Taliban - The moral equivalent of America's founding fathers.

[Urban Turban]

I stand corrected.

[ardianto]

:sl:

Those people were not Taliban, but people who later become Northern Aliance, the enemy of Taliban.

Taliban did not exist in 1985.

[Urban Turban]

:sl:

Those people were not Taliban, but people who later become Northern Aliance, the enemy of Taliban.

Taliban did not exist in 1985.

Bro - are you sure?

:wa:

[ardianto]

Bro - are you sure?

:wa:

100% sure!. I was 18 in 1985 and always follow news from Afghanistan war.

People who meet Reagan were the Mujahidin, those who fought Soviet. They were coming from few different ethnics, and very close with USA. Taliban was a new group that established in 1994 in refugee camp in Pakistan. This is a Pashtun ethnic group, and they fought the Mujahidin. Then the Mujahidin and Uzbek militia (who did not fight Soviet) establish the Northern Alliance.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

I don't know much about the Taliban. Is the Taliban mostly about ethnicity or ideology?

[ardianto]

Is the Taliban mostly about ethnicity or ideology?

Both. They are Pashtun group with Islam as ideology. They were in small number when entering Afghanistan, but immediately they went bigger because many Pashtun joined them.

[Al-Mufarridun]

:sl:

100% sure!. I was 18 in 1985 and always follow news from Afghanistan war.

People who meet Reagan were the Mujahidin, those who fought Soviet. They were coming from few different ethnics, and very close with USA. Taliban was a new group that established in 1994 in refugee camp in Pakistan. This is a Pashtun ethnic group, and they fought the Mujahidin. Then the Mujahidin and Uzbek militia (who did not fight Soviet) establish the Northern Alliance.

It is true that the Taliban didn't exist at the time. But someone might misunderstand your statement and came out thinking that the Pashtun were not part of the Mujahidin who fought the Soviets. It is true that the majority of those who fought the Soviets did not necessarily joined the Taliban, but they also did not exclusively joined the Northern Alliance. If we say the Taliban was to some extent based on ethnicity then the same holds true for the Northern Alliance.

[ardianto]

But someone might misunderstand your statement and came out thinking that the Pashtun were not part of the Mujahidin who fought the Soviets.

I did not realize that some people might misunderstand my statement. Jazak Allah khayr for remind me.

Of course Pashtun were part of Mujahidin too. Even maybe majority.

[Jedi_Mindset]

Afghanistan was in civil war after the soviet withdrawal, this was done purposely done by the CIA to keep the drugs running. After the taliban rose to power, and wanted to establish justice in Afghanistan, and i do admit that they were a bit too hard in their interpetration of shariah law, but atleast it was better than before they rose to power and they enjoyed many support from the afghans. After the taliban vowed to nationalize(!) their resources and to stop the drugs trade by burning poppy fields, and by arresting their growers, the US withdrew all their ties from afghanistan. Pakistani ISI betrayed the taliban and started to pit fights between nationalists.

After the US invasions poppy fields started to coming up again, turns out most of these criminals have ties with the puppet karzai government. They aren't doing for themselves, but to spread drugs to the west and turkey. Iran is the only country in the region who tries to stop drug trafickers, often very violently by killing them. i dont agree with iran and its ideology, but i think its a very good thing that iran does this with much anger from the west.

[Karl]

American founding fathers were Anglo Saxons that had negro slaves and perpetrated genocide against the native Americans. I can't see any parallel with the Taliban who are proud Muslim nationalists that want Afghanistan to live by Gods laws and to drive out the invading Zionist infidels.

[Independent]

The idea that the Taliban were 'anti-opium' is very ingrained and I have always assumed it was true myself. But probing a little deeper, I wonder how accurate it is?

The Taliban were in power for about 4 years before they took any action against poppy growing. Instead they tried to restrict hashish, another major narcotic crop in Afghanistan. Abdul Rashid, the former head of the Taliban’s anti-drug force in Kandahar, explained that they had imposed a strict ban on hashish “because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims,” whereas “opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans.” Not exactly the high moral ground they are credited for, then.

The Taliban only finally acted against opium in return for a massive 'bribe' by the UN/US. Again, not exactly the high moral ground.

The events of 9/11 and the war swept all this away and poppy growing returned with a vengeance. But even today the main poppy crop is in Taliban controlled areas (especially Helmand province). The main smuggling route also goes through their territory, as well as Iran.

If the Taliban wanted to stop opium, they would.

[Urban Turban]

The idea that the Taliban were 'anti-opium' is very ingrained and I have always assumed it was true myself. But probing a little deeper, I wonder how accurate it is?

The Taliban were in power for about 4 years before they took any action against poppy growing. Instead they tried to restrict hashish, another major narcotic crop in Afghanistan. Abdul Rashid, the former head of the Taliban’s anti-drug force in Kandahar, explained that they had imposed a strict ban on hashish “because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims,” whereas “opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans.” Not exactly the high moral ground they are credited for, then.

The Taliban only finally acted against opium in return for a massive 'bribe' by the UN/US. Again, not exactly the high moral ground.

The events of 9/11 and the war swept all this away and poppy growing returned with a vengeance. But even today the main poppy crop is in Taliban controlled areas (especially Helmand province). The main smuggling route also goes through their territory, as well as Iran.

If the Taliban wanted to stop opium, they would.

This post needs probing..

[Independent]

This post needs probing..

If you have nothing to say, best to say nothing.

[جوري]

If the Taliban wanted to stop opium, they would.

Question here should be. ''Why would they''?
It is a God given natural resource that has many medicinal purposes- why should any force inside or out challenge the cultivation of that? and that is regardless of course of whether or not we choose to subscribe to the obvious one sided testimony here of 'moral high grounds'.

[aghajan]

If you have nothing to say, best to say nothing.

Taliban are a ISI militia created to secure the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. they got notoriety by defeating some warlord in their region who were colleting tax from people. The rest of people welcome them at first hoping they put the stop to the dog fight between the mujahedeen groups . After they took control, they showed their true face of being the stooge of Pakistan and Arab countries. There are a bunch of illiterate that uses Islam as cover, the extremists try to use them to create their Utopia. In order to enforce their interpretation of Sunnah, they violated Allah commands.

For them beard is more important than learning. Covering is more important than basic human/ Islamic rights.

[Independent]

Question here should be. ''Why would they''?
It is a God given natural resource that has many medicinal purposes- why should any force inside or out challenge the cultivation of that? and that is regardless of course of whether or not we choose to subscribe to the obvious one sided testimony here of 'moral high grounds'.

Yes, and alcohol has at times been valuable as a sedative and as a 'water purifier' - yet you're opposed to that. Are narcotics ok in Islam?

Whatever your position about opium - or Islam's - the fact remains that the Taliban themselves have at different times both condemned and permitted opium growing. They are not consistent within their own terms. While they opposed it, they sometimes beheaded opium growing farmers, which is as drastic as you can get.

Also, whatever opium they cultivate or permit is not going into legal pharmaceuticals. It's going to narcotics gangs and dealers. It funds crime all over the world, and in Afghanistan/Pakistan it funds the Taliban.

As for 'moral high ground' - this is their claim about themselves, not mine.

[Indian Bro]

The idea that the Taliban were 'anti-opium' is very ingrained and I have always assumed it was true myself. But probing a little deeper, I wonder how accurate it is?

The Taliban were in power for about 4 years before they took any action against poppy growing. Instead they tried to restrict hashish, another major narcotic crop in Afghanistan. Abdul Rashid, the former head of the Taliban’s anti-drug force in Kandahar, explained that they had imposed a strict ban on hashish “because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims,” whereas “opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans.” Not exactly the high moral ground they are credited for, then.

The Taliban only finally acted against opium in return for a massive 'bribe' by the UN/US. Again, not exactly the high moral ground.

The events of 9/11 and the war swept all this away and poppy growing returned with a vengeance. But even today the main poppy crop is in Taliban controlled areas (especially Helmand province). The main smuggling route also goes through their territory, as well as Iran.

If the Taliban wanted to stop opium, they would.

If the Taliban are not as firm against Opium as you claim, then this is definitely something wrong that they are doing from an Islamic perspective. But this mustn't shadow the fact that they have massively reduced the drug trafficking taking place in Afghanistan and they deserve credit for that if Allah (swt) wills.

[Independent]

f the Taliban are not as firm against Opium as you claim, then this is definitely something wrong that they are doing from an Islamic perspective. But this mustn't shadow the fact that they have massively reduced the drug trafficking taking place in Afghanistan and they deserve credit for that if Allah (swt) wills.

I do give them credit for reducing it in 1999-2000, but for the rest of their existence they seem to have at best taken no action against it, and (in all probability) have been directly profiting from it. Like conflicts in so many other parts of the world, this one is part-fueled by contraband. (Like diamonds in Congo.)

This matters more in the case of the Taliban because they project themselves as 'moral' revolutionaries, where others are simply independence fighters etc.

The religious aspect is only part of this. As was said earlier in this thread, they have a heavy Pashtun bias in their ranks. They straddle the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and have never really paid much attention to it. Although they represent their own area, they have few sympathisers in other parts of Afghanistan which is why the Northern Alliance and others assisted the invasion. They have a right to be part of an Afghan government, but not as sole rulers.

[Mustafa2012]

Question here should be. ''Why would they''?
It is a God given natural resource that has many medicinal purposes- why should any force inside or out challenge the cultivation of that? and that is regardless of course of whether or not we choose to subscribe to the obvious one sided testimony here of 'moral high grounds'.

:salamext:

What medicinal benefits are you referring to?

And are they really selling the opium for medical benefits?

[جوري]

Yes, and alcohol has at times been valuable as a sedative and as a 'water purifier' - yet you're opposed to that. Are narcotics ok in Islam?

Whatever your position about opium - or Islam's - the fact remains that the Taliban themselves have at different times both condemned and permitted opium growing. They are not consistent within their own terms. While they opposed it, they sometimes beheaded opium growing farmers, which is as drastic as you can get.

Also, whatever opium they cultivate or permit is not going into legal pharmaceuticals. It's going to narcotics gangs and dealers. It funds crime all over the world, and in Afghanistan/Pakistan it funds the Taliban.

As for 'moral high ground' - this is their claim about themselves, not mine.

Nothing you've written up there is factual. It's akin to the tall tales the French wrote about the Egyptians after Bonaparte invaded Egypt and made out with a few temples and statues. Vilifying, maligning and filling in the gaps with what soothes them.
I am not going to get into a debate about medicine and religion with you for obvious reasons you're not well versed in either!
The Taliban can do whatever they want in their own country!
Western nations had best take care of their own prostitutes, their own drug lords, their own economy, their own education system their own racism and prejudices before traveling to far away nations to police them and then speak of moral high grounds!

[جوري]

We use opioids in many forms for cancer patients and yes even alcohol!
Khalid Ibn Ilwaleed used to sit in alcohol baths after being wounded in battles!

This reply is for mustafa since I am using my phone to reply!
:w:

[Mustafa2012]

We use opioids in many forms for cancer patients and yes even alcohol!
Khalid Ibn Ilwaleed used to sit in alcohol baths after being wounded in battles!

This reply is for mustafa since I am using my phone to reply!
:w:

:jz:

If it's being used for medicinal purposes then :alhamd:

[جوري]

:jz:

If it's being used for medicinal purposes then :alhamd:

:Allah: :swt: knows best akhi- don't believe anything the media writes about the taliban, anyone or anything else. I have just by following the Egyptian news and actively seeing it on the grounds learned that it is nothing more than a psychological game on public opinion. Probably the only thing of any value here is when the Taliban representative was speaking to the fox news guy. At least you get a first hand account of what is going on straight from his mouth and if you notice his explanation was far divorced from 99% of the crap written against them.
Why do you think Afghanistan was a center of foreign invasion way before the Taliban came to the scene? Take out your map and have a look at the large gas pipeline that runs through there as well the fortune in natural resources they're sitting on.. and as a general rule it is the case of any place currently under occupation. Africa itself has been raped and ravaged by these so-called civilized high moral ground dispensing warlords.
Just in recent history if you well, British around 1700 something, the soviets after them, the Americans now- btw it has always been known as the graveyard of empires so I guess they can keep trying with one form or another. That being said- I feel bad for the Afghans the true ones not the westernized creeps you see in the west, for their endurance is monumental and for centuries - may :Allah::swt: make them ever steadfast!

:w:

[Independent]

And are they really selling the opium for medical benefits?

I think it's safe to say that Sister Shaden is the very first person to make this particular excuse.

[جوري]

I think it's safe to say that Sister Shaden is the very first person to make this particular excuse.

I also happen to be one of the few doctors on board.
Are you?
Medicine isn't an 'excuse'.

Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: “I am not aware of anything, besides the knowledge of Halal and Haram (ilm al-halal wa ‘l-haram, i.e. Islamic knowledge) nobler than the knowledge of Medicine.”

when we see your qualifications in Uloom al fiqh and your license in medicine or at least when you're able to gauge a topic to a level without the unusual presumptions to what I am allegedly allowing of and what I am opposed to, can we have this conversation again =)

best,

[جوري]

The mother of all conundrums for me personally is how nations known for waging opium wars on China as punishment for their isolationist policies have the galls at all to speak of moral 'high grounds' ... an oscillating moral compass to suit their agenda!

[Qurratul Ayn]

...Taliban themselves have at different times both condemned and permitted opium growing...

Also, whatever opium they cultivate or permit is not going into legal pharmaceuticals. It's going to narcotics gangs and dealers. It funds crime all over the world, and in Afghanistan/Pakistan it funds the Taliban.

Where in Afghanistan is this opium made in abundance and it is the world's largest production of it too? Helmand Province

Now who in the Helmand Province have their camps there and use the domestic airport heavily and frequently? The British Camp Bastion, the U.S. Leatherneck camp and NATO-led forces.

What, all of it is going to the Taliban? The Western camps don't take any? They don't use their facilities to distribute it around the world? They only use it for good? Pshhhhtttt...

[Independent]

Now who in the Helmand Province have their camps there and use the domestic airport heavily and frequently? The British Camp Bastion, the U.S. Leatherneck camp and NATO-led forces.

The NATO forces (which are steadily withdrawing from Helmand) were concentrated there precisely because it is a Taliban stronghold. It's not credible that the Taliban are playing no part in this trade.

What, all of it is going to the Taliban? The Western camps don't take any? They don't use their facilities to distribute it around the world? They only use it for good? Pshhhhtttt...

This kind of random accusation is a waste of time. For the NATO forces or government, to be caught in such a trade means disaster, imprisonment, loss of office etc. The disincentives are huge, the rewards hard to hide. Whereas for the Taliban, they can do what they want and no one holds them to account.

when we see your qualifications in Uloom al fiqh and your license in medicine or at least when you're able to gauge a topic to a level without the unusual presumptions to what I am allegedly allowing of and what I am opposed to, can we have this conversation again =)

Hard to understand what this sentence means exactly or what relevance anybody's medical qualifications are. It's funny how, in your view, everyone else is not qualified to talk about a particular subject but you always are. Weird.

In any case, i really don't know where you're going with the whole 'opium as legitimate trade' angle. Even the Taliban don't claim this about themselves, so i don't see why anyone else should.

[جوري]

Hard to understand what this sentence means exactly or what relevance anybody's medical qualifications are. It's funny how, in your view, everyone else is not qualified to talk about a particular subject but you always are. Weird.

In what way is it 'weird' with statements such as this:

es, and alcohol has at times been valuable as a sedative and as a 'water purifier' - yet you're opposed to that.

It is only fair to elicit a response with your expertise on medicine, religion and my own personal beliefs!

[Urban Turban]

If you have nothing to say, best to say nothing.

...and yet you have 380 posts :p

[Independent]

In what way is it 'weird' with statements such as this

We're drifting way off topic here - but alcohol has positives in history as well as negatives. In 1700 the two largest cities in the world were Tokyo and London. Normally, cities were limited in size by access to safe drinking water supplies. In Tokyo's case this was overcome by the habit of drinking tea (ie boiled water). In London's, the secret was in drinking beer (ie fermented water). It should be said that this beer was much weaker than a typical beer today!

[Mustafa2012]

I also happen to be one of the few doctors on board.
Are you?
Medicine isn't an 'excuse'.

Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: “I am not aware of anything, besides the knowledge of Halal and Haram (ilm al-halal wa ‘l-haram, i.e. Islamic knowledge) nobler than the knowledge of Medicine.”

when we see your qualifications in Uloom al fiqh and your license in medicine or at least when you're able to gauge a topic to a level without the unusual presumptions to what I am allegedly allowing of and what I am opposed to, can we have this conversation again =)

best,

:salamext:

:ma:

No offence to any non medics but I feel the opinion of a doctor re: the medicinal benefits of a drug holds more weight than a non qualified medical professional.

[Mustafa2012]

The mother of all conundrums for me personally is how nations known for waging opium wars on China as punishment for their isolationist policies have the galls at all to speak of moral 'high grounds' ... an oscillating moral compass to suit their agenda!

:ma:

Does anyone have anything to say about this post?

No?

Ok then!

Let's call it a day shall we?

[Independent]

Does anyone have anything to say about this post?

What is there to say? Sister Shaden appears to be both condemning the British for trading in opium in the 19th century (when it was not illegal) at the same time as condoning the Taliban for doing the same thing in the 20th century (when it is illegal). I haven't a clue how this is supposed to make any sense.

[Mustafa2012]

What is there to say? Sister Shaden appears to be both condemning the British for trading in opium in the 19th century (when it was not illegal) at the same time as condoning the Taliban for doing the same thing in the 20th century (when it is illegal). I haven't a clue how this is supposed to make any sense.

How do you know for sure that they're not selling it for medicinal purposes which is not illegal?

[Independent]

How do you know for sure that they're not selling it for medicinal purposes which is not illegal?

Firstly, because they've never claimed it themselves.
Secondly, because they don't have any supply relationship with a relevant pharmaceutical company.
Thirdly, because the crop is far too big for any medicinal use.

Apart from Sister Shaden, i've never come across this idea anywhere.

[Mustafa2012]

Firstly, because they've never claimed it themselves.
Secondly, because they don't have any supply relationship with a relevant pharmaceutical company.
Thirdly, because the crop is far too big for any medicinal use.

Apart from Sister Shaden, i've never come across this idea anywhere.

1. They don't need to claim it as they are entitled to do what they want in their own country. Unless anyone can provide hard evidence that they're supplying it for illegal uses then we shouldn't make accusations.

2. Can you say for sure they don't have any supply relationship with a relevant pharmaceutical company? What if they're lesser known companies in non western countries?

3. That's an assumption. If there are medicinal uses for opium then it would be a good investment to grow as much of it for future use.

[Independent]

1. They don't need to claim it as they are entitled to do what they want in their own country. Unless anyone can provide hard evidence that they're supplying it for illegal uses then we shouldn't make accusations.

2. Can you say for sure they don't have any supply relationship with a relevant pharmaceutical company? What if they're lesser known companies in non western countries?

3. That's an assumption. If there are medicinal uses for opium then it would be a good investment to grow as much of it for future use.

I don't think you realise just how ridiculous this suggestion is and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

This thread has moved from praising the Taliban for stopping the opium trade (by beheading farmers) to claiming what a great bunch of guys they for growing the stuff so it can be used in western medicines.

Make up your mind which one you want to defend them for.

[Mustafa2012]

I don't think you realise just how ridiculous this suggestion is and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

This thread has moved from praising the Taliban for stopping the opium trade (by beheading farmers) to claiming what a great bunch of guys they for growing the stuff so it can be used in western medicines.

Make up your mind which one you want to defend them for.

Why not both?

If we're going to be accusing people of certain crimes then at least being some credible evidence that would hold weight in a court of law.

In a court of law I'm sure you're already aware that assumptions and personal opinions don't count for anything.

Let's not go down the "WMD" route that your wonderful leaders used, shall we.

We all know how many innocent lives that took.

Western governments hold the guinness book of world records for the no. of innocent lives they've taken based on lies and deception, yet some of their citizens still have the guts to call the very nations that they've destroyed, as barbaric.

[جوري]

1. They don't need to claim it as they are entitled to do what they want in their own country. Unless anyone can provide hard evidence that they're supplying it for illegal uses then we shouldn't make accusations.

(when it was not illegal)

when it is illegal).

I am confused really. Were you not speaking of 'moral high grounds' just a couple of posts ago or was that our imagination?
Are you trying to make OK and 'legal' the opium enselavment of the Chinese and for the mere fact that they refused to do business with your country?

Also what have you offered by way of 'hard evidence' All you've ever done is quote papers from your like minded fellows on the evils of the Taliban. Again, outside of that one video of a first hand account of a Taliban member speaking, I haven't seen anything else by them on here!

. If there are medicinal uses for opium then it would be a good investment to grow as much of it for future use.

That's what the inavders are doing there anyway aside from looting all else they can, and Sr. Quarata Al'Ayn in the previous post has pointed that out!

I don't think you realise just how ridiculous this suggestion is and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

I suspect this is because you've no credibility. Try to make consistent that 'high moral grounds' you speak of and then perhaps you'll not find yourself with a noose tight around your neck!

best,

[Mustafa2012]

I don't think you realise just how ridiculous this suggestion is and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

This thread has moved from praising the Taliban for stopping the opium trade (by beheading farmers) to claiming what a great bunch of guys they for growing the stuff so it can be used in western medicines.

Make up your mind which one you want to defend them for.

If you've got some credible evidence to back up your assumptions then it wouldn't be a waste of time, would it?

I think there's something else about the Taliban and Saddam Hussain that's worth mentioning.

The West couldn't give 2 hoots about the Taliban or Saddam Hussain just like they don't give 2 hoots about the 70,000+ people their puppet leader Assad has massacred in Syria.

If they really cared about the people, they would have intervened in Syria and Egypt when their other puppet leader Mubarak was killing his people as well.

What they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for was the oil.

The reason why they helped the Libyans for was because of the rich air plane fuel and the reason why they instigated the revolution in Libya was because Gaddafi was about to start his own currency based on the gold and silver standards.

It would have been better for them just to have publicly admitted from the beginning that they were after the oil than to lie to the world just for their support in massacring hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis and raping their women, disrespecting the dead corpses and desecrating our Holy Books.

Due to the lies and brainwashing of your Zionist media machines, to this day many average western citizens think that the Iraq and Afghanistan war was justified.

If you really went to war to get rid of evil dictators then why steal their resources at the same time?

That is a conflict of interest just like Bush's company that supplied the army with resources was a conflict of interest.

How can you liberate a country by murdering hundreds and thousands of innocent citizens?

[جوري]

btw I don't understand why the opium thing is even a topic?
They can do whatever they please with their poppy even slather it on a bagel for all I care. It is their business, their country, their natural resurce.

n an internal memo sent on May 13, U.S. officials in Kabul complained about the Afghan government's failure to support a poppy eradication program. The charge of negligence was refuted by Hamid Karzai on Monday. Are poppies illegal all around the world? Where do poppy seeds come from?

Growing poppies is legal in some countries, with certain restrictions. The poppy seeds used in baking come from all over, but our two main sources are Turkey and the Netherlands. When you buy a bottle at your local store, chances are you're getting Dutch poppy seeds, which are a familiar blue-grey.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._poppies_.html

I'll ask Muslims to referain from explaning themselves to kaffirs. And Any kaffir with a grievance should try to fix the ill of his country first or at least burn history archives so all that's left is rose tinted 'moral high grounds' before daring to comment on the affairs of sovereign nations!

[Independent]

Take out your map and have a look at the large gas pipeline that runs through there as well the fortune in natural resources they're sitting on..

What pipeline?

[جوري]

Google image Afghanistan pipeline and read all about it not a difficult thing to do!

[Independent]

Google image Afghanistan pipeline and read all about it not a difficult thing to do!

Surely you are aware that the TAPI project was never built?

[جوري]

That's irrelevant - it should serve to highlight one of the motives of those oh so good 'moral high grounds' troops presence in the area.
It's always about looting, pillaging and control if we've to spell it out for ya!
Luckily the damage whether Russia before or the U.S now is too substantial for it to have been worth while at all and all praise is due to God that they're never successful in their missions!
All that's built on evil will perish even if it appears strong and powerful in the end it's nothing more than a paper tiger!

[Qurratul Ayn]

Now who in the Helmand Province have their camps there and use the domestic airport heavily and frequently? The British Camp Bastion, the U.S. Leatherneck camp and NATO-led forces.

The NATO forces (which are steadily withdrawing from Helmand) were concentrated there precisely because it is a Taliban stronghold. It's not credible that the Taliban are playing no part in this trade.

So they say, they'll get out of there by 2014, but they still haven't decided the size of American and NATO presence after 2014 on land but the airpower? Well, the Americans and NATO have decided to stay as they don't reckon the Afghans have an effective airforce, is it a Taliban stronghold anymore? Nope, not any more. There's bigger baddies in town. Plus I didn't write that the Taliban aren't part of this trade I wrote that the West also play a part in the opium distribution and reaping its disgusting financial rewards.

What, all of it is going to the Taliban? The Western camps don't take any? They don't use their facilities to distribute it around the world? They only use it for good? Pshhhhtttt...

This kind of random accusation is a waste of time. For the NATO forces or government, to be caught in such a trade means disaster, imprisonment, loss of office etc. The disincentives are huge, the rewards hard to hide. Whereas for the Taliban, they can do what they want and no one holds them to account.

Do you not understand the amount of power the Americans and NATO wield? As America is the strongest and most powerful country in this planet (apparently) they have that power and resources to transport opium around the world, as they heavily and frequently use the airport also to keep their activities under the radar, many of these forces have secret, elite forces within the army that carry out jobs and activities that are not known to the world. Like the Americans and NATO will share their every secret to the world, yeah right.

And guess what? Their camps are based near the airport too, so not only do reinforcements, armaments and whatnot fly to and fro Helmand Province, the mass distribution and even reproduction of the opium is more than within their limits, otherwise they have the force, weapons and money to eradicate majority of the offending drug but they won't as not only for medicinal purposes can opium be used but also the destruction of humans who are addicted to that monstrosity, and as I've mentioned before the financial gains are too hard for them to resist. So the possibility of the West not being part of the opium malarkey? Think again



Unfortunately, people out there have their eyes closed and minds narrowed, they NEED to open their eyes and broaden their minds... Keep the hope & faith alive

[Independent]

Google image Afghanistan pipeline and read all about it not a difficult thing to do!

You really didn't know, did you? Astonishing ignorance about something so central to your world view - and the whole foundation of the 9/11 conspiracy theory - yet you didn't even know it was never built. You ask me to look at drawings of lines on a map! It's a drawing!

The history of why the project was abandoned (and by the way TAPI was always a private consortium, not the US government) is even more entertaining. There was originally a deal agreed with TAPI and the the Taliban government. But then the embassy bombings (2 years before 9/11) put the Taliban on the blacklist so the project was impossible.

Of course, the theory is even crazier than that. These embassy bombings are also, in your crazy conspiracist view, black flag operations.

So the net result of this idiotic theory is that the US obstructed its own pipeline deal with the Taliban, which was all agreed and ready to go (free of charge, with no expensive and risky war) by launching some enormously risky blag flag operations.

Having ruined their own deal, they then have to stage another, even bigger operation (9/11) in order to get another government - simply to get back where they started with the Taliban!

And after all these years of occupation, which are now coming to an end, there is still no sign that the US troops are going to help this pipeline even get started.

This theory is long past its sell by date, please invent another.

[جوري]

Not sure what 'theory' you're driveling about? You spin a tabloid sized narrative out of your asphalt repeatedly and then go off crying to the mods after ensnaring members of what you allege to know of their beliefs and with such authority as we've already seen you demonstrate when it comes to medicinal use of alcohol or of western motives in the region!
Maybe one day you too can see though your own bull **** as the rest of us have!

So they say, they'll get out of there by 2014,

allegedly and with a Vatican sized embassy!

[Karl]

The Zionists will get out of Afghanistan when they get out of North America and the rest of their colonies...never.

[جوري]

They don't have to get out, they can simply die there!

[Mustafa2012]

You really didn't know, did you? Astonishing ignorance about something so central to your world view - and the whole foundation of the 9/11 conspiracy theory - yet you didn't even know it was never built. You ask me to look at drawings of lines on a map! It's a drawing!

The history of why the project was abandoned (and by the way TAPI was always a private consortium, not the US government) is even more entertaining. There was originally a deal agreed with TAPI and the the Taliban government. But then the embassy bombings (2 years before 9/11) put the Taliban on the blacklist so the project was impossible.

Of course, the theory is even crazier than that. These embassy bombings are also, in your crazy conspiracist view, black flag operations.

So the net result of this idiotic theory is that the US obstructed its own pipeline deal with the Taliban, which was all agreed and ready to go (free of charge, with no expensive and risky war) by launching some enormously risky blag flag operations.

Having ruined their own deal, they then have to stage another, even bigger operation (9/11) in order to get another government - simply to get back where they started with the Taliban!

And after all these years of occupation, which are now coming to an end, there is still no sign that the US troops are going to help this pipeline even get started.

This theory is long past its sell by date, please invent another.

I don't understand what your agenda is on this forum.

Whatever it is, there's no point coming here trying to rub salt into the wounds that Muslims have already experienced.

Your fellow men have done enough damage with their lies, deception, mass murder and genocides to name just a few of the evils they've inflicted on the Muslim world.

Not just the Muslim world but you're killing some of your own people and blaming it on Muslims. That is taking it a bit too far.

Your collective evils and murder of innocent lives far outnumber some of the mistakes that some ignorant Muslims have made. You put our crimes to shame.

It's just that your lying Zionist media machine is very good at manipulating the masses and bending the truth to make us look like we're the ones that the world needs to be worried about, when in fact it's your own leaders that the average person needs to be worried about.

If people really knew the true extent of what some of your leaders get away with on a daily basis they'd be ashamed.

If you've got nothing good to say, then just remain silent.

[Independent]

your wonderful leaders used

Your collective evils and murder of innocent lives far outnumber some of the mistakes that some ignorant Muslims have made. You put our crimes to shame.

1

It's very disappointing that you choose to personalise this. Effectively, you are making me at the least complicit in mass murder. Which is about as severe an accusation as it's possible to make - even though you know next to nothing about me.

One of the things you don't know about me is that none of these people are 'my' leaders anyway, because Ireland (where I live) is not a member of NATO or any other military alliance and we have been neutral since the beginning of the Free State. No Irish soldiers have ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2

I read endlessly here about how western media can't be trusted, is controlled by Zionists etc. Sister Shaden tells us she knows better, she knows what's happening 'on the ground'. Yet her sources aren't so great. They don't seem to have noticed the complete absence of a gas pipeline that's supposed to be stretching several thousand kilometres across central Asia.

How wrong can you get?

You can find plenty about this pipeline on various Islamic blogs and websites. For instance, you can find a map that tries to show how the route matches up against NATO bases in Afghanistan etc. Yet, the pipeline doesn't exist.

You can even find a verbatim 'quote' from a US soldier in Afghanistan who complains about being sent to Afghanistan on a peace mission, yet ends up acting as security detail for building this same pipeline. Yet, still, the pipeline doesn't exist.

Someone is deliberately lying here. Someone is fabricating evidence. And in this case, it isn't the western media. If you can't get the easy stuff right, the stuff you can verify on the ground, what chance is there with anything else? Once this material gets into the complex world of Islamic websites it's there forever. People believe it simply because they read it so many places.

Strangest of all, the people who claim to be most sensitive to western 'media manipulation' seem to be entirely blind to the same techniques and strategies in their own alternative sources, such as the nakedly biased RT news (Putin's mouthpiece).

3.

Like most non-Muslims in Europe, although I oppose western participation in certain wars, I don't believe in a grand western conspiracy or secret war against Muslims. I was aware of 9/11 theories previously but until recently I thought they were similar to alien abduction/who shot JFK theories - ie crankish but mostly harmless.

I didn't realise how this theory had taken hold in many Muslim societies and had merged with a general sense of injustice, persecution, some genuine grievances, as well as frustration with modern Muslim governments and economic hardship. This has politicised it and gives it a huge real-world impact.

In theory, the idea seems to be that westerners are also victims of this mass deception (because their media is controlled etc). But in practice, the rhetoric is that westerners are all guilty anyway, whether we know what's going on or not. Anyone, including any Muslim, who argues against this gets condemned as having a secret 'agenda'. Just as you are doing here.

Genuine question - how can I or any other westerner ever 'undeclare' a war I didn't know I declared in the first place?

[جوري]

I read endlessly here about how western media can't be trusted, is controlled by Zionists etc. Sister Shaden tells us she knows better, she knows what's happening 'on the ground'. Yet her sources aren't so great. They don't seem to have noticed the complete absence of a gas pipeline that's supposed to be stretching several thousand kilometres across central Asia.

I've only ever seen you draw satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions!
I'd hate to repeat myself but the problem indeed lies with your reading comprehension and lack of three dimensional understanding - I can't decide if that's the sphere you naturally orbit or just under pretense but don't care either way!
Do try for some intellectual honesty if you wish to be viewed as something other than a paid net troll!
Even cheesy resources like wikipedia state:

The roots of this project lie in the involvement of international oil companies in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan beginning of 1990s. As Russia, who controlled all export pipelines of these countries, consistently refusing to allow the use of its pipeline network, these companies needed an independent export route avoiding both Iran and Russia^.


Since the pipeline was to pass through Afghanistan, it was necessary to work with the Taliban. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, moved into CentGas in 1997. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. On 7 August 1998, American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed under the direction of Osama bin Laden, and all pipeline negotiations halted, as the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, announced that Osama bin Laden had the Taliban's support. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998, and soon after closed its offices in Afghanistan and Pakistan.^{[citation needed]}
After September 11 attacks some conspiracy theorists claimed that possible motivation of the attacks include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan as well as geostrategic interests such as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project.^[8] The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.^[9] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. ‘Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power,’ reported Forbes in 2005, "the project has been revived and drawn strong US support" as it would allow the Central Asian republics to export energy to Western markets "without relying on Russian routes

which explains both Russian and U.S interest in the region and I also recall writing in so many words that it doesn't matter what the warlords do, since Afghanistan has always been the graveyard of empires. They enter but they don't achieve their goals and die :ia:

Definitely not naivety since I have seen frank malice from your end - which is precisely way you've spoken in my voice with obvious conviction prior when you've no clue as to my beliefs religious or scientific and just prefer to waffle along as usual hoping if you flood us with enough BS it will take.
If your style had been slightly bit elegant and not straight out of your cubicle this might have been classified under slightly amusing!

Please quit referring to me as 'sister' I am no sister to you!

best,

[Independent]

Even cheesy resources like wikipedia state:

A huge improvement! This is the best informed post you've put up for some time. You should use Wikipedia more often.

As they say, the pipeline project has a long and chequered history. It's no closer to being built now than it was 15 years ago. For it to happen, it needs not just the signature of several presidents, but more importantly security the whole way along its immense distance. Even if Afghanistan were successfully secured by NATO troops (who are leaving anyway) it's supposed to pass through some of the least stable areas of Pakistan. There's no way you can defend the whole length of a pipeline that can be sabotaged at any point.

Even if Afghanistan and Pakistan could be trusted, would India (the intended market) ever want to rely on an energy source controlled by Pakistan? Not a chance.

This scheme is as improbable today as it was all those years ago, although that won't stop energy companies dreaming about it, and conspiracists including it in their fantasies - where it will live forever i guess. See here for more info:
http://dawn.com/2011/11/03/trans-afg...that-wont-die/

[جوري]

A huge improvement! This is the best informed post you've put up for some time. You should use Wikipedia more often.

Oh I didn't know we were being graded on performance by you. That's funny because I consider you a nonentity!

As they say, the pipeline project has a long and chequered history. It's no closer to being built now than it was 15 years ago

That doesn't matter- I have stated repeatedly that it is irrelevant!
What is relevant is the way they've maligned, vilified and subjugated that nation for their own greedy purposes and that taliban or shmaliban or women's rights or whatever cover they use is nothing more than a smoke screen but I have already covered all that before and said as much and in exact words they're nothing more than a paper tiger bound to lose.
Read more write less!

best,

[Mustafa2012]

This reply is for "Independent's" last post above...

1. No you're assumption is incorrect. It is not personalised any more than the personalisation in your posts. Since you seem to be a spokesman, an expert in Western Politics and often seem to defend Western policies and are quite critical of the activities of some Muslim countries, then the pronoun "your" seemed only fitting.

I appreciate you explaining how Ireland has been neutral. That's good to know. What I don't get is if Ireland has remained neutral in these matters then why do most of your comments in this forum appear to be defending western policies and criticizing ours?

Since you seem quite an expert in politics, surely you must be aware that the state sponsored crimes of the west put any modern or latter day Muslim "mistakes" into insignificance.

2. Re: the pipeline. To be honest I don't have the luxury to spend as much time as I would like looking into these details. I do have other responsibilities which have more of a priority in my life.

As far as the contradiction about the info available on the pipleine project, my belief is that if someone can think of something, they can make it happen. I don't put anything past people who would stoop to the lowest levels to achieve their goals.

3. For someone who opposes participation in certain wars, some of you're comments on this forum lead us to think otherwise.

If there isn't a secret consipracy going on then there are clearly publicly open policies that indicate a collective international effort to stifle any form of Islamic growth.

I do not believe that all westerners are guilty of the crimes of their leaders because I have personally met many nice westerners who are very similar in character to some Muslims except that they have a different belief. We are taught in the Qur'an to deal justly with non Muslims who do not cause us harm.

My understanding is that the average citizen has no say in foreign policies so it is not fair to hold them responsible for that. If however they express views that support oppressive foreign policies and make efforts to harm Muslims, then that is wrong. Nevertheless, I don't hold the average citizen responsible for the crimes of their leaders.

[جوري]

As far as the contradiction about the info available on the pipleine project

Please know that, that amongst a couple other of self serving reasons is the only rational behind Russia and then the U.S presence there. It is a matter of which 'super power' can secure what for its own interests.. It is just the game of nations.

I don't share your good impression otherwise of our forum pal but it is indeed mighty admirable of you to expect the best from people.

:w:

[Independent]

Greetings Mustafa.

I hate war.

The best way to stop wars is by talking and understanding. Try to see the other person’s point of view, even if it seems alien or wrong at first. (That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to agree with them.) This forum is a great way to learn about other views.

When people talk about secret western conspiracies and Crusaders, they are wasting time. None of this means anything to Western audiences. The average western citizen has no idea he’s supposed to be involved in a thousand year ideological war against Islam. In fact, the average western citizen is totally uninterested in Islam.

As I say, I can’t ‘undeclare’ a war I never declared in the first place. When I hear talk like this I think there's nothing to be done, they hate me anyway because of who I am and where I was born, let's just break out the Kalashnikovs and get on with it. Do I sometimes feel hatred on this forum? Yes I do.

Since you seem quite an expert in politics, surely you must be aware that the state sponsored crimes of the west put any modern or latter day Muslim "mistakes" into insignificance.

That’s an astonishingly sweeping statement and I think you can only make it because you are absorbed in a Muslim world view. (Every nation has a natural tendency to see its own soldiers as ‘the good guys’).

The only thing I'll say is that, making moral comparisons across the centuries is incredibly difficult. Attitudes have changed so much. We don't like empires today yet there was a time when they were seen as the natural order of things - whether Chinese, Roman, Persian or Arab.

I think it’s a matter of means and of opportunity. Strong countries have a tendency to attack weaker ones. When I look at history, I can’t see that Muslim countries have been significantly different in that regard.

you seem to be a spokesman, an expert in Western Politics and often seem to defend Western policies and are quite critical of the activities of some Muslim countries

This forum already has more than enough people keen to criticise the west. It's the other side of the argument that's missing. How will you understand the west if you don't want to hear what they say?

[Mustafa2012]

Greetings Mustafa.

That’s an astonishingly sweeping statement and I think you can only make it because you are absorbed in a Muslim world view. (Every nation has a natural tendency to see its own soldiers as ‘the good guys’).

The only thing I'll say is that, making moral comparisons across the centuries is incredibly difficult. Attitudes have changed so much. We don't like empires today yet there was a time when they were seen as the natural order of things - whether Chinese, Roman, Persian or Arab.

I think it’s a matter of means and of opportunity. Strong countries have a tendency to attack weaker ones. When I look at history, I can’t see that Muslim countries have been significantly different in that regard.

This forum already has more than enough people keen to criticise the west. It's the other side of the argument that's missing. How will you understand the west if you don't want to hear what they say?

Yes, its good to hear both sides, of course.

I am already quite aware of how non Muslims feel about things that some ignorant Muslims do but just remember that if you see Muslims oppressing non Muslims they are not doing so as representatives of Islam. They are doing it out of ignorance and a twisted understanding of Islam. These type of Muslims are the minority.

However the media distorts what these ignorant individuals do and tries to make them appear to be representative of the mainstream Islamic view. This is the media brainwashing that is going on. I'm sure you're already aware of this, right?

The media rarely shows the world the amount of good things that Muslims do as a whole. Maybe if they did, more people will realize that the lies they tell the world are simply not true and then they will be exposed for the lying, deceptive people they are.

I'm sorry if you think that's an astonishingly sweeping statement I made but you've given us reason to believe that with some of the statements you've made on this forum.

If your country is neutral and you hate war as you say then why do you continuously criticize the actions that some Muslim individuals or countries make?

Why are you saying things like,

I think it’s a matter of means and of opportunity. Strong countries have a tendency to attack weaker ones. When I look at history, I can’t see that Muslim countries have been significantly different in that regard.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I interpret the above is, since the stronger countries are in power let us take advantage of the weaker ones, in this case Muslims and continue to oppress them and put them down and make them feel even smaller than they already are.

The word "bully" springs to mind here. What do you think?

Anyway all this suggests to me that you are not as as neutral as you claim to be.

I understand that war is war and there are always casualties and the weaker ones always suffer losses of some kind but for the record please quote me some examples where, when Muslims were in power, they oppressed their non Muslim citizens to the extent that the modern day governments oppress Muslims whether in wars or in non combatant everyday life scenarios.

Please don't quote any extremist groups because they are acting independently. They are not official representatives of Muslims as a whole.

[Independent]

if you see Muslims oppressing non Muslims they are not doing so as representatives of Islam. They are doing it out of ignorance and a twisted understanding of Islam. These type of Muslims are the minority.

I agree with this and I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary. There is an additional problem because some Muslims commit acts specifically in the name of their religion (whether or not they have the right to do so). You can't expect the media not to report this and people not to be influenced by it.

Ireland/UK have had their fair share of terrorism and there was a time when an Irish accent on the streets of London was not a good thing. But it's amazing how swiftly that passed now the war is (mostly) over. Most English people always understood that it was a minority committing offences. But during the height of the Troubles they couldn't tell the difference.

If your country is neutral and you hate war as you say then why do you continuously criticize the actions that some Muslim individuals or countries make?

I hate war but sometimes war is unavoidable, such as the war against fascism. I would have volunteered for that. (Which means that I personally am not neutral.)

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I interpret the above is, since the stronger countries are in power let us take advantage of the weaker ones, in this case Muslims and continue to put them down and make them feel even smaller than they already are.

No, that's not what I meant at all! I am making an observation about what has happened history in general, not what I'd like to happen.

If you look at empires and you take away the names and the faces, just give them numbers, then look at what they did, it starts to look amazingly similar. The one guiding principle that seems to make sense is that, if a country is stronger than its neighbour, then one day it will probably attack it. Empires expand till someone stops them.

When you say that the crimes of modern western states 'far exceed' anything by past or present Muslim states that's a huge claim and I don't agree with you at all. As I say, just like other states and empires, Muslim states expanded when they were strong and contracted when they were weak. If you made a claim like 'Muslim empires were better than most' then you could make a case for that.

In recent decades the world has begun to change and being a weak state doesn't automatically mean you'll get swallowed up by your next-door neighbour. But it's not easy to stop all wars and the issues are often highly disputed.

please quote me some examples where when Muslims were in power, they oppressed their non Muslim citizens to the extent that the modern day governments oppress Muslims whether in wars or in non combatant everyday life scenarios.

This is such a big topic. Actually you've got two things in there - treatment of citizens within a state, or attack against another state.

As far as expansion by military power is concerned, I've already said above that the Muslim empires are not dissimilar to other empires throughout history. The Muslim empires continued to conquer their neighbours until their neighbours got strong enough to stop them. What's the difference, apart from which side you happen to be cheering for?

[جوري]

The difference is that with the spread of Islam it was never about raping and pillaging rather truth and justice!

Best,

[Independent]

The difference is that with the spread of Islam it was never about raping and pillaging rather truth and justice!

And that's a third issue - which is that, although all empires consume neighbouring territories, some are more savage about the act of conquest than others. Ghengis Khan springs to mind.

It's an important question - but not nearly as important as by what right are they invading in the first place?

The various Muslim empires had no more natural right to conquer other states than anyone else today or in the past. Or do you think they did?

[جوري]

There's no truth to that which you've written!
Often times Muslims were invited to aid the oppressed against their oppressors and in other cases they formed through free trade and that's been the secret to the longevity since the inception of Islam to the dissolution of the ottomans which is a very recent thing and because Muslims adopted kaffir ideology and forgo their own.

As I said before read more history and write less!

[Independent]

There's no truth to that which you've written!
Often times Muslims were invited to aid the oppressed against their oppressors and in other cases they formed through free trade and that's been the secret to the longevity since the inception of Islam to the dissolution of the ottomans which is a very recent thing and because Muslims adopted kaffir ideology and forgo their own.

Yes, 19th century British imperialists used to justify their invasions the same way as you. But the Brits at least have moved with the times and now judge things differently.
.

[جوري]

Yes, 19th century British imperialists used to justify their invasions the same way as you. But the Brits at least have moved with the times and now judge things differently.
.

I can't help your lack of historical knowledge or your one size fits all generalizations.
It is enough to be blessed with the gift of Islam. I come from a country that had deep historical roots and a fantastic civilization thousands of years before Islam yet embraced Islam almost in totality without putting up their dukes. So that for starters should clue you in!

best,

[Mustafa2012]

Ireland/UK have had their fair share of terrorism and there was a time when an Irish accent on the streets of London was not a good thing. But it's amazing how swiftly that passed now the war is (mostly) over. Most English people always understood that it was a minority committing offences. But during the height of the Troubles they couldn't tell the difference.

Until the media stop manipulating the action of ignorant extremists, the masses will keep getting brainwashed into thinking that the views and actions of the minority are representative of Muslims as a whole.

But the media don't want people to know what real Islam is about, do they?

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
If your country is neutral and you hate war as you say then why do you continuously criticize the actions that some Muslim individuals or countries make?

I hate war but sometimes war is unavoidable, such as the war against fascism. I would have volunteered for that. (Which means that I personally am not neutral.)

Are you comparing Islam to facism?


Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I interpret the above is, since the stronger countries are in power let us take advantage of the weaker ones, in this case Muslims and continue to put them down and make them feel even smaller than they already are.

No, that's not what I meant at all! I am making an observation about what has happened history in general, not what I'd like to happen.

If you look at empires and you take away the names and the faces, just give them numbers, then look at what they did, it starts to look amazingly similar. The one guiding principle that seems to make sense is that, if a country is stronger than its neighbour, then one day it will probably attack it. Empires expand till someone stops them.

When you say that the crimes of modern western states 'far exceed' anything by past or present Muslim states that's a huge claim and I don't agree with you at all. As I say, just like other states and empires, Muslim states expanded when they were strong and contracted when they were weak. If you made a claim like 'Muslim empires were better than most' then you could make a case for that.

I wasn’t expecting you to agree with me on this one but we don’t need to look very far back like for e.g Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq was a war built upon a huge lie which was engineered by Tony Blair and his PR man and who knows how many other stooges behind the scenes. The lie was publicised by the Zionist media like as if it was fact. The whole world was led to believe that the war was based on legitimate grounds when in fact it was one of the biggest lies of this century. They claimed they were after Saddam Hussain and they could have easily got him if they wanted even though no WMD’s were found.

We all know that oil is one of the main reasons they invaded Iraq, besides mass murder but why could they just not state their intentions openly to the world instead of lying about it. That was very low of them, considering the high standards and ethics they claim to hold.

I think the Iraq War was bigger and more damaging than 10 x 9/11’s because more than 10 times the no. of people that died in 9/11 were murdered in Iraq. The reasons they used for going to war were based on lies. They lied and then murdered thousands of innocent people.

These are the actions of mainly Christian Western civilised leaders with support from their Zionist friends in the media, not Islamic fundamentalists or terrorists. That makes the crimes of Iraq all the more worse than 9/11.

We're talking about thousands of innocent people got murdered when it could have been easily avoided. That to me is not collateral damage but clear and planned state sponsored murder.

In recent decades the world has begun to change and being a weak state doesn't automatically mean you'll get swallowed up by your next-door neighbour. But it's not easy to stop all wars and the issues are often highly disputed.

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
please quote me some examples where when Muslims were in power, they oppressed their non Muslim citizens to the extent that the modern day governments oppress Muslims whether in wars or in non combatant everyday life scenarios.

This is such a big topic. Actually you've got two things in there - treatment of citizens within a state, or attack against another state.

As far as expansion by military power is concerned, I've already said above that the Muslim empires are not dissimilar to other empires throughout history. The Muslim empires continued to conquer their neighbours until their neighbours got strong enough to stop them. What's the difference, apart from which side you happen to be cheering for?

I disagree with you here. Let's take attacking against another state for e.g. When Muslims go to war they have to abide by strict rules and codes of conduct that is ingrained within our religion. They usually clear announce their intentions upfront.

The difference is that although the West claims to be the most civilised, we have all heard and seen how they lied about their intentions just to get the public support and threw all their rules out the window before even stepping onto the battlefield in recent times. And once there, there were many cases of prisoner abuse, murder, rape and bombing of innocent people. To this day innocent civilians are being murdered every day in Afghanistan.

I can confidently say that this does not happen on the same scale when Muslims go to war. The no. of wrongdoings on the Muslim side are far less that what we’ve witnessed recently from the West.

I’m referring mainly to the wars fought in the times of the 1st, 2^nd and 3rd generation of Islam and up to the time of Salahuddin as those were the standard by which to judge us.

Please do not quote the actions of Genghis Khan as was he was not considered to be a Muslim by scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Dhahabi. He was said to have raised himself up to the level of a prophet. He followed his own weird twisted form of Islam and did things which were not considered to be the actions of mainstream Sunni Islam.

[GodIsAll]

RE: Propaganda

Musta, we hear both sides. Some western media outlets wants to focus on violence by Muslims, others focus on how, proportionately, these are a very small group of people. I believe it would help public perception if more Muslims were outspoken against some of these actions.

Now, before someone turns the table on me, I fully admit western foreign policy is selfish, bullying and oppressive. My wish would be to get American militaries out of foreign countries all together. The nation I am basically forced to pay taxes to has committed atrocities that irk me to no end. America has the capability to be a country that could be a benefit to people worldwide...when ASKED. According to most polls, Americans are against occupation in Afghanistan. Iraq was invaded under false pretense. As citizens, we need to do a better job letting our "elected" leaders know what our will is. A change is needed, either with our leaders or a revamping of our system.

For those of you not in America, try to understand this: We are bombarded with biased media and instilled from birth a mentality of patriotism. This is a well-oiled psychological MACHINE. This allows our leaders to act to their benefit and we are "sheepled" into backing them nigh unconditionally. I do believe, at its origin, America was a nation of integrity and courage. Not so much anymore. We, as citizens, are fed just enough wealth and health for us to feel grateful for our situation while a small percentage make decisions that affect the entire world and fatten their larders beyond capacity.

I will not generalize Muslims. I have taught school for over 20 years and have had some awesome Muslim immigrant students and I am a better man for having experienced them. I beg readers not to generalize Americans or the EU. There are some awesome humans all over the world. We need in the west to protest the shady dealings of our government(s). Muslims need to show what Islam really is in a voice so loud it cannot be ignored by mainstream media.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if now, today, this very moment, we could all start over? No revenge. No anger. Pull western agendas back to within their own borders and deal with all our neighbors in only mutually beneficial and forthright ways? No conspiracys, no conspiracy theories. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists treating each other with respect? Seeking to convert others by dialogue only?

Genuine love to all.

[Independent]

My main point is not about the conduct of Muslim imperial warfare or about their subsequent rule. I’m simply saying that when you look at history all empires continued to expand until somebody stopped them. If you take away the names and the faces, Muslim empires look exactly the same in this respect. No better, no worse. You are claiming that Muslim empires have conducted a kind of perfect history where everyone else has failed but I don't think that's true.

(I'm talking about Muslims, not Islam.)

The Muslim empires continued to expand up to the exact point when their military capacity reached its limit and they were surpassed. It has nothing to do with religion one way or the other.

I can confidently say that this does not happen on the same scale when Muslims go to war. The no. of wrongdoings on the Muslim side are far less that what we’ve witnessed recently from the West.

Every nation likes to think its own soldiers are the good guys and demonise the opposition. You say the west is selective about its history and reporting – well, that cuts both ways and if you look through the 1400 years of Muslim imperial history you’ll find plenty of embarrassments, just like any other empire or nation.

For instance, the most important figure historically with regard to the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem is not Saladin but Baibars.

Baibars sacked multiple Christian cities and repeatedly massacred the inhabitants. I’ll describe just one, the city of Antioch. When the defence failed and his troops entered the city Baibars promptly broke his promise of amnesty to the defenders and executed 40,000 Christians. Another 100,000 were sold into slavery. It is said that a little boy was worth twelve dirhems and a little girl five dirhems. He also defiled Christian churches and relics – and was proud of it.

We know this because he describes it himself in a letter to the Christian ruler of Antioch (who was not in the city at the time): 'Death came among the besieged from all sides and by all roads: we killed all that thou hadst appointed to guard the city or defend its approaches. If thou hadst seen thy knights trampled under the feet of the horses, thy provinces given up to pillage, thy riches distributed by measures full, the wives of thy subjects put to public sale; if thou hadst seen the pulpits and crosses overturned, the leaves of the Gospel torn and cast to the winds, and the sepulchres of thy patriarchs profaned; if thou hadst seen thy enemies, the Mussulmans trampling upon the tabernacle, and immolating in the sanctuary, monk, priest and deacon; in short, if thou hadst seen thy palaces given up to the flames, the dead devoured by the fire of this world, the Church of St Paul and that of St Peter completely and entirely destroyed, certes, thou wouldst have cried out "Would to Heaven that I were become dust!" '.


A few other things you mentioned:

Please do not quote the actions of Genghis Khan

I know. I wasn’t referring to Genghis as a Muslim (wasn’t it his grandson Haluga Khan who converted?) I was just quoting him because he was probably the most destructive warlord in history.

Are you comparing Islam to facism?

Not at all. When people use the phrase ‘the war against fascism’ they are usually referring to the 1930s/40s battle against Mussolini, Hitler and Franco and that’s exactly what I mean here.

I wasn’t expecting you to agree with me on this one but we don’t need to look very far back like for e.g Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's strange - by far the most significant cause of the 2^nd Gulf War was the 1^st Gulf War, yet it never gets mentioned. However, it’s impossible to talk about Iraq or Afghanistan without getting into conspiracy theories so it's hard to compare with past wars.

[جوري]

The U.S would be better off adopting an isolationist policy. It started well enough and should have left well enough alone. Once you've Zionists running the show the U.S is bound to end up like its European counterparts -- oh wait a second, not bound already is again redefining what it means to be bankrupt.
Guess man made systems really do fail in the end and the misery is only hastened with Zionists on board.. I am sure they'll move to China next.. they're already selling American secrets there.. whatever works as is the case with all parasites!

best,

[GodIsAll]

I have been looking for proof of Zionist manipulation of American government without much success.

I'd appreciate any links you have handy and would share.

Thanks!
GIA

[Abu Loren]

I have been looking for proof of Zionist manipulation of American government without much success.

LOL (sorry for the lol) but it's not listed on a web page or a book. You will know it if you looking from the outside. As you are inside, you will not see it.

[GodIsAll]

I see where you're coming from, but again, any documentation, texts, etc. you could lead me to would be appreciated.

[Abu Loren]

Research 'The Rothschild Foundation'.

[جوري]

actually just google who runs American politics.
there's a laundry list.
here's one I found in less than you can blink:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/01/16/who-runs-america/



there's a huge series on youtube.. catch them while they're hot I doubt anything critical of the cockroach state will last long.

best,

[GodIsAll]

Thanks, BLueBell and Abu.

Honestly, I could not find much reliable the other night other than definitions of "zionism", etc.
I'll peruse these sources expediently and thanks!