Western Soldiers out of Iraq

[HeiGou]

All British soldiers to be out of Iraq in 12 months
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Sunday Telegraph
(Filed: 05/03/2006)

All British and United States troops serving in Iraq will be withdrawn within a year in an effort to bring peace and stability to the country.

The news came as defence chiefs admitted privately that the British troop commitment in Afghanistan may last for up to 10 years.

Iraqi soldiers
Iraq's national defence force will assume responsibility for security

The planned pull-out from Iraq follows the acceptance by London and Washington that the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace.

According to a senior defence source directly involved in planning the withdrawal, Britain is the driving force behind the scheme. The early spring of next year has been identified as the optimum time for the start of the complex and dangerous operation.

The source explained that troop numbers were expected to decrease slightly over the next 12 months but that the bulk of British and American forces, who make up 138,000 of the coalition's 153,000 troops, would be withdrawn simultaneously.

The British and American military had hoped to begin removing their forces from Iraq this year but those plans were shelved because of worsening security and the failure of both Sunni and Shia leaders to form a government of national unity.

The source added that the British Army had still not recovered - in terms of training and intervals between operational tours - from the war in Iraq almost three years ago.

In recent months, both the US and British governments have both come under sustained pressure to name a date when the coalition will begin the withdrawal of forces.

President George W Bush's popularity is at an all-time low in opinion polls and the Iraq war has so far cost the American taxpayer £150 billion. US forces have sustained more than 18,000 casualties; 2,297 servicemen have been killed.

The cost to the British Government is estimated at £3 billion and 103 servicemen have died on operations.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that coalition forces, comprising troops from 24 countries, will begin to reduce their presence on the ground markedly over the next few months.

They will withdraw to their bases, where they will in effect become a garrison force to be deployed only in emergency.

British Armed Forces are also expected to hand over control of the notoriously dangerous Maysan province, where two soldiers were killed in a bomb attack last week, and the more peaceful al-Muthanna province, in the next few months.

Eventual responsibility for day-to-day security in Iraq will be taken over by the Iraqi Defence Force, which now numbers more than 232,000 police officers and soldiers.

One of the factors in the debate over withdrawal from Iraq has been the impetus of the looming long-term task in Afghanistan, Operation Herrick, which will see the deployment of a further 3,500 British troops.

The source said: "Our presence [in Iraq] is now part of the problem. That is a situation which is now accepted by both governments. We are viewed as an occupation force even though, at the moment, we are in Iraq at the invitation of the government.

"Every time we go out on patrol we run the risk of drawing fire and taking unnecessary casualties. The security situation will not improve in the short term, whether we are in Iraq or not."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said there was no fixed date for a withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What a shame they didn't realise all the havoc that would be caused by the invasion. They had most of the world telling them not to do it.

Peace

[HeiGou]

What a shame they didn't realise all the havoc that would be caused by the invasion. They had most of the world telling them not to do it.

True. Something good may come of it though. For one thing it has burst a few bubbles about the nature of democracy and the Middle East. For another it has, for what it is worth, shown Islamic militants to be what they are - there have been protests in Jordan after all. Every Muslim can see what Islamic radicalism means and they can decide if they are on the side of bombers, beheaders and Shrine destroyers. It may even be the case that something democratic-ish will emerge in Iraq.

[wysiwyg]

HieGou,

Have you got the URL for that article?

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

[abdul Majid]

nice plan....they invade cuase a whole bunch of trouble, and they leave, and start wars.....typical bull

[DaNgErOuS MiNdS]

Right from the beggining the US/UK were urged not to go. 100's of thousands people protested in UK to stop UK forces going to war in Iraq but they went because they were detremined to find WMD's. They didnt find WMD's, 1000's innocent lives were lost and Iraq is in worse state thenit was to begin with.

Heigu - What do you expect "Islamic militants" to do?? sit back and have a cup of tea while there country, family gets blown to its? no countries people will just sit back and allow that to happen!

[Pinkie]

Right from the beggining the US/UK were urged not to go. 100's of thousands people protested in UK to stop UK forces going to war in Iraq but they went because they were detremined to find WMD's. They didnt find WMD's, 1000's innocent lives were lost and Iraq is in worse state thenit was to begin with.

Heigu - What do you expect "Islamic militants" to do?? sit back and have a cup of tea while there country, family gets blown to its? no countries people will just sit back and allow that to happen!

Exactly!! It's silly to watch the news and hear about those "Islamic Militants". Pssshh, I know I wouldn't sit back and relax if my country was invaded.

[bangalore bob]

nice plan....they invade cuase a whole bunch of trouble, and they leave, and start wars.....typical bull

I think that Sadaam should be put back into power and we should leave Iraq. That seems to be what the world wants.

[Wahid]

just a rumor by some newspapers, US and UK denied it
but i wouldnt be suprised if they did pull out given pressure they are in from mujahdeen :happy:

[HeiGou]

Have you got the URL for that article?

It was in the recent Sunday telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk

There is a similar article today.

I would provide a full ink but you need to sign up for their service.

[HeiGou]

Right from the beggining the US/UK were urged not to go. 100's of thousands people protested in UK to stop UK forces going to war in Iraq but they went because they were detremined to find WMD's. They didnt find WMD's, 1000's innocent lives were lost and Iraq is in worse state thenit was to begin with.

Well in many ways Iraq is better off that it was - sanctions have gone for one thing. That is an improvement. Think of how many babies were dying due to the UN sanctions. Iraq cna only get better from here.

Heigu - What do you expect "Islamic militants" to do?? sit back and have a cup of tea while there country, family gets blown to its? no countries people will just sit back and allow that to happen!

The Afghans are. People are getting blown to bits because of the insurgents, not the other way around. I do not know what I expected the insurgents to do - nothing they have done that is for sure. I expected more violence from the Shia - as the Americans would have denied them an Islamic state - and less from the Sunnis - as the Americans would be preferable to the Shia. As it turns out the Sunni insurgents have bombed the Americans out and the Iranians in. Not clever I would have thought.

[DaNgErOuS MiNdS]

Well in many ways Iraq is better off that it was - sanctions have gone for one thing. That is an improvement. Think of how many babies were dying due to the UN sanctions. Iraq cna only get better from here.

You sound like a have been employed by the white house. Iraq is not better off and it is pretty plain to see.

The Afghans are. People are getting blown to bits because of the insurgents, not the other way around. I do not know what I expected the insurgents to do - nothing they have done that is for sure. I expected more violence from the Shia - as the Americans would have denied them an Islamic state - and less from the Sunnis - as the Americans would be preferable to the Shia. As it turns out the Sunni insurgents have bombed the Americans out and the Iranians in. Not clever I would have thought.

Afghans are?? is that why a further 3,000 have been sent to Afghanistan?

Taliban violence in the south has spiked dramatically over recent months as the deployment nears of more than 6,000 Nato troops from Britain, the Netherlands and Canada.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...703180,00.html

People are getting blown to bits because Iraq was invaded. You make it sound as if US/UK came equipped for a tea party..

[HeiGou]

You sound like a have been employed by the white house. Iraq is not better off and it is pretty plain to see.

Well if they want to offer me a job to do what I do anyway, by all means. I could do with the money.

Exactly how is it plain to see? The media likes disaster and so gives a lot of that. But it does not give good news stories by and large. Can we all agree sanctions are gone? Can we all agree those sanctions led to the deaths of many Iraqis mostly babies? How many more would have died if Sanctions had remained in place?

Afghans are?? is that why a further 3,000 have been sent to Afghanistan?

A rotation I believe. But even so there is a token number of Western soldiers in Afghanistan. If all Afghans sneezed at once they would be blown away.

People are getting blown to bits because Iraq was invaded. You make it sound as if US/UK came equipped for a tea party..

They did not come equipped for what happened - not enough soldiers, no planning, nothing. They did not expect the looting and they did not expect the insurgency. They should have perhaps, but tea party is clearly not far off the mark of what they did expect.

Afghanistan was invaded and no one is, or few people are, being blown to bits there.

[Smok]

Polish soldiers will leave Iraq too. It is good news because most Poles (almost 90%) think that occupation of Iraq is shame for us.

[hamzaa]

Peace

We have heard this nonsense before! Isn't it ironic how they the civil tension between the sunnis/sh'ites, will be used as an excuse to justify thier presence!!

[Wahid]

Peace

We have heard this nonsense before! Isn't it ironic how they the civil tension between the sunnis/sh'ites, will be used as an excuse to justify thier presence!!

yea and pple say civil war isnt in US best interest, its in their best interest indeed to justify their stay in this unpopular war at home and they are creating it

[HeiGou]

yea and pple say civil war isnt in US best interest, its in their best interest indeed to justify their stay in this unpopular war at home and they are creating it

Exactly how does this justify their stay? Nor is there any sign they are creating this mess - what is your evidence? Sunnis and Shia have been oppressing each other whenever they have had the chance since Ali was alive. What makes you think the US wants anything other than to get their Army out as soon as possible? After all it is pretty much their entire Army tied up in Iraq.

[Wahid]

Exactly how does this justify their stay? Nor is there any sign they are creating this mess - what is your evidence? Sunnis and Shia have been oppressing each other whenever they have had the chance since Ali was alive. What makes you think the US wants anything other than to get their Army out as soon as possible? After all it is pretty much their entire Army tied up in Iraq.

ok so u beleive the US gov? that they want out asap?ok but what if by a civil war they can crush the sunni insurgents much faster lets say withing 2 years and then they can establish a puppet gov on their own terms and leave saying we have compeletely defeated our enemies and made iraq democratic

rigth now the image of US in the world is that they are not winning this war and thats not good for the worlds most powerfull militry, they would rather defeat their enemies and then leave, it will be much easier to defeat the resistance with local pple fighting against them such as shia

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Not soon enough.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

True. Something good may come of it though. For one thing it has burst a few bubbles about the nature of democracy and the Middle East. For another it has, for what it is worth, shown Islamic militants to be what they are - there have been protests in Jordan after all. Every Muslim can see what Islamic radicalism means and they can decide if they are on the side of bombers, beheaders and Shrine destroyers. It may even be the case that something democratic-ish will emerge in Iraq.

Democracy, pshh, who needs it. If you're talking about Western Democracy, we're all better off without it. Funny how democracy rhymes with hypocrisy....

[abdul Majid]

Lol

[HeiGou]

ok so u beleive the US gov? that they want out asap?ok but what if by a civil war they can crush the sunni insurgents much faster lets say withing 2 years and then they can establish a puppet gov on their own terms and leave saying we have compeletely defeated our enemies and made iraq democratic

The US may have wanted to stay originally. They may have wanted some thing like the Philippines or Japan. But they do not seem to want to any more. How can they crush the insurgents? The only way they can do that is by what they cannot do - brutal military suppression. Their only chance was to have a friendly population. The Administration is still claiming there is one and that the insurgents do not represent the majority, but who believes that any more? They went in on the assumption they would be welcomed and it has not worked out that way. What they will do now is let the Shia do what they will inevitably do to crush the insurgents - rather like how Iran crushed the Fedayeen probably - but only once they have gone.

rigth now the image of US in the world is that they are not winning this war and thats not good for the worlds most powerfull militry, they would rather defeat their enemies and then leave, it will be much easier to defeat the resistance with local pple fighting against them such as shia

Yeah but that boat has sailed. No one is going to believe that the US is winning this war and the US military cannot do what it will take to crush it. The question now is how many more Americans will die and nothing else.

[HeiGou]

Democracy, pshh, who needs it. If you're talking about Western Democracy, we're all better off without it. Funny how democracy rhymes with hypocrisy....

I don't know about that "we". But of course if you take this line, and you are perfectly free to do so, the inevitable consequence is government oppresion like in Syria or Egypt or wherever. After all the chances of you or your friends being tortured for their views is higher than the chances of you all torturing others. Democracy is a stupid system but it enables power to be transfered from unpopular to less unpopular governments without anyone being hurt. Without democracy how are you going to manage that?

[renak]

War in any country will create an insurgency. In time the insurgency will disolve. Do I think the US needs to leave Iraq? Absolutely not. The United States is responsible for rebuilding and securing the country. From what I've read, the Iraqi government is incapable of their own defense at this point.

Was the US justified in invading Iraq? Everyone has their opinion. From my viewpoint, the US was justified in the invasion due to the ties they had to Al-Qaida. After 9/11 Bush warned other nations that they were either for us, or against us. All evidence points toward Iraq being against the US battle against terrorism.

[Wahid]

Yeah but that boat has sailed. No one is going to believe that the US is winning this war and the US military cannot do what it will take to crush it. The question now is how many more Americans will die and nothing else.

lol and u beleive that? they have huge egos backed by militry muscles and it wont take 2k US soldeirs dead to break that... maybe 50k+ like in vienam

[HeiGou]

War in any country will create an insurgency. In time the insurgency will disolve.

I do not think it is true that war in any country will create an insurgency. It usually takes some sort of trigger. Germany did not face an insurgency in most of Europe and where it did, that insurgency was led by Communists. The Allies faced no insurgency in Germany or Italy or Japan. Violence of the guerilla/terrorist sort is highly associated with several specific ideologies. No ideologies, no terrorism. You may have a low level insurgency based on some social structures such as tribalism (if you colonise a country and undermine the tribal way of life they will resist) but that will not spill out into anything larger without an organising ideology behind it.

Nor do insurgencies dissolve with time necessarily. Tribal rebellions may do so. But ideological ones do not. The Malaysian Communist Party only gave up the struggle a little while ago. The FARC has been fighting since the 1950s.

Do I think the US needs to leave Iraq? Absolutely not. The United States is responsible for rebuilding and securing the country. From what I've read, the Iraqi government is incapable of their own defense at this point.

Yes but they are bound to get help from Iran. The US cannot supply what Iraq needs now to end the fighting - Islamic legitimacy and a willingness to murder and torture thousands of people. Iran can. As long as the US holds the government back from doing what needs to be done, the insurgency will go on.

[renak]

I do not think it is true that war in any country will create an insurgency. It usually takes some sort of trigger. Germany did not face an insurgency in most of Europe and where it did, that insurgency was led by Communists. The Allies faced no insurgency in Germany or Italy or Japan. Violence of the guerilla/terrorist sort is highly associated with several specific ideologies. No ideologies, no terrorism. You may have a low level insurgency based on some social structures such as tribalism (if you colonise a country and undermine the tribal way of life they will resist) but that will not spill out into anything larger without an organising ideology behind it.

Nor do insurgencies dissolve with time necessarily. Tribal rebellions may do so. But ideological ones do not. The Malaysian Communist Party only gave up the struggle a little while ago. The FARC has been fighting since the 1950s.

Yes but they are bound to get help from Iran. The US cannot supply what Iraq needs now to end the fighting - Islamic legitimacy and a willingness to murder and torture thousands of people. Iran can. As long as the US holds the government back from doing what needs to be done, the insurgency will go on.

I still hold to my belief that all wars will create an insurgency. During WWII Germany did have an insurgency, "Operation Werewolf". The insurgency lasted a couple years, then the people came to the realization that the allied forces were there to help rebuild, and the insurgency deteriorated. Hopefully this will happen in Iraq.

I also want to point out that during WWII Italy had an insurgency, as did Yugoslavia...I'm unsure off the top of my head about other countries, but I would wager that they in fact had one as well.

[HeiGou]

I still hold to my belief that all wars will create an insurgency. During WWII Germany did have an insurgency, "Operation Werewolf". The insurgency lasted a couple years, then the people came to the realization that the allied forces were there to help rebuild, and the insurgency deteriorated. Hopefully this will happen in Iraq.

They had an operation but it never got off the ground. The Germans took defeat well. Of course the Germans remained in control of Germany. The Iraqi Sunnis must know any outcome will result in a Shia government They can only hope to puff themselves up and try to impress on people that anyone who takes them on will pay a heavy price and so hope for lenient treatment. In the past that may have worked but in the modern world I am not so sure it will.

I also want to point out that during WWII Italy had an insurgency, as did Yugoslavia...I'm unsure off the top of my head about other countries, but I would wager that they in fact had one as well.

As I said "Germany did not face an insurgency in most of Europe and where it did, that insurgency was led by Communists."

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

I don't know about that "we". But of course if you take this line, and you are perfectly free to do so, the inevitable consequence is government oppresion like in Syria or Egypt or wherever. After all the chances of you or your friends being tortured for their views is higher than the chances of you all torturing others. Democracy is a stupid system but it enables power to be transfered from unpopular to less unpopular governments without anyone being hurt. Without democracy how are you going to manage that?

Democracy sounds innocent enough, but the thing that there is democracy for some and operession for others. For example, here in Britain you can be imprisoned under teh new anti-terror law if you say you agree/support resistance in places like Iraq or Palestine. What ever happened to freedom of speech?:rollseyes
Also it's interesting to point out that this doesn't include support for the IRA. Hmmm... now why would that be?

[HeiGou]

Democracy sounds innocent enough, but the thing that there is democracy for some and operession for others. For example, here in Britain you can be imprisoned under teh new anti-terror law if you say you agree/support resistance in places like Iraq or Palestine. What ever happened to freedom of speech?:rollseyes
Also it's interesting to point out that this doesn't include support for the IRA. Hmmm... now why would that be?

As opposed to, say for example, Saudi Arabia? Oppression for some is better than oppression for all who are not cousins of the King. At least in my opinion. Nor do the laws say you will go to jail if you support the "resistance" in Iraq although I think people ought to. But only if you "glorify" terrorism. And as far as I can see it is an equal opportunity law in that it would apply to the IRA too. Not that it is law yet.

Besides some freedom of speech is better than none. In fact the more the better. Name a Middle Eastern country with anywhere near the level of free speech as the UK. If you do not like that law you can agitate against it. Not many places you can do that.

You still have not answered, and perhaps not thought about, how to change governments if they are oppressive. How would you do this without a ballot box?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Was the US justified in invading Iraq? Everyone has their opinion. From my viewpoint, the US was justified in the invasion due to the ties they had to Al-Qaida.

Who had ties with Al-Qaeda?

After 9/11 Bush warned other nations that they were either for us, or against us.

It's precisely that kind of dualistic thinking that has made Bush the most divisive US president of modern times.

Peace

[renak]

Greetings,


Who had ties with Al-Qaeda?



It's precisely that kind of dualistic thinking that has made Bush the most divisive US president of modern times.

Peace

There are many reported connections between the Ba'athist party and the funneling of cash to Al-Qaida.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There are many reported connections between the Ba'athist party and the funneling of cash to Al-Qaida.

Interesting. Could you share any of these reports?

I'd heard that the opposite was the case - that Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies. I'm not an expert, though, so any information you could provide would be helpful.

Peace

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

As opposed to, say for example, Saudi Arabia? Oppression for some is better than oppression for all who are not cousins of the King. At least in my opinion. Nor do the laws say you will go to jail if you support the "resistance" in Iraq although I think people ought to. But only if you "glorify" terrorism. And as far as I can see it is an equal opportunity law in that it would apply to the IRA too. Not that it is law yet.

Besides some freedom of speech is better than none. In fact the more the better. Name a Middle Eastern country with anywhere near the level of free speech as the UK. If you do not like that law you can agitate against it. Not many places you can do that.

You still have not answered, and perhaps not thought about, how to change governments if they are oppressive. How would you do this without a ballot box?

That's easy enough for you, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE BEING OPRESSED!
I root for there being a place somewhere in the world one day implementing shari'ah. Man i would migrate there faster than you can say 'hijrah'.

[hamzaa]

There are many reported connections between the Ba'athist party and the funneling of cash to Al-Qaida.

Peace,

Link to these reports?

[renak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326544

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=37704

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155959/posts

[czgibson]

Greetings,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326544

This report says that Iyad Allawi believes there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. He would say that, though, wouldn't he? In the interview he sidesteps the question of whether he is a US stooge and even uses the diction of President Bush: "We are going to prevail." Anyway, Allawi's belief is neither here nor there. No evidence has yet surfaced on whether the alleged connection genuinely existed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=37704

This article claims that Richard Clarke once believed there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but that he doesn't any more.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155959/posts

I couldn't connect to this site for some reason.

So, basically, we're still waiting for any evidence that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Renak, if you're prepared to base your view that the invasion of Iraq was justified on such flimsy evidence as this then I'm very surprised.

Peace

[knuckles]

That's easy enough for you, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE BEING OPRESSED!
I root for there being a place somewhere in the world one day implementing shari'ah. Man i would migrate there faster than you can say 'hijrah'

You would? Then why weren't you living in Pre-Invasion Afghanistan? They implemented shari'ah and I hear it wasn't pretty.

[Isaac]

it wasnt pretty hey, well at at least crime was down, rape was down, herroin export were down, what a shame for the cia. what about now, alcohol, gosh that heroin you could feel it here. big respect to the taliban , for at least trying to imlement the sharia. what bout other muslim countries. if tey so called had love for the sharia, they would have and should have helped afghanistan, wether it be finanivailly or through other means such as economic ect ect. but no body wanted to hey. mind you i herd parts of pakistan are taking on sharia law, which is why the bush crew is making sure tha musharraf crew bomb their so called al-qaeda hideouts there. man what a day that would be to see sharia implemneted, without an outsider complaining. what a day would it be to see sharia back in the lands where it once was so respected, loved and appreciated even by the kuffar.

[Khattab]

True. Something good may come of it though. For one thing it has burst a few bubbles about the nature of democracy and the Middle East. For another it has, for what it is worth, shown Islamic militants to be what they are - there have been protests in Jordan after all. Every Muslim can see what Islamic radicalism means and they can decide if they are on the side of bombers, beheaders and Shrine destroyers. It may even be the case that something democratic-ish will emerge in Iraq.

Well you say that, but has it not shown the american and british troops for what they are? Killing, torturing and beating innocent Iraqis?

I doubt any muslim who follows the true teachings of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah, would ever condone beheadings and killings of any innocent people.

The war in Iraq was illegal, first we are told WMD as well as other things, now we are told the war was to spread the ideolgy of democracy. Imagne if muslims invaded the USA or UK, to implement Shariah Law, the uproar would be unimaginable. Now other middle eastern countries are being targeted in order to spead the beliefs of certain people. And these certain people claim freedom yet they are determined to spread their beliefs and systems with violence and war.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

You would? Then why weren't you living in Pre-Invasion Afghanistan? They implemented shari'ah and I hear it wasn't pretty.

No they didn't! Neither does saudi arabia or iran. They mingle the laws of Allah with their own twisted man-made laws!

[renak]

Greetings,


This report says that Iyad Allawi believes there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. He would say that, though, wouldn't he? In the interview he sidesteps the question of whether he is a US stooge and even uses the diction of President Bush: "We are going to prevail." Anyway, Allawi's belief is neither here nor there. No evidence has yet surfaced on whether the alleged connection genuinely existed.



This article claims that Richard Clarke once believed there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but that he doesn't any more.



I couldn't connect to this site for some reason.

So, basically, we're still waiting for any evidence that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Renak, if you're prepared to base your view that the invasion of Iraq was justified on such flimsy evidence as this then I'm very surprised.

Peace

In 1999 Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, which is more than suspicious. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9...ghan.binladen/

It's being suggested that Saddam operated training camps for islamic terrorists. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/550kmbzd.asp

I could list many links, and those who do not support the US being in Iraq could list just as many links. Therefore, I will no longer debate this topic.

[HeiGou]

That's easy enough for you, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE BEING OPRESSED!

But what you do not understand is that there is a good reason why I am not oppressed and there is a good reason why all your brothers and sisters are. What do you think that is? I would argue that culture has a lot to do with it. So perhaps if you were interested in abolishing oppression you ought to listen to people who live without oppression? But of course if you are merely interested in oppressing others instead of being oppressed yourself, there is no point.

I root for there being a place somewhere in the world one day implementing shari'ah. Man i would migrate there faster than you can say 'hijrah'.

I am all for that. By all means, work to that end. Tell me, given you dislike of democracy how do you think that might arise except through oppression?

[HeiGou]

Well you say that, but has it not shown the american and british troops for what they are? Killing, torturing and beating innocent Iraqis?

It certainly has been an eye-opener for many people.

I doubt any muslim who follows the true teachings of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah, would ever condone beheadings and killings of any innocent people.

The two weasel words in that sentence being "true" and "innocent". As long as you can define the true teachings of Islam to your own satisfaction that is a bet you cannot lose. And what makes a person guilty?

The war in Iraq was illegal, first we are told WMD as well as other things, now we are told the war was to spread the ideolgy of democracy.

Actually George W Bush was clear that democracy was a goal all along. And the war was not illegal. The justification in a legal sense was the lack of implementation of UN resolutions.

Imagne if muslims invaded the USA or UK, to implement Shariah Law, the uproar would be unimaginable.

Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal. Even in Iraq the violence only comes from the Sunnis who fear democracy, not from the Kurds or the Shia.

Now other middle eastern countries are being targeted in order to spead the beliefs of certain people. And these certain people claim freedom yet they are determined to spread their beliefs and systems with violence and war.

Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

[hamzaa]

Peace, renak

Your pissing in the wind, to think those links which you have posted, prove saddam had connection with " Al- QAEDA"

[Khattab]

It certainly has been an eye-opener for many people.



The two weasel words in that sentence being "true" and "innocent". As long as you can define the true teachings of Islam to your own satisfaction that is a bet you cannot lose. And what makes a person guilty?

We dont define the teachings of Islam to our own wims and desires, as I have said previously, the teachings are the Qur'an and Sunnah and nowhere do you find the killing of innocent people as acceptable.


Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal. Even in Iraq the violence only comes from the Sunnis who fear democracy, not from the Kurds or the Shia.

Can you give me examples of when this was tried before, which muslim army attacked the UK and USA in order to implent Shariah Law.


Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

They must be saying "Hey, come and bomb us we want democracy!" Do you honestly beleive what you just said, the people in the middle east dont want to be invaded, the majority of them want peace and security, security in the fact that war wont be declared on them to spread "democracy" or any other reason for that matter.

Your opinion would be totally different if someone invaded the UK to spread Shariah Law, you would be against such actions. In a way its hyprocritical. Iraq has been destroyed, families and livelihoods have been taken away from people and all because people in the Middle East want "democracy". If Islam was spread in such ways during these times the out cry would be unimaginable, we would here it from all corners of the globe, but because it is your beliefs that are being spread then I guess its okay?

[HeiGou]

We dont define the teachings of Islam to our own wims and desires, as I have said previously, the teachings are the Qur'an and Sunnah and nowhere do you find the killing of innocent people as acceptable.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? It is clear that some Muslims do define the teachings of Islam in funny ways. Probably the majority of them. I am in no position to judge what the Quran or the Sunna say, but I accept your claims. The only problem is, again, that question of guilt. I expect that you and I do not share a definition of guilt that would make that a useful statement.

Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal.

Can you give me examples of when this was tried before, which muslim army attacked the UK and USA in order to implent Shariah Law.

Not off hand. Although North Africans raided the coasts of England just as they did elsewhere. Nearly all over the world. Look at Spain. India.

Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

They must be saying "Hey, come and bomb us we want democracy!" Do you honestly beleive what you just said, the people in the middle east dont want to be invaded, the majority of them want peace and security, security in the fact that war wont be declared on them to spread "democracy" or any other reason for that matter.

That is such an absurd leap from what I said. No doubt no one wants to be bombed. But they almost certainly do want democracy - however that is achieved. I never said they did not want to be not invaded. You invented that. They want peace, security and democracy. I expect that the more reasonable of them know that the greater risk is arrest and torture by their own government rather than a US attack.

Your opinion would be totally different if someone invaded the UK to spread Shariah Law, you would be against such actions. In a way its hyprocritical. Iraq has been destroyed, families and livelihoods have been taken away from people and all because people in the Middle East want "democracy". If Islam was spread in such ways during these times the out cry would be unimaginable, we would here it from all corners of the globe, but because it is your beliefs that are being spread then I guess its okay?

That is not why Iraq was attacked. Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions. They are not just my beliefs, they are the beliefs of most people in the world including Iraq. And they work in the sense that they produce a rich, content, civil society here on Earth. Most people want that too.

[renak]

Peace, renak

Your pissing in the wind, to think those links which you have posted, prove saddam had connection with " Al- QAEDA"

Peace Hamzaa, I'm not stating that these links PROVE the connection. These links simply provide another viewpoint. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove the connection at this point.

[Khattab]

Who is this "we" you are talking about? It is clear that some Muslims do define the teachings of Islam in funny ways. Probably the majority of them. I am in no position to judge what the Quran or the Sunna say, but I accept your claims. The only problem is, again, that question of guilt. I expect that you and I do not share a definition of guilt that would make that a useful statement.

The 'we' I am talking about is people who follow the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah, not a sect or someone who picks and chooses, but those who follow the way of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and companions.

Not off hand. Although North Africans raided the coasts of England just as they did elsewhere. Nearly all over the world. Look at Spain. India.

Spain was not invaded to spread 'Islam' or 'Shariah Law', but rather Musa ibn Nusair was requested by the Christian ruler to help against the Visigoths and thier leader Roderick who where oppressing and commiting injustices in Spain.

Similiarly in 'Sindh' or India, it was not to implement 'Shariah Law'. The muslims had defeated the Iranian empire, and many of their cheifs fled to 'Sindh' as well as parts of Turkistan and China, here they began preparing for war against the muslims. The King of Sindh as well as his armies had sided with the Iranians. During Uthman Bin Affans (ra) time, Yazid and Abdul Malik though Sindh was of concern there where more pressing issues so it was put to the side. However what sparked and attack was when the King of Sindh looted the boats of the muslims and took those on board as captives. After the request of Hajjaj Bin Yusuf was made to the King Of Sindh ie to punish those who looted the boat and return the captives was rejected, armies where sent to Sindh the last of those at the time being that of the victorious Muhammad Bin Qasim and six thousand soldiers from Syria. Muhammad Bin Qasim himself was known for his justice, humility and genorosity.

So you see to say these events where based on trying to implement 'Shariah Law' in the countries mentioned you are wrong, because that imply wasnt the case.

That is such an absurd leap from what I said. No doubt no one wants to be bombed. But they almost certainly do want democracy - however that is achieved. I never said they did not want to be not invaded. You invented that. They want peace, security and democracy. I expect that the more reasonable of them know that the greater risk is arrest and torture by their own government rather than a US attack.

The simple fact is they dont want to be invaded, you said 'however that is achieved', look at the success of Hamas and and to a certain extent the Muslim Brotherhood, more people in the Middle East would like to see the Khilfa return than being invaded and killed to spread democracy, the way many speak and what we see it is very clear that they dont want the US forces thier. But if this is what you want to beleive then so be it.

And they work in the sense that they produce a rich, content, civil society here on Earth.

Civil society, its always good see people talking on the TV about the so called 'civilised world', I hate this wording it comes across as a term which has a sense of arrogance and superiority about it. The world is the same as its always been, okay we have devolped in many aspects of life since earlier times but when it comes down to it we are still the same, we refer to ourselves as civilised yet we can lock up young kids in Guantanamo Bay for instance on account of them being "enemy combatants", murder and rape still dominate societys, people dont even feel safe walking around at night and when leaving thier homes have a sense of fear of burgalry. What makes us think we are more 'civilised' than poorer nations? In fact the most kind hearted of people and genourus are those in poorer countries, people who are not out for themselves and nor like the society's we live in chasing/worshiping money and only thinking of number one, people who actually benefit mankind and care for humanity. Yet we label ourselves 'civilised'. Hei Gou, thats not really against you its just a general statement as its a term that is commonly used there days to show some sort of advancement in humanity when in reality when you look at the roots its still the same old game.

[hamzaa]

Peace Hamzaa, I'm not stating that these links PROVE the connection. These links simply provide another viewpoint. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove the connection at this point.

Peace, just to reiterate do not be under the assumption held by many. That the invasion of iraq was due to possession of WMDs/terror connections.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

But what you do not understand is that there is a good reason why I am not oppressed and there is a good reason why all your brothers and sisters are. What do you think that is? I would argue that culture has a lot to do with it. So perhaps if you were interested in abolishing oppression you ought to listen to people who live without oppression? But of course if you are merely interested in oppressing others instead of being oppressed yourself, there is no point.

What did Babar Ahmad do? They accused him because he had a leaflet of the Empire state building that his father brought back from his trip to the states many years ago. Have you seen the injuries he suffered? Have you spoken to his wife? I have. You should know that she suffered a miscarriage because of the whole terrible ordeal. You have no idea how I felt after speaking with her. What exactly did he or she do to deserve that? Is that humane? To force someone into prostation and ask them where their God is now? So what exactly is it that you have done to deserve a normal life that they haven't? What hasn't a small Iraqi child done to avoid having their brains half spilling out? I'm really thinking, please inform me.

I am all for that. By all means, work to that end. Tell me, given you dislike of democracy how do you think that might arise except through oppression?

When did oppression occur during the conquest of Makkah, or during the migration to Madinah? It will only happen through the same manner, or we'll end up with a shabby excuse for a shari'ah like Iran or Saudi.