The Iraq thread 4

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Its those people whose interpretation of Islam requires the destruction of everything that is not Islamic to occurr in order for paradise on this planet to be achieved.

SHOW me which 'people' said that? As far as i know they attack because they are pissed at your govts hypocrisy and doublehanded ness in certain political arenas. I have yet to see Laden say he wants to destroy america (let alone the feasibilities of it being even remotely possible)

Quote[/b] ]In other words it requires the destruction of any culture that is not Islamic. This includes Israel, India, the US, Russia, and as the Netherlands has tragically learned Western Europe. Its not about the policies of one governement or another.

WRONG again , its about POLICY'S if america maintains it dublitious policys it will suffer from such attacks. And Laden doesnt require the destruction of those cultures havent heard him say it

Quote[/b] ]Its how we in the west live that these Islamofascists (for lack of a better word) despise. Why else was Van Gogh butchered?

They might despise your 'way' of living out of lack of udnerstanding but they surely dont wanna waste their energy;s in killing you for that reason. The reasons are different! And van gogh was killed because he was a racist and such people dont live long since they meet eventually someone from the opposite camp whos equally retarded as them , but with enough guts to kill him.

Quote[/b] ]They don't wear uniforms, they strike at civilians, and they don't even try to adhere to internationally accepted norms. Its like its a blood cult masquerading as a religion.

That's the enemy.

Some that wear uniforms dont ALSO conform to Intl accepted laws and norms under certian conditions a classic example set by you a few pages back

Its an army one which couldnt find any army to get it self in to and fight for its goals , nothing new or sensationalistic about it. I am sure if the nazis didnt have an army or weapons they might have resorted to similiar techniques.

Quote[/b] ]Why Iraq, well I think they used Saddam for his money and weapons, and Saddam used 'em because they're disposable. Both sides benefited.

Wha , who ...

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]It seems America is almost alone in being willing to fight terrorism. I do have to say thanks to England, Poland, and every country tht truly did help us out. Thank you.

Powerful nations with invasive foreign policies are more dangerous to themselves as well as the international community as a whole, in my opinion.

Some nations were savvy enough to stay the hell out of the whole Iraq debacle and some now are disillusioned as to what the actual goal of the whole invasion was to begin with. So yeah. I have a feeling the United States will inevitably be alone. Except for the U.K. I've heard that one of the reasons why Blair joined so willingly was more of an over compensatory gesture to dissmiss any concerns about where the country's standpoint on terror really was.

Especially since I've heard that the U.K has seen a steady influx of islamic extremists over the years. Otherwise some have speculated Bush would have turned his accusing beady little eyes towards his "greatest ally".

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Its those people whose interpretation of Islam requires the destruction of everything that is not Islamic to occurr in order for paradise on this planet to be achieved.

SHOW me which 'people' said that?

Okee dokee:

Quote[/b] ]"Fundamental Concepts Regarding Al Jihaad" by Sheikh Dr. Abdul-Qadir Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz

‘Jihad At-Talab’ is when you seek the enemy and battle them within their state. And ‘Jihad Ad-Dafa’ ’ is the fighting against the enemy, which initiated the fighting with the Muslims. [1]

And the evidence for Jihād At-Talab:

The statement of Allāh, the Most High:

…then kill the Mushrikīn wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salāt, and give Az-Zakāt, then leave their way free. Verily, Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [2]

And He, the Most High, said:

Fight against those who believe not in Allāh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allāh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islām) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [3]

So Al-Haqq (i.e. Allāh), the Majestic and Most High, commanded going out and fighting them and seeking them and besieging them. And these verses are from the clearest, of the last ones, which were revealed (about Jihād). And there is no abrogation for them. And the Prophet and his companions with him, and those after him, followed them, until Allāh, the Most High, opened the Earth’s East and its West to them.

And the Messenger of Allāh said, “I was commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allāh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh and they establish the prayer (Salāt) and pay the poor due (Zakāt). Then if they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in the rights of Islām and their reckoning is with Allāh, the Most High.†[4]

And in the Hadīth of Buraydah, which was narrated by Muslim, “That the Messenger of Allāh; whenever he would appoint a commander (Amīr) over an army, or a platoon, he would advise him privately, to fear Allāh and with those who were with him from the Muslims, with good. Then he said, ‘Battle in the Name of Allāh. Fight those who have disbelieved in Allāh. Battle, but do not misappropriate (the war booty) and do not betray and do not make examples from the polytheists (i.e. do not mutilate them). And do not kill a child. Then if you meet your enemy from the polytheists, then call them to three practices.’†– the Hadīth. And these texts are clear and obvious concerning going out to fight the enemy, while intending them, within their state. And this is the Jihād At-Talab....

I say: From what has passed, you understand that the one who rejects the fact that Jihād At-Talab is from Islām, such as those who say that Islām does not fight unless it is for defense or to repel transgression, then he is a rejecter of the aforementioned verses and Hadīths and the likes of them. And He, the Most High, said:

…and none but the disbelievers reject Our Āyāt… [9]...

A Misconception:

Some use as evidence to reject Jihād At-Talab, His, the Most High’s, statement:

But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it… [10]

And (they say) as long as the disbeliever is in a state of peace with the Muslims, then there is no Jihād. An they use as evidence, the statement of the Prophet, “Do not wish to meet the enemy…†[11]

And this is the condition of those who believe in some of the Book while disbelieving in some; those who used as evidence, one of the evidences in the matter, while leaving the remaining evidences, as I mentioned in the fourth principle from “The Principles of Holding Steadfast to the Book and the Sunnahâ€. And the response to this doubt is from different points:

The First: The Messenger of Allāh and his companions, who are the best of this nation, may Allāh be pleased with them, did not hold these texts upon the point, which those ones understood from it, in that they mean the leaving of the Jihād At-Talab, as the Prophet fought the Arabs and then went out to fight the Romans at Tabūk. And he fought in nineteen battles. [12] And he personally participated in fighting in eight of them. [13] As for the delegations and the platoons, which he sent out but did not go out in personally, then they numbered thirty-six in the narration of Ibn Is’hāq, and others mentioned even more than that. [14] Then the companions battled, after him, the Persians and the Romans and the Turks and the Copts and the Barbars and others from what is known. So this one who used these texts as evidence to invalidate the Jihād At-Talab; we say to him:

“This thing that you understood; is it something that the Prophet and his Companions understood, or not?†Then if he says that they did not understand it, we say to him, “You have understood that which they did not understand, therefore you have judged upon yourself with misguidance and that what you have understood was not from our religion.†This is because the religion was completed in his lifetime. Allāh, the Most High, said:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you… [15]...

Note: the above pages have magically disappeared but I'm sure the web-savvy amongst you can find cache sites that reproduce the article in full.

Shall we go on?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]

  Well Saddam did support Hamas and Hezbolla. They don't count as terrorist organisations though, they just kill filthy jews and I hear they built a school. (They can't top old Bin though, he built day care centers for working women)

Saddam supported the families of the suicide bombers, Just like Saudi-Arabia, and all "friends" of usa in that region. Why isnt saudi-arabia attacked on the war on terror?

Saudi Arabia isnt democratic too. didnt most of the terorists of 911 come from Saudi Arabia? War on teror, lets go and and Ace, if you then dare to take your gun to defend your country then you are a terorist too.

[python3 0]

Quote[/b] ]

  Well Saddam did support Hamas and Hezbolla. They don't count as terrorist organisations though, they just kill filthy jews and I hear they built a school. (They can't top old Bin though, he built day care centers for working women)

Saddam supported the families of the suicide bombers, Just like Saudi-Arabia, and all "friends" of usa in that region. Why isnt saudi-arabia attacked on the war on terror?

Saudi Arabia isnt democratic too.   didnt most of the terorists of 911 come from Saudi Arabia? War on teror, lets go  and and Ace, if you then dare to take your gun to defend your country then you are a terorist too.

i heard on a tv program that initially there was a multinational team picked for the attack on 9/11. Bin laden then said no and picked his own team made up of saudi's. the reason was it would cause a big split between the US and KSA, what he always wanted. smart bastard was right.

[theavonlady 2]

i heard on a tv program that initially there was a multinational team picked for the attack on 9/11. Bin laden then said no and picked his own team made up of saudi's. the reason was it would cause a big split between the US and KSA, what he always wanted. smart bastard was right.

Nevertheless, can you estimate what number of Jihadists around the world have directly been taught in Saudi government funded Madrasim (schools/colleges for learning Wahabiist Islam), how many of the sheiks and mulahs promoting Jihad are the graduates of these Madrasim and in which countries around the world are the Saudis building and funding these institutions?

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]In video footage shot by an embedded CNN crew, soldiers walked through one imposing building with concrete columns with a large sign in Arabic on the wall reading "Al-Qaeda Organiation" and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

So what were the dozens of US airstrikes hiting at in Fallujah which were brandashed the result of spectacular intelligence from inside the city if not the head quarters of the organisation fited with a huge poster on it.

51 Marines killed in Fallujah,city still not secure

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) - Insurgent forces in Fallujah attacked U.S. Marines and Iraqi government forces from a house inside the city Thursday, killing one Marine and one Iraqi soldier, a Marine commander said.

Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told Pentagon reporters in a video teleconference from Fallujah that the city is not yet completely in U.S. and Iraqi government control.

"The town is not quite secure at this point," Sattler said.

He said the total U.S. death toll so far in the Fallujah offensive, which began Nov. 7, stands at 51, with about 425 wounded in action.

Sattler said city residents who fled before the U.S.-led offensive will not be allowed back until conditions are safer. He said the resettlement would be done in phases, starting with residences in the northern part of Fallujah.

Fallujah normally has a population of about 200,000. The vast majority fled before the fighting began.

"The town must be secure before we let the Fallujah people back in," he said. He gave no specific estimate of when that would happen, saying only that it would take "some time."

Also Red Cross claims at least 800 civillians killed in the fighting and catastrophic conditions for the famillies in the battered city.But on the other hand the ''back of the insurgency has been broken'' just as it was when Uday and Qusay were killed,when Saddam was captured and in February with a low US death toll followed by the most deadly month up to date-April.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Its those people whose interpretation of Islam requires the destruction of everything that is not Islamic to occurr in order for paradise on this planet to be achieved.

SHOW me which 'people' said that?

Okee dokee:

Quote[/b] ]"Fundamental Concepts Regarding Al Jihaad" by Sheikh Dr. Abdul-Qadir Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz

‘Jihad At-Talab’ is when you seek the enemy and battle them within their state. And ‘Jihad Ad-Dafa’ ’ is the fighting against the enemy, which initiated the fighting with the Muslims. [1]

And the evidence for Jihād At-Talab:

The statement of Allāh, the Most High:

…then kill the Mushrikīn wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salāt, and give Az-Zakāt, then leave their way free. Verily, Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [2]

And He, the Most High, said:

Fight against those who believe not in Allāh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allāh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islām) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [3]

So Al-Haqq (i.e. Allāh), the Majestic and Most High, commanded going out and fighting them and seeking them and besieging them. And these verses are from the clearest, of the last ones, which were revealed (about Jihād). And there is no abrogation for them. And the Prophet and his companions with him, and those after him, followed them, until Allāh, the Most High, opened the Earth’s East and its West to them.

And the Messenger of Allāh said, “I was commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allāh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh and they establish the prayer (Salāt) and pay the poor due (Zakāt). Then if they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in the rights of Islām and their reckoning is with Allāh, the Most High.†[4]

And in the Hadīth of Buraydah, which was narrated by Muslim, “That the Messenger of Allāh; whenever he would appoint a commander (Amīr) over an army, or a platoon, he would advise him privately, to fear Allāh and with those who were with him from the Muslims, with good. Then he said, ‘Battle in the Name of Allāh. Fight those who have disbelieved in Allāh. Battle, but do not misappropriate (the war booty) and do not betray and do not make examples from the polytheists (i.e. do not mutilate them). And do not kill a child. Then if you meet your enemy from the polytheists, then call them to three practices.’†– the Hadīth. And these texts are clear and obvious concerning going out to fight the enemy, while intending them, within their state. And this is the Jihād At-Talab....

I say: From what has passed, you understand that the one who rejects the fact that Jihād At-Talab is from Islām, such as those who say that Islām does not fight unless it is for defense or to repel transgression, then he is a rejecter of the aforementioned verses and Hadīths and the likes of them. And He, the Most High, said:

…and none but the disbelievers reject Our Āyāt… [9]...

A Misconception:

Some use as evidence to reject Jihād At-Talab, His, the Most High’s, statement:

But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it… [10]

And (they say) as long as the disbeliever is in a state of peace with the Muslims, then there is no Jihād. An they use as evidence, the statement of the Prophet, “Do not wish to meet the enemy…†[11]

And this is the condition of those who believe in some of the Book while disbelieving in some; those who used as evidence, one of the evidences in the matter, while leaving the remaining evidences, as I mentioned in the fourth principle from “The Principles of Holding Steadfast to the Book and the Sunnahâ€. And the response to this doubt is from different points:

The First: The Messenger of Allāh and his companions, who are the best of this nation, may Allāh be pleased with them, did not hold these texts upon the point, which those ones understood from it, in that they mean the leaving of the Jihād At-Talab, as the Prophet fought the Arabs and then went out to fight the Romans at Tabūk. And he fought in nineteen battles. [12] And he personally participated in fighting in eight of them. [13] As for the delegations and the platoons, which he sent out but did not go out in personally, then they numbered thirty-six in the narration of Ibn Is’hāq, and others mentioned even more than that. [14] Then the companions battled, after him, the Persians and the Romans and the Turks and the Copts and the Barbars and others from what is known. So this one who used these texts as evidence to invalidate the Jihād At-Talab; we say to him:

“This thing that you understood; is it something that the Prophet and his Companions understood, or not?†Then if he says that they did not understand it, we say to him, “You have understood that which they did not understand, therefore you have judged upon yourself with misguidance and that what you have understood was not from our religion.†This is because the religion was completed in his lifetime. Allāh, the Most High, said:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you… [15]...

Note: the above pages have magically disappeared but I'm sure the web-savvy amongst you can find cache sites that reproduce the article in full.

Shall we go on?

Crap all of it.

EVEN then THAT article you posted doesnt tells me anywhere that my mission in life is to live by killing non-muslims .

Its a very shoddily made article and i could also argue its authenticity they didnt even give the chapter or verse numbers ... anyway this is the only thing i find to which you could appeal and say hey i struck jackpot :

Quote[/b] ]…then kill the Mushrikīn wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salāt, and give Az-Zakāt, then leave their way free. Verily, Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The verse isnt quoted in full from the start , they quoted it out of BLOODY CONTEXT here to UNDERSTAND any verse from the quran you dont NEED to ONLY read it but to get background info on it when it was revealed why it was revealed. I am sure that verse also has one. And it describes a legit form of warfare technique muslims must adhere to while at war something which NOT MANY armys did at that time.

And i still doubt the whole articles authenticity especially because i find it written like as if some 6 grader wrote it who didnt understood english well or something and most of it is crap and some things genuine quoted out of context , islam doesnt asks a muslim to be constantly at war or anything , Jihad is only a means to defend islam thats it and it can be performed in various ways as well , verbal , written , fighting and controlling ones will.

Quote[/b] ]Saudi Arabia isnt democratic too. didnt most of the terorists of 911 come from Saudi Arabia? War on teror, lets go and and Ace, if you then dare to take your gun to defend your country then you are a terorist too.

Yeah if you want the wrath of 1.2 billion people on you , fine attack us

[Acecombat 0]

i heard on a tv program that initially there was a multinational team picked for the attack on 9/11. Bin laden then said no and picked his own team made up of saudi's. the reason was it would cause a big split between the US and KSA, what he always wanted. smart bastard was right.

Nevertheless, can you estimate what number of Jihadists around the world have directly been taught in Saudi government funded Madrasim (schools/colleges for learning Wahabiist Islam), how many of the sheiks and mulahs promoting Jihad are the graduates of these Madrasim and in which countries around the world are the Saudis building and funding these institutions?

Yep thats pretty much correct though funding might not be that much everywhere , but the ideology is derived somewhat from the retards here

[SPQR 0]

Yeah if you want the wrath of 1.2 billion people on you , fine attack us  

No way, the Fitnah is already doing the job...

Definition: In Islamic tradition, fitnah refers, first, to the opposition to Islam experienced by early Muslims and, second, threats to the health of the umma. In Arabic fitnah means "trial, testing."

Can mean also civil war.

The Signs of the Age of Fitnah (Trials)

Quote[/b] ]Jihad is only a means to defend islam thats it and it can be performed in various ways as well , verbal , written , fighting and controlling ones will.

You have proven nobody's better than the others...

I used to think Jihad was a mean to fight one's own demons, to reach wisdom, not to control people and make them do want the powerfull ones want you to do  

[Akira 0]

Shall we go on?

The Holy Qur'an > Surah Al-Baqarah> Verse 190

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The Holy Qur'an > Surah Al-Baqarah> Verse 193

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

The Holy Qur'an > Surah Al-Anfal> Verse 39

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

The Holy Qur'an > Surah Al-Hajj> Verse 39

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is Most Powerful for their aid;

The Holy Qur'an > Surah Al-Jathiya> Verse 14

Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allah: it is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each People according to what they have earned.

Quote[/b] ]Approximately fourteen hundred years ago, prophet Muhammed ,the last in the line of the prophets of Islam (Submission), delivered the Quran, the Final Testament. Islam (Submission in English) was founded by Abraham. Ever since the Renaissance, its believers have been subjected to difficulties. From the Inquisition in Spain and Andalucia to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Chechnya, the Muslim people have endured colonial regime and economic and military oppression. By the means of media, Islam (Submission) has been given a sinister image in the eye of the public opinion, this notorious image is mainly due to the ignorance and misunderstanding of the media and public. A word which is often heard and associated with the acts of certain individuals, claiming to act in the name of Islam, is the Arabic word: Jihad. Its significance plays an extremely crucial role in the image of Islam. But what does this so widely known word mean?

Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims (Submitters in English). Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. The best translation known for such a word is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfish striving for spiritual good.

Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality. It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter*.

"The Hereafter is far better for you than this first (life.)"(93:4)

"Say, "O my people, do your best, and so will I. You will surely find out who the ultimate victors are." Certainly, the wicked will never succeed."(6:135).

The Jihad involves noticeable effort for righteousness. This means that the effort concentrated in the Jihad is a step in the true and ultimate path of Islam (submission); the effort imposed on one's self. Thus Jihad is solely individual, self-centered and self-interested. This effort is only the doing of good for salvation and pardon of God. The Quran points this out in the following verse:

"The day will come when every soul will serve as its own advocate, and every soul will be paid fully for whatever it had done, without the least injustice." (16:111).

" The day will come when each soul will find all the good works it had done brought forth. As for the evil works, it will wish that they were far, far removed. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. GOD is Compassionate towards the people. " (3:30).

In respect to the above Quranic verses, God tells the believers that all acts will reflect the soul of their authors. Examples of this Jihad would be to exceed in the sincere act of good deeds (to frequent the mosques that worship God alone more often; to study the scripture in detail, to help the poor and the orphans, to stand for people's right for freedom, be equitable, never bear witness false testimony, frequent and stay in good terms with friends and neighbors, etc.) and the restraining of the doing of sins (to commit adultery, to steel, to lie, to cheat, to insult people, to gossip, etc.);

"As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice." (4:124).

The previous Quranic verse highlights the meaning of Jihad and its role. It has also mentioned the importance of the sincerity when it is practised.

Jihad emphasizes on the individual.

Say, "O my people, do your best, and so will I. You will surely find out who the ultimate victors are." Certainly, the wicked will never succeed."(6:135).

Jihad also includes the striving and establishing of justice. Before one can strive for justice in his/her community, justice must be one of his/her main religious and moral principles.

Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam (Submission). The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor , for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad .

"You shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. " (22:78).

The previous Quranic verse incites man to strive , in the cause of God. The cause of God is justice and freedom for all, keeping the Quranic principle, "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION" (2:256) on top of the list.

"As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice.(4:124).

"Never indeed, by your Lord; they are not believers unless they come to you to judge in their disputes, then find no hesitation in their hearts whatsoever in accepting your judgment. They must submit a total submission."(4:65).

"O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe GOD, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor, GOD takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do." (4:135).

Since this verse shows that God accepts only justice, fighting in the name of God is fighting in the name of justice. But, contrary to many people's interpretation, Jihad is anything but a holy war; the media and public misunderstand this.

In the light and essence of Islam (Submission) and the Quran, there is no war which is holy; this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam (Submission) revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam (Submission) is also a word that share the same root of the Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam (Submission), war is unholy, Jihad must mean anything but holy war.

However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam (Submission) tolerates, permits and sometimes even accepts the practise of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is another condition: fighting for self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this alternative, as long as it is reasonable, must be taken.

"You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." (8:60-61)

Self-defense involves oppression, aggression and tyranny; Islam tolerates the use of war in these cases.

"Permission (to fight) is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and GOD is certainly able to support them. They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, "Our Lord is GOD." If it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty."(22:39-40).

The other condition and perhaps the most important and often confused as a holy war, is the war in the name of God which actually means in the cause of God as God does not encourage war but rather encourages peace whenever possible. Fighting an oppressor or aggressor is fighting against oppression or aggression, thus it is fighting for justice and therefore in the name (cause) of God. See (2:244), (22:78) and ;

"Those who readily fight in the cause of GOD are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of GOD, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense. Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master."(4:74-75).

Even as an enemy, the Muslim (Submitter in English) must respect his adversaries. Mere, brutal and barbaric fighting is condemned in Islam (Submission). Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. During military activities, the killing must not include civilians, provided they do not attack or provoke or share directly in the war. . The enemies, even when at war, must be treated justly. If victory is achieved in any war for justice, then there is to be no oppression, enslavement or injustice to the enemy or people. Nor must there be control over source of wealth of the nation or people or colonial regimes. The division of people, putting them one against the other is also forbidden. Justice and freedom must be established. The cooperation and acceptance of other cultures and peoples is compulsory too.

" GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.(16:90)

"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant."(49:13)

In Brief; the meaning the media gives to this word (Jihad) is false. This word does not mean a holy war, for there is nothing holy about a war in Islam (submission). There are times when war is tolerated, permitted and even, in some case, to a point accepted, but never considered holy. Islam (Submission) is a religion of peace, no matter what certain media or deranged individuals say or claim. Islam (Submission) revolves around the concept of peace.

"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."(8:61).

Link

Yes. Shall I go on?

EDIT:

Jihad in the Islamic sense means to "strive" or "struggle." It deals with what Muslims must go through in order to remain good Muslims within the "evil" world. It does not mean war or anything of that nature.

[billybob2002 0]

Why do you just say that somebody trying to hijack a religion..

DEATH TO THE FUCKER WHO IS PLAYING THAT SONG!!!!!!!

EDIT: THE FUCKER IS MAKING ME FUCK UP!!

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I now remember why I hate this thread. I don't post for a day, and there are a million post to reply too.

The enemy we fight is the people that want to destroy any nation that is not Islamic. You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it. I am thinking about ourselves, the U.S. because we are a target of the enemy. the number one target. If by some chance we could spread democracy to the region, it would be much safer, but thats not why I think we should fight. We are fighting fro our freedom, and many people will not admit this, or they are to stupid to see it. These people want to destroy freedom. Iraq was supporting terrorism through money, and even giving a home to the terrorist. So why not start there? I hate that civilians get killed, probably more than any of you ever TRULY could. Though if the population does nothing to stop a dictator like Saddam then they are putting themselves in harms way. I know this sounds bad, and it is hard for me to explain how I see it. Uhhhggg, I need to go rest for a while, I think I ate to much.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I now remember why I hate this thread. I don't post for a day, and there are a million post to reply too.

The enemy we fight is the people that want to destroy any nation that is not Islamic. You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it. I am thinking about ourselves, the U.S. because we are a target of the enemy. the number one target. If by some chance we could spread democracy to the region, it would be much safer, but thats not why I think we should fight. We are fighting fro our freedom, and many people will not admit this, or they are to stupid to see it. These people want to destroy freedom. Iraq was supporting terrorism through money, and even giving a home to the terrorist. So why not start there? I hate that civilians get killed, probably more than any of you ever TRULY could. Though if the population does nothing to stop a dictator like Saddam then they are putting themselves in harms way. I know this sounds bad, and it is hard for me to explain how I see it. Uhhhggg, I need to go rest for a while, I think I ate to much.

This is a very bigotted, arrogant, snotty, dismissive and offensive view. Furthermore, history tends to disagree with you.

The Middle East is the cradle of human civilisation - the first major civilisations in human history were formed in or near the Middle East. Baghdad is one of the oldest capital citys on the planet, Uruk and Ur are probably the first human city's ever. Writing was invented there, as was the idea of writing down laws (refer to Hammurabi's code) and the first epos or heroic tale (The Gilgamesh Epos, a very cool story.)

These people, or their ancestors rather, did the first major step towards today's civilisation - they replaced the whole concept of "just randomly living along with nature" with something called civilisation. Government, delegated tasks, all this was invented down there.

They were conquered eventually, but the conquerors carried these ideas into other corners of the Earth. Other corners then started developing their own interpretation of this, such as China or Greece, who then went on to shape the culture and mindset of entire continents.

They were the first people out of the caves - they taught us the very basics. Calling them stupid is just as moronic as cussing your grandparents who forgot your name.

To make you understand the significance of my respect for the people of the Middle East (and that includes the Israelis) - they taugh us Greeks the basics we needed to go on and invent the basics of modern European/Western civilisation. And regulars here can attest that I am a very vivid and proud Greek flagwaver type person - I have THAT much respect for them and their past achievements.

Now moving on to particulars of your post:

Quote[/b] ]The enemy we fight is the people that want to destroy any nation that is not Islamic.

I will quote "the devil himself", Osama Bin Laden, from his latest videotape.

"Why do you think we didn't attack Sweden?"

This is a key quote. It proves, once and for all, that this is not an Islamic crusade. It proves that Mr. Bin Laden has a very distinct aim for his policy, with an easily identifiable motive. He is not attacking America because he is a lunatic - it is portrayed this way by your goverment, because the simple people on the streets know all about good and evil, thanks to the dogmatic version of Christianity that is practised over there.

What your government fails to answer, however, is the above question - why didn't he attack Sweden?

The answer is simple - because Sweden doesn't go around bombing people, Sweden doesn't go around sticking their noses into business they have no right to be getting involved in, Sweden hasn't assisted in the destruction of some of the most beautiful places in the mediterranean. US foreign policy and its semi-rogue Arm of Justive, the CIA, have though.

Bin-Laden had to wittness the murder and slaughter of his people, probably first hand. It is true that muslims have a slightly different approach to their religion than us Christians, we always tend to think in terms of nationality first, religion second, whereas in the Middle East nationality and religion seem to be much closer interwined. This probably explains why he went to Afghanistan to help his "brothers" that were attacked by the Soviets. This is a very human motion, and other nations have done it as well - best example that I know of, America coming to rescue its British and other European brothers from Nazi fascism. Same idea, help out your "brothers."

In short, Bin-Laden is simply returning the favour that he got to experience at the wrong end of American policy - he is simply trying to protect his people from a big and aggressive enemy. It is a dirty war, but don't forget that both sides are fighting dirty. There are no knights of good in shiny armour, both are wearing fatigues full with blood and dirt.

Quote[/b] ]You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it.

Tripe. How do muslims in the US or the UK or France get along with democracy? Very well...they all vote, none of them are bombing anything. So Islam is not a reason/factor.

Freedom and Democracy? The Arabs certainly care about Freedom, they cared enough about it to fight for it and shake the Turkish yoke (Lawrence of Arabia anyone). Democracy? Who the hell do you think you are, who the hell do we think we are, that we can just come along and tell them what type of government they can have? If they want to be communists or fascists or monarchists, this is their prerogative. Sure, if their government represents our pet-hates we reserve the right to not deal with them. If they attack us, we shoot back. But they decide what government they want, not us.

Quote[/b] ]We are fighting fro our freedom, and many people will not admit this, or they are to stupid to see it.

Because the Arabs will overrun the United States soon? Please...how can you possibly believe that you can make the United States safe if you are invading countries thousands of miles away? There is a word for it - colonialism, empire building, you name it. It is everything but fighting for freedom.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was supporting terrorism through money, and even giving a home to the terrorist.

The only connection Iraq had with terrorists (prior to the war) was providing money for the families of Hizbollah suicide bombers. Hizbollah has nothing to do with America, it is not America's conflict.

Quote[/b] ]Though if the population does nothing to stop a dictator like Saddam then they are putting themselves in harms way

They tried, but just like in 1922, the glorious United States, lovely ally of every free-loving people in the world, just stood by and watched the people's revolutions being put down burtally. What do you think the Kurds and whoever lives in the South tried to do in 1991/1992? The people can't, just like that on a whim, decide to go and stop a military regime!

[bn880 5]

Excellent post Ex-Ronin, kind of gives a larger perspective, frees us from the immediate hype for a minute.

[python3 0]

as bn880 said, great post ronin!

[Acecombat 0]

Thanks for clarifying the concept there Akira

Its sad that when it comes to studying basic principles people live avon can only refer to extremist people ONLY instead of some of the great islamic scholars at present like Dr Zakir naik (india), Harun Yahya (turkish) or Ahmed deedat (southafrica) i would recommend people interested in learning a bit about islam and its basic concepts on nearly everything to read up on their books and lectures.

Duke of ray could you plz bother and take some of your precious time to reply to me 'specific' post in which i countered your arguments and post your thoughts on that?

[brgnorway 0]

Splendid post Exronin! That probably saved me from a writing myself into a PR/Ban!

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay, but let me be the devils advocate once in a while. Me too I believe that we will soon have a very strong culture clash between the islam and the christian world.

Wether you like it or not but Bin Laden remains convinced that islam is superior, not only over the US but any other christian state. And this is nothin special. What we have seen recently in Holland is a clear sign that the muslim community is trying to fight western values and push us back into the stone age.

I know, sounds stupid racist and too stereotypical.

Only a few extreme muslims were involved in Holland? No, you are wrong!

Come to Berlin and have a look at a district called Neu-Köln. This is more than just a muslim gettho. Most arabs dont even talk german, some put islamic street names on top on of the german road signs so their families always find their way home. So far so good, seems the integration process has failed a little... but now comes the realy dangerous aspect.

They neither respect the police nor the judges anymore since they have their own law and their own judges.

They teach their children that what they learn at school is western lies and what counts is the Quaran lessons in the afternoon. Former liberal turkish families are being surpressed untill the women and daughters are properly covering their bodies again and marry the right man. The integration is not going ahead... it is going backward. These communities are getting more conservative and more fundamentalistic than muslims in germany have been in the past.

There have been efforts after efforts to push the integration ahead. But nothing worked, they dont want it to work. The police in charge of this district are now saying they have absolutely no more control and what happened in Holland may happen in Berlin every day too, just far more bloody.

Recently the muslim community wanted to organise a demonstration against fundamentalistic terorism, since they thought the german population expects that from them.

Guess what? Most organisations refused to take part in it. The reason for their refusal are too surreal to be true.

I can assure you that if the integration process is not forced upon muslims living in germany and other countries, then in 2 decades latest we will have real problems.

Or as this decent gentlemen recently in germany preached to his muslim community:

You have to prepare for the right moment and you have to be ready. We have to use and abuse democracy for our purposes and spread islamic schools and mosques all over europe.

Sounds like a cheap headline from muslim-hating fox news? No, isnt. This was recorded by the police after 911 in a german mosque. As I said, dont underestimate the aspirations of the islam.

There are true terorists in Iraq and there are freedom fighters. Dont turn the one group into demons and dont gorify the other.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Quote[/b] ]I will quote "the devil himself", Osama Bin Laden, from his latest videotape.

"Why do you think we didn't attack Sweden?"

This is a key quote. It proves, once and for all, that this is not an Islamic crusade. It proves that Mr. Bin Laden has a very distinct aim for his policy, with an easily identifiable motive. He is not attacking America because he is a lunatic - it is portrayed this way by your goverment, because the simple people on the streets know all about good and evil, thanks to the dogmatic version of Christianity that is practised over there.

What your government fails to answer, however, is the above question - why didn't he attack Sweden?

The answer is simple - because Sweden doesn't go around bombing people, Sweden doesn't go around sticking their noses into business they have no right to be getting involved in, Sweden hasn't assisted in the destruction of some of the most beautiful places in the mediterranean. US foreign policy and its semi-rogue Arm of Justiveâ„¢, the CIA, have though.

Bin-Laden had to wittness the murder and slaughter of his people, probably first hand. It is true that muslims have a slightly different approach to their religion than us Christians, we always tend to think in terms of nationality first, religion second, whereas in the Middle East nationality and religion seem to be much closer interwined. This probably explains why he went to Afghanistan to help his "brothers" that were attacked by the Soviets. This is a very human motion, and other nations have done it as well - best example that I know of, America coming to rescue its British and other European brothers from Nazi fascism. Same idea, help out your "brothers."

In short, Bin-Laden is simply returning the favour that he got to experience at the wrong end of American policy - he is simply trying to protect his people from a big and aggressive enemy. It is a dirty war, but don't forget that both sides are fighting dirty. There are no knights of good in shiny armour, both are wearing fatigues full with blood and dirt.

Sir, you are very wrong. Why is Sweden not attacked? Not because they do not go around bombing people. That is completly stupid. Sweden is not a major obstacle to Mr.Bin-Laden, nor do they support Israel the way the U.S. does. Like it or not the U.S. is seen as the number one Christian nation in the world, which is a problem for Osama. What did the U.S. do to provoke the 9/11 attacks? Tell me that. Yes, what we did to Oama in Afghanistan was wrong, but becuase we were supporting a terrorist, thats why. Our goverment can be very stupid,i.e. helping Osama and Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]Tripe. How do muslims in the US or the UK or France get along with democracy? Very well...they all vote, none of them are bombing anything. So Islam is not a reason/factor.

Freedom and Democracy? The Arabs certainly care about Freedom, they cared enough about it to fight for it and shake the Turkish yoke (Lawrence of Arabia anyone). Democracy? Who the hell do you think you are, who the hell do we think we are, that we can just come along and tell them what type of government they can have? If they want to be communists or fascists or monarchists, this is their prerogative. Sure, if their government represents our pet-hates we reserve the right to not deal with them. If they attack us, we shoot back. But they decide what government they want, not us.

Why do you think they do well in our system voting? Becuase it has structure, and it has already been created. Of course they had rather run the country with a dictatorship, but who cares. My country has the total right to tell them what to do if they are a threat to our freedom. If you wait around to be shot, you will never be able to shoot back.

Quote[/b] ]Because the Arabs will overrun the United States soon? Please...how can you possibly believe that you can make the United States safe if you are invading countries thousands of miles away? There is a word for it - colonialism, empire building, you name it. It is everything but fighting for freedom.

Thats funny. Do you truly believe this? Do you watch Arab television? No, I don't think Iraq would or could invade the U.S.. Though, the might as well if they support terrorist that strike the U.S..

Quote[/b] ]The only connection Iraq had with terrorists (prior to the war) was providing money for the families of Hizbollah suicide bombers. Hizbollah has nothing to do with America, it is not America's conflict.

Thats almost enough anlone to invade, Israel is our only friend in the ME, and we have to support them. Besides do you not think Saddam would help terrorist figh the country he hated?

Quote[/b] ]They tried, but just like in 1922, the glorious United States, lovely ally of every free-loving people in the world, just stood by and watched the people's revolutions being put down burtally. What do you think the Kurds and whoever lives in the South tried to do in 1991/1992? The people can't, just like that on a whim, decide to go and stop a military regime!

Yes, what we did then was wrong. Should have got Saddam then, but it is too late to go back. The people can though, try to end a regieme like Saddam's, fight against it. Maybe it is just a concept few people really understand, but freedom is just something I can not live without.

I know some of you can't believe it, but the wolrd is not a pretty place. These countries are not going to get along, Islam will not get along with any country that is not Islamic. It is only a matter of time before people start seeing that Islam is the reason for the current wars, and that terrorism will only continue until we beat it into the bloody ground.

[theavonlady 2]

Its sad that when it comes to studying basic principles people live avon can only refer to extremist people ONLY instead of some of the great islamic scholars at present like Dr Zakir naik (india), Harun Yahya (turkish) or Ahmed deedat (southafrica)  i would recommend people interested in learning a bit about islam and its basic concepts on nearly everything to read up on their books and lectures.

Your question to Duke of Ray was simply:

Quote[/b] ]SHOW me which 'people' said that?

I did not bring up the subject nor did I ask the question. But now I'll continue.

The concept of offensive Jihad has numerous preacher and adherants. They can be found throughout the world, as you're about to see below.

It is not my argument that the scholars you mention are or are not great scholars. And if you truly believe that offensive Jihad is bunk, you should set about disproving it because oh so many of your fellow coreligionists beg to differ with you, siting verses from the Quran, post-qurnic Islamic writings and Islamic scholars.

So, now that you insists on blaming me for bringing up the subject, let's expand it a bit and comprehend the implications of the little insignificant amount of religious Islamic extremeists this affects.

From Canada:

Quote[/b] ]Canadian Muslim Leader: I am not an anti-Semite

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Muslim leader under attack for calling Jews "brothers of monkeys and swine" says he is no anti-Semite.

Sheik Younus Kathrada, who teaches at the Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society's information centre in East Vancouver, says his remarks in a recorded lecture were taken out of context. In a statement posted on the society's website this weekend, Kathrada says his comments were aimed at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not intended to tar the all Jews.

"Any name-calling has been aimed at those perpetrating crimes and acts of terrorism and showing open aggression towards Muslims," the lengthy statement says.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Funny! That same link used to have the following article presented:

Quote[/b] ]VANCOUVER (CP) - The leader of a Vancouver mosque attended regularly by a local man reported killed in Chechnya has preached the virtues of jihad and called Jews "the brothers of monkeys and swine."

In a lecture posted on the mosque's website, Sheik Younus Kathrada tells an audience all real Muslims want to be martyred. "It is inconceivable that a true believer will not desire martyrdom," Kathrada says.

"When we hear of our fellow Muslims in Palestine and what they're going through to try and defend that great land for us, the Muslims, that individual should wish that he was there."

In a recording of another lecture obtained by The Canadian Press, Kathrada lashes out at Israelis for killing Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin late last March.

"We know what happened over the last week and how the brothers of the monkeys and the swine assassinated and murdered one of the heroes of Islam, the Salah al-Din of this day and age, Ahmed Yassin."

Kathrada tells his audience the Qur'an and its accompanying writings view Jews as treacherous people with whom Muslims will engage in an apocalyptic battle.

"The prophet . . . said the final hour will not be established until such time as the Muslims will battle and will fight against the Jews," Kathrada says.

"Then what will happen? Listen to the good news after that. The prophet . . . says that the stone and the tree will say 'oh Muslim, oh slave of Allah, that verily behind me is a Jew. Then come and kill him.' "

Kathrada, who works out of the Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society mosque in east Vancouver, said Thursday he could not remember when he gave these talks.

"If it's on there and my name is on it then I must have. I don't recall the date," he said.

Kathrada refused to explain the meaning behind the tirade against Jews.

"I guess if you heard the lecture then it should be clear to you," he said.

But he defended his characterization of Jews as treacherous monkeys and pigs.

"I guess no rougher than what is used against us," Kathrada said. "It's in our Qur'an."

Other members of the Muslim community say Kathrada, a Sunni Muslim, was active in the Vancouver area's interfaith movement.

"I'm told that he's quite open," said Aziz Khaki of the Committee for Racial Justice, who met him at the opening of a new mosque in suburban Port Coquitlam last year.

"He did speak there and he spoke in very good terms to say we should build bridges with the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism and Christianity and we should be open to dialogue and something like that."

In his lecture on jihad, Kathrada says the term refers to physical fighting and includes the idea of offensive jihad.

"When the Muslims have a leader, when the Muslims have the strength and the ability to take on an enemy, then absolutely they call the other nations towards Islam," he says.

"Should they reject the message then they will declare war upon them. That is what we know as the offensive jihad.

"There is a good reason for that. It is in order to establish security on this Earth. It is so that the word of Allah will be the superior word."

Aziz said Kathrada is on the fringe when he espouses offensive jihad.

"He has not read the history," he said. "The whole concept of Islam spread by sword is absolutely a myth."

Kathrada's view of Jewish treachery is apparently rooted in a seventh-century doublecross of Mohammed by Jewish residents of Medina.

But Aziz said it has no relevance to historic relations between Muslims and Jews, who lived peacefully in Moorish-controlled Spain and in Ottoman Turkey.

"God may forgive him (Kathrada)," he said.

"Where Muslims ruled for 700 years, Jews and Muslims worked together."

The Vancouver area's Muslim community numbers more than 60,000 and Aziz said such militant views don't go deep.

"I don't even waste time on such characters," he said....

And that's the problem. Kathrada's arguments can all easily be defended from the Quran and Islamic tradition. Aziz most likely is well aware of this. If he is not guilty of conscious deception, his unwillingness to deign to provide adequate Islamic refutations of Kathrada's arguments means that he is leaving the field open for Kathrada to convince more and more young Muslims to turn radical.

Of course, one principal reason why he does not supply such refutations from Islamic theology and law is because they may not exist exist: Kathrada is faithfully representing existing and accepted Islamic teachings on these matters, even if they are disputed by other Islamic scholars.

Quote[/b] ]or Ahmed deedat (southafrica)

But what do we do with South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai?

Quote[/b] ]I have a question about offensive Jihad.

Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam?

I have been reading Tafsir e Usmani for the last month or so. In it I have read that offensive Jihad (first attack) should be done by Muslims for 2 reasons. 1) For the sake of Allah (in the Way of God) 2) For the sake of subjugated people under oppression like in Kashmir, Palestine etc. Now the second reason I completely understand. But the explanation given of the first reason is "For the sake of Allah includes the propagation of Islam, the survival of Islam, the extermination of those hindrances which impede the progress and expansion of Islam." (explanation of verse 190, Surah baqara) I really don't understand this explanation. What does propagation of Islam mean here? Does it mean that we are to attack even those non-Muslims which don't do anything against Islam just because we have to propagate Islam? For example, there are many countries in the world which are not enemies of Islam in any way (at least I think so). Please explain to me against which Non-Muslims, the Muslims have to do Jihad and against which, Jihad is not allowed. JazakAllah Khair.

Answer 12128 2004-07-13

You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.

Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Sorry, Ace Combat. We non-Muslims cannot be as selective as you in our sources for understanding Islam. Enough of us have died already.

Wake me up when true Islam declares war on these phoney Muslims who desecrate Allah's name with their war-mongering.

[kerosene 0]

The enemy we fight is the people that want to destroy any nation that is not Islamic. You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it. I am thinking about ourselves, the U.S. because we are a target of the enemy. the number one target. If by some chance we could spread democracy to the region, it would be much safer, but thats not why I think we should fight. We are fighting fro our freedom, and many people will not admit this, or they are to stupid to see it. These people want to destroy freedom.!

I dont understand what exactly your advocating. Arabs cant understand democracy, but the west should be over there imposing it. If they dont want peace and democracy and you want to force it on them arent you just going there to wipe them all out?

Exactly how many muslims are there in germany and holland, I dont think anyones in danger of having their country turned into an Islamic caliphate anytime soon. Is this district in germany with all this racial tension by any chance piss poor?

[theavonlady 2]

I dont understand what exactly your advocating.  Arabs cant understand democracy

I assume you don't mean that in a racist way. Anyone can understand democracy. Many dream of living it. And that holds true for Iraq as well.

Quote[/b] ]Exactly how many muslims are there in germany and holland, I dont think anyones in danger of having their country turned into an Islamic caliphate anytime soon. Is this district in germany with all this racial tension by any chance piss poor?

There are over 20 million Muslims trhoughout Europe today.

Quote[/b] ]Analysis: New Europe -- gathering storms

Washington, DC, Apr. 29 (UPI) -- Third of four parts looking at the future for Europe after the historic entry of 10 new countries to the European Union on May 1.

It was Friday the 13th when the 15 nations of the European Union in Copenhagen agreed to expand their club by 10 new members in December 2002. On Saturday, that bold dream comes true. Yet taking that epochal decision on such an ill-omened date may yet prove to be more than symbolic.

For, although the EU is geographically expanding at a rapid rate, it faces vast, even alarming uncertainties, from unstable and highly unpredictable neighbors on three sides.

To the south, the "new Europe" faces poverty-stricken and politically unstable Muslim nations across the 2,000-mile North African coastline in which radical and often violent new Islamist movements are already powerful forces.

More than 100,000 people have been killed in anarchy and civil war in Algeria over the past decade. Libya remains under the control of the currently cautious and cooperative, but always wildly unpredictable Moammar Gadhafi. France and Italy in particular have had to deal with the pressures and uncertainties of massive peaceful influxes of immigrants, especially from Algeria. And if economic and political conditions were to take a catastrophic downward spiral in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and/or Egypt, they could face the prospect of hundreds of thousands more crowding to get in very quickly.

But the European states -- with a combined population of 20 million recent Muslim immigrants -- lack the political will and the security and military muscle to enforce any tough barricade against any such sudden mass migratory pressures. Therefore civil war, radical Islamist revolution or economic collapse in North Africa could very quickly set off security crises that could shake France and Italy especially to their core.

The vision from prize-winning French author Jean Raspail in his novel "The Camp of the Saints" of European civilization extinguished by an enormous, endless migration of millions of Third World refugees into their countries appears far more likely now than when he wrote it.

To the southeast, democratic, secular Muslim Turkey, a loyal and reliable NATO ally over the past half-century, may not always stay that way, or even for much longer. An Islamic political party won a plurality of votes in the 2002 general election and is now runs the government. And the Europeans have yet to bite the bullet on finally allowing Turkey full membership in the EU, or risk profoundly alienating her by finally saying "no."

At Copenhagen, the Turks were told, not "no," but "not just yet" about their efforts to join the union. Not even the combined efforts of EU members Britain, Spain and Italy, backed by the United States, could prevail against the old Franco-German alliance that still runs the institutions of the union with a tight grip.

Germany, with its 2 million residents of Turkish origin or descent, along with Paris, which has already far more Algerian Muslim immigrants than it is comfortable with, said "no" to allowing Turkey to join the union as full members with the May 1 entry "class" of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Cyprus and Malta.

For giant Turkey, with well over 70 million people, has a population almost equal to the 10 approved new entrants into the EU combined. And if Ankara were granted full union membership, any or all of them would be free to settle anywhere in it that they liked.

The European Union with currently 350 million people will jump overnight to 425 million by Saturday morning through the accession of the new 10 member states. But if it feels threatened by the expanding demographic population pressures of Muslim North Africa to the south and Turkey to the southeast, it could also rapidly face unanticipated problems from the demographic implosion of Russia to the east.

The Soviet Union had 280 million people when it disintegrated 11 years ago. Russia today has officially 147 million, but in practice the figure might already be below 140 million. It is probably, therefore, already less populous than Muslim, nuclear-armed Pakistan. For death rates and abortion rates remain extraordinarily high, while birthrates are extremely low, and far below replenishment level.

Indeed, USA Today reported on April 20 that if Russia's already serious AIDS epidemic metastasizes the way Africa's already has, the Russian population could drop by 50 percent, or to below 75 million, within half a century. One million Russians are already infected with AIDS and 9 million of them could die of the disease by 2045.

It is this demographic weakness, in contrast to rising Muslim demographic confidence and strength that provides the other grim shadowy specter hovering over the future peace and security of the European continent. While Russian President Vladimir Putin has charted a cautious, responsible course of cooperation with the West, no one knows who or what will eventually replace him after he finishes his second term of office in 2008.

Russia seethes with human hardship and existential, cultural resentments against the world-dominant United States and the peaceful, prosperous -- and virtually defenseless -- European nations to its west. Although current economic indicators in Russia are quite optimistic -- and to a degree unanticipated half a decade ago -- the demographic design and the despair spawned by the badly flawed transition to democracy and free markets have yet to be even slowed, let alone reversed.

Therefore, even as Continental Europe celebrates a unity of political, economic and cultural purpose unknown since the days of Charlemagne 1,200 years ago, powerful, wildly unpredictable and potentially immensely destructive forces seethe on the storm-tossed waves of the societies just beyond its borders.

The future of the great European experiment in peaceful association and union may therefore ultimately lie far outside the control of any of the 425 million citizens it will proudly number after Saturday. That Friday the 13th 28 months ago when the great expansion was approved may be a more ominously appropriate symbol than any of them realized.

[kerosene 0]

Duke of Ray daid this:

"You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it."

Im asking, why does he support the war then? It appears to be unwinnable if you hold his view.

[theavonlady 2]

Duke of Ray said this:

"You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy. I do though. I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen. the people do not know how to handle it, nor will their religion allow it."

Im asking, why does he support the war then?  It appears to be unwinnable if you hold his view.

Are you addressing me? Just from the few words you attribute to DOR, I do not agree with his view, at least on several points.

Quote[/b] ]"You all are right, the people in the mid-east don't care about freedom, or democracy.

I disagree. Many care but are resigned to being unable to challenge regimes. So they live with it.

What percentage of the people? 20%? 40%? 60%? I can't say.

Neither can they.

Quote[/b] ]I would like to see freedom spread over there, but it will never happen.

There's a possibility that it will in Iraq. And this scares some of the neighbors to bits if Iraq succeeds.

This war is limited to Iraq as of today. I do not view it as unwinnable.