ATS: 300 Muslim Clerics Call For Jihad Against The US in Three Days.

I was actually saying how things look like from a perspective of someone living in the middle east.

There are no WMDs in Iraq.
The threat of Saddam obliterating USA or american "interests" in middle east with huge amount of WMDs was false. The whole case for war was a lie and it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with war on terror.
In fact, it has allowed Al-qaeda to establish presence in destabilised Iraq in the first place.

We started fighting War on Terror after 9/11 only to abandon it and start the completely insane war in Iraq, which has turned into a disaster.
Or do you call 100 dead Iraqis per day a success?

We are fighting with the wrong countries, wasting resources on wrong wars, the world is turning into a hellhole, alies are bickering amongst eachother, the "liberated" countries are a total mess because there was no functional plan on how to stabilize them after we bombed them into stone age. We keep destabilising country after country allowing terrorist groups to thrive there.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by paperclip
The war in Iraq (completely unjustified and based on lies),
..................

Only liberals, some democrats, probably some anarchists, socialists and even communists keep proclaiming this even after all the evidence that says the contrary and even come from other countries in the world such as Spain, Russia, and France.

BTW, in case you didn't know there are real unjustified wars being waged against entire people, and which have cost more lives than the war in Iraq, yet noone seems to want to say anything about it because it has to do with an Islamic country and the Arab extremist militia the Islamic government backs, and which has killed more than 2.4 million people since 1983.... Not only that, but this is not the only country who has done this and has killed this many people.... yet, noone says anything about those even thou more people are being killed...


[edit on 17-5-2005 by Muaddib]

No one is saying Sadam was a good guy, but replacing one form of misery with another isnt exactly liberation

Doesn't Jihad technically mean the RE-taking of Muslim land and attacking "heathens" on former Muslim territory? As a result I would imagine that involves attacking US soldiers in Iraq. Which they're kind of doing already.

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
Doesn't Jihad technically mean the RE-taking of Muslim land and attacking "heathens" on former Muslim territory? As a result I would imagine that involves attacking US soldiers in Iraq. Which they're kind of doing already.

Kinda. It's a holy war against infedels, like a crusade or similar and for the cause of religious ideals. But it can be on any land as far as I know, although being that it's roots are in religion I suppose it's usually happening in the spot(s) viewed as the holy land or whatever.

The big difference is that it's not like a war in the classical sense of the word but more like a movement. It doesn't have the same structure as an army would in that it's an army of individuals who fight for the same cause but do so out of common belief rather than command. It's not what you'd call "Official" since there is no "Office" calling the shots, just workers working. I would say it's similar to a Revolution or something of the same idea where "The High Command" is the common purpose which is shared between everyone, making everyone a sort of soldier who leads themselves. Not to say there's no communication or tactical planning or whatever, it's just more free flowing and harder to define. It's that "formlessness" I guess you could say which gives it it's Powers of Effective Offensive & Defense.

All I know is that there are apparently very strict rules to how a Jihad is supposed to be conducted, such as no non-combatants to be harmed and "people of the book" have to be treated equally. I suppose the only reference we have to this is the Jihad of the middle ages which was a reaction to the crusades (a good book to look at is "The Crusades through Arab eyes" which is frankly excellent).

Unfortunately we are all aware how "ideals" can be subverted.

I see whats trying to happen around here. The troika of Muaddib, Djohnsto77 and Seekerof are all extreme right wingers so it shouldnt come as any surprise to me that they are my most vocal critics.

Should I demand you guys shut up because your right wing views are getting old and boring?

Originally posted by subz
I see whats trying to happen around here. The troika of Muaddib, Djohnsto77 and Seekerof are all extreme right wingers so it shouldnt come as any surprise to me that they are my most vocal critics.

Should I demand you guys shut up because your right wing views are getting old and boring?

Actually you can't see anything right now for your own personal aggravation. So maybe you should step back and clear your vision of anger. There is no "concerted effort" to thwart any side or promote another.

Concerning the statements that this is based on a possible false story ... this is where I find this whole thing very interesting. At this point we haven't got a clue whether the Newsweek story was false, or whether Newsweek was forced to retract their story. I find this whole situation very interesting and I hope we all watch it closely.

Concerning the statements about Jihad over a book - just more dogma, similar to many many deadly dogmas where any given iconoclastic item, image, name, or food-product is relegated to a position worthy of slaying a fellow human being over. 'Nuff said on that. But possibly, the book pulled out of the crapper story was just the last straw seeing as they most likely have been festering through the occupation of Afghanistan/Iraq and the repeated reports of abuse on prisoners.

But them calling for Jihad is, as I believe some one stated, going to be based more on taking back the country from anti-Muslim invaders. So the ensuing deathtoll will be toward driving out the U.S. et. al. forces.

Let me start by saying that I am not a right winger, nor am I a left winger. I'm not even a Debra.

Seems to me that Jihad is much like law suits in the USofA. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Jihad appears to be declarable for virtually any reason. You just need enough people to get p.o.'d for some reason to declare a Jihad.

We may not be all right, but we are not all wrong. If there is going to be a holy war, then let it come. Enough posturing and yelling, blowing up your own people just to make a statement. Crazy that... Very much like simply cutting off your nose to spite your face. More like, if your left eye doesn't offend thee, pluock it out any damned way.

Seriously though, it is probably a difference between two cultures, but it is very difficult to take the constant threat of Jihad seriously when it is declared for anything that is a cultural offense.

Dear all,

As usual the right-wing echo chamber continue to spout the lies which led us to war.

There were no WMDs in Iraq. This is fact.

SH had complied with the UN inspectors but the US thought they knew better. They were wrong. This is also fact.

Now am I happy that SH is gone and a fledgling democracy seems to be happening in Iraq. Yes I am.

So what may you ask is my problem?

I will tell you, I hate being lied to.

So Muaddib, Seeker et al you can continue to stick your heads in the sand as to the legality of the war in Iraq. It makes no difference to those of us who know the truth.

All I would say is that by doing so you make everything else you say suspect.

Cheers

BHR

as posted by BillHicksRules
So Muaddib, Seeker et al you can continue to stick your heads in the sand...

How is the view from that sand hole your gazing from, BHR?
I thought so....



seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Seekerof]

No WMD in Iraq.
Agreed there were none found. Does that mean they never existed?
No.
Might I remind you of
Friday March 17th 1988 Halabja Iraq,
On that day, Halabja was bombarded more than twenty times by Iraqi regime's warplanes with chemical and cluster bombs.
That Friday afternoon, the magnitude of Iraqi crimes became evident. In the streets and alleys of Halabja, corpses piled up over one another. Tens of children, while playing in front of their houses in the morning, were martyred instantly by cyanide gases.
Look it up, there is plenty of articles on it both right and left west and islamic that prove this.



Iran Iraq War

Alas, we of the world with such short memories.

Seeker,

What?

Kens,

Do you remember where they got them from?

Furthermore they accounted for the rest they got.

See you need to read the reports from the UN and ISG not just watch Fox News.

And as to the Iran-Iraq War, who bankrolled SH for that? In fact who pretty much bankrolled both sides?

If you want to talk history then I am the man to talk to.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 17-5-2005 by BillHicksRules]

[edit on 17-5-2005 by BillHicksRules]

Dear sir,
My last post was in direct to your inaccurate posting of

There were no WMDs in Iraq. This is fact.

As I have shown and as you have now concurred

Kenshiro,

So why did the US wait so long to invade? If WMDs were really the concern why wait over 15 years?

Furthermore, the US did not have any UN mandate to go after the WMDs that had already been used in the Iran-Iraq War or at Halabja in 1988.

So back to you. Where were the WMDs in 2003 that required an invasion?

Where was the failure to comply that required an invasion in 2003.

I mean if you want to be pedantic there were WMDs in Iraq in the 1920s.

Cheers

BHR

BHR, question?
What is this topic on?
May this help guide your distracting conversation?
300 Muslim Clerics Call For Jihad Against The US in Three Days.





seekerof

Seeker,

I am quite aware of the topic thanks, being the reader of English that I am.

I was questioning your allusion to my being in a sand hole.

The only sand near here is that being used at the building across the street to clean the dirt off but I am not sure what that has to do with this thread.

Cheers

BHR

Sand holes are numerous and occupied by a variety of things.
As such, it would be greatly appreciated if this topic regained its intended purpose and that was to discuss the Muslim and Islam reaction to the unfounded Newsweek article, not why Iraq was invaded, etc.

Thank you, sir.



seekerof

Seeker,

I can live with that if you can live with refraining from calling the Newsweek article "lies" and "unfounded".

Newsweek reported information provided a report on information they were led to believe was reliable despite it being 3rd hand.

It is important to know, as I am sure you do, the difference between lying and reporting what you believe to be true.

This is where I came in with the comparison between the Bush Administration and Newsweek.

I stand by that comparison still.

Cheers

BHR

How many bibles have they burned over there, I'm sure at least one. American Flags? That number is sure to contain several digits. My point is, they're lucky we aren't so hypersensitive.

Grendels,

Since when?

Cheers

BHR