/* */

PDA

View Full Version : (CNN) -- the Iraq War was a war for oil



islamica
03-20-2013, 10:53 AM
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil


(CNN) -- Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."

In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.


Here's how they did it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/op...asz/index.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Abu Loren
03-20-2013, 05:08 PM
This is no real surprise to any intelligent human being living on this planet.

Justice will be done in this world or the next.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-20-2013, 05:55 PM
It's an American media company. Isn't it supposed to be operated by Zionists trying to cover up the truth? :p
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-20-2013, 06:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
It's an American media company. Isn't it supposed to be operated by Zionists trying to cover up the truth? :p
As long as people are distracted and much in wordly things like dancing, drinking and are patriotic. they dont care less. These pro-America patriots are even saying that the US or israhell should wipe out the ME with nukes or bomb mekkah and medinah.

The resources are one thing, the war on our religion another.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Cabdullahi
03-20-2013, 06:10 PM
The looting of a country's resources and the killing of women and children, by drones, is justified as long as one Malala is flown out of the region, once in a while, and is given medical treatment, paraded around and have her photo published on different western magazines.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-20-2013, 06:11 PM
You know the average 'Joe' on the street in America is kept ignorant of world affairs. They are also brainwashed from an early age to be patriotic in whatever their govenment does. You show dissidency in the streets of America and you stand out like a sore thumb.

Now that the Soviet Union has disappeared they feel they can do anything in the world and get away with it. Looks like that's what's happening now.
Reply

Tyrion
03-20-2013, 06:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
They are also brainwashed from an early age to be patriotic in whatever their govenment does. You show dissidency in the streets of America and you stand out like a sore thumb.
Uhh... Have you ever been here?
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-20-2013, 07:11 PM
Let's see: ignorance is the norm...brainwashed from an early age to be patriotic...not allowed to disagree with the majority or they'll stick out like a sore thumb...ethnocentric bias reigns supreme...Abu Loren, has it occurred to you that you've just described every single place on Earth since the dawn of man?

Not fully three posts in before the word "Zionist" pops up. I'm not surprised but I'm still disappointed. One way or another people have to find an excuse to drag Zionism into everything, don't they?
Reply

Abu Loren
03-20-2013, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

Uhh... Have you ever been here?
You keep popping up now and again...who are you?
Reply

Abu Loren
03-20-2013, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Let's see: ignorance is the norm...brainwashed from an early age to be patriotic...not allowed to disagree with the majority or they'll stick out like a sore thumb...ethnocentric bias reigns supreme...Abu Loren, has it occurred to you that you've just described every single place on Earth since the dawn of man?

Not fully three posts in before the word "Zionist" pops up. I'm not surprised but I'm still disappointed. One way or another people have to find an excuse to drag Zionism into everything, don't they?
John I have just one question for you?

Are you really stupid?
Reply

Student1996
03-20-2013, 07:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
It's an American media company. Isn't it supposed to be operated by Zionists trying to cover up the truth? :p
Us Muslims know the truth.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-20-2013, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Student1996
Us Muslims know the truth.
And you're only 16? :smile:
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-20-2013, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Let's see: ignorance is the norm...brainwashed from an early age to be patriotic...not allowed to disagree with the majority or they'll stick out like a sore thumb...ethnocentric bias reigns supreme...Abu Loren, has it occurred to you that you've just described every single place on Earth since the dawn of man?

Not fully three posts in before the word "Zionist" pops up. I'm not surprised but I'm still disappointed. One way or another people have to find an excuse to drag Zionism into everything, don't they?
Thats because we are in the center of the war against us, our war for our opinion, lands, religion. zionists are one of such people waging wars against us, dividing us, creating civil wars, its despots mass slaughtering muslims. The brutal invasions of libya, iraq, afghanistan, mali and the countless drone strikes. So yeah, i do see some point in your comment that some of us muslims are uttermost fools to fall in the schemes of the Zionist and the power to be.

We muslims are weak now, lets change ourselves to counter these threats against us, its the only way and the only solution, they dont want peace, they want all our recourses and destroy us. gold infact most of our gold has been stolen and stored into the federal reserve, israel and the EU banks. While our rulers are giving oil to the west, insha'Allah the times of 1973 will arrive when the oil was cut to the west, you should've seen them panicking :D Henry kissinger tried to be funny, but was met with a serious response from king faisal '' And I’m an old man who wishes to pray at Al Aqsa mosque before he dies, can you make that wish come true?”

not much later, he recieved a bullet in his head from his sold out cousin on order by the CIA. So please, although i see some sense in your posts be aware of the schemes against us.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-20-2013, 08:22 PM
That is most certainly not what I meant. I was saying, "Honestly, does everything have to do with Zionism?" I mean, from the way people talk you'd think that every time a guy dropped his fork in Uruguay somehow a Zionist conspiracy was sure to be behind it. The main problem with the American government is that it is coldhearted, self-centered and self-aggrandizing. Not Israel-centered. Not Israel-aggrandizing. Not full of warm, fuzzy feelings for Zion. It's all about Uncle Sam. Doesn't care about anyone else, including allies, except insofar as they can be useful as puppets--and their usefulness even in that capacity, for such a superpower, is limited. That's why Romney kept criticizing Obama for not doing enough for Israel. He knew that a lot of Christian ultraconservatives were already feeling that their precious holy land was going neglected by the government.

The reason why people want oil is because they want money. Those behind it are not Zionists but cigar-chomping, business suit-wearing corporate execs, sitting in the thirty-ninth floor of an office building somewhere. Mainly white people raised in traditional Christian households who couldn't care less about Zion--or anything other than their own bottom line. Company heads who can't stand the thought of a little risk, because then other companies might get ahead. Whenever anything goes wrong in this world--political corruption, media corruption, arts and entertainment decline, business crime, environmental damage, you name it--one way or another a beaurocrat is always somehow involved. In fact didn't The Qur'an say something one of those towns that got destroyed having corrupt councilmen?
Reply

yahia12
03-20-2013, 08:30 PM
There is always someone to blame? If not Zionists it`s the US government. C'mon Middle Easterners must stop pointing fingers and take some responsibility.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-20-2013, 09:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
You keep popping up now and again...who are you?
He's some member who tends to disagree with the mainstream members. Very harmless and polite fellow.

the Iraq War was a war for oil
Well I'm so flabbergasted.

I think Iraq war was based on some sort of strategic move. :/
Reply

Karl
03-20-2013, 09:32 PM
If you have oil you have got to expect the brigands to come after you. Saddam had no nukes, no real defence and didn't want to give the West a cut of the oil profits and wanted to trade the oil in another currency not the green back. In the past he was doing deals with the "Great Satan" doing really well being a poodle for the Zionists. Going to war with Iran at their bequest and living a life of luxury and power. Did he go mad in the end? The other Middle East oil states crawl to the "Great Satan" that's why they are not destroyed. Iran is defiant because it has Russia to protect it.
Reply

Karl
03-20-2013, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
That is most certainly not what I meant. I was saying, "Honestly, does everything have to do with Zionism?" I mean, from the way people talk you'd think that every time a guy dropped his fork in Uruguay somehow a Zionist conspiracy was sure to be behind it. The main problem with the American government is that it is coldhearted, self-centered and self-aggrandizing. Not Israel-centered. Not Israel-aggrandizing. Not full of warm, fuzzy feelings for Zion. It's all about Uncle Sam. Doesn't care about anyone else, including allies, except insofar as they can be useful as puppets--and their usefulness even in that capacity, for such a superpower, is limited. That's why Romney kept criticizing Obama for not doing enough for Israel. He knew that a lot of Christian ultraconservatives were already feeling that their precious holy land was going neglected by the government.

The reason why people want oil is because they want money. Those behind it are not Zionists but cigar-chomping, business suit-wearing corporate execs, sitting in the thirty-ninth floor of an office building somewhere. Mainly white people raised in traditional Christian households who couldn't care less about Zion--or anything other than their own bottom line. Company heads who can't stand the thought of a little risk, because then other companies might get ahead. Whenever anything goes wrong in this world--political corruption, media corruption, arts and entertainment decline, business crime, environmental damage, you name it--one way or another a beaurocrat is always somehow involved. In fact didn't The Qur'an say something one of those towns that got destroyed having corrupt councilmen?
Obama is going to meet his masters in Israel. With a hundred million dollars of American tax payers dollars for Israels defence. Obviously nothing to do with Zionism at all I suppose.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-20-2013, 10:29 PM
Very interesting. Just a moment ago the following tweet from The White House Blog came up at Twitter. One of the thousand-plus people I follow (I have trouble keeping up with them all) retweeted The White House Blog:

President Obama Tells Israeli People: The U.S Is Proud to Be Your Strongest Ally and Your Greatest Friend

There was also a link to the following article:

On the first day of his visit to the Middle East, the first foreign trip of his second term, President Obama was in Israel, where he met with President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The visit is historic, marking the first time the President has visited Israel since taking office, and comes as its citizens celebrate the 65th anniversary of a free and independent State of Israel.

President Obama’s visit began with an arrival ceremony at the Ben Gurion airport, followed by an inspection of the Iron Dome Battery defense system in Tel Aviv. The Iron Dome is a short range rocket and mortar defense system, which was developed by Israel and produced with U.S. assistance and is part of a multi-tier missile defense developed to counter the rocket threat against Israel’s civilian population. From there, the President flew on to Jerusalem, where he met with Israeli leaders and attended a working dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Shortly after he landed in the Holy Land, President Obama took a minute to explain why this trip is so important for both the American and the Israeli people:

“I want to begin right now, by answering a question that is sometimes asked about our relationship—why? Why does the United States stand so strongly, so firmly with the State of Israel? And the answer is simple. We stand together because we share a common story—patriots determined ‘to be a free people in our land,’ pioneers who forged a nation, heroes who sacrificed to preserve our freedom, and immigrants from every corner of the world who renew constantly our diverse societies.

We stand together because we are democracies. For as noisy and messy as it may be, we know that democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man.

We stand together because it makes us more prosperous. Our trade and investment create jobs for both our peoples. Our partnerships in science and medicine and health bring us closer to new cures, harness new energy and have helped transform us into high-tech hubs of our global economy.

We stand together because we share a commitment to helping our fellow human beings around the world. When the earth shakes and the floods come, our doctors and rescuers reach out to help. When people are suffering, from Africa to Asia, we partner to fight disease and overcome hunger.

And we stand together because peace must come to the Holy Land. For even as we are clear-eyed about the difficulty, we will never lose sight of the vision of an Israel at peace with its neighbors.”

Tomorrow President Obama will visit the Israel Museum, where he will view the Dead Sea Scrolls and attend a technology expo, before traveling to Ramallah, West Bank where he will be greeted with an official arrival ceremony, followed by a bilateral meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas. Later, the President will attend a cultural event at Al-Bireh Youth Center and meet with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Fayyad, before giving a speech at the Jerusalem Convention Center, which will be livestreamed on whitehouse.gov at 11 AM ET.


Well maybe it's just because he's moving around so much, I don't know, but at the moment he happens to be standing on the verge of making me lose my lunch. Don’t forget how the article mentioned that this was the first time that Obama ever made a trip to Israel since he first assumed office. That should tell you something. But all the same, my mistake: the American government is both self-aggrandizing and Israel-aggrandizing.

Worst of all: I just heard a politician speak of bringing people peace. This can’t be good. We all know what that means. How many innocent hordes are going to get horribly slaughtered this time??
Reply

Karl
03-20-2013, 10:49 PM
Obama has got verbal diarrhea.
“I want to begin right now, by answering a question that is sometimes asked about our relationship—why? Why does the United States stand so strongly, so firmly with the State of Israel? And the answer is simple. We stand together because we share a common story—patriots determined ‘to be a free people in our land,’ pioneers who forged a nation, heroes who sacrificed to preserve our freedom, and immigrants from every corner of the world who renew constantly our diverse societies.

We stand together because we are democracies. For as noisy and messy as it may be, we know that democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man.

We stand together because it makes us more prosperous. Our trade and investment create jobs for both our peoples. Our partnerships in science and medicine and health bring us closer to new cures, harness new energy and have helped transform us into high-tech hubs of our global economy.

We stand together because we share a commitment to helping our fellow human beings around the world. When the earth shakes and the floods come, our doctors and rescuers reach out to help. When people are suffering, from Africa to Asia, we partner to fight disease and overcome hunger.

And we stand together because peace must come to the Holy Land. For even as we are clear-eyed about the difficulty, we will never lose sight of the vision of an Israel at peace with its neighbors.”

Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel. His propaganda is painfully tedious. He should get some tips from Dubya and just say "Freedom and democracy" and try and hold back the laughs.

Sorry for going off topic mods.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-20-2013, 10:56 PM
"Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel." Uh...because he's a politician. The more he actually communicates a distinct, useful message, and the less he just speaks in empty buzzwords (specifically designed to have a strong psychological effect on large crowds or hyped up individuals) which convey little actual meaning, the more danger he'll be in of actually having to do something. Or making his true intentions clear if he is planning to do something, which usually means he's up to no good.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-21-2013, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel. His propaganda is painfully tedious. He should get some tips from Dubya and just say "Freedom and democracy" and try and hold back the laughs.
He's trying to be JFK of the 21st century.........
Reply

Student1996
03-21-2013, 03:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
And you're only 16? :smile:
Ya. Sad that 16 year old knows more about it than most americans
Reply

Karl
03-21-2013, 10:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
"Why does this guy never say anything that makes sense, just rhetoric and drivel." Uh...because he's a politician. The more he actually communicates a distinct, useful message, and the less he just speaks in empty buzzwords (specifically designed to have a strong psychological effect on large crowds or hyped up individuals) which convey little actual meaning, the more danger he'll be in of actually having to do something. Or making his true intentions clear if he is planning to do something, which usually means he's up to no good.
Yeah the guy is just a figure head puppet controlled and marketed by an oligarchy of Internationalist Zionist plutocrats. They got a halfcast black guy in with a Muslim name as part of their "win the hearts and minds" propaganda campaign. If a white guy blows up the Middle East that may be seen as racist and imperialist but if Barak Hussain Obama does it, it may be seen as ok, he's just one of the bros trying to fix things.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-21-2013, 11:45 PM
You really think for one moment that a high level American politician is going to be humble enough about his own powerful position to let other people control him, do you?

You people will just plain never get it, will you? These guys are not the puppets, they are the puppeteers. We're talking about a man who has the gall to be known as "the leader of the free world". That's what the president is traditionally called around here. I'm not kidding. The hubris is that far off the scale. I really wish I could get anyone to understand all this but conspiracy theorists are notoriously impossible to reason with.

P.S. White guys have been blowing up the Middle East since, like, the time of Eisenhower. Obama is the first black one to do it. Nothing has really changed.
Reply

Karl
03-22-2013, 10:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
You really think for one moment that a high level American politician is going to be humble enough about his own powerful position to let other people control him, do you?

You people will just plain never get it, will you? These guys are not the puppets, they are the puppeteers. We're talking about a man who has the gall to be known as "the leader of the free world". That's what the president is traditionally called around here. I'm not kidding. The hubris is that far off the scale. I really wish I could get anyone to understand all this but conspiracy theorists are notoriously impossible to reason with.

P.S. White guys have been blowing up the Middle East since, like, the time of Eisenhower. Obama is the first black one to do it. Nothing has really changed.
The plutocrats make or break people. Make war for profit, control the "free world". The presidency and all the clowns in Washington and their so called democracy is just a dog and pony show.
The Democrat party was created by the Republican party. It's all a total farce. It is similar to the old Roman Republic where the patricians had all the candidates except the Tribune that represented the plebians but was always bribed to support the patricians interests. USA is so corrupt now that most people there have given up wasting their time voting.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 11:47 PM
You're close, friend. Very close. The meaning of the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" have a way of shifting over the ages. In fact when it was first founded the Republican Party was practically the opposite in some ways of what it is now. It was more about abolitionism at first anyway. That should tell you in how much flux these things have been in since the 1800's. And what pure semantics it all is ultimately. A lot of people now speak of the whole thing as just consisting of "Republicrats". Anyway the bribes are coming from major corporations. Local corporations. What'd I tell you about beaurocrats? This is fairly well known here. Big business wants its hands in everything, and mostly has it very much that way. The details of this law are complicated and confusing and kind of go over my head but it's essentially perfectly legal in America for lobbyists to bribe the politicians they're supporting in everything but name only. If you've seen the movie Clue then you've already heard people joke about this.

"Are you making moral judgments, Mrs. Peacock?! How then do you justify taking bribes??..."
"My husband is a paid consultant! There is nothing wrong with that!"
"Not if it's publically declared...perhaps...."
Reply

Futuwwa
03-23-2013, 08:57 AM
Well, I'm not particularly worried. That same plutocracy is what will make the USA decay, it already has happened to a large degree. US domestic politics is a contest between different plutocrats about who can loot the most government money. When everything has been looted, it will be unable to fulfil the basic functions of a state, which will bring down the economy with it.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 09:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Well, I'm not particularly worried. That same plutocracy is what will make the USA decay, it already has happened to a large degree. US domestic politics is a contest between different plutocrats about who can loot the most government money. When everything has been looted, it will be unable to fulfil the basic functions of a state, which will bring down the economy with it.
You're forgetting that the USA has the option to plunder the resources of another defenceless country.

Now that the USSR is no more the only way to keep the USA in check is for China, North Korea and India to flex their military muscle. But Alas India has been a poodle of the USA recently as it needs all the IT outsourcing it can get from the states.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-23-2013, 10:21 AM
And how did the last attempt to plunder the resources of another country work out for the USA? The Iraq War was enormously expensive for it, far more expensive than any economic benefit that could be gained from letting it access Iraq's oil, especially as most of Iraq's oil contracts have gone to China ;D
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 10:32 AM
If the article is genuine then it's really shocking. Another invasion?
Reply

Futuwwa
03-23-2013, 11:46 AM
I doubt it. The military-industrial complex has nothing to complain about. Mission success or failure is less important for them than the fact that massive amounts of American taxpayers' money ended up as their profits ;D
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 12:08 PM
Oil makes the region important where it wouldn't be otherwise. But that doesn't mean it's the whole story.

The primary reason for the second Gulf War was the first Gulf War. And the main reason for that was not access to iraq's oilfields but the seizure of Kuwait. Iraq itself was excluded from the UN objectives and they kept to that even when they had Saddam on his knees, a very unusual circumstance in military history.

Apart from Tibet (whose status was not fully recognised) Kuwait remains the only example of a sovereign state being entirely conquered since WW2 (Palestine is not fully occupied, and other attempts like Gaddafi's takeover of Chad failed). Almost all wars since 1945 have been civil wars (even though other countries may also get involved) which makes Kuwait very significant.

Not only did Saddam take the whole of Kuwait, he also made several incursions into Saudi. It was absolutely inevitable that this would draw a response. Expelling him from Kuwait was the right thing to do and had widespread Arab support too.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War everyone assumed that Saddam would be deposed internally and this was thought to be better than an external invasion. Unfortunately that's not how it turned out and he crushed the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and any other other opposing factions. Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
This I believe because straight after 9/11 he was talking about Al Qaeeda then all of a sudden he dropped Saddam Hussein into the mix. I for one thought what is he talking about? Now I know.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 02:34 PM
He has a point. Greed and arrogance weren't the only factors involved. I'm pretty sure that around that time Bush, Jr. actually made a public remark along the lines of, "Besides, [Saddam] is the guy who attacked my dad!" That's how petty this man, and his cronies, were. Andrew Motion perhaps summed up the situation best in "Causa Belli":

They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 02:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
Now that the USSR is no more the only way to keep the USA in check is for China, North Korea and India to flex their military muscle. But Alas India has been a poodle of the USA recently as it needs all the IT outsourcing it can get from the states.
I doubt you done your research. US financed USSR and even China. US creates its own enemies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wall-Street-...4050444&sr=1-2

^ You can read this book if you want.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 03:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

The primary reason for the second Gulf War was the first Gulf War. And the main reason for that was not access to iraq's oilfields but the seizure of Kuwait. Iraq itself was excluded from the UN objectives and they kept to that even when they had Saddam on his knees, a very unusual circumstance in military history.
Some speculate Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait.

Subsequently, Bush Junior saw himself as completing the job of Bush Senior and he would have taken any excuse for it - WMD or otherwise.
Yes. Makes you wonder how far this was planned.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 03:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
I doubt you done your research. US financed USSR and even China. US creates its own enemies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wall-Street-...4050444&sr=1-2

^ You can read this book if you want.
So what you are saying old boy is that the USA is in total control of this world?
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 03:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
So what you are saying old boy is that the USA is in total control of this world?
No. =) Not at all.

Unlike most people, I read books from a variety of sources and try to gain as much knowledge as I can. Then I sit back and read members posts who make a fool of themselves by posting utter gibberish. ^_^

Try reading some books. It may help you but I doubt anything can penetrate your thick head.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-23-2013, 04:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
No. =) Not at all.

Unlike most people, I read books from a variety of sources and try to gain as much knowledge as I can. Then I sit back and read members posts who make a fool of themselves by posting utter gibberish. ^_^

Try reading some books. It may help you but I doubt anything can penetrate your thick head.
Dont forget the nazi empire, most people today will see our posts as being paranoid, however WW2 was engineered to secure and create the state of 'israel' in its form. By playing the holocaust trick, the jews would find a reason to invade arab lands. The colonization of the british and french paved the way of this, also by creating rebellions commited by khawarijtes to destroy the ottoman caliphate.

There is a book how the zionists and wall street funded hitler and his allies:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...s/wall_street/

After WW2 nazi scientists even the ones who worked on V2 rockets were shipped to the US by the CIA to work on their space program and other nasty experiments like MK-ultra. result: NASA was born and the TV was born.

US creates its enemies and indeed it does. However the USSR was never really a US-enemy, it only was concurrention in the search of resources but a WW3 was never on the card, it was only destined to divide and make people take sides. Most wars during that time were proxy-battles. Like the contras who killed, massacred civilians in nicaragua. Dont believe in the words of politicans, they're decievers and only want to bring destruction on this world. And the ones who wake up, get framed, get accused, get labeled as being the bad guy. Sure, most of those who wake up arent genuine either like Saddam hussein, but they will always hide their real objectives.

The proxy wars have never stopped though. Look at today.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 04:09 PM
^ Woah I'm surprised. Most people are not aware of Suttons book. You know your stuff. *hugs*
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-23-2013, 04:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
^ Woah I'm surprised. Most people are not aware of Suttons book. You know your stuff. *hugs*
Books are always top-priority bro, however its not good to always ignore analysis on the internet. There are pretty good sites out there like www.globalresearch.net

anyway, its even more better to not take your trusts in what they say or do or by following geopolitical movements, observing agenda's is something better and can you make 'see' more things.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 04:24 PM
^ Well I just use books to help me find primary sources. I really rely on primary sources, but books help me to get there. Primary sources for me include official government documents, tapes, recording or whatever.

I like that website, global research.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Dont forget the nazi empire, most people today will see our posts as being paranoid, however WW2 was engineered to secure and create the state of 'israel' in its form. By playing the holocaust trick, the jews would find a reason to invade arab lands. The colonization of the british and french paved the way of this, also by creating rebellions commited by khawarijtes to destroy the ottoman caliphate.

There is a book how the zionists and wall street funded hitler and his allies:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...s/wall_street/

After WW2 nazi scientists even the ones who worked on V2 rockets were shipped to the US by the CIA to work on their space program and other nasty experiments like MK-ultra. result: NASA was born and the TV was born.

US creates its enemies and indeed it does. However the USSR was never really a US-enemy, it only was concurrention in the search of resources but a WW3 was never on the card, it was only destined to divide and make people take sides. Most wars during that time were proxy-battles. Like the contras who killed, massacred civilians in nicaragua. Dont believe in the words of politicans, they're decievers and only want to bring destruction on this world. And the ones who wake up, get framed, get accused, get labeled as being the bad guy. Sure, most of those who wake up arent genuine either like Saddam hussein, but they will always hide their real objectives.

The proxy wars have never stopped though. Look at today.
I...I don't even know where to begin. So I guess I'm not gonna.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 04:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I...I don't even know where to begin. So I guess I'm not gonna.
Good. Your input is not necessary.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 05:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
No. =) Not at all.

Unlike most people, I read books from a variety of sources and try to gain as much knowledge as I can. Then I sit back and read members posts who make a fool of themselves by posting utter gibberish. ^_^

Try reading some books. It may help you but I doubt anything can penetrate your thick head.
So that's why nobody takes you seriously here, you have nothing constructive to add?
Reply

Abu Loren
03-23-2013, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Good. Your input is not necessary.
You are beginning to be annoying now. You have to make a silly comment on every post? And I thought you were a cute and cuddly type of person.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-23-2013, 05:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I...I don't even know where to begin. So I guess I'm not gonna.
Guess because you have basically nothing to say? Its always shocking for you to see stuff people talk about which isnt discussed in Mainstream -------s like CNN, BBC et cetera. History explained by schoolbooks often contain lies and other deceptions.



format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
So that's why nobody takes you seriously here, you have nothing constructive to add?
Come on lads, this is not the way to discuss, just throwing words at each other keep it civil.

Anyway, i feel like MR.independent is going to add something 'constructive' to this thread soon.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Some speculate Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait.
There was tension between Iraq and Kuwait in the run-up to the war. Saddam felt Kuwait was pumping too much oil and depressing prices. He was desperate for income in the aftermath of the Iran war. There was also long-standing border disputes over the Rumalia oil field, which is close to Kuwait.

There is a story that Saddam wanted to seize some of the disputed border oil fields and that the US gave him the 'green light' to do so - not directly encouraging him, but indicating it wouldn't make a serious fuss if that's what happened.

However, in the event Saddam got greedy and took the whole country, and the rest is history.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
So that's why nobody takes you seriously here, you have nothing constructive to add?
NO! PLEASE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Loren
You are beginning to be annoying now.
I'm gonna put a spell on you.


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
There is a story that Saddam wanted to seize some of the disputed border oil fields and that the US gave him the 'green light' to do so - not directly encouraging him, but indicating it wouldn't make a serious fuss if that's what happened.
I see. Do you know where I can read more about this? I mean like an article or some sort of book.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
I see. Do you know where I can read more about this? I mean like an article or some sort of book.
I'll have a hunt - this was stuff I read 20 years ago, soon after the war.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-23-2013, 05:54 PM
THANK YOU! I appreciate it. That's very kind of you.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 06:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Do you know where I can read more about this? I mean like an article or some sort of book.
Looking around I remember that the issue was also about direct Iraq access to the Gulf (by taking Kuwaiti territory). Also, Kuwait had lent a great deal of money to Iraq to fight the Iran war and wanted payback. Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been 'stealing' the Rumalia oil by drilling slantwise under the border and therefore they shouldn't pay. Further back in history, Iraq laid claim to the whole of Kuwait as part of Basra province (the Ottoman division).

Saddam's crucial error was to turn a border dispute into the seizure of an entire sovereign country.

I have found a few things online such as this referring to the changing situation after the end of the Iran/Iraq war:

US strategy failed to adjust to the fact that Iraq had become the most dangerous and aggressive country in the Persian Gulf. Thus when Saddam Hussein began massing troops near its border with Kuwait in July 1990, American Ambassador to Kuwait April Gillespie told him: "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Essentially the Ambassador was signaling that if Iraq moved against Kuwait, it was not the concern of the United States. No one will ever know whether a sterner diplomatic posture by the American government would have deterred Saddam.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=MO7V...saddam&f=false

Also this:

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise." (quoted in [1]).


http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

Also a good summary here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 07:21 PM
I am well aware that schoolbooks contain a huge number of lies, Jedi Mindset. And it is because of this very reason--it is because I do not believe everything that I read--that I also do not dig Holocaust denial and similar ideas. One of the many marks of conspiracy theorists is that old standby defense mechanism, "Anyone who personally disagrees with me must automatically be brainwashed by the man." But in actual fact my unwillingness to let myself be easily influenced happens to be a large part of what stops me from agreeing with them. Which isn't necessarily saying that they have done the opposite but it works for me.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-23-2013, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I am well aware that schoolbooks contain a huge number of lies, Jedi Mindset. And it is because of this very reason--it is because I do not believe everything that I read--that I also do not dig Holocaust denial and similar ideas. One of the many marks of conspiracy theorists is that old standby defense mechanism, "Anyone who personally disagrees with me must automatically be brainwashed by the man." But in actual fact my unwillingness to let myself be easily influenced happens to be a large part of what stops me from agreeing with them. Which isn't necessarily saying that they have done the opposite but it works for me.
Where do you see me denying the holocaust? I do say everything is plot and planned to create the state of israel, since the first crusades this idea was already brought up in the minds of the western europeans. They failed and failed, because confronting the ottoman caliphate always ended up in failure, until they sought the idea to create secterian strife within. First was the lands of arabia, where the khawarijtes under command of muhammed ibn saud thought they would fight and revive the rashidun caliphates again (The caliphates under the 4 righteous predecessors) meanwhile due to them being decieved by muhammed ibn saud and the british they destroyed the caliphate. Divide and conquer, this is how they work back then, and they still do it today. And we fall in the same trap again and again.
My view is that the biggest holocaust has happened in both world wars, not to jews but to us - muslims.
The jews have now some reason to play the holocaust tricks to justify their occupation (But if they come they will slaughter us, you international community were against this in the past, USA safe us from the mad mullahs with their atomic bombs blablabla''
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 09:56 PM
Do you have to keep saying "the Jews"? Be careful how you express yourself.

Why does all of history have to revolve around Israel anyway? Can't anything that ever happens in this world ever be unconnected to it? I mean, you've just created a direct through line to Zionism tying together everything from the Crusades to World War II! I just don't see what's supposed to be so all-important about this one country. Sometimes I feel like the only Muslim around who doesn't view the place as the nexus of the space-time continuum.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 10:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
I do say everything is plot and planned to create the state of israel, since the first crusades this idea was already brought up in the minds of the western europeans
Are you familiar with how the First Crusade got started? Because you'll have a hard time explaining how it was in any way deliberate, planned or controlled. And of course, at that time, it was anything but obvious that the west would mkae it through the next 100 years, let alone achieve world domination.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-23-2013, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Are you familiar with how the First Crusade got started? Because you'll have a hard time explaining how it was in any way deliberate, planned or controlled. And of course, at that time, it was anything but obvious that the west would mkae it through the next 100 years, let alone achieve world domination.
Yes i know how it got started, it was already in the minds of the western people for a while. It was certainly been planned out for a little while, one of their 'reasons' was the coming danger of muslims to constantinople. But there is one thing people ignore, why their sudden obsession for the holy land? And why the jews? The european people themselves were allowed to hold pilgrimage to the holy lands. The muslims didnt stop them, so why the sudden invasions?

The propaganda that christians were allegedly tortured by muslims was made up, because even the christians living in jerusalem sided with the muslims in that time. Also some jews started to sign up for the templar knights brigades and other mercenaries. ofcourse these jews would pose themselves as christians, because they were kind of persecuted at that time by Europe, hence many jews started to move to the muslim world.

Anyway, look at the places the crusaders occupied, it was only jerusalem and the surroundings. Not really Egypt, only palestine and today lebanon plus a bit of turkey. And they didnt plan to move further. Why their obsession for the holy land? Can you tell me that?



format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
o you have to keep saying "the Jews"? Be careful how you express yourself.

Why does all of history have to revolve around Israel anyway? Can't anything that ever happens in this world ever be unconnected to it? I mean, you've just created a direct through line to Zionism tying together everything from the Crusades to World War II! I just don't see what's supposed to be so all-important about this one country. Sometimes I feel like the only Muslim around who doesn't view the place as the nexus of the space-time continuum.
Maybe because you arent willing to see or is ignorant in matters of history? The occupation and sending jews back to the holy land was already in the minds of the western people back then. Their attempts to destroy us was not because of their own occupations, but to guarantee that we would not pose a threat to the jews who came to palestine. This idea was not brought up in the 20th century, it was from far earlier.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 10:50 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because I understand that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Yes i know how it got started, it was already in the minds of the western people for a while
No it most certainly wasn't. No one forsaw the mass popular response. Show me any serious evidence for this idea prior to Alexios 1's request for assistance and Pope Urban's call to arms. It came out of the clear blue sky.

And who could plan this? The west was fragmented and deep in its own problems.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
But there is one thing people ignore, why their sudden obsession for the holy land? And why the jews? The european people themselves were allowed to hold pilgrimage to the holy lands. The muslims didnt stop them, so why the sudden invasions?
Emotionally, of course they wanted to return Jerusalem to Christian hands - just as Saladin sought to re-conquer it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Also some jews started to sign up for the templar knights brigades and other mercenaries.
Are you forgetting that the Crusade was also the first pogrom against the Jews? Or is this another 'holocaust' you think is faked?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Anyway, look at the places the crusaders occupied, it was only jerusalem and the surroundings. Not really Egypt, only palestine and today lebanon plus a bit of turkey. And they didnt plan to move further. Why their obsession for the holy land? Can you tell me that?
Incorrect. The 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th crusades all had Egypt as the target. They conquered as much as they were able.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Their attempts to destroy us was not because of their own occupations, but to guarantee that we would not pose a threat to the jews who came to palestine.
No sign of this happening in the Crusades.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 12:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
No it most certainly wasn't. No one forsaw the mass popular response. Show me any serious evidence for this idea prior to Alexios 1's request for assistance and Pope Urban's call to arms. It came out of the clear blue sky.

And who could plan this? The west was fragmented and deep in its own problems.
West europe was already inhabited by a new population called the normans, they were bloodlines from the vikings and if you know the nature of the vikings you will know why they would be happy to conquer every part of this world. No this idea didnt came to pop out of no air, sure there was short time, but the real motives was actually - jerusalem, al-aqsa mosque. Can you explain to me, why after jerusalem was conquered, a group of mercenaries were ordered to dig deep under al-aqsa and they found it? The magic tablets?

It was actually the normans, who led this crusades and the vikings already mixed in with the germanic and franco populations, so did in the english populations. Hence they started to call themselves normans now. But their lust for dominance wasnt gone. Majority of the templar knights - were normans and jews posing themselves as christians.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Emotionally, of course they wanted to return Jerusalem to Christian hands - just as Saladin sought to re-conquer it.
you are big mistaken here, i am not talking about the byzantine romans, there is a difference between them and the western europe populations at that time infact western people were already mixed with viking blood - hence they started to name themselves normans to hide their real identity. Byzantine was only eatern-europe and turkey. The byzantines accepted their defeat though after they were chased out of syria and egypt. And i stated this: the christians were able to do their pilgrimage to the holy land, so did the jews. And they didnt found a problem with it. And the christians under muslim rule were treated well. So their 'emotionally' return to jerusalem was only a lie.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Are you forgetting that the Crusade was also the first pogrom against the Jews? Or is this another 'holocaust' you think is faked?
Even before the crusades jews were persecuted, this only became heavier at that time when the normans started to pop up. so, many corrupt jews went into 'undercover' and even some would sign up to be mercenaries like the templar knights and teutonic knights.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Incorrect. The 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th crusades all had Egypt as the target. They conquered as much as they were able.
Look at the map during that time and i see you didnt. Egypt wasnt their target - it was the holy land.



Look at that^they didnt plan to go further, infact they were fine in jerusalem hence they started to arrange a peace treaty with salahuddin(Ra) , this peace treaty was broken when templar knights mercenaries attacked a muslim convoy, since their HQ was already jerusalem they wanted the war to rage on again so they could march deeper into arabia at the moment.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
No sign of this happening in the Crusades.
I was talking about the crusade which ended up in the colonization of muslim lands. However the idea was to always give the holy land to the jews. Thats what the last colonization was all about.
Reply

Independent
03-24-2013, 12:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
It was actually the normans, who led this crusades
Yes, many of the leaders were Normans. So what? I can't see why this makes any difference.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
they started to name themselves normans to hide their real identity
What are you talking about? Hide what identity from who?

The Normans were indeed very aggressive and successful warriors who conquered England, Sicily and southern Italy (from the Byzantines no less). This was one of the reasons why they had a difficult relationship with Alexios I. But none of this has any Jewish connection.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
The byzantines accepted their defeat though after they were chased out of syria and egypt
No they did not and they made many attempts to recapture lost territory. They would undoubtedly have retaken Jerusalem if they were able.

Alexios asked the Pope for assistance when he was under further pressure from Muslim raiders. He expected a few hundred professional soldiers, not the mob that descended on Constantinople a couple of years later (by which time the Muslim threat had diminished again anyway). Plainly he was very nervous of what they might do.

In a series of difficult negotiations the Crusaders agreed to continue into Asia Minor with Byzantine support. In their view, they would be taking lands to hold in their own name. In Alexios's view, they would re-take land as his vassals.

The subsequent refusal of the Crusaders to accept Alexios as their overlord, after they had successfully regained Jerusalem, was the single decisive factor which led to their later defeat - because it meant their support had to come all the way from western Europe, not Byzantium. None of this has anything to do with the Jews.

Instead of reinstating Byzantine rule in Palestine, it broke the association once and for all. In fact (if you wanted to be provocative) you could portray the First Crusade as the illegal seizure of the Holy Land by Normans not from the Muslims, but from the Byzantines.

Also - before you start constructing grand schemes around the crusade - one of the most notable things about the First Crusade is how extremely unlikely it was that they would win. Neither Alexios nor the Muslims took them seriously. They really should have lost, especially at the gates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Can you explain to me, why after jerusalem was conquered, a group of mercenaries were ordered to dig deep under al-aqsa and they found it? The magic tablets?
They were superstitious. You're moving into Dan Brown territory.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Look at the map during that time and i see you didnt. Egypt wasnt their target - it was the holy land.
What is the point of showing a map of successful conquests but ignoring unsuccessful ones? For example, the 7th crusade under Louis IX was a major attempt to take Egypt which might well have succeeded if the luck had gone with them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
I was talking about the crusade which ended up in the colonization of muslim lands. However the idea was to always give the holy land to the jews.
What is the difference between Muslims invading Christian Palestine and a Christian return attack to retake the land from Muslims? Why is one a 'colonisation' but not the other? This is just the regular ebb and flow of military history. And there is absolutely no evidence the Crusaders wanted to give anything to the Jews, quite the reverse.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
this peace treaty was broken when templar knights mercenaries attacked a muslim convoy, since their HQ was already jerusalem they wanted the war to rage on again so they could march deeper into arabia at the moment.
This attack was by a maverick Christian leader, Raynald de Chatillion, who acted against the explicit instructions of the King of Jerusalem. Raynald had spent 17 years as a captive of the Muslims and the experience seems to have turned his head. He was borderline insane.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Yes i know how it got started, it was already in the minds of the western people for a while. It was certainly been planned out for a little while, one of their 'reasons' was the coming danger of muslims to constantinople. But there is one thing people ignore, why their sudden obsession for the holy land? And why the jews? The european people themselves were allowed to hold pilgrimage to the holy lands. The muslims didnt stop them, so why the sudden invasions?

The propaganda that christians were allegedly tortured by muslims was made up, because even the christians living in jerusalem sided with the muslims in that time. Also some jews started to sign up for the templar knights brigades and other mercenaries. ofcourse these jews would pose themselves as christians, because they were kind of persecuted at that time by Europe, hence many jews started to move to the muslim world.

Anyway, look at the places the crusaders occupied, it was only jerusalem and the surroundings. Not really Egypt, only palestine and today lebanon plus a bit of turkey. And they didnt plan to move further. Why their obsession for the holy land? Can you tell me that?
Because the purpose of the First Crusade was to seize Jerusalem and secure it for Christian pilgrimage. Whether the stories of Christian pilgrims being abused was exaggerated or even made up from the start is irrelevant. When the topic of discussion is the motivations of the crusaders, the only thing that matters is what they belived, not whether what they believed was actually true.

The known historical facts don't support your assertion that it was a pre-planned initiative by Christian rulers. Had they actually wanted to protect Constantinople, it would have happened, or at least start being prepared, immediately after the Battle of Manzikert in 1072 when Alparslan's Turks overran Asia Minor. Yet, the Byzantine plea for help was utterly ignored by Western Europe. Pope Urban II had spent his entire time as Pope to agitate for Christian holy war against Muslims - first against Al-Andalus, and after 1072 against the Turks. Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims. The grassroots nature of the movement is proven well enough by the fact that what's usually known as the First Crusade actually wasn't the first. It was the first endorsed by the Pope, but a few years before it, the People's Crusade had taken place all on its own without any official support. The reason we don't hear much of it is simply that, due to its disorganized nature (as grassroots movements tend to be) and due to being mostly made up of peasants without much military training, it was defeated almost as soon as it arrived in Muslim lands.

And, had the real goal of the First Crusade actually have been to protect Constantinople, it would have attacked some Muslim state that actually constituted a threat to it, like one of the Turkish sultanates, or even Fatimid Egypt. But instead they went for Palestine, which was relatively poor and scarcely populated in comparison to either Syria, Iraq or Egypt.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Maybe because you arent willing to see or is ignorant in matters of history? The occupation and sending jews back to the holy land was already in the minds of the western people back then. Their attempts to destroy us was not because of their own occupations, but to guarantee that we would not pose a threat to the jews who came to palestine. This idea was not brought up in the 20th century, it was from far earlier.
An utterly absurd suggestion. Why would medieval Christian rulers support the resettlement of Palestine by Jews? This was the Middle Ages, when supersessionism was a universally accepted Christian doctrine: The Church was considered to be the new Israel and the inheritor of the Chosen status of the Jews, with the Jews being considered no different from any other people at best, or evil Christ-killers at worst. Christian Zionism would have been utterly absurd to any medieval Christian.

And if a great deal of Jews, disguised as Christians, really went to Palestine along with the First Crusade, what happened to them? The First Crusade was a success, so if there was this significant contingent of secret Jews among it, why didn't it cause a large increase in the Jewish population of the area? Before the Zionist enterprise began in the late 19th century, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at a few thousand, a population which was utterly apathetic towards the Zionist enterprise. If they were sleeper agents implanted there to facililate a later Jewish takeover, they must have fallen asleep and forgotten about it :p
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 01:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Yes, many of the leaders were Normans. So what? I can't see why this makes any difference.
Yes it actually does, i dont know if you are to foolish to understand certain things or have a big part of your brain blown away, read my posts again and do not just skim through it. Reflect on each sentence and even maybe search it up. Normans were brutal, and they started to be highly involved in politics, if not for the normans, europe wouldnt have colonized a big part of the world. The normans were the head leaders of these crusaders and hated everything which was actually monetheism.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What are you talking about? Hide what identity from who?

The Normans were indeed very aggressive and successful warriors who conquered England, Sicily and southern Italy (from the Byzantines no less). This was one of the reasons why they had a difficult relationship with Alexios I. But none of this has any Jewish connection.
Again you missed a big part of my posts, the normans were the vikings, but now they were mixed with the european populations so they simply started to call themselves normans.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
No they did not and they made many attempts to recapture lost territory. They would undoubtedly have retaken Jerusalem if they were able.

Alexios asked the Pope for assistance when he was under further pressure from Muslim raiders. He expected a few hundred professional soldiers, not the mob that descended on Constantinople a couple of years later (by which time the Muslim threat had diminished again anyway). Plainly he was very nervous of what they might do.

In a series of difficult negotiations the Crusaders agreed to continue into Asia Minor with Byzantine support. In their view, they would be taking lands to hold in their own name. In Alexios's view, they would re-take land as his vassals.

The subsequent refusal of the Crusaders to accept Alexios as their overlord, after they had successfully regained Jerusalem, was the single decisive factor which led to their later defeat - because it meant their support had to come all the way from western Europe, not Byzantium. None of this has anything to do with the Jews.

Instead of reinstating Byzantine rule in Palestine, it broke the association once and for all. In fact (if you wanted to be provocative) you could portray the First Crusade as the illegal seizure of the Holy Land by Normans not from the Muslims, but from the Byzantines.

Also - before you start constructing grand schemes around the crusade - one of the most notable things about the First Crusade is how extremely unlikely it was that they would win. Neither Alexios nor the Muslims took them seriously. They really should have lost, especially at the gates of Antioch and Jerusalem.

The only reason they won for a while was their blood line, the normans were always experienced warriors and they attacked with such brutal force, let me say that it was a 'blitzkrieg' tactic and it was. They ruined it by starting to attack muslims which broke the peace treaty. The byzantines accepted their defeat in syria and egypt, atleast the king heraclius did. His succesors would always try attempts to regain territory but they failed over and over again.




format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
They were superstitious. You're moving into Dan Brown territory.
not a theory, they were and have found the magic tablets, and they started to practice it. Do you know why William Wallace spoke numerous languages which nobody could've learned in a short time. William wallace was a crusader and after he returned he led the war against the monarch of england for the independence of scottland.





format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What is the point of showing a map of successful conquests but ignoring unsuccessful ones? For example, the 7th crusade under Louis IX was a major attempt to take Egypt which might well have succeeded if the luck had gone with them.
You are attempting to confuse me but you fail. You simply dont understand my point so i suggest you to move out of this discussion and read my posts from the start again. with the map i explained the goal of the crusades, it wasnt egypt, it was the land of palestine.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
What is the difference between Muslims invading Christian Palestine and a Christian return attack to retake the land from Muslims? Why is one a 'colonisation' but not the other? This is just the regular ebb and flow of military history. And there is absolutely no evidence the Crusaders wanted to give anything to the Jews, quite the reverse.
The muslims invaded palestine because they were in a state of war with the romans. After the romans started to oppress the muslim converts in damascus and made threats against the muslims. So yeah, they simply brought it upon themselves. Colonization is not the right word to use for this. Colonization is conquering the land and make it adopt to your culture, to spread your domination around this by oppressing the native population and supress any rebellions.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This attack was by a maverick Christian leader, Raynald de Chatillion, who acted against the explicit instructions of the King of Jerusalem. Raynald had spent 17 years as a captive of the Muslims and the experience seems to have turned his head. He was borderline insane.
He was treated well, but his lust for more war brought him to this act. However he led a team of templar knights.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Because the purpose of the First Crusade was to seize Jerusalem and secure it for Christian pilgrimage. Whether the stories of Christian pilgrims being abused was exaggerated or even made up from the start is irrelevant. When the topic of discussion is the motivations of the crusaders, the only thing that matters is what they belived, not whether what they believed was actually true.
The christians were safe and protected by the muslims during their pilgrimage, so that wasnt the obvious reason.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
The known historical facts don't support your assertion that it was a pre-planned initiative by Christian rulers. Had they actually wanted to protect Constantinople, it would have happened, or at least start being prepared, immediately after the Battle of Manzikert in 1072 when Alparslan's Turks overran Asia Minor. Yet, the Byzantine plea for help was utterly ignored by Western Europe. Pope Urban II had spent his entire time as Pope to agitate for Christian holy war against Muslims - first against Al-Andalus, and after 1072 against the Turks. Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims. The grassroots nature of the movement is proven well enough by the fact that what's usually known as the First Crusade actually wasn't the first. It was the first endorsed by the Pope, but a few years before it, the People's Crusade had taken place all on its own without any official support. The reason we don't hear much of it is simply that, due to its disorganized nature (as grassroots movements tend to be) and due to being mostly made up of peasants without much military training, it was defeated almost as soon as it arrived in Muslim lands.
HAH! You said it yourself: ''Yet, he had been utterly ignored until the very last decade of the 11th century, when a spontaneous popular mass movement of crusading fervour arose in Europe in response to the stories of abuse of Christian pilgrims''

And why? Why the massive propaganda and why the sudden revival (Mainly from western europe, under rule of the normans). As i mentioned a couple of time, trace the lineage of the normans and you will know why. If not for them, europe wouldnt have conquered most of the world.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And, had the real goal of the First Crusade actually have been to protect Constantinople, it would have attacked some Muslim state that actually constituted a threat to it, like one of the Turkish sultanates, or even Fatimid Egypt. But instead they went for Palestine, which was relatively poor and scarcely populated in comparison to either Syria, Iraq or Egypt.
You dig yourself in, infact you have only proved that i am right in this matter. Now you need to ask yourself, why jerusalem? And not the territories which posed a threat to europe? independent also failed to answer this, so do you. Infact they felt fine in jerusalem, they werent really bothered to go further. And even if they managed to conquer egypt - it wouldnt be their real goal, it would be jerusalem. Trace the movements of the last colonization and you will know why.









format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
An utterly absurd suggestion. Why would medieval Christian rulers support the resettlement of Palestine by Jews? This was the Middle Ages, when supersessionism was a universally accepted Christian doctrine: The Church was considered to be the new Israel and the inheritor of the Chosen status of the Jews, with the Jews being considered no different from any other people at best, or evil Christ-killers at worst. Christian Zionism would have been utterly absurd to any medieval Christian.
Christian zionism is a product of the crusades. The judeo-christian alliance existed at that time, now comes another question: Wasn't it also their attempts to try to rebuild their temple? The jews actually provided from these crusades, since jerusalem was now under crusader control, and some jews wanted to destroy al-aqsa and rebuild the temple. The crusaders in this case, would've agreed with it.





format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And if a great deal of Jews, disguised as Christians, really went to Palestine along with the First Crusade, what happened to them? The First Crusade was a success, so if there was this significant contingent of secret Jews among it, why didn't it cause a large increase in the Jewish population of the area? Before the Zionist enterprise began in the late 19th century, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at a few thousand, a population which was utterly apathetic towards the Zionist enterprise. If they were sleeper agents implanted there to facililate a later Jewish takeover, they must have fallen asleep and forgotten about it
The jews were undercover, they started to pose themselves as christians. So they didnt built synagogues or anything related to judaism. If you pose as one of groups of people you will eventually become one of them. During that time, the very idea of rebuilding the temple was already considered. Remember that there were numerous attempts in the past, and they achieved their goal with the colonization of the muslim world. The destroying of the caliphate, this actually paved the way for the creation of 'israel'. So if they achieved their goals 1000 years ago, the same thing would've happened, but now things were easier because they brought up a new tactic: divide and conquer, to make the muslims divided and they wont pose any threat.

And their superior technology was also one thing they were 'faster' now. And also because this was planned in advance.

The occupation of palestine was always their goal, the colonization paved the way for it. Now they have managed to conquer it, brought the jews in it, and control the state of 'israel'.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-24-2013, 01:55 PM
You know what's interesting? Despite there being this alleged huge conspiracy by schoolbooks to cover up the truth if memory serves it was actually in my sixth grade social studies class--in America, no less--where I was taught that the crusades were a sham and the real original reason was that the pope was trying to deflect people's attention from domestic issues onto foreign ones or something like that. A classic card up the politician's sleeve. There is no conspiracy, there are only constantly changing and contradictory trends in thought, and these are usually what really affect the textbooks for the worse. These are what really rewrite the history books time and again throughout the ages. I'm willing to bet that if I were to compare western resources about the crusades from each century since they happened I would find the supposed reason for the crusades, as well as their degree of justifiability, differing at least slightly each time.
Reply

Joseph86
03-24-2013, 02:08 PM
A lot of us Americans do understand they are killing innocent people in the name of oil sake. Second note some of us believe 911 was an inside job to justify a war with a sovereign nation that to secure our interest in oil. I joined the military,when I turned 18 not fully understanding when I started learning more of what was going on I refused to train or partake in the plunderering of a nation for profit sake
Reply

Joseph86
03-24-2013, 02:09 PM
A little looking into really opens alot
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
You dig yourself in, infact you have only proved that i am right in this matter. Now you need to ask yourself, why jerusalem? And not the territories which posed a threat to europe? independent also failed to answer this, so do you. Infact they felt fine in jerusalem, they werent really bothered to go further. And even if they managed to conquer egypt - it wouldnt be their real goal, it would be jerusalem. Trace the movements of the last colonization and you will know why.
I already answered this one, and you ignored my answer.

Jerusalem was of religious significance for Christians. The crusaders believed that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were being abused, and thus Jerusalem had to be captured to ensure the safety of future pilgrims.

Note the bolded word. You state that the abuse of Christian pilgrims never happened, as if that would refute my position. While I aleady, in my last post, stated that it was irrelevant. What matters is that the people of Europe believed it to be so, and were outraged over it.


As for why they didn't "go further", well, that's an easy one as well. They had already achieved their main objective. Mission accomplished. At the time the First Crusade had captured Jerusalem, it was down to a few thousand men, one sixth of its original fighting strength, and had little ability to conquer even more.



I'm not going to waste time replying to the rest of your post since your entire position is dependent on the assumption that the established view about the motivations of the crusaders, long since a matter of consensus among historians and clear as day from actual medieval chronicles and other primary sources, is somehow implausible. So I'll just focus on the root of the controversy (to use the word lightly).
Reply

Independent
03-24-2013, 02:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
The only reason they won for a while was their blood line, the normans were always experienced warriors and they attacked with such brutal force
I am very well aware of Viking and Norman history and there is nothing in it to support your bizarre theories. The Normans were belligerent - so were many other peoples - so what? They spent as much time attacking the Byzantines as Muslims.

Give me one contemporary source to back up your statements.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
I already answered this one, and you ignored my answer.
Jerusalem was, but western europe was never really bothered with it. Problem is, why suddenly after 300/400 years?



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Jerusalem was of religious significance for Christians. The crusaders believed that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were being abused, and thus Jerusalem had to be captured to ensure the safety of future pilgrims.
Yes it is, but most of western europe at that time were normans, earlier pagans who converted to christianity. They were strong warriors, and their sudden obsessions of the holy land came into minds. I think you dont understand what i am directing at.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Note the bolded word. You state that the abuse of Christian pilgrims never happened, as if that would refute my position. While I aleady, in my last post, stated that it was irrelevant. What matters is that the people of Europe believed it to be so, and were outraged over it.
The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it. But a massive change suddenly happened which brought forth the crusades. For years they have sought to dominate the holy land and since 1915 they've accomplished. Now they control it through the state of 'israel'. Alot of the crusaders were western europeans, while alot of western europeans went to pilgrimage to jerusalem which was under muslim rule. The 'israel' idea was already in their minds back then.







format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
As for why they didn't "go further", well, that's an easy one as well. They had already achieved their main objective. Mission accomplished. At the time the First Crusade had captured Jerusalem, it was down to a few thousand men, one sixth of its original fighting strength, and had little ability to conquer even more.
And they didnt plan to go further either, but the holy land is never really mentioned in christianity, israel is and so on but the jews claim they have more right to it because they think they pave the way for their messiah by rebuilding the temple. Christianity supports this idea as well, and it existed already at that time. The judeo-christian alliance, didnt the qu'ran talk about it?





format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
I'm not going to waste time replying to the rest of your post since your entire position is dependent on the assumption that the established view about the motivations of the crusaders, long since a matter of consensus among historians and clear as day from actual medieval chronicles and other primary sources, is somehow implausible. So I'll just focus on the root of the controversy (to use the word lightly).
Not an assumption, it is the result of me studying and tracing lineages, there are many puzzles which still needs to be answered regarding the crusades, however by simply denying the jewish-christian idea to rebuild the temple is ignorance in my eyes. You have only brought up schoolbook studies, i refer that term to schoolbooks, to make you think what they want. History is not being told what it is today, there are many lies and deceptions in it.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 03:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I am very well aware of Viking and Norman history and there is nothing in it to support your bizarre theories. The Normans were belligerent - so were many other peoples - so what? They spent as much time attacking the Byzantines as Muslims.

Give me one contemporary source to back up your statements.
if you know their nature, then the crusades were a part of the plan to spread their dominance or colonizations. And they achieved. I think you are the one who bring up bizzare theories, again school book niveau. There is actually plenty of it to support my 'theory', eschatology, do you know it?

you only base your opinion at what is being told to you. And you never search for yourself. Thats the lazy-method my friend.

There was always a plan to take Jerusalem back though, but no one would actually have considered it. So when the normans adopted christianity, they used their warrior-expanionist mindset to justify the crusades. Crusades were religiously fueled but also politically and expansionist like.

Christopher Walker identifies the rise of the Normans as a major factor in the start of the Crusades. He states, in his refreshingly even-handed book, ‘Islam and the West’:

“Within Europe a number of elements changed the prevalent attitude from peaceful pilgrimage to violent conquest of the Holy Land. The first was the coming of the Normans. This people, originally from Scandinavia, had within two generations remodelled itself as a dominant force within the society of Europe. They were assertive, dictatorial, controlling and militant, though sometimes content to act as mercenaries. They liked social hierarchies. If they could not be dominant they were content with submission; with a tendency towards warfare, they seem not to have rated equality highly. … But they were greater agents for change, perhaps as a result of their instincts for violence and hierarchy. They made their militant cause popular by gaining, where necessary the blessing of the pope, but were unafraid of excommunication. They used the papacy as they saw fit and the papacy made use of them. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, his army was led by a knight carrying a papal banner emblazoned with a red cross; the invasion of England thus took on the appearance of a crusade before the Crusades. In dating the capture of Jerusalem (‘the event preferable to all events’), Foulcher of Chartres makes a point of indicating that it occurred twelve years after the death of William, King of England.”
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Jerusalem was, but western europe was never really bothered with it. Problem is, why suddenly after 300/400 years?

The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it. But a massive change suddenly happened which brought forth the crusades.
Yes, and that change is that pilgrims started to be abused at that time, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the appearance of a grassroots-level movement of crusading fervour.

Can you provide any rational reason to reject this simple, straightforward hypothesis?
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Yes, and that change is that pilgrims started to be abused at that time, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the appearance of a grassroots-level movement of crusading fervour.

Can you provide any rational reason to reject this simple, straightforward hypothesis?
Nonsense, pilgrims were never abused on the roads to jerusalem. Atleast, they were being protected by the muslims. Are you seriously believing propaganda?

There was always a plan to take Jerusalem back though, but no one would actually have considered it. So when the normans adopted christianity, they used their warrior-expanionist mindset to justify the crusades. Crusades were religiously fueled but also politically and expansionist like.

Christopher Walker identifies the rise of the Normans as a major factor in the start of the Crusades. He states, in his refreshingly even-handed book, ‘Islam and the West’:

“Within Europe a number of elements changed the prevalent attitude from peaceful pilgrimage to violent conquest of the Holy Land. The first was the coming of the Normans. This people, originally from Scandinavia, had within two generations remodelled itself as a dominant force within the society of Europe. They were assertive, dictatorial, controlling and militant, though sometimes content to act as mercenaries. They liked social hierarchies. If they could not be dominant they were content with submission; with a tendency towards warfare, they seem not to have rated equality highly. … But they were greater agents for change, perhaps as a result of their instincts for violence and hierarchy. They made their militant cause popular by gaining, where necessary the blessing of the pope, but were unafraid of excommunication. They used the papacy as they saw fit and the papacy made use of them.When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, his army was led by a knight carrying a papal banner emblazoned with a red cross; the invasion of England thus took on the appearance of a crusade before the Crusades. In dating the capture of Jerusalem (‘the event preferable to all events’), Foulcher of Chartres makes a point of indicating that it occurred twelve years after the death of William, King of England.”
This^
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Nonsense, pilgrims were never abused on the roads to jerusalem. Atleast, they were being protected by the muslims. Are you seriously believing propaganda?
How do you know that they were not abused? Do you have any proof? Is there some reason why the suggestion is implausible? How do you know that it is, as you claim, "propaganda"?
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
How do you know that they were not abused? Do you have any proof? Is there some reason why the suggestion is implausible? How do you know that it is, as you claim, "propaganda"?
Studies, lectures, and it has been known in history that this propaganda card was used to justify their bloody crusades to jerusalem, however none of it was true. And if so then it would be minimized to a few isolated incidents.

Perhaps your view of these events isnt right as you claimed it to be. If you study the crusades then you will know it was bogus.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 04:00 PM
Saying that it isn't true doesn't make it so. Now, any actual evidence that it did not happen or was limited to a few isolated incidents? Care to provide proof? Because if you're going to claim that history as we know it is bogus, you better post some proof. Simply saying that it is so doesn't suffice.

I'll ask again, do you have some proof that it didn't happen?

And if not, can you make a rational argument for why it is implausible that it would have happened?
Reply

GuestFellow
03-24-2013, 04:19 PM
LOL how did the crusades came into this? I'm so confused.
Reply

Networks
03-24-2013, 04:35 PM
Obviously, whole war was about stealing the wealth, just like it was with Libya.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-24-2013, 04:35 PM
^ Oh now I see how the crusades fit into this. Thank you!
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Saying that it isn't true doesn't make it so. Now, any actual evidence that it did not happen or was limited to a few isolated incidents? Care to provide proof? Because if you're going to claim that history as we know it is bogus, you better post some proof. Simply saying that it is so doesn't suffice.

I'll ask again, do you have some proof that it didn't happen?

And if not, can you make a rational argument for why it is implausible that it would have happened?
I am flabbergasted that you believe the words of kufar and not from the muslims, especially during that day or age. It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades. I dont have to post any source which rebuttles your thinking, with simply logic you will know that the muslims protected christians and jews who lived in al-andalus and provided, gave them money for their pilgrimage to jerusalem. Their caravans were even protected by muslim soldiers, so how comes abuse there into play? The jews and christians were enitrely thankful of the muslims. Now desperate attempts didnt work to call the christian world for an crusade to conquer jerusalem. So there is an card they needed to play to justify their wars: Propaganda, lies. They already had their henchmen to wage these crusades: the normans, the warriors who were bloodlines from the vikings. Now to justify their conquest, they only needed to use propaganda. Compare it today, they use propaganda to justify their wars on muslim countries.

Are you also going to believe the words of them to justify their wars on afghanistan, iraq, mali, somalia et cetera?
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 05:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
I am flabbergasted that you believe the words of kufar and not from the muslims, especially during that day or age.
Okay, care to cite any Muslim primary source from that age which supports your position?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades. I dont have to post any source which rebuttles your thinking, with simply logic you will know that the muslims protected christians and jews who lived in al-andalus and provided, gave them money for their pilgrimage to jerusalem. Their caravans were even protected by muslim soldiers, so how comes abuse there into play? The jews and christians were enitrely thankful of the muslims.
What "simple logic". Sorry bro, it doesn't work that way. If it's so simple, then show me the logic. Make a simple logical deduction showing that it must be so.

What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.

All this time you're making statements and claiming them to be simple matters of fact, claiming them to be "widely researched". Can you show some of that research?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Are you also going to believe the words of them to justify their wars on afghanistan, iraq, mali, somalia et cetera?
Irrelevant and undignified of a response. Can you stop insinuating that people who disagree with you must be stooges of propaganda?
Reply

GuestFellow
03-24-2013, 05:32 PM
LOL with the use of the word bro.

I read somewhere that Muslims protected Jews and Christians from Christian crusaders.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 05:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
What "simple logic". Sorry bro, it doesn't work that way. If it's so simple, then show me the logic. Make a simple logical deduction showing that it must be so.

What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.

All this time you're making statements and claiming them to be simple matters of fact, claiming them to be "widely researched". Can you show some of that research?
Lectures, books. Infact read the book of islam and the west, also watch these lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...xFWUiq3Fc4gLGl



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
What does Al-Andalus have to do with it? We're talking about Palestine, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. Whatever happened in Al-Andalus has absolutely no implication on what happened in Palestine.
Foolish statement, al-andalus fits in this picture, because of the treatment the jews and christians recieved. They never were tortured nor subjugated by the muslims. But its alright, you can believe the kufar sources. May Allah protect you from ignorance. Ameen.

The abuse claims were easily to be disproved because of the muslim protection the pilgrims recieved. So you think that the muslims would abuse them and at the same time protect them? Genius! and now you are going to twist things around and ask for sources, well i gave. lectures and a book for you to read, how nice is it?





format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Irrelevant and undignified of a response. Can you stop insinuating that people who disagree with you must be stooges of propaganda?
Actually, if you believe these things then you are also vunerable to the propaganda made by the zionist-led west crusades happening today. Never said you were, however its your own disorted view of these crusades that you get painted like that.

Anyway, dont reply till you have read the book and watched the lectures.

Assalam alaykum.

there are other lectures as well which mention this. Lectures about the life of salahuddin(Ra).

here is a small series/lecture on salahuddin(Ra):



You simply ask for me to prove anything, but why wont you do some effort and say ''hey maybe i am wrong, and maybe he is right, let me find some series or lectures and come back to rebuttle him, if he is right then i will accept it and say it to him'
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Lectures, books. Infact read the book of islam and the west, also watch these lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...xFWUiq3Fc4gLGl
Your own lectures. How nice. Since they are yours, how about skipping directly to the evidence? I'm not going to spend almost two hours watching lectures that I don't have any reason to believe will be educational in the slightest. If you're capable of making an argument for your case in your lectures, you are capable of copypasting it here. Same for that book.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Foolish statement, al-andalus fits in this picture, because of the treatment the jews and christians recieved. They never were tortured nor subjugated by the muslims. But its alright, you can believe the kufar sources.
How does the fact that Jews and Christians were treated well in Al-Andalus prove that they were treated well in Palestine, which is on the opposite end of the Mediterranean and under a completely different regime?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
May Allah protect you from ignorance. Ameen.
May Allah help you realize how utterly in error you are and inspire you to bow down before my superior intellect and wisdom :p

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
The abuse claims were easily to be disproved because of the muslim protection the pilgrims recieved. So you think that the muslims would abuse them and at the same time protect them? Genius! and now you are going to twist things around and ask for sources, well i gave. lectures and a book for you to read, how nice is it?
Pray tell, which Islamic state or other polity provided protection to Christian pilgrims in Palestine during the late 11th century? We're talking about the time period of about 1080-1095, the time window during which the alleged pilgrim abuse would have taken place.

The fact that some particular Islamic state at a specific time in a specific place would have provided pilgrim protection (if it indeed did) does not prove that all Islamic states always would have, or that no Muslims anywhere ever could have abused them.
Reply

Independent
03-24-2013, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
The muslims treated the pilgrims well, for 300 years western europe didnt found any problem with it.
As Futuwwa has said, the reality is less important than what they believed. The Crusaders wanted Jerusalem back on principle, the same way Muslims would if Christians held the city today, no matter what the terms of access. And the Muslim record is any case not spotless - there were events such as the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and interruptions to both pilgrims and trade by the Seljuks.

The First Crusaders were a highly divided force with no overall leader. It is impossible to see any 1,000 year masterplan in this. The whole mission was insanely risky and should have failed, but astonishingly succeeded.

The Normans themselves are at least notable for their wars against the Byzantines and the First Crusade did permanent damage to the East-West relationship. Following the fall of Jerusalem attention was transferred to Egypt and this was the focus of most later crusades, which never set foot in Palestine.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
It is widely researched that the christians leaders spew propaganda to justify their crusades.
Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???
Reply

GuestFellow
03-24-2013, 06:38 PM
Don't you guys get a headache doing this?
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???
One really has to ask which of these two is more plausible

1. The aggressive expansionist Normans managed to pull off a propaganda campaign of outrage manufacturing and managed to dupe all of Western Europe into believing Christian pilgrims were abused, a propaganda effort that was so successful that the whole thing got out of hand, and the people whom the propaganda campaign was aimed at spontaneously went on a crusade of their own initiative, instead of enlisting in or supporting the Norman crusade.

2. There actually was significant pilgrim abuse during the decade or so before the First Crusade.

:hiding:
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Your own lectures. How nice. Since they are yours, how about skipping directly to the evidence? I'm not going to spend almost two hours watching lectures that I don't have any reason to believe will be educational in the slightest. If you're capable of making an argument for your case in your lectures, you are capable of copypasting it here. Same for that book.
If you are relucant to watch these things, then this discussion is done, thanks for granting me victory :) These lectures are only uploaded by our productions, but the scholars are just scholars learned in these matters.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
How does the fact that Jews and Christians were treated well in Al-Andalus prove that they were treated well in Palestine, which is on the opposite end of the Mediterranean and under a completely different regime?
Because during that time there was not even the slightest incident of muslims killing a jew or christian since the rule of umar ibn khattab(Ra)



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
May Allah help you realize how utterly in error you are and inspire you to bow down before my superior intellect and wisdom
You realize that you made a dua in a joking manner right? I dont bow down, i bow down to Allah only. May Allah save you from your arrogance. ameen. your superior intellect and wisdom? Gah! Dua's to only make people accepting your selfish notion is a sin right? Dua's are to be made seriously and to be made humble. its the Lord you are praying to, the almighty, the most powerful.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Pray tell, which Islamic state or other polity provided protection to Christian pilgrims in Palestine during the late 11th century? We're talking about the time period of about 1080-1095, the time window during which the alleged pilgrim abuse would have taken place.

The fact that some particular Islamic state at a specific time in a specific place would have provided pilgrim protection (if it indeed did) does not prove that all Islamic states always would have, or that no Muslims anywhere ever could have abused them.
The fatimid caliphate even though shia and conspiring with the crusaders werent abusing the pilgrims. On the other hand, palestine was in muslim hands since the rule of umar ibn khattab(RA). The christians and jews were in full protection and they even sided with the muslims against the crusaders. The kindness and tolerance of the muslims during that time helped them win the hearts of the christians and jews. palestine was peacefull, and no secterian incident was ever recorded since the muslims conquered it.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Are you going to blame it on the media? In the 11 century???
LOL no by hired christian preachers like peter the hermit and the leaders.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
If you are relucant to watch these things, then this discussion is done, thanks for granting me victory :) These lectures are only uploaded by our productions, but the scholars are just scholars learned in these matters.
Too bad for you, there is no rule saying that unless I trudge through all sources you post, no matter how long, you win. On the contrary, under established rules of academic debate, you are obliged to show me the evidence directly, on a silver platter, either by direct quote or by a reference that is narrow enough that I can know exactly where to find the evidence. You are obliged to serve me the evidence, I am not obliged to trudge through tons and tons of material to look for something that might or might not be there.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
You realize that you made a dua in a joking manner right? I dont bow down, i bow down to Allah only. May Allah save you from your arrogance. ameen. your superior intellect and wisdom? Gah! Dua's to only make people accepting your selfish notion is a sin right? Dua's are to be made seriously and to be made humble. its the Lord you are praying to, the almighty, the most powerful.
ProTip: If you are going to insult and denigrate others' intelligence or understanding, don't disguise it in righteous garb by adding clauses such as "May Allah grant you wisdom".

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
The fatimid caliphate even though shia and conspiring with the crusaders werent abusing the pilgrims. On the other hand, palestine was in muslim hands since the rule of umar ibn khattab(RA). The christians and jews were in full protection and they even sided with the muslims against the crusaders. The kindness and tolerance of the muslims during that time helped them win the hearts of the christians and jews. palestine was peacefull, and no secterian incident was ever recorded since the muslims conquered it.
During the relevant time period, Palestine was controlled by the Seljuk Turks, not the Fatimids.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Too bad for you, there is no rule saying that unless I trudge through all sources you post, no matter how long, you win. On the contrary, under established rules of academic debate, you are obliged to show me the evidence directly, on a silver platter, either by direct quote or by a reference that is narrow enough that I can know exactly where to find the evidence. You are obliged to serve me the evidence, I am not obliged to trudge through tons and tons of material to look for something that might or might not be there.
Dont have to show the evidence directly, infact these lectures contain informations which will benefit you in your studies of the crusades. If you are relucant to not watch the information posted, then its no point debating or discussing. If you engage in a debate you are obligated to watch or read every piece of information being given to you. If you are relucant to do so, its a lose-lose situation and the debate will just go on and on.



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
ProTip: If you are going to insult and denigrate others' intelligence or understanding, don't disguise it in righteous garb by adding clauses such as "May Allah grant you wisdom".
Never done so alhamdulillah, thats how you percieve it. I only made dua to Allah that HE may protect you from ignorance insha'Allah. Isnt that good? Propaganda has always been used to justify wars, in the past and today. When the enemies of Allah(SWT) and the muslims demonize us then they do it through these lies. May Allah(SWT) protect us from the tricks and deceptions of our enemies. Ameen



format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
During the relevant time period, Palestine was controlled by the Seljuk Turks, not the Fatimids.
I know, but the pilgrims who came from spain needed to travel through north-africa and egypt was currently controlled by the fatimids.

format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Don't you guys get a headache doing this?
I have bro lol but it seems like its going to end now since bro futuwwa is relucant to watch and read certain pieces of information i gave :)

Therefore i will end the debate now, sis islamica wont be happy when she reads the topic and neither will the mods.

May Allah forgive me from upsetting some people during this debate and may HE grant victory to us. Ameen
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 07:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
If you engage in a debate you are obligated to watch or read every piece of information being given to you.
Really now? Let's see where this notion of yours will lead us.



I assert that Saladin was a baby-eater.

As proof, I present the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, will you read through the entire 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, or will you forfeit and agree with me that Saladin was a baby-eater? Because under the rules of debate you assert that I should follow, you will have to do either or, there is no third option.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Really now? Let's see where this notion of yours will lead us.



I assert that Saladin was a baby-eater.

As proof, I present the 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, will you read through the entire 13th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, or will you forfeit and agree with me that Saladin was a baby-eater? Because under the rules of debate you assert that I should follow, you will have to do either or, there is no third option.
These lectures i provided aren't long, i agree you have a point. But the lectures i provided are not long and the documentaries i placed. These are still different than from books. So the example you gave is kind of weak. If you want to have knowledge of a certain subject you should watch lectures about it. I only say to you, that gaining knowledge about the start of crusades, the end and how it fits today is not wrong and hence i suggest you to read articles, excerpts from books and documentaries about it. What i said was not a small thing, i just gave some facts about the start of the crusade.

What were the Crusades?
The Crusades were fought during the middle ages by the Catholic Church in western Europe against heretics or in other words, Muslims because their belief differed from that of the official church. The first Crusades was launched by Pope Orban the second in 1095. This was the longest and largest Crusade of the Christian church and lasted for over 200 years, It was fought in the Middle East against Muslims and Islam. The apparent aim was to take the holy land of Palestine which was revered by Christians and was a place of pilgrimage for them. The Pope claimed that the land was controlled by Infidels', which is what they called the Muslims. But the more implicit political agenda was to militarily attack the ever expanding Islamic State, due to fear and horror that Islam may eventually enter Europe. It had already reached the gates of Vienna and France, so the Church inevitably felt threatened.
Crusade Fever
During the Middle Ages Europe was a feudal society controlled by the monarchy, clergy and 'knights'. The church in Europe at this time had the upmost authority, the Pope being the head of the church had the most power and therefore he had political interest in society. The Crusades where part of the church's wish to expand its empire. At the time of his call to destroy Islam in the Middle East, the Pope realised that the church's political interests could be furthered as the Byzantine Empire (controlled by the Greek Orthodox Church) was requesting help against the Muslims, from Rome. If the Crusades where fought and won, it would mean geographical expansion of political power and authority for the Church.
The whole of Europe was gripped by "Crusade Fever ". The military venture was seen as a confrontation between the truth of Christianity against the supposedly demonic and ignorant face of Islam which had been painted by the church. This propaganda Included attacking the authenticity of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who were both tagged imposters, sorcerery, satanic, evil, and pagan. Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was considered sexually promiscuous and lewd, an alcoholic, gambler and pimp. From this wretched fabrication, the church concluded that all Muslims were despotic and evil, to the extent where not only did they resemble beasts in their behavior, but also in their looks. So ridiculous were all these allegations, yet they were unquestioned and lapped up by the people, and added to the justification of attacking the Muslim world. These essentially became the roots of the long and continuing attack on Islam by the west, especially from its development into Orientalism. Years later, when the Crusades were subject of huge romanticisation, Chateaulri and would write about how the Crusades were the
'glorious Christian attempt to liberate the Muslims from the only thing they knew which is force.
This is ironically more accurate a picture of the Crusades rather than the Muslims.
The church had little worry of acquiring the military force that would be needed for the war; the religious hysteria which the church had evoked by using the above and similar depictions of Islam and the Muslims was enough to fund and haul support for the cause of the Crusades. Additionally this was one of the first times in history when European countries successfully mobilised against a common enemy further strengthening the Christian position. Driven by the Church's promise of eternal paradise and martyrdom, and seething, blind hatred for the 'barbaric' Muslims, a mass exodus of knights and peasants left Europe particularly from France, Germany and England, to conquer and ruthlessly kill the Muslims and take Jerusalem.
Muslims Divided
After three years of traveling, encountering Muslims and fighting, pillaging, raping, for example in Constantinople, the kuffar reached Jerusalem and took control. Why did they enjoy such a success? This was due to the fact that the Muslims at the time were deeply divided as a result of the dispute over the Khliafah (Islamic State); there was a division between the Abbasid and Fatimid families. Palestine was the place where the conflict between the Muslims took place, making them weak and the land easy to occupy. After occupying Palestine, the kuffar founded new states which where called "Outremer" (a French word meaning overseas). A king was established in Jerusalem and military expansion occurred when more knights where recruited from Europe, such as the knights Templar. The Muslims closed off the north and Outremer became like a fortress. Anyone coming Into Outremer from Europe had to do so by the sea. Eventually the Templar Knights became rich and powerful and by 1187 they where the biggest land owners in the Middle East. However the Crusaders' power could only be maintained while the Muslims remained divided, the policy they applied to achieve this was divide and rude.
Salah Ud-Din's Rise to Power.
Amidst the turmoil, a strong group of Muslims arose to challenge and defeat the power of the Outremer. In 1144 a Muslim by the name of Zengi took control of Edessa the most northern of the Outremer states, his son Nur Ad Din also participated in the jihad against the crusaders and the weakness of their states became more evident. An officer of Nur AdDin, Salah Ud-Din Ayubi overthrew the Crusaders and united the Muslims. Salah Ud-Din overthrew the kuffar in many areas such as Damascus ( 1174 ) Aleppo ( 1183 ) and Mosud ( 1186 ), these areas surrounded the Outremer. Salah Ud-Din led an army against the Christians in Tiberias, the king of Jerusalem sent knights to attack the army but failed and the Muslims recaptured Jerusalem without killing a single person in the city.
The church in Europe was shocked at the fact that they had lost Jerusalem to the Muslims. The church started to organise a further Crusade and requested the assistance of European riders (or butchers) such as Frederick Barbarossa, the German Holy Roman Emperor who had taken part in the earlier Crusades Philip Augustus of France and (the barbaric) Richard 1 of England known as Richard the Lionheart, who was responsible for the massacre of Muslims at Acre. It was reported that the streets were covered with Muslim blood. Nonetheless, the Crusaders failed to regain their previous stature and capture Jerusalem, and Salah Ud-Din maintained power.
The Decline
It became clear to the Crusaders after a long war which spanned generations that they where not a military match to the Muslims. European leaders left the Middle East after having their own power and authority threatened in their homelands, such as Richard 1 of England who left his brother John on the throne in England realizing that John was reluctant to hand the authority back. Military allies of the Pope lost confidence in the churches loyalty after the Greek Orthodox Church offered money to the church to help them place Alexius, son of the former emperor of Greece in power which meant they had double crossed the Greeks. After the murder of Alexius the Crusaders where sent to capture Byzantium instead. Byzantium later fell to Muslims in 1453. As we can see, the Crusaders had to cope with much political dissension and corruption on their own territory, which made it increasingly difficult to wage military campaigns against the Muslims as Islam was expanding at a rate which they could not stop, or where not willing to take on. More accurately, though victory is in the hands of Allah or He (SWT) says:
We hurl the truth against the falsehood and it knocks out it's brain and behold, the falsehood does perish." (Quran 21:18)
Europe did gain many things as a result of the Crusades against Islam. As a result, Europe progressed materially, they advanced their knowledge in science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, navigation and trade. Many new textiles such as silk reached Europe because of this new trade route established by the European presence in the Middle East, as well as spices and fruit. Many books where translated by Muslims from Arabic into Latin and used in European universities. This period in European history was called "The Enlightenment ". Unfortunately for Europe they only took materially from the Muslims and not the complete Deen of Allah (SWT). The military Crusades where the beginning of the long attack against Islam in the west.
Today Europe relishes in the propaganda against Islam, creating myths and stereotypes and perpetuating them in order to create a climate of Islamophobia. Words like Saracens, barbaric and Infidels where created in the past to negatively and wrongly stereotype Muslims and today they have been replaced by words like Terrorist, Fundamentalist or Extremist as we often see in the western media.
The crusading continues but manifests differently today Allah (SWT ) says in the Qur'an:
"...Hatred is revealed by the utterance of their (the kuffar's) mouth, but that which their breast hides is greater..." (Quran 3:118)

… and so Muslims must wake up and take responsibility of their situation and educate themselves in Islam, so that they do not feel apologetic about the slander and crusade against Islam, but can stand up and defeat it, like Salah Ud-Din and his army did. Islam is the Truth, we should take pride in that, and remember that the Truth will always prevail. over the falsehood, by the Will of Allah (SWT).

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/crusades.htm

''The Crusades were a series of wars taking place in Asia Minor and the Levant between 1095 and 1291, in which Western European nations engaged using the propaganda of religious expeditionary wars. The first crusade was called by Pope Urban II of the Roman Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to theholy places in and near Jerusalem. The background to the Crusades was the centuries of Arab–Byzantine Warsand the Seljuq-Byzantine Wars and the recent decisive defeat of the Byzantine army by Seljuk Turks at Manzikertin 1071. The Norman conqueror Robert Guiscard's conquest of Byzantine territories added to the problems of the Byzantine Empire. In an attempt to curtail both dangers, its Emperor Alexios I sought to align Christian nations against a common enemy, requested western aid, and Pope Urban II in turn enlisted western leaders in the cause of taking back the Holy Land.[1]''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

It shocks me that muslims like you are not taking examples of history to justify their crusades back then and to justify the crusades of today.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
03-24-2013, 08:03 PM
The Prophet (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a home in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud]

So therefore i stop this now.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-24-2013, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
What were the Crusades?
The Crusades were fought during the middle ages by the Catholic Church in western Europe against heretics or in other words, Muslims because their belief differed from that of the official church. The first Crusades was launched by Pope Orban the second in 1095. This was the longest and largest Crusade of the Christian church and lasted for over 200 years, It was fought in the Middle East against Muslims and Islam. The apparent aim was to take the holy land of Palestine which was revered by Christians and was a place of pilgrimage for them. The Pope claimed that the land was controlled by Infidels', which is what they called the Muslims. But the more implicit political agenda was to militarily attack the ever expanding Islamic State, due to fear and horror that Islam may eventually enter Europe. It had already reached the gates of Vienna and France, so the Church inevitably felt threatened.
Vienna? Already? This is in 1095. The only Islamic power to reach and attack Vienna would have been the Ottoman Empire, which tried to capture it in 1529 and 1683, several centuries after the Crusades to Jerusalem.

That whoever wrote that piece managed to get such an elementary fact wrong should be sufficient reason to reject it as garbage with, at best, utterly incidental correlation with actual historical facts. Are you going to uncritically accept anything you read simply because it's written by a Muslim and happens to conform to a pre-established idea of the Muslims as the Good Guys of history?

Not that there's anything there contradicting the notion that pilgrim abuse happened prior to the First Crusade, mind you.
Reply

Independent
03-24-2013, 09:12 PM
Jedi, you have given a wholly one-sided view of history which makes one set of people out to be 100% bad, and another set to be 100% good. How is that balanced?

Your overview (a 1000 year anti Muslim conspiracy) is entirely conjectural. Above all, it's the absurdity of the idea that western Europe in the 11th century could ever conceive of such a world domination master-plan, when simply getting through the next decade was a constant challenge.

it's a hugely anachronistic account, written with the benefit of knowing what the west would one day become, not what it was in the 1100s.
Reply

جوري
03-24-2013, 09:23 PM
^^ you'd benefit reading more and writing less in general- even if for no political reasons at least historical ones, you know in lieu of the folder they hand you in your cubicle with ready made answers!

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu...mb.mission.htm

best,
Reply

سيف الله
03-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Salaam

Thought this was a nice summary of what the Iraq war was about.

Reply

سيف الله
03-25-2013, 12:09 AM
Salaam

Some analysis



Reply

IAmZamzam
03-25-2013, 01:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Thought this was a nice summary of what the Iraq war was about.

That was so moving it actually made me feel ashamed. All I did at the time was basically just march in a single anti-war parade and participate in a few internet protests and and now, ten years later, this blazing voice from the past has made me suddenly come over all sheepish about not contributing more.
Reply

Joseph86
03-25-2013, 07:14 PM
We stand together because we are democracies. For as noisy and messy as it may be, we know that democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man. America is a republic not a democratic state.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-25-2013, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
That was so moving it actually made me feel ashamed.
Yeah I barfed.
Reply

جوري
03-25-2013, 08:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joseph86
democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man
It is actually not. People don't know what they're doing and they don't agree and a group of buffoons agreeing doesn't make it any more ideal or great.

best,
Reply

islamica
03-26-2013, 03:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joseph86
democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man. .

Reply

islamica
03-26-2013, 03:46 AM
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE FOR IRAQI CHILDREN....


Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah (VIDEO)


On the war's ten-year anniversary, Democracy Now! spoke with Dahr Jamail, an Al Jazeera reporter who recently returned from Iraq. Jamail recounts meeting Dr. Samira Alani, a doctor in the city of Fallujah focusing on the issue of birth defects.

She said it's common now in Fallujah for newborns to come out with massive multiple systemic defects, immune problems, massive central nervous system problems, massive heart problems, skeletal disorders, babies being born with two heads, babies being born with half of their internal organs outside of their bodies, cyclops babies literally with one eye -- really, really, really horrific nightmarish types of birth defects.
Jamail says that the current rate of birth defects for the city of Fallujah has surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks at the end of World War II.

More @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...#slide=2241560
Reply

Karl
03-28-2013, 10:31 PM
Satan wanted democracy that's why God demoted him. But the USA worships him as you can see, actions speak louder than words.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-28-2013, 10:48 PM
Wow I have learnt so much from this topic. 8 pages of useful drivel!
Reply

سيف الله
03-28-2013, 11:46 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Wow I have learnt so much from this topic. 8 pages of useful drivel!
Oh the irony. . . .

Yes I know, I took the bait. . . . .
Reply

GuestFellow
03-28-2013, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Yes I know, I took the bait. . . . .
:sl:

Hook, line, and sinker...
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!