The Iraq Thread 2

[Longinius 1]

"i dont c that unfair, i just want every country to allow n e religion to be practiced"

Even better would be to not practice religion at all. Would spare us a lot of grief ;)

[ruff 102]

"in western countries, in fact in every country there are mosques"

Well, thats what you get in a democratic, open society. Unfair? Maybe. But that is the way it is. Unless someone declares another crusade and we outlaw Islam in our societys, of course. But I doubt the church is strong enough to pull that one off.

Do they allow it to call out the 'Azan' ?

Last democractic and One of the worlds biggest so called secular country i saw was demmolishing a mosque and killing and raping muslims  

Go figure ... but its not America  

palestinian militants hid on a our holy church where jesus was born

had guns and shot out from it!

u dont c that in a mosque

as for killing and raping muslims, the husseins were doin that

uday for that matter

not to mention honour killings

for the goodness sake honour killings?

and longinius

i dont c that unfair, i just want every country to allow n e religion to be practiced

Maybe you didnt read my post well enough ... re read it.

As for militants in a church so what? Is this the first time this happened on earth? Please do a recheckon history and you'll be amazed to see how manytimes places of worship havebeen targetted and used as hideouts and as retreats too. The militants didnt go and demolish the church did they? But in India the worlds largest secular democracy they brought down a whole Mosque by battering it in with hammers and chisels .... Way back in history if you go 2 jewish men were caught dressed and disguised as Muslim scholars digging a tunnel underneath the ground to dig-out Mohammeds body and probably desegregate(sp) it.

As for religions being practised evenly yes you are correct it should be , pity though that we have narrowminded people in here who wont allow it , even thouhg ISLAM itself allows it.

But tell me one thing will i be allowed to build a mosque in Vatican city?

i believe so if there are enuff muslims there to fill one, the vatican city is just the headquarters of the catholic church, i really wouldnt call it a holy site compared to the churches in palestine

and also other religions are practised not banned there or nor do they get punished for practicising it in the vatican city

i reckon a high ranking shiqeu could got there and talk to the pope

dunno about the pope being able to that in mecca

i know islam is also the religion thats meant to be the most tolerant of all religions

i just dont know how islams rules got changed in saudi arabia, i read the early history of mecca allowing christians to live and practise there, now ur not allowed to practise nor wear signifiying ur religion e.g. cross

but i guess ur right about the "narrowminded people" not allowing such things

churches have been bomb too

destroyed etc etc

my point about the church in palestine is that thats like a extra holy place like the mosque in mecca

why didnt the militants pick a mosque?

and another reason why churches dont get usually get bombed is because they are in western countries and usually in a small numbers in middle east countries which allow christanity, and theres no such thing as jihad in christianity, which therefore i say the crusades werent right. and we are not take action wat so eva

while extremists can highjack islam to produce terrorists

as u can also c in history, extremists want to over throw governments though both follow the same religious faith = osama bin laden wanting to over throw the royal family in saudi arabia

or the terrorists in philippines, though the country is over 80 percent christian, small numbered extremists want a separate state and are being funded by extremists in other countries such as islamic jihad, alqeda

this also points out that there are christian terrorists also

ira

the christain terrorists in lebanon during the civil war

but again as u said

its all the "narrowminded people" that makes these troubles

pls read this carefully as its long and u mite read it through fast and miss important points since some points walks in a very thin line that mite be taken as an offense rather than information

[Acecombat 0]

You believe so... lol but i dont see it happening ever at the moment

And christains are allowed to livehere its not like they are banned or something dude .... they can practise whatever they want in their home no one would care about ,its only the churches thats not been allowed to built and considering the histroy of Arabia how the christains and jews treated Islam and muslims earlier i dont half blame themto be so insecure.

And there might have been a reason for the militants to not to pick a mosque ... it MIGHT not have been near to them to where they were or they simply didnt find it secure enough considering that the gung-ho IDF forces will have no respect for IT and will simply bulldoze it but they knew enough that if they demolish a church they would havebeen in trouble bigtime , its seems a tactical move to me nothing more , considering your live is at stake i'd doubt if you were in a similiar sitaution youd choose something different

'Jihad' isnt only war who gave you that idea?

Jihad means a lot of things besides defending Islam itself , it means self control over ones wrong desires , to deny wrong doings and to correct them. It only becomes war if someone attacks you and you have to selfdefend. See the history of Islam for moredetail on it.

And if crusades arent part of christainity , then what is it? Might be another self production of an insecure society ? Like Bush ? in his own words he said we are launching a crusade.

But i doubt he'll get picked on as an extremist .... too dumb to be one eh?

Quote[/b] ]Even better would be to not practice religion at all. Would spare us a lot of grief ;)

No it cant bring you peace either only more grief , religion if you see is not the problem , which religion preaches that you have to kill a person without any reason? Which religion tells you to suicide bomb a place ? Which religion tells you to occupy a land and oppress people who belong there? Tell me which and i'll gladly abondon my faith.

Religion binds on of the worst nations of this planet in a very civil envoirnment , if it werent for it then we wouldnt have emerged from the medievilistic , barbaric attitude within us. Example are Arabs ... try and check what they did before Islam ... read the history of pagans and fire worshippers in the area ..all the things they did like burying the daughters and such , religion brought some sense in to their thick skulls.

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's not sway off topic, shall we?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Just point out crusade and jihad are interchangeable words.

You can as easily say Islamic Crusade as Christian Jihad.

Saudi Arabia is just a muslim country and an artifical one at that. You should not confuse that country with Islam.

As to history and the slights and desicrations on each others religion; all religions do it, none are with out that sin.

By the way saying

x did it to y

does not absolve y

if also

y did it to x

Just means x = y

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saudi Arabia is just a muslim country and an artifical one at that. You should not confuse that country with Islam.

Now i wouldnt go that far either , its not that bad ... some rules are very much correct and are enforced properly too but some arent , especially when the KING himself regards himself above them

Quote[/b] ]As to history and the slights and desicrations on each others religion; all religions do it, none are with out that sin.

Once again youre fooling yourself RELIGION isnt a living organism dude it doesnt acts on its OWN , if you read every divine religions book and its prophets life history you'll see none were aggressive towards each other , but the people who practised them twisted the laws in their favour to fulfill their materialistic wordly gains.

[ruff 102]

You believe so... lol  but i dont see it happening ever at the moment  

And christains are allowed to livehere its not like they are banned or something dude .... they can practise whatever they want in their home no one would care about ,its only the churches thats not been allowed to built and considering the histroy of Arabia how the christains and jews treated Islam and muslims earlier i dont half blame themto be so insecure.

And there might have been a reason for the militants to not to pick a mosque ... it MIGHT not have been near to them to where they were   or they simply didnt find it secure enough considering that the gung-ho IDF forces will have no respect for IT and will simply bulldoze it but they knew enough that if they demolish a church they would havebeen in trouble bigtime , its seems a tactical move to me nothing more , considering your live is at stake i'd doubt if you were in a similiar sitaution youd choose something different  

'Jihad' isnt only war who gave you that idea?  

Jihad means a lot of things besides defending Islam itself , it means self control over ones wrong desires , to deny wrong doings and to correct them. It only becomes war if someone attacks you and you have to selfdefend. See the history of Islam for moredetail on it.

And if crusades arent part of christainity , then what is it? Might be another self production of an insecure society ? Like Bush ? in his own words he said we are launching a crusade.  

But i doubt he'll get picked on as an extremist .... too dumb to be one eh?  

thanks for clarifying jihad those other points u said

but as i said extremists make the problem

i know christians arent banned

my mum worked there for nine months

but u must admit they are strict

ppl get severe punishment for breaking small laws

as for the crusades, i saw it more of a human thing, if ur invaded u fight, u help other ppl that u think are taken advantage of, or u just invade for power

for christianity i believe the crusades werent right for the simple fact of Jesus teaching "offer the other cheek"

i c war as human, though they say its not

its a human trait, if someone punches u in the face u fight even if theres 5guys standing to the person that punched u

if i had to go war tommorow id go because im human, not because im christian

but if u really wanna go into religious history, it aint goin to be pretty

i know both sides during the crusades were pretty bad but pls try to be more sensitive on issues, by not saying "Might be another self production of an insecure society ?", hu invaded in the first place?

even b4 that, the begining of islam in mecca and so forth

so sorry to say that but that came out of emotion

so in a good note, ill be saying thanks for the good points and information

i think ill keep away from this thread for awhile

too much typing and too much history

like the middle east crisis (israel and palestine) even longer

as for bush, its along time comin

during the first gulf war, they should have gotten saddam

and who dares tries to assassinate the most powerful western and arab leaders during a meeting and expect to get away with it?

i believe the invasion shouldve have been done during gw1

but i reckon its about time someone clean up their mess, though its not fully americas fault

though saddam was a U.N. problem involving the most powerful nations in the world which supplied him of his crazy weapons

russia

america

france

germany

[Acecombat 0]

Sorry for that but the only reason why i said that was because i believe Crusades werent a part of CHRISTAINITY as you seemed to have mentioned. BUT christains at that time just like the jews weree paranoid by muslims , i dont know why but re check history as to why .... persia was pissed at us , Byzantine was sending armies upon us for what reason???

Plain human jealousy i suppose a common human trait as you put it ..?!?

Just because they feared that muslims would gain power andtheir dominance would be in peril , also JERUSALEM was taken without shedding ablood inside the city by MUSLIMS for the first time when they conquered it. The caliph Umar went their and the Jewish Patriarch himself handed him the 'key to the city' (or whatever fancy word you might have for it ' ... he himself had said 'Verily Islam has excelled all religions' anyway we arent discussing history here so i'll leave it here.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Are you guys just going to ignore Ralph's request?

[ralphwiggum 6]

last warning: make a new thread or take some time off.

[Acecombat 0]

Oops sorry i was mistaking this thread for the mideast one....

Wont happen again.

[theavonlady 2]

DU or WMD?

[Acecombat 0]

How about BOTH

[walker 0]

DU or WMD?  

Er it says in the article that the probable cause is a known side effect of the anthrax vacination.

Quote[/b] ]The anthrax vaccine label warns of infrequent reports of heart attacks or strokes among people who have taken that vaccine. Both heart attacks and strokes can be caused by blood clots

DU is carcenogenic but as a heavy metal poison I dont think its symptoms are blood clots quite the reverse. Plus most people are contacting it as Uranium Oxide ie burnt so not so chemnicaly active when bound to oxygen.

The unexplaned bit

Quote[/b] ]At least eight other soldiers have also collapsed and died from what the military has described as non-combat-related causes.

is the US Military protecting itself from being sued by it own soldiers or their berieved families.

The actual number of deaths from that cause is now according to

Quote[/b] ]UPI's investigation found 17 soldiers who died of sudden illnesses

Kind Regards walker

[Acecombat 0]

DU ...wanna inhale or not?

Findings of the 1994 test, cited in the DOD's Environmental Exposure Report, are based on one tank explosion that produced a flume of aerosolized radioactive uranium oxide that burned for five hours. Analyses of this poisonous aerosol revealed that approximately 33 percent of the residual oxides were capable of entering the lungs in unprotected breathing (Rostker, 2000). The single-case report was not extrapolated to determine the effects of multiple explosions that occurred during the 1991 Gulf War.

U.S. government and military assertions continue to minimize or deny the environmental and health dangers of DU but their statements are inconsistent with certain of their own reports. For example, at the same time dangers are being minimized a contradicting report reads: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical complications. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological...Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposure" (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute Report, 1995).

[walker 0]

Hi Acecombat

Your info on DU is good accurate reporting but not the syptoms described you weaken an argument by ascribing illness to it that are can be proven to be not caused by it.

You also weaken your argument by using bold letters all the way through. Bold and SHOUTING is for punch and emphasis in a written argument; not to give people eye ache.

That the long term consequences of DU oxide internal exposure are cancer there is little doubt.

Any one who cares to disagree I am sure we can do a test by getting you to breath it in while those of us who believe it is bad wont.

That Iraqis and GWV are having illnesses associated with it I think is also proven.

The specific cases mentioned in the current crop of soldiers though appear to be known side effects of the Anthrax vaccine.

The US millitary is trying to hide it so they dont get sued and that is also why they are refusing to allow tests to be conducted on DU exposure under their budget or accept any independent studies that show it. To do so would be a prima facie case against them. Better legaly speaking for them to let all the affected vetrans die first. Bereaved family cases are way harder to prove and never cost so much.

The millitary recruit some of the best legal minds in the US straight from University they do it with good reason.

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

I wasnt answering your post , i was merely pointing out DU's lethality in the Iraq conflict something different then vaccines

And theres no need to shout on forums i dont think anyone can hear , BOLD is to highlight an important issue which it was unless you think not.

[walker 0]

Hi Acecombat

Statement (i)

I wasnt answering your post    , i was merely pointing out DU's lethality in the Iraq conflict something different then vaccines  

I read it in the context of the thread in which it was placed, intentional or not that is the way it came accross

Perhaps making it clear with an introductory statement along the line of "Anthrax vaccine poisoning is not the only millitary caused illness those in the gulf have to face"

Statement (ii)

And theres no need to shout on forums i dont think anyone can hear , BOLD is to highlight an important issue...

Sorry didn't work just gave me eye ache trying to read it.

junction Statement (iii)

...which...

Statement (iv)

... it was unless you think not.

Running two arguments together as here is an Aristotlian rhetorical trick I am well aware of.

You cant get me to agree with Statement (ii) by linking it via Junction Statement (iii) to Statement (iv)

In terms of the semantics you joined a question about: using bold through out an argument, an item I vehemently disagree with, via

Quote[/b] ]...which...

to a statement about the importance of arguing against the use of DU, an argument I vehemently agree with.

Sorry not that dumb  

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/13/sprj.irq.ali/index.html

Quote[/b] ]LONDON, England -- Iraqi war orphan Ali Abbas says he hopes the U.S. pilot who bombed his family will be made to suffer as he has.

Ali lost both arms and suffered 60 percent burns in a U.S. bombing raid on Baghdad that killed his parents and 13 other family members. He has now been fitted with artificial arms in a London hospital.

He told ITV1's Tonight Special, to be screened on Tuesday, he still had vivid memories of the night of the strike.

"I keep asking myself: 'Why are they bombing Iraqi people? What have we done to them?' I hoped that the pilot who hit our house would be burned as I am burned and my family were burned."

He said he had mixed feelings about the British following his ordeal.

"When I was in the hospital they sent me letters, but they still helped the Americans," he said.

He recalled huddling with his family in his home during the bombing, and later being stopped by the police as he rushed to hospital.

"They asked questions like: 'Where are you going? Where are you heading? Who is this?' Then I looked at my arms and I saw them gone. They said: 'It is a hopeless case, it's hopeless.'"

Images of Ali lying in a filthy cot in a Baghdad hospital, close to death, shocked the world.

The teenager, who is now looked after by his uncle, was airlifted to a hospital in Kuwait for treatment amid fears an infection could prove fatal.

He was later brought to Britain where he was fitted with two artificial arms at Queen Mary's Hospital in Roehampton, south-west London, which is renowned for working with amputees.

He now has a cosmetic prosthetic on his left side and a state-of-the-art artificial limb on the right with an electrode touching the muscle on his stump to open and close his hand.

Football lover Ali had a Manchester United tattoo specially put on the new right arm.

Last week he fulfilled one of his dreams when he met England captain David Beckham while the star was training for the European Championships clash with Turkey.

He now faces months of occupational therapy and, while he is growing, the limbs will need to be replaced at intervals.

He plans to return to his country at some point, where he hopes to go to school and enjoy some "proper Iraqi cooking".

He said: "I want to go back to Iraq to my family and I will feel better. And then I will think."

[Acecombat 0]

Sorry Walker you lost me after the first quote

I feel sorry for that kid , this just shows how the minds of future generations are being poisoned by such acts ... this war isnt gonna earn the US any respect in the eyes of the average Iraqi.

[Blake 0]

I don't think toppling of a dictator will haunt anyone despite deep personal losses after the dust has settled. Or maybe Serbs are turning out to be terrorists in the future after NATO bombings. I think average Iraqi will just want to build their country and lives now.

But of course anyone would want to kill the guy who killed your family, thats human nature.

[denoir 0]

Or maybe Serbs are turning out to be terrorists in the future after NATO bombings.

Different culture. They are however very resentful of the bombings and consider it an unprovoked attack. But, the situations aren't comparable. Saddam was a dictator who's idol was Stalin. Milosevic was democratically elected and supported by his own people. (The problem with him was of course that he was not so nice to other nations in the region).

[Blake 0]

Yes but I still wouldn't draw predictions despite cultural differences that future Iraqi's will become bitter and drawn to fanaticism and terrorism. That's what would happen if US now just would withdraw and leave them to anarchy. Current attacks are still somewhat predictable taken the size of the country, population and history. 100 soldiers lost in six months after the war is still a toll that isn't very high when compared to losses in Vietnam or Chechnya so there clearly is no general uprising in sight, just some die-hard fanatics and loyalists.

But hell, I still wouldn't want to ride around in Baghdad in a Humvee So I still gotta give some credit to the GIs doing that every day.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]But hell, I still wouldn't want to ride around in Baghdad in a Humvee So I still gotta give some credit to the GIs doing that every day.

You wanna give them credit for illegal invasion and occupation until there countrys bank are filled with money

Plz provide some link which shows that only 100 died in 6 Months......

[Blake 0]

No you got me wrong. I just gave credit to those ordinary soldiers who patrol on the streets, knowing that they might be killed in a split second. Most of them don't care about politics you know. I wasn't fond of this war but I hope situation will stabilize now and ordinary Iraqis also don't have to suffer from car bombs etc. attacks. Do those attackers really think ordinary Iraqis support their bombings and plans to bring back Saddam?

I don't have a link but it was in television that 97 Americans have now died in Iraq after the major war ended in April.