.

"Who has given anyone the right to kill others? It is a sin. Anyone who commits suicide will be sent to Hell,'' said Mufti Muhammad Gul Rehman Qadri, the council chairman.

"What happened in London can be seen as a sacrilege. It is a sin to take your life or the life of others.''

The fatwa also said Muslims could not use the "atrocities being committed in Palestine and Iraq" to justify acts like the transit bombings that killed 55 and wounded 700.

taken from this (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1121611290194_85/?hub=CTVNewsAt11) as a source of the above to prevent a lot of typing.

I originally read about this in Daily Record 18th July 2005 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15748673&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=burn-in-hell--name_page.html), which also states


Grand Mufti Muhammad Gul Rehman Qadri said: 'Anyone who commits suicide will be sent to Hell.

'It is the explicit saying of the Holy Prophet who ordered his followers to seek peace and harmony wherever they should live, not to cause death and destruction or to live counter to the laws of that host country.'

Last night, [Mohammed] Sarwar [a Glasgow MP] revealed the Fatwa had been passed unanimously by the 3000 imams at the meeting in Birmingham.

He said: 'I congratulate the imams for the leadership they have shown to the Islamic community.

'We have to open our young people's eyes to the fact that these extremists are acting against Islam, the very religion they falsely claim to proclaim.

'This is a strong statement that true believers will do everything we can to get rid of the extremists and terrorists in our midst.'

The Fatwa quoted verses from the Islamic holy book, the Koran, which forbid suicide and killing or hurting people.

The Fatwa said: 'The attacks in London have no Islamic justification, are totally condemned and we equally condemn those behind the masterminding of these act, those who incited these youths to further their perverted ideology.'

Grand Mufti Qadri added: 'We urge all Muslims and non- Muslims to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.

In my opinion this is exactly what the Muslim community needed to do. Show the rest of us that they are as horrified at these attrocities and attacks on them as we are. Show that these Murderers do not have a mandate from the Muslim community to commit murder on their behalf and show that they will stand beside those who fight terrorism.

[sArA]

Imo...a long time coming.

I am glad that it has finally happened but the dragging of feet still sits a little uncomfortably with me.

Having said that, as the Muslim religion explicitly rejects such acts of violence, it is a pity that they have even had to do this at all.

[vidcc]

A good public relations action and I believe that they do indeed condemn the actions of the bombers.
It does make me wonder though if it will do any good. Those that are ignorant enough to put all Muslims in with the fanatics that carry out such acts will always have prejudice against Muslims.
I have seen it here in the US where there are calls for Muslims to do similar things. But should one Muslim have to apologise or shout louder for the actions of others with whom the ONLY connection is they are of the same religious faith?

I haven't yet seen the calls for Christians to condemn or apologise for the actions of Eric Rudolph. In fact he will not get the death sentence because the prosecutor believes that his actions would be viewed sympathetically.

Good on this Muslim group for their stance, but let's see it across the board. Terrorism in all forms is evil and inexcusable.

[JPaul]

I agree, a long time coming. I would go as far as to say overdue.

However I am trying to look on the positive aspects of this. Look to the future and so forth.

[DarthInsinuate]

not knowing anything about Islam, i don't understand why it's taken so long for this fatwa to be issued considering extremists have been commiting murder in the name of Islam for so long

[Rat Faced]

Possibly because it coincides with the Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) report that shows how bad our current foreign policy is?

[JPaul]

A good public relations action and I believe that they do indeed condemn the actions of the bombers.
It does make me wonder though if it will do any good. Those that are ignorant enough to put all Muslims in with the fanatics that carry out such acts will always have prejudice against Muslims.
I have seen it here in the US where there are calls for Muslims to do similar things. But should one Muslim have to apologise or shout louder for the actions of others with whom the ONLY connection is they are of the same religious faith?

I haven't yet seen the calls for Christians to condemn or apologise for the actions of Eric Rudolph. In fact he will not get the death sentence because the prosecutor believes that his actions would be viewed sympathetically.

Good on this Muslim group for their stance, but let's see it across the board. Terrorism in all forms is evil and inexcusable.

I know where you are coming from and it makes sense. However it is good to see the Muslim leaders in the UK clarifying this to their faithful. I think (hope) that this will do more good than anything else. If, as I believe the Muslim people take their faith seriously, then this is a clear and unequivocal message to those who may have any doubt in their mind.

I think that's what they were doing, telling their own people and the rest of the World that this is not comensurate with their faith. Therefore anyone who claims it is cannot be a true Muslim. Making it more difficult for these murderers to hide behind their lies.

Which means that it is nothing to do with jihad and everything to do with politics and power. We already knew that, but there is now a definitive message to the Muslims and everyone else in the UK.

I'm not really fussed if it is a PR exercise, if it does some good then that will satisfy me.

[RioDeLeo]

The problem here is that the imams making the Fatwa are the moderate ones, not those calling for the killings. Police in London regularly guard extremist clerics spouting hate, and calling for revenge attacks. l read today that new laws have been passed in Britain making this sort of thing illegal, about time.

[DanB]

But we have invited someone else banz0red from many countries for terrorist links to come and give a talk at some Muslim conference on Friday.

Go England :wacko:

[Rat Faced]

But we have invited someone else banz0red from many countries for terrorist links to come and give a talk at some Muslim conference on Friday.

Go England :wacko:

If thats the one The Sun was commenting upon last week... maybe you should read up on him.

The Sun, as usual, was talking pish.

It stated he was banned in France and the USA.. his offices are in Paris and he's a moderate.

If the US has banned him, they've neglected to tell him so, although he hasnt tried to enter that country for a few month :P

[DanB]

I'm talking about the one that was on the front page today

[manker]

I'm talking about the one that was on the front page todayProlly the same guy, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Here's what the BBC say about him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3874893.stm

Pretty much the same as the Sun, actually. However, the BBC don't mention if he's banned in the US or France, but they do mention a few of his good points :ph34r:


I particularly disagree with his views on suicide bombings. Weirdly, save the religious bluster, they tie in with TehDave's - maybe that's why the mods have banned his IP :unsure:

[sArA]

I particularly disagree with his views on suicide bombings. Weirdly, save the religious bluster, they tie in with TehDave's - maybe that's why the mods have banned his IP :unsure:




Troll :dry:

[Rat Faced]

They are going on and on about that guy... and he hasnt even been invited to speak in this country, why?

Isnt he the one thats progressive in every sense of Islam, has condemned all Islamic Terrorism except that of Palestine/Israel.. as he believes the Palestinians have every right to defend themselves and fight their occupiers?

Isnt that what the French Resistance were doing in WWII? :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

Isnt that what the French Resistance were doing in WWII? :rolleyes:
It depends on the target.

We've been thro' that.

[Rat Faced]

Give the Palestinians Tanks and Jets...

I'm sure they'd then be happy to stick to Military Targets... like the Israeli's do..not.

[JPaul]

Give the Palestinians Tanks and Jets...

I'm sure they'd then be happy to stick to Military Targets... like the Israeli's do..not.

What did the French Resistance do, did they have Tanks and Jets.

[Rat Faced]

Give the Palestinians Tanks and Jets...

I'm sure they'd then be happy to stick to Military Targets... like the Israeli's do..not.

What did the French Resistance do, did they have Tanks and Jets.

Touche..

However, i'm unable to answer as to whether they operated outside of France.

I do know that a number of civilians were killed/injured due to their activities at times though.

[JPaul]

What did the French Resistance do, did they have Tanks and Jets.

Touche..

However, i'm unable to answer as to whether they operated outside of France.

I do know that a number of civilians were killed/injured due to their activities at times though.
I seriously think that the intent is important. It's different to target the military and to inadvertantly kill civilians. To bomb a bus, the intent is obvious.

[Rat Faced]

And have the Israeli's always targeted the Military?

I may be Cynical, but they appear to class everything and one in the occupied territories as Military...

[JPaul]

And have the Israeli's always targeted the Military?

I may be Cynical, but they appear to class everything and one in the occupied territories as Military...
Faults on both sides say I.

Compromise is the only solution, I said it in the other thread. Look at the North of Ireland, certainly moving in the right direction.

Problem is, some groups seem unable to do it. They are 100% right and anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong. You see it in individuals as well.

[DanB]

They are going on and on about that guy... and he hasnt even been invited to speak in this country, why?



The arrival in Britain of the Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, to take part in a conference has sparked a row because of his controversial views on suicide bombings.

First paragraph of the article that manker's link is to :pinch:

[Rat Faced]

Which is the one they've been going on about for the last 48 hours that hasnt even been invited then :blink:

I was watching it on a few News programs (notably Channel 4) .. however missed the name :lookaroun

[Snee]

I bet the UK is going to have islamic orators all over the place in a few weeks, by the looks of this :lol:

[Tikibonbon]

I bet the UK is going to have islamic orators all over the place in a few weeks, by the looks of this :lol:

I don't think this is the spokesman they are looking for....


CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, praised the recent terror attacks in London and said many more would follow.

Speaking to CNN Producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four bombers.

Displayed prominently in the apartment were pictures of el-Amir's son, Mohamed Atta, the man who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center as part of the attacks on the United States.

El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."

The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Muslim world.

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000.

That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack.

El-Amir said that $5,000 was about how much it would cost to finance another attack in London.

A lawyer by trade, el-Amir had a sign on his apartment door saying he was a consultant.

The security guard for the apartment building said el-Amir had been under surveillance by Egyptian agents for several months after the September 11 attacks, but no one had been watching him recently.

[Rat Faced]

In June 1997, Atta was laid off by Plankontor. The partners had bought a CAD system and his draughtsmanship was not needed. 'When he was given his last sum of money, he got too much from us and he sent it back,' recalled Frinken. 'He said that he hadn't earned it and he didn't want any more'.

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,556630,00.html)

He was an honest chap tho...

[Rat Faced]

Naivete?

Naivete as is thinking Iraq doesnt/wouldnt cause more hostility among a lot of people..

British Intelligence, Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs)and Economic & Social Research Council have issued reports recently that point out that UK/US foreign policy is helping terrorism.

Something that no-one can say "well, we couldnt have known" as many people have been warning of this for years.


A little like the current situation in Iraq in fact.. warned and then saying "We couldnt have known", or lying outright and hoping no-one spots the bluff. :rolleyes:


....there is "no doubt" that the invasion of Iraq has imposed difficulties for the UK and that the UK is at "particular risk" because it is the closest ally of the US and has closely supported the deployment of British troops in the U.S. led military campaigns. A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain is the government’s position as "pillion passenger" to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the "ally in the driving seat" to do the steering. Senior UK cabinet ministers are in denial.

From the Chatham House Report (http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf)


Face up to your naivete J2K4.. far from making the world safer, the "War on Terror" in its current format has increased terrorism 3fold easily, and been hijacked in order to achieve the personal aims of certain parties.

Helping Al Queda, so Iraq can be invaded for example. Conveniantly not telling the people that Al Queda's supporters in that country were your allies in the invasion... The Kurds.

How are the terrorist acts of the Kurds in Turkey being reported over there by the way?

Is it long enough ago that they risk reporting them at all yet?

[JPaul]

I just knew you were going to say that.

[GepperRankins]

Naivete?

Naivete as is thinking Iraq doesnt/wouldnt cause more hostility among a lot of people..





From the Chatham House Report (http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf)


Face up to your naivete J2K4.. far from making the world safer, the "War on Terror" in its current format has increased terrorism 3fold easily, and been hijacked in order to achieve the personal aims of certain parties.

Do you think Atta is actually enjoying his ordained allotment of "virgins", Rat?

I'll bet he died with the thought uppermost in his mind...

So you think appeasement would be the safer route?

Understanding?

So the risk of terrorist acts is greater in the short run...I don't believe anyone would have forecast differently; you can paint Bush's comment(s) aboard the carrier any way you like, except to say he intended to communicate that the dying was done with.

What will you say when we've left Iraq?

If there is no civil war?

If the nascent democracy survives and thrives?

Will you curse Iraq as a puppet of the U.S. if it is not on unfriendly terms with us?

If they continue to sell us oil?

You and I see the entire question of terrorism as a chicken/egg, cart/horse poser-you think it begins with overweening U.S. foreign policy, and you think that I believe it started with 9/11.

The fact is that I don't care in the least what started it; all I know is that it is being conducted as a tactic of the otherwise ineffectual to foment grief and chaos in civilized quarters, and it is currently enjoying it's operating status under cover of a religious fundamentalist imperative, which should just piss you off royally, but somehow seems to escape your notice, such is your contempt for the U.S.'s efforts, fully granting their inherent imperfection.

Your faith in the U.N. and it's various international bodies (the I.C.C. springs to mind) has not, and never has been, borne out by events.

One can only conclude you favor inaction and acquiescence over any pro-active scenario, because that is precisely what the U.N. wrought prior to our entry into Afghanistan and Iraq.

BTW-

To those of you who swear up and down Iraq and Saddam had no knowledge/involvement in the events of 9/11, perhaps you might disclose your dispositive evidence proving the innocent attendence of Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Hikmat Shakir with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lumpur for the purpose of plotting the event?
for some reason whenever i read one of your posts i get really annoyed.


why the fuck would the iraqi government want to give you an excuse to invade?


so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy.


and stop saying foment, it sounds fucking stupid.

[JPaul]

"so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy."

And perhaps US foreign policy is affected by their people being murdered in indiscriminate attacks.

[GepperRankins]

which happened because of foriegn policy

[JPaul]

which happened because of foriegn policy
Which foreign policy do you feel justified the 911 attacks.

I am genuinely interested.

[manker]

He didn't say that. He said it happened because of US foreign policy, something I agree with.

However, nothing can justify the murder of circa 3,000 civillians.

[JPaul]

"so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy."

That implies that the foreign policy was the reason for the attack. Therefore the justification for it.

If that is not the case then, as you say there was no justification for it.

I'll re-word. Which US foreign policy caused the 911 attacks.

[manker]

"so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy."

That implies that the foreign policy was the reason for the attack. Therefore the justification for it.Sorry mate, can't agree with your use of therefore in that context.

As I said, I also think foreign policy was the reason for the attack but by no means do I think it was justified.

As to the re-wording. I have no special insight but believe it would be to do with the US having military bases in the holy land. I believe this is something that Osama Bin Laden stated. Also their stance on Israel obviously rankles with the Arab world, somewhat.

This and their general interventionist nature are what I believe prompted 911.

It's no justification but I believe it's the most likely cause.

[Rat Faced]

Think i'll take the word of a world renouned authority over yours J2 ;)

We know what the cause of Al Queda terrorism is..

We know that the USA trained same terrorists and sent them to fight the infidel Russians in Afganistan... shame they decided that they didnt like the infidel Americans in Saudi either.



We know the reason for Palestinian Terrorism, and that blatant favouritism in that conflict contributes to it.



We know that there were no suicide bombers in Iraq before the invasion, and now there are a lot more people dying there than there were prior to invasion.


We know that the coalition managed to kill more Iraqi's in 2 years than Hussain managed in the 10 years prior to the invasion.



We know that Al Queda, through the Kurds, were allies against Hussain and then went back to their own agenda of getting the US out of the Middle East following the invasion... while the Kurds went back to their own agenda of bombing Turkey.


We know that the Government of Iraq as stands is corrupt and disregards Human Rights (guess it is copying the US Model after all) and is now pretty friendly with Iran.



Tell me J2, because i just cant see it.... what good exactly, if anything, has come out of US policies?

Apart from the loss of US citizens freedoms and rights of course :rolleyes:


Your faith in the U.N. and it's various international bodies (the I.C.C. springs to mind) has not, and never has been, borne out by events.

And US policy has?

Frankly, i'm glad that this Government is being investigated by the ICC, and that some of our soldiers are being prosecuted under the ICC act.

It shows that we still live by Law...

Maybe it will also show some more Americans how much they are being hoodwinked, we live in hope.

[Snee]

"so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy."

That implies that the foreign policy was the reason for the attack. Therefore the justification for it.Sorry mate, can't agree with your use of therefore in that context.

As I said, I also think foreign policy was the reason for the attack but by no means do I think it was justified.

As to the re-wording. I have no special insight but believe it would be to do with the US having military bases in the holy land. I believe this is something that Osama Bin Laden stated. Also their stance on Israel obviously rankles with the Arab world, somewhat.

This and their general interventionist nature are what I believe prompted 911.

It's no justification but I believe it's the most likely cause.
And then there's the wee matter of Bin laden being supported by the US in the past, back when he was a "freedom fighter", he prolly picked up oone or two things from that experience.

And, I suppose it could be argued, therefore, that he and his bum-chums wouldn't have had the means to do what they did, had it not been for past US foreign policies.

But, regardless of that, not matter if the reason for the attack was US foreign policy or not, the whole 9/11 thing was pretty damned mental, and not something that can be justified by blaming the aforementioned policies.

It is only a possible reason, and so forth, as you say.

[JPaul]

"so what if the terrorism is under cover religious shit, it's still down to american foriegn policy."

That implies that the foreign policy was the reason for the attack. Therefore the justification for it.Sorry mate, can't agree with your use of therefore in that context.


I can change it to ergo, but my point remains the same. Their reason was to achieve an end. Their justification was that the end justified the means. Therefore, logically the reason and the justification are the same thing.

It is all good and well to glibly post things like - "The reason for terrorist attacks on the USA is their foreign policy".

However in order for that statement to be valid one must surely go beyond the nebulous. One must be able to say which policy or policies resulted in the indiscriminate murder of c3,000 people. Otherwise it is little more than sabre rattling.

I say again, which US foreign policy was the reason (or justification) for the attack.

[manker]

Sorry mate, can't agree with your use of therefore in that context.


I can change it to ergo, but my point remains the same. Their reason was to achieve an end. Their justification was that the end justified the means. Therefore, logically the reason and the justification are the same thing.

It is all good and well to glibly post things like - "The reason for terrorist attacks on the USA is their foreign policy".

However in order for that statement to be valid one must surely go beyond the nebulous. One must be able to say which policy or policies resulted in the indiscriminate murder of c3,000 people. Otherwise it is little more than sabre rattling.

I say again, which US foreign policy was the reason (or justification) for the attack.I'm sure they think they're justified in attacking the US.

However, you specifically asked "which foreign policy do you feel justified the 911 attacks" - this is why I disagreed with your use of therefore. I don't think it was justified.

I can state what they feel is justification for the attacks, which I've done, but I cannot state why I think it's justified because I do not.

[manker]

Sorry mate, can't agree with your use of therefore in that context.

As I said, I also think foreign policy was the reason for the attack but by no means do I think it was justified.

As to the re-wording. I have no special insight but believe it would be to do with the US having military bases in the holy land. I believe this is something that Osama Bin Laden stated. Also their stance on Israel obviously rankles with the Arab world, somewhat.

This and their general interventionist nature are what I believe prompted 911.

It's no justification but I believe it's the most likely cause.
And then there's the wee matter of Bin laden being supprted by the US in the past, back when he was a "freedom fighter", he prolly picked up oone or two things from that experience.

And, I suppose it could be argued, therefore, that he and his bum-chums wouldn't have had the means to do what they did, had it not been for past US foreign policies.

But, regardless of that, not matter if the reason for the attack was US foreign policy or not, the whole 9/11 thing was pretty damned mental, and not something that can be justified by blaming the aforementioned policies.

It is only a possible reason, and so forth, as you say.Quite.

I'm not saying it was justified, just that I believe US foreign policy is likely to be what the perpetrators consider provocation for the attack.

They (Al-Qaida or whoever orchestrated the mass murder) are clearly mentalists but reacted to what they preceive as an injustice toward their beliefs.

[Rat Faced]

I am informed by your Prime Minister that, since 1993, Al Qaeda has attacked 26 separate countries, 23 of whom are neither Britain, Spain nor the U.S.A.

Somewhat intriguing, that...

I wouldnt believe "My" Prime Minister in anything regarding Iraq or Terrorism these days, the fact that you do scares me a little.

I believe he did say that 26 countries had been affected by Terrorism, not specifically Al Queda. I would suggest his figures are on the low side.. obviously his idea of terrorism differs from my own, I'd include places like Sudan, Burma and Palestine which he doesnt appear to.


The U.S. trained what might more truthfully (especially in the salient circumstances) be considered insurgents; to call them terrorists is to credit them with a status that neither they, nor necessarily Bin Laden, had earned at that point.

Funny, too, that you don't look upon these insurgents-cum-terrorists as acting in any fashion you would term "interventionist".

I was using the word "Terrorist" as that is what they now are. I also believed you disagreed with the word "Insurgent".. however fair enough, at that time they were insurgents.

And actually, i do consider them to be "Interventionist".. the conflict had absolutely nothing to do with the USA. They just decided to use it to carry on their "war by proxy" with the USSR.

Amazing how many people died in this war between the superpowers... that belonged to neither country.


Then we should conclude which of the following?

1. Absent U.S. alliances, Israel's presence in the mideast would lose all objectionable aspects, and peace would reign, or-

2. Absent U.S. alliances, Israel could be treated to a successful Holocaust, and would thereby cease to be an irritant, allowing peace to reign.


No, that what you insist we want.

As has been debated many times... all that is wanted is no blatant favouritism.

You know, such as condemning one side and not the other, blocking Resolutions that are otherwise unanimous, trying to get the ones that were passed followed.. you know, a little fairness.

No one could ask more, and it wouldnt stop the terrorism... it would however cut the hatred of the USA coming from the area a little, which is a start.



True; all of them were dispersed throughout the mideast, with heavy concentrations in/about Israel.

Yes, more people are dying in Iraq; this is not a new fact.

They still are, and there are more of them even more widely dispersed. Good Going.

Glad you agree.


Really.

Estimates of Saddam's victims run into the hundreds of thousands...how many does the U.N. claim we've killed with our carelessness?

To claim that we know any such thing is just a bit specious; in fact, the more specious, the more we can count on hearing claims to the effect that we "know" thus-and-such to be true.

Rhetorical tactics?

I think so...

I was very specific in saying "In the 10 years prior".

The vast majority of Saddams crimes against his people happened before and just after the Gulf War.

He then put down an uprising that the Americans instigated and didnt help with, i believe.. and the majority of people killed were militia.

The vast majority of civilian deaths between the Gulf war and the invasion were caused by the bombing of the country by the UK/USA in the years between, which are part of the coalition.

Take this number and add in all the others from the actual invasion, falujah etc etc etc..

Yes, the coalition wins hands down.

Once Saddam had proved he was a bastard capable of doing anything, he had very to do except the occasional "Disappearance" and beating/rape, to keep the fear he wanted.


Hmmmm.

I thought we liked Turkey...I thought we liked the Kurds, too.

Are the Kurds currently allied with Al Qaeda?

They always were allied with Al Queda. I did point out what the whitehouse website said, prior to the invasion.

All Al Queda training camps were in Kurd controlled territory.

The Kurds are now, as they have been for years, bombing Turkey as part of a seperest movement.

Guess its a little confusing whether you would call these Freedom Fighters or Terrorists as you like both...



There is corruption everywhere, Rat-do you think it is on the order of that which exists in other civilized countries, or is it more reflective of warlords in the further reaches of, say, the Sudan?

Hard to tell, I'd say.

As to the remark about Human Rights, I'll settle for stating I find it more than a little offensive, but, hey...no big deal.

I find any burgeoning friendship between Iraq and Iran a cause for hope; I wonder why you feel otherwise?

Since you regard the possibility of a positive relationship between Iraq and the U.S. with such suspicion (anent our rampant capitalism), I'd think you would be pleased with the Iran/Iraq situation...

Yes, i'll agree that there is corruption everywhere.

Hard to say where its more pravalent than elsewhere, Russia is probably one of the worst at the moment on that front, i'd say.

However, its quite rare for a convicted fraudster to be given the position where he's in charge of the nations lifeblood.

Unless, of course, he also gave a lot of the false intelligence which caused the invasion and keeps coming up with documents that link certain parties to certain actions, that are usually found to be forged after the problem of those persons has gone away.

Handy guy to have around to produce "evidence" any day of the week.

The Human Rights thing... well, maybe you should look more closely at what rights you actually have left, not just the blatent camps, kidnappings and tortures that have happened.

Not just the US, that was Tongue in Cheek.. we have our own things happening around this question in the UK, as your aware.


Hey, if it's good enough for Blair, it's good enough for me.

Thats a scary thought.

It sure isnt for me or a majority of Brits.

Gordon Brown won the election for Labour, not Tony Blaire... he is well aware of this fact.


You and the rest of the thirty-odd percent of Brits who think similarly.

Where the hell did that figure come from?

The majority of the UK, from Polls, have always been against the war in Iraq, usually between 60-70% being agianst.

You either have your figures back to front, or your thinking i voted Labour.. who gained power with over 60% of the electorate voting AGAINST them.

Hardly a mandate :P



The Iraqis (that is to say, Saddam) were intent on running as far as they thought the U.N.'s reluctance to act would take them.

I thought everyone knew that.

He was bending over backwards to show he had nothing.

Including suggesting ways the Inspectors see that they'd been destroyed, by bringing in technologies that could analyse the locations.... a move the UK/USA blocked.

The UK/USA were intent upon Invasion, come what may.

[JPaul]

Are the USA and Israel allies.

I'm old fashioned, I think you should support your allies. I thought that was the point.

[Rat Faced]

Just before the Gulf War, USA and Iraq were allies.

Indeed, they told Iraq that they were not interested in a purely Arabian War, which encouraged the invasion of Kuwait.

They really stuck by them huh? :ph34r:

[bigboab]

Maybe that is whats wrong in the Middle East. America does not support the Ali's, they support Israel.:)

[JPaul]

Just before the Gulf War, USA and Iraq were allies.

Indeed, they told Iraq that they were not interested in a purely Arabian War, which encouraged the invasion of Kuwait.

They really stuck by them huh? :ph34r:
So what you are saying is that the US encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq.

Then spent a fortune fighting against his army, to send the invading forces back from whence they came.

That's a bit mental.

[Rat Faced]

Just before the Gulf War, USA and Iraq were allies.

Indeed, they told Iraq that they were not interested in a purely Arabian War, which encouraged the invasion of Kuwait.

They really stuck by them huh? :ph34r:
So what you are saying is that the US encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq.

Then spent a fortune fighting against his army, to send the invading forces back from whence they came.

That's a bit mental.

Hussain invaded Iraq? :huh:

As to your meaning..

The US told Hussain, just prior to the invasion of Kuwait:

"We have no interest in a purely Arabian war"

[GepperRankins]

So what you are saying is that the US encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq.

Then spent a fortune fighting against his army, to send the invading forces back from whence they came.

That's a bit mental.

Hussain invaded Iraq? :huh:

As to your meaning..

The US told Hussain, just prior to the invasion of Kuwait:

"We have no interest in a purely Arabian war"
that could have been taken as "we aren't bothered if you play eachother" but was intended as "dude! if you have a war i'm playing too!"

[JPaul]

So what you are saying is that the US encouraged Hussein to invade Iraq.

Then spent a fortune fighting against his army, to send the invading forces back from whence they came.

That's a bit mental.

Hussain invaded Iraq? :huh:

As to your meaning..

The US told Hussain, just prior to the invasion of Kuwait:

"We have no interest in a purely Arabian war"

Sorry, it's the less popular spelling of Kuwait, I thought everyone knew that.