I didn't make anything up, I just posted a link to a newspaper and copied and pasted what it said. You also ignore or do not understand the point about intent - go back and reread it and maybe you will. Muslims blew up those mosques, period, but its irrelevant, as I did not bring up muslims. I am talking about insurgents and terrorists.
Yes, you just ignore things that don't agree with you and act like they don't exist. You have no answer to my point, so you simply say 'whatever'. You have no business being in the Discussion forums if you cannot learn to discuss.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 15 2003, 01:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 15 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's great, Monse. Throw a bunch of locations and body counts, but for convenience lets make assumptions as to the perpetrators. For all you know, half of those could be the Mossad or US soldiers. I gave an article that explicitly displayed US brutality against Iraqi police. Your reply doesn't hold a candle to that in terms of credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know what an accident means, right? Like, NOT INTENTIONAL.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that Mossad or US troops are killing Iraqi civilians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Muslims, shiite or sunni do not blow up mosques. Islam condemns the targetting of civilians. Police on the other hand are not civilians. They carry guns and they work for the US, earning US currency. It's sad that the US has to use them as cannon fodder, because some of them are my muslim brothers just looking to make a living. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last time I checked, Muslim didn't crash 747s into buildings either. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> I realize the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but don't act like terrorists don't exist. 'Oh, but Mossad did 9/11' Ok, fine. USS Cole? Africa Embassies? WTC '91?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't deny that some locals are probably targetting Red Cross workers and civilians, but those are probably just deseperate Baathists. Please don't mix up mujahideen with Saddam's fidayeen. They are seperate groups.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you study US foreign policy, you'll see a history of the logic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Considering the aims of these 'freedom fighters fighting for the freedom to enslave their own people', is it really that hard to beleive they'd be working together?
Also, Monse- your next post should be: gg, nexttopic
EDIT Also, why is it that the goal doesn't matter? Since when has standing up for your beleifs automatically granted a romantic nobility to a cause? If I beleived that everyone different then me should be shot, and acted on those beliefs, by the logic of many peopel on these boards I deserve respect for that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another <b>uniformed</b> officer in the car got out with his <b>hands above his head</b> but the police said he, too, <b>was shot.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9/11 was committed by wahabis. They are not sunnis nor shiites. Same goes for the rest of your examples. Except for the USS cole which is a military vessel.
I never said that the Mossad did commit the mosque bombing in Iraq. I could have just as well said Santa committed that bombing in Iraq. I have just as much proof. And you have just as much proof that sunnis or shiites did it. Chances are it was Saddam's fidayeen. I still choose not to accuse anyone outright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you study US foreign policy, you'll see a history of the logic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Considering the aims of these 'freedom fighters fighting for the freedom to enslave their own people', is it really that hard to beleive they'd be working together?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Muslims are not like Americans. They would never cooperate with murderers for material gains, except bad muslims.
To your edit. Everyone has the ability to do as they choose. When the time comes, you will be judged for your actions. When America is no longer the world's superpower, how will the world judge America? That time is inevitable. Maybe not in your life-time, but in your children's. Will the world force America to go through what America is putting Iraq through right now?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. Muslims are not like Americans. They would never cooperate with murderers for material gains, except bad muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying you don't accuse people outright without proof, but that all Americans cooperate with murderers. And no Muslims cooperate with murders. Wait, except bad muslims. So some muslims do cooperate with murderers? I'm confused, are you in favor of accusing people or against it?
This is why you should avoid using words like 'never' and 'always'. You'll make a fool of your own arguments...
Ok, Jamil and I got in to a huge debate at the start of the war almost a year ago, and we came to a rather interesting conclusion, but I see that Jamil learned absolutely nothing from that debate, even though I thought I did. First and foremost, I was against the war in the beginning for the reason that I don't think it was a vital American interest, and even today I feel the same way. Yes, we have done a lot of good things in Iraq, especially when we found the rat hiding in his hole, but was it worth it? I might sound like a Democrat, which I am not, but I want to know where the WMD are. Did we really think that it wouldn't poke it's ugly head again?
Now, I respect Jamil for his steadfast defense of his beliefs, but I wholly disagree with his reasoning. To say that "good" muslims would not blow up a mosque or hurt other unarmed Muslims is not only wrong, it is indefenseable. Throught out the conventional stages of the war, the cowardly Iraqi militia men were hiding behind women and children, and in mosques and hospitals, hoping to kill a few Americans. The fact of the matter is, Islam has been exploited by fanatics throughout the Middle East because they hate the West, American support of Israel, American "materialism" and they live in a culture of violence that solves all disputes with the sword.
I won't defend everything the West does, but it must not be all that bad, Jamil, considering your family moved to Canada to get out of the Middle East. I guess the "materialism" had nothing to do with your family moving here did it? This is not a personal attack, I am merely pointing out the hipocracy. I know what you are going to say, that only the United States is evil, and Canada is this great peaceful nation. Just don't forget, Canada benefits from the United States culturally, financially, and militarily.
Regardless of where anyone stands onthe issue of the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq, NO ONE who places and value upon human life can defend the "freedom fighters" atrocities. NO ONE can say America is a manevolent power trying to murder innocent civilians out of "materialism" or power. Although it is a collosal waste of time and money, NO ONE can say that America's reconstruction of Iraq is an inherently bad thing for Iraq or its people.
For anyone that has "respect" for these so called freedom fighters by trying to put themeseles in the perspective of said fighters, needs to seriously consider the history and future of Iraq. If someone invaded Colorado, obviously American citizens would fight back. The difference here is the motive. We invaded Iraq not to take it over, but to remove a percieved threat, create some stability, and than get the hell out. Iraq was ruled through ruthless mafia tactics in which a despot and his circle of family of friends were the only benefactors. This is not the case in the United States, despite what rhetoric we might hear about King George IV. No intellectually honest person would believe that the United States has maligned or imperial ambitions in Iraq. Even the Bush administration knows Americans will only allow us to be in Iraq for so long a period of time.
The funny part about this whole thing is, does anyone fundamentally care about the people in Iraq. Again, I diagreed with the war in the first place, but I am not blinded by my bias and I can see that the Iraqi people can and will clearly benefit from the reconstruction. Anyone who defends these thugs clearly has an anti-American agenda, and that fundamentally affects all decision making processes. It seems the general attitude of these "freedom fighters" is "screw the Iraqi people, we just don't like the United States so let's go blow ourselves up so we can have 100 virgins in heaven and say we did it in the defense of the Iraqi people, even though we just killed a few dozen children because they were targets of opportunity". Until everyone sets aside their bias, and looks at this situation as doing what is ultimately best for both the United States and Iraq, not for a bunch of Islamic extremists bent on only wholesale destruction of everything they simply disagree with.
Jamil, one last question, how in the name of all that is good in this world can you defend your "brother Muslims" here? If I went around saying I was defending my "brother Christians" in Kosovo, it would be no different that the kind of evil your defending.
I just noticed the sub-title of this topic "The other side". Yeah, let's talk about "the other side" in World War II, namely the Nazis. Yeah let's defend the murder of millions of people, after all they were fighting for what they believed in. You know, those Nazis were just "freedom fighters" defending the Aryan nation. Complete hypocrisy. Yes that's right, I can easily compare Saddam to Hitler, the only difference being Saddam simply didn't have the same opportunity to kill millions, but don't ever doubt for a second that he would have.
Hey EternalMonkey. You're among the people I have enjoyed discussing this issue with. I agree with you on many points but I disagree on others. Some people may feel that my logic is undefenseable, but it really is just realistic. If you remember what I said almost a year ago, "Saddam does not have any WMD or he would use them". That's my logic, and I was convinced that the whole WMD case is a cover for a hidden agenda. Now, many months later, there still are no signs of WMD through I do leave the possibility open of Saddam revealing the location of some. Just because I cannot say for certain.
What I can say for certain is, that pure muslims particularly the mujahideen in Iraq would never target mosques or civilians for that matter. No one can convince me otherwise. It is an impossibility in my eyes. I also want to defend that pure muslims do not want their agendas to be mixed up with those of patriots, Saddam's fidayeen. Fidayeen might be muslims, but they do not fight for Islam. Their actions are against those of Islam, targetting mosques and civilians, which makes them poor muslims. If you can't accept that, then I hope you one day understand what muslims are about.
My reasons for moving to Canada was to getting out of the middle-east, but not for the materialism that you speak of. If you remember what I had said before, our lives were better there. The governments were oppressive, but they did not force you into the work to make a living cycle. You could live out your life as a muslim with no trouble from the government. We moved because of America first and fore-most. My parents did not want us to end up in the middle of the gulf war. We picked Canada because that is where my parents got their education and we had many friends here. Western education is also valued higher in the middle-east because of the poor conditions. So, it is better in the end to get western education. Had there been no gulf war, I would not be here today. And no, I was not living in Iraq, I was living in Saudi Arabia at the time. It was never about money or materialism. I don't know what the point of bringing this up other than to attack my person.
Yes. I do care about the people of Iraq. I would care just the same if it was America being occupied by another country. No one has the right or jurisdiction to say what is better for another country, other than the people within that country. Also, when fellow muslims are suffering as a result it is an outrage. You are right about no-one being able to say that the US occupation of Iraq will not be to the benefit of Iraq. My feelings based on the way things are going right now, are quite negative. You have a US appointed council, lead by a criminal, Ahmed Chalabi. Resistance seems to be escalating as time goes on. I would have to devote some time and research to find out about the progress of the reconstruction, because I don't hear anything about it at all. Though I hear America is in a budget crisis. Where is the money for reconstruction going to come from?
Now it's time to throw something back at you. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although it is a collosal waste of time and money, NO ONE can say that America's reconstruction of Iraq is an inherently bad thing for Iraq or its people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Until everyone sets aside their bias, and looks at this situation as doing what is ultimately best for both the United States and Iraq, not for a bunch of Islamic extremists bent on only wholesale destruction of everything they simply disagree with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These two lines contradict each other. If nobody can say if America's reconstruction is a good thing, then how can YOU say that it is better for Iraq? You don't know, and lines like these done help your argument any. And then this second quote, removing all bias? Look at what you said right after that, calling all the muslim fighters in the region murderers.
To answer your last question. Very easily. I can make the distiction between those who fight for Islam, and those who fight for the old regime. The muslim fighters are fighting to put Iraq in the hands of muslims. Good muslims. Not corrupt **** like Chalabi. And if targetting US soldiers is evil, how can the US be the "good guys" for Saddam's fighters.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 15 2003, 04:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 15 2003, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes. Muslims are not like Americans. They would never cooperate with murderers for material gains, except bad muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I stand by what I said. Don't try and twist my words. My message is quite clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you stand by what you said, that means you think Muslims can do no wrong (if they do, they become "bad" Muslims, and not "pure" Muslims). Americans, however, don't have this luxury: they're all dirty, dirty people. That's what seemed "clear" to me. Are you standing by that?
<span style='color:yellow'>Edit:</span> What does it matter whether they were Muslim or not anyway? The only muslims MonsE mentioned were those that were the victims of terrorism. MonsE went on to say he didn't care whether they were or not. Why do you bring it up?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To your edit. Everyone has the ability to do as they choose. When the time comes, you will be judged for your actions. When America is no longer the world's superpower, how will the world judge America? That time is inevitable. Maybe not in your life-time, but in your children's. Will the world force America to go through what America is putting Iraq through right now?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope they judge fairly. Every nation does terrible things, but it's not all bad. Do you remember how America acted after WWI? They propped Europe on their back, which they suffered for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If nobody can say if America's reconstruction is a good thing, then how can YOU say that it is better for Iraq? You don't know, and lines like these done help your argument any. And then this second quote, removing all bias? Look at what you said right after that, calling all the muslim fighters in the region murderers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jamil, the two quotes you took do not in any way shape or form cotradict each other, I said no one can say it is a bad thing for Iraq. Of course I have bias, EVERYONE has bias, but I do as best I can to see past it. My statement that all Muslim "fighters" are murderers is just my opinion, albeit I believe it is once backed up by overwhelming evidence. A murderer is someone who kills innocent people, even if their cause is in their eyes just. So you say you moved to Canada for a western eduction, but if the West is the "Great Satan" wouldn't that be heresy or something? You can't make any real distinction culturally between Canada and the U.S., education is essentially the same in content. You moved there because of the "poor conditions" right? Of course I assume it's because of the evil United States that conditions are so miserable. All I can say is this, tell that to reconstructed Europe or Japan, yeah Japan, real slum there. I am sure you don't live in a nice house with a nice computer and a nice internet connection, no materialism whatsoever there.
There is an Islamic extremism culture of violence and power that really holds those nations back from their potential. Yes there are very good aspects of Islamic culture, fascinating really, but there is a lot of bad as well, just as with any civilization. I admitedly don't know a lot about the different Islamic sects, but as someone here has already said, the general population is supporting the extremists, especially in Palastine.
I think the bottom line is this, if you were just some idiot on the street, I wouldn't bother arguing with you. I know from past experience you are very intelligent, if misguided. It is almost impossible for me to understand how you come to the conclusions that you do, it almost hurts my brain to try to figure out why in the world you would defend such senseless slaughter of human beings. I don't know a whole lot about Islam from a spiritual standpoint, but if you are judged in the afterlife, what do you say to Allah? Do you really think Allah would approve? Again, I really don't know a lot about that matter, and I don't presume to judge you in anyone in that aspect, so ask yourself a very serious question, is what your defending right or wrong?
Ahhhh, and some more freedom fighters strike again. Accidently killing a dozen innocent civillians while on their way to kill a few dozen innocent poliemen. Bravo, brave warriors!
Interesting somewhat-unrelated sidenote at the bottom of the page:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least four people were injured at a pro-Hussein demonstration in the northern city of Mosul on Wednesday, witnesses said. They said passengers in a car opened fire on the protesters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not something I would have done, as I believe in the First Amendment, but it does not bode well for the baathists and their ilk at this point...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tuesday, Iraq’s new Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was invited to address the U.N. Security Council on behalf of his countrymen. He pulled no punches in accusing that body of failing to live up to its responsibilities.
"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Zebari said. "Squabbling over political differences takes a backseat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."
"One year ago," he continued, "the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted more than 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted from <a href='http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1675&dept_id=18168&newsid=10680323&PAG=461&rfi=9' target='_blank'>here</a>, but you can google the text of the speech from lots of sources.
I hope you don't feel to bad for propping him up for a decade, then. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
One good thing to come out of the war, I feel less guilty about Britain not having found the Kurds a homeland. I hope they escape persecution under the new administration, and live happy productive lives.
Again, that point is moot Beastie. If I had personally propped him up, yes, I'd feel terrible. But I did not. If you meant the USA, well, Britain <a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0306britdirty.htm' target='_blank'>also did</a>, so maybe you should change your statement to 'we'. Follow that link, it will let you know why Blair was so sure the Iraqi's had chemical weapons. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> People in glass houses, yadda yadda.
And if I had, I'd be pretty remiss if I didn't try to rectify the situation instead of letting it continue on and on, right? At what point did it become acceptable to make bad mistakes and also not fix them? That's the biggest flaw in the anti-occupation argument: that it's bad to cause the problem <b>and</b> bad to fix it.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 19 2003, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 19 2003, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's the biggest flaw in the anti-occupation argument: that it's bad to cause the problem <b>and</b> bad to fix it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So true.
Well, technically MonsE, your tax dollars and (to a lesser extent) my tax pounds went into buttressing against the Iranians. So yeah, I feel guilty.
As I've said before, I'm all for removing corrupt dictatorships, and I can conceed that by supporting one, we've overstepped the mark, but going in to directly remove him, instead of doing the whole international consensus thing is that wrong, or right? DOES the end justify the means? If you accept that the ultimate goal is to free the Iraqis and repair the error made by supporting Saddam, then of course its morally right. The problem is the muddying of the waters caused by the wmd issues, and the "rebuilding" issues.
Thats for a spereate thread, one that hopefully is daid.
The Minister's take on the UN's failure is interesting, though. Without the USUK support, does anyone feel a popular uprising would have removed Saddam? (excluding the possibility of Iran stomping them flat)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, technically MonsE, your tax dollars and (to a lesser extent) my tax pounds went into buttressing against the Iranians. So yeah, I feel guilty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My tax dollars did not support Iraq though, as I did not start paying taxes until 1989 when I turned 15. The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I feel guilt from a national and humanitarian standpoint, but not from a personal one in the slightest, and why should I? Should Nemesis Zero feel personal guilt for the concentration camps created 50 years before his birth? Should you feel guilt for thousands of my oppressed, slaughtered Scottish ancestors for keeping their country under Edward I's boot? Of course not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I've said before, I'm all for removing corrupt dictatorships, and I can conceed that by supporting one, we've overstepped the mark, but going in to directly remove him, instead of doing the whole international consensus thing is that wrong, or right? DOES the end justify the means? If you accept that the ultimate goal is to free the Iraqis and repair the error made by supporting Saddam, then of course its morally right. The problem is the muddying of the waters caused by the wmd issues, and the "rebuilding" issues. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're not 'all for removing dictators' though. You're for hoping they remove themselves. Yes, the end does justify the means with dictators. Yes, my ultimate goal is to free to the iraqis and repair the errors of the past. I don't care about the WMD issues and the rest, they're not MY issues. If this was 1936, I'd be a member of the Abe Lincoln brigade and fighting the fascists like liberals USED to do. Because to me, being liberal means helping people be free from oppression by totalitarian regimes and to have human rights. Not to sit back and watch these things be stripped away from a people simply because I am not fond of the country or president that's doing it. The Iraqi's have been betrayed for 32 years, most recently by much of Europe under a false guise of caring more about their national sovereignty than their human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Minister's take on the UN's failure is interesting, though. Without the USUK support, does anyone feel a popular uprising would have removed Saddam? (excluding the possibility of Iran stomping them flat)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope. Past history demonstrates this without having to inject opinion into the matter.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what an accident means, right? Like, NOT INTENTIONAL.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that Mossad or US troops are killing Iraqi civilians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Muslims, shiite or sunni do not blow up mosques. Islam condemns the targetting of civilians. Police on the other hand are not civilians. They carry guns and they work for the US, earning US currency. It's sad that the US has to use them as cannon fodder, because some of them are my muslim brothers just looking to make a living. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last time I checked, Muslim didn't crash 747s into buildings either. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I realize the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but don't act like terrorists don't exist.
'Oh, but Mossad did 9/11'
Ok, fine. USS Cole? Africa Embassies? WTC '91?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't deny that some locals are probably targetting Red Cross workers and civilians, but those are probably just deseperate Baathists. Please don't mix up mujahideen with Saddam's fidayeen. They are seperate groups.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you study US foreign policy, you'll see a history of the logic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Considering the aims of these 'freedom fighters fighting for the freedom to enslave their own people', is it really that hard to beleive they'd be working together?
Also, Monse- your next post should be: gg, nexttopic
EDIT
Also, why is it that the goal doesn't matter? Since when has standing up for your beleifs automatically granted a romantic nobility to a cause? If I beleived that everyone different then me should be shot, and acted on those beliefs, by the logic of many peopel on these boards I deserve respect for that.
9/11 was committed by wahabis. They are not sunnis nor shiites. Same goes for the rest of your examples. Except for the USS cole which is a military vessel.
I never said that the Mossad did commit the mosque bombing in Iraq. I could have just as well said Santa committed that bombing in Iraq. I have just as much proof. And you have just as much proof that sunnis or shiites did it. Chances are it was Saddam's fidayeen. I still choose not to accuse anyone outright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you study US foreign policy, you'll see a history of the logic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Considering the aims of these 'freedom fighters fighting for the freedom to enslave their own people', is it really that hard to beleive they'd be working together?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Muslims are not like Americans. They would never cooperate with murderers for material gains, except bad muslims.
To your edit. Everyone has the ability to do as they choose. When the time comes, you will be judged for your actions. When America is no longer the world's superpower, how will the world judge America? That time is inevitable. Maybe not in your life-time, but in your children's. Will the world force America to go through what America is putting Iraq through right now?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying you don't accuse people outright without proof, but that all Americans cooperate with murderers. And no Muslims cooperate with murders. Wait, except bad muslims. So some muslims do cooperate with murderers? I'm confused, are you in favor of accusing people or against it?
This is why you should avoid using words like 'never' and 'always'. You'll make a fool of your own arguments...
First and foremost, I was against the war in the beginning for the reason that I don't think it was a vital American interest, and even today I feel the same way. Yes, we have done a lot of good things in Iraq, especially when we found the rat hiding in his hole, but was it worth it? I might sound like a Democrat, which I am not, but I want to know where the WMD are. Did we really think that it wouldn't poke it's ugly head again?
Now, I respect Jamil for his steadfast defense of his beliefs, but I wholly disagree with his reasoning. To say that "good" muslims would not blow up a mosque or hurt other unarmed Muslims is not only wrong, it is indefenseable. Throught out the conventional stages of the war, the cowardly Iraqi militia men were hiding behind women and children, and in mosques and hospitals, hoping to kill a few Americans. The fact of the matter is, Islam has been exploited by fanatics throughout the Middle East because they hate the West, American support of Israel, American "materialism" and they live in a culture of violence that solves all disputes with the sword.
I won't defend everything the West does, but it must not be all that bad, Jamil, considering your family moved to Canada to get out of the Middle East. I guess the "materialism" had nothing to do with your family moving here did it? This is not a personal attack, I am merely pointing out the hipocracy. I know what you are going to say, that only the United States is evil, and Canada is this great peaceful nation. Just don't forget, Canada benefits from the United States culturally, financially, and militarily.
Regardless of where anyone stands onthe issue of the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq, NO ONE who places and value upon human life can defend the "freedom fighters" atrocities. NO ONE can say America is a manevolent power trying to murder innocent civilians out of "materialism" or power. Although it is a collosal waste of time and money, NO ONE can say that America's reconstruction of Iraq is an inherently bad thing for Iraq or its people.
For anyone that has "respect" for these so called freedom fighters by trying to put themeseles in the perspective of said fighters, needs to seriously consider the history and future of Iraq. If someone invaded Colorado, obviously American citizens would fight back. The difference here is the motive. We invaded Iraq not to take it over, but to remove a percieved threat, create some stability, and than get the hell out. Iraq was ruled through ruthless mafia tactics in which a despot and his circle of family of friends were the only benefactors. This is not the case in the United States, despite what rhetoric we might hear about King George IV. No intellectually honest person would believe that the United States has maligned or imperial ambitions in Iraq. Even the Bush administration knows Americans will only allow us to be in Iraq for so long a period of time.
The funny part about this whole thing is, does anyone fundamentally care about the people in Iraq. Again, I diagreed with the war in the first place, but I am not blinded by my bias and I can see that the Iraqi people can and will clearly benefit from the reconstruction. Anyone who defends these thugs clearly has an anti-American agenda, and that fundamentally affects all decision making processes. It seems the general attitude of these "freedom fighters" is "screw the Iraqi people, we just don't like the United States so let's go blow ourselves up so we can have 100 virgins in heaven and say we did it in the defense of the Iraqi people, even though we just killed a few dozen children because they were targets of opportunity". Until everyone sets aside their bias, and looks at this situation as doing what is ultimately best for both the United States and Iraq, not for a bunch of Islamic extremists bent on only wholesale destruction of everything they simply disagree with.
Jamil, one last question, how in the name of all that is good in this world can you defend your "brother Muslims" here? If I went around saying I was defending my "brother Christians" in Kosovo, it would be no different that the kind of evil your defending.
Yeah, let's talk about "the other side" in World War II, namely the Nazis. Yeah let's defend the murder of millions of people, after all they were fighting for what they believed in. You know, those Nazis were just "freedom fighters" defending the Aryan nation. Complete hypocrisy.
Yes that's right, I can easily compare Saddam to Hitler, the only difference being Saddam simply didn't have the same opportunity to kill millions, but don't ever doubt for a second that he would have.
What I can say for certain is, that pure muslims particularly the mujahideen in Iraq would never target mosques or civilians for that matter. No one can convince me otherwise. It is an impossibility in my eyes. I also want to defend that pure muslims do not want their agendas to be mixed up with those of patriots, Saddam's fidayeen. Fidayeen might be muslims, but they do not fight for Islam. Their actions are against those of Islam, targetting mosques and civilians, which makes them poor muslims. If you can't accept that, then I hope you one day understand what muslims are about.
My reasons for moving to Canada was to getting out of the middle-east, but not for the materialism that you speak of. If you remember what I had said before, our lives were better there. The governments were oppressive, but they did not force you into the work to make a living cycle. You could live out your life as a muslim with no trouble from the government. We moved because of America first and fore-most. My parents did not want us to end up in the middle of the gulf war. We picked Canada because that is where my parents got their education and we had many friends here. Western education is also valued higher in the middle-east because of the poor conditions. So, it is better in the end to get western education. Had there been no gulf war, I would not be here today. And no, I was not living in Iraq, I was living in Saudi Arabia at the time. It was never about money or materialism. I don't know what the point of bringing this up other than to attack my person.
Yes. I do care about the people of Iraq. I would care just the same if it was America being occupied by another country. No one has the right or jurisdiction to say what is better for another country, other than the people within that country. Also, when fellow muslims are suffering as a result it is an outrage. You are right about no-one being able to say that the US occupation of Iraq will not be to the benefit of Iraq. My feelings based on the way things are going right now, are quite negative. You have a US appointed council, lead by a criminal, Ahmed Chalabi. Resistance seems to be escalating as time goes on. I would have to devote some time and research to find out about the progress of the reconstruction, because I don't hear anything about it at all. Though I hear America is in a budget crisis. Where is the money for reconstruction going to come from?
Now it's time to throw something back at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although it is a collosal waste of time and money, NO ONE can say that America's reconstruction of Iraq is an inherently bad thing for Iraq or its people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Until everyone sets aside their bias, and looks at this situation as doing what is ultimately best for both the United States and Iraq, not for a bunch of Islamic extremists bent on only wholesale destruction of everything they simply disagree with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These two lines contradict each other. If nobody can say if America's reconstruction is a good thing, then how can YOU say that it is better for Iraq? You don't know, and lines like these done help your argument any. And then this second quote, removing all bias? Look at what you said right after that, calling all the muslim fighters in the region murderers.
To answer your last question. Very easily. I can make the distiction between those who fight for Islam, and those who fight for the old regime. The muslim fighters are fighting to put Iraq in the hands of muslims. Good muslims. Not corrupt **** like Chalabi. And if targetting US soldiers is evil, how can the US be the "good guys" for Saddam's fighters.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jamil+Dec 15 2003, 04:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Dec 15 2003, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes. Muslims are not like Americans. They would never cooperate with murderers for material gains, except bad muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I stand by what I said. Don't try and twist my words. My message is quite clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you stand by what you said, that means you think Muslims can do no wrong (if they do, they become "bad" Muslims, and not "pure" Muslims). Americans, however, don't have this luxury: they're all dirty, dirty people. That's what seemed "clear" to me. Are you standing by that?
<span style='color:yellow'>Edit:</span> What does it matter whether they were Muslim or not anyway? The only muslims MonsE mentioned were those that were the victims of terrorism. MonsE went on to say he didn't care whether they were or not. Why do you bring it up?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To your edit. Everyone has the ability to do as they choose. When the time comes, you will be judged for your actions. When America is no longer the world's superpower, how will the world judge America? That time is inevitable. Maybe not in your life-time, but in your children's. Will the world force America to go through what America is putting Iraq through right now?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope they judge fairly. Every nation does terrible things, but it's not all bad. Do you remember how America acted after WWI? They propped Europe on their back, which they suffered for.
Jamil, the two quotes you took do not in any way shape or form cotradict each other, I said no one can say it is a bad thing for Iraq. Of course I have bias, EVERYONE has bias, but I do as best I can to see past it. My statement that all Muslim "fighters" are murderers is just my opinion, albeit I believe it is once backed up by overwhelming evidence. A murderer is someone who kills innocent people, even if their cause is in their eyes just.
So you say you moved to Canada for a western eduction, but if the West is the "Great Satan" wouldn't that be heresy or something? You can't make any real distinction culturally between Canada and the U.S., education is essentially the same in content. You moved there because of the "poor conditions" right? Of course I assume it's because of the evil United States that conditions are so miserable. All I can say is this, tell that to reconstructed Europe or Japan, yeah Japan, real slum there. I am sure you don't live in a nice house with a nice computer and a nice internet connection, no materialism whatsoever there.
There is an Islamic extremism culture of violence and power that really holds those nations back from their potential. Yes there are very good aspects of Islamic culture, fascinating really, but there is a lot of bad as well, just as with any civilization. I admitedly don't know a lot about the different Islamic sects, but as someone here has already said, the general population is supporting the extremists, especially in Palastine.
I think the bottom line is this, if you were just some idiot on the street, I wouldn't bother arguing with you. I know from past experience you are very intelligent, if misguided. It is almost impossible for me to understand how you come to the conclusions that you do, it almost hurts my brain to try to figure out why in the world you would defend such senseless slaughter of human beings. I don't know a whole lot about Islam from a spiritual standpoint, but if you are judged in the afterlife, what do you say to Allah? Do you really think Allah would approve? Again, I really don't know a lot about that matter, and I don't presume to judge you in anyone in that aspect, so ask yourself a very serious question, is what your defending right or wrong?
<a href='http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031217.wiraqfin1217/BNStory/Front/' target='_blank'>http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/.../BNStory/Front/</a>
Interesting somewhat-unrelated sidenote at the bottom of the page:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least four people were injured at a pro-Hussein demonstration in the northern city of Mosul on Wednesday, witnesses said. They said passengers in a car opened fire on the protesters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not something I would have done, as I believe in the First Amendment, but it does not bode well for the baathists and their ilk at this point...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tuesday, Iraq’s new Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was invited to address the U.N. Security Council on behalf of his countrymen. He pulled no punches in accusing that body of failing to live up to its responsibilities.
"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Zebari said. "Squabbling over political differences takes a backseat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."
"One year ago," he continued, "the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted more than 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted from <a href='http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1675&dept_id=18168&newsid=10680323&PAG=461&rfi=9' target='_blank'>here</a>, but you can google the text of the speech from lots of sources.
One good thing to come out of the war, I feel less guilty about Britain not having found the Kurds a homeland. I hope they escape persecution under the new administration, and live happy productive lives.
And if I had, I'd be pretty remiss if I didn't try to rectify the situation instead of letting it continue on and on, right? At what point did it become acceptable to make bad mistakes and also not fix them? That's the biggest flaw in the anti-occupation argument: that it's bad to cause the problem <b>and</b> bad to fix it.
So true.
As I've said before, I'm all for removing corrupt dictatorships, and I can conceed that by supporting one, we've overstepped the mark, but going in to directly remove him, instead of doing the whole international consensus thing is that wrong, or right? DOES the end justify the means? If you accept that the ultimate goal is to free the Iraqis and repair the error made by supporting Saddam, then of course its morally right. The problem is the muddying of the waters caused by the wmd issues, and the "rebuilding" issues.
Thats for a spereate thread, one that hopefully is daid.
The Minister's take on the UN's failure is interesting, though. Without the USUK support, does anyone feel a popular uprising would have removed Saddam? (excluding the possibility of Iran stomping them flat)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My tax dollars did not support Iraq though, as I did not start paying taxes until 1989 when I turned 15. The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I feel guilt from a national and humanitarian standpoint, but not from a personal one in the slightest, and why should I? Should Nemesis Zero feel personal guilt for the concentration camps created 50 years before his birth? Should you feel guilt for thousands of my oppressed, slaughtered Scottish ancestors for keeping their country under Edward I's boot? Of course not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I've said before, I'm all for removing corrupt dictatorships, and I can conceed that by supporting one, we've overstepped the mark, but going in to directly remove him, instead of doing the whole international consensus thing is that wrong, or right? DOES the end justify the means? If you accept that the ultimate goal is to free the Iraqis and repair the error made by supporting Saddam, then of course its morally right. The problem is the muddying of the waters caused by the wmd issues, and the "rebuilding" issues.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're not 'all for removing dictators' though. You're for hoping they remove themselves. Yes, the end does justify the means with dictators. Yes, my ultimate goal is to free to the iraqis and repair the errors of the past. I don't care about the WMD issues and the rest, they're not MY issues. If this was 1936, I'd be a member of the Abe Lincoln brigade and fighting the fascists like liberals USED to do. Because to me, being liberal means helping people be free from oppression by totalitarian regimes and to have human rights. Not to sit back and watch these things be stripped away from a people simply because I am not fond of the country or president that's doing it. The Iraqi's have been betrayed for 32 years, most recently by much of Europe under a false guise of caring more about their national sovereignty than their human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Minister's take on the UN's failure is interesting, though. Without the USUK support, does anyone feel a popular uprising would have removed Saddam? (excluding the possibility of Iran stomping them flat)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Past history demonstrates this without having to inject opinion into the matter.