to the non-muslims on here...

[Dawud_uk]

how would you react if your country was invaded? would you fight back? would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?

would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?

now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,.

how would you feel about such occupation schools?
would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?

ask yourself if such invasions occured on and off for a period of hundreds of years, with parts of your land being taken and handed to other nations to run despite the wishes of the people living there.
how would you feel then if you had such a history?

now imagine that one of these lands that was taken from the whole 50 or 100 or 200 years ago rebels against such oppression and fights to rejoin the lands together again? are such people terrorists or is their cause just?

imagine that your country had been invaded and a puppet ruler placed in charge, perhaps like the vichy regime in france during WWII? how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view.

[Keltoi]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

[Dawud_uk]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

i notice you didnt answer any of the questions. what if it was you and your country? how would you react?

[Mohsin]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

For arguments sake I see you perspecyive of thinking, but, as brother Dawud has asked you, what would you do in such a situation.
I'll tell you a story from palestine, and what would you do in the guy's situation? Tell me what would you do if some people, after first invading your country, then come to your house and tie you up, and force you to watch them rape, then kill your mother and sister??? And then they let you go, how would you feel. If you were to react against these people, how would you do so.

Stories like the above make "A what would you do" question, impossible for me to answer, because I just can't imagine how I would feel in such a situation. But many people in the west, including myself even, are ignorant of what people in places like palestine go through

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

[guyabano]

Well, my country was also invaded by the nazis in WWII, but we still knew who was our enemy: The Nazis !
We didn't blow up innocent civilians with bombs on suicide attacks, neither flew airplanes in buildings. No, we fight against the army, and ONLY the army !
Neither we yell, we do our action in the name of god ! That makes the difference !

[Dawud_uk]

Well, my country was also invaded by the nazis in WWII, but we still knew who was our enemy: The Nazis !
We didn't blow up innocent civilians with bombs on suicide attacks, neither flew airplanes in buildings. No, we fight against the army, and ONLY the army !
Neither we yell, we do our action in the name of god ! That makes the difference !

i am sorry which country are you referring to?

there were certainly instances of the resistance in france and other european countries attacking those working for the govt whether soldiers or not as they were viewed 'colaborators.'

Abu Abdullah

[Keltoi]

i am sorry which country are you referring to?

there were certainly instances of the resistance in france and other european countries attacking those working for the govt whether soldiers or not as they were viewed 'colaborators.'

Abu Abdullah

Working for the government? collaborators? What are these people working with the government to achieve? What are "collaborators" working to achieve? There was an election in Iraq, and despite the need for some to believe it was a conspiracy, the people elected who they wanted to represent them. So who is really working against the Iraqi people here? Are the soldiers standing around attempting to stop car bombs from going off?, or is it those noble insurgents of yours who kidnap men and women and torture and decaptiate them? Who in Iraq is fighting for peace and who is fighting for chaos and death? Perhaps you should ask yourself these questions and look at them honestly.

[Umm Khalid06]

islam says don't kill
children
Elderly and
women
it says just fight thoughs who fight you which is the army so what people are doing is Wrong in the name of Islam

[Pk_#2]

^^ that's understandable,

but only so much can you do, about that...

get me sis? :D

[Keltoi]

islam says don't kill
children
Elderly and
women
it says just fight thoughs who fight you which is the army so what people are doing is Wrong in the name of Islam

That is just the point I'm trying to make. These people doing the car bombing, beheading, torture, etc in Iraq aren't doing it for Islam, or if they are they are obviously deranged. There is a fine line between "freedom fighter" and serial killer. I have alot of sympathy for those normal people suffering in Iraq, and unfortunately many Muslims,usually those in the West, don't seem to care what is best for the Iraqi people. They would rather hold on to this comic book perception of what is going on there. The pious noble "freedom fighters" are battling the evil colonial powers of the West. This fallacious reasoning is not helping the women and children being killed by death squads, terrorists, criminals, Ba'athists, and the other macabre mixtures of criminals and serial killers. The U.S. and Brits are playing referee to a wave of pointless destruction, and if it doesn't change very soon all the people capable of forming a stable government will be dead, and all that will be left is terrorists and criminals. That will be your Islamic state, and that is why it is in the best interests of everyone involved that this Iraqi government succeed.

[Umm Khalid06]

That is just the point I'm trying to make. These people doing the car bombing, beheading, torture, etc in Iraq aren't doing it for Islam, or if they are they are obviously deranged. There is a fine line between "freedom fighter" and serial killer. I have alot of sympathy for those normal people suffering in Iraq, and unfortunately many Muslims,usually those in the West, don't seem to care what is best for the Iraqi people. They would rather hold on to this comic book perception of what is going on there. The pious noble "freedom fighters" are battling the evil colonial powers of the West. This fallacious reasoning is not helping the women and children being killed by death squads, terrorists, criminals, Ba'athists, and the other macabre mixtures of criminals and serial killers. The U.S. and Brits are playing referee to a wave of pointless destruction, and if it doesn't change very soon all the people capable of forming a stable government will be dead, and all that will be left is terrorists and criminals. That will be your Islamic state, and that is why it is in the best interests of everyone involved that this Iraqi government succeed.

i understand you and what you mean i don't know much about islam from what i know islam is very much divided and a small amount of people now about what islam is and when you can fight as some say the holy war so they say they are fighting the holy war which is not true. theses people who are doing this are killers and lost need help

[Umm Khalid06]

^^ that's understandable,

but only so much can you do, about that...

get me sis? :D

what do you mean sister:?

[Dawud_uk]

That is just the point I'm trying to make. These people doing the car bombing, beheading, torture, etc in Iraq aren't doing it for Islam, or if they are they are obviously deranged. There is a fine line between "freedom fighter" and serial killer. I have alot of sympathy for those normal people suffering in Iraq, and unfortunately many Muslims,usually those in the West, don't seem to care what is best for the Iraqi people. They would rather hold on to this comic book perception of what is going on there. The pious noble "freedom fighters" are battling the evil colonial powers of the West. This fallacious reasoning is not helping the women and children being killed by death squads, terrorists, criminals, Ba'athists, and the other macabre mixtures of criminals and serial killers. The U.S. and Brits are playing referee to a wave of pointless destruction, and if it doesn't change very soon all the people capable of forming a stable government will be dead, and all that will be left is terrorists and criminals. That will be your Islamic state, and that is why it is in the best interests of everyone involved that this Iraqi government succeed.

you still fail to answer the questions...

[Umm Khalid06]

brother dawud_uk i think you don't understand what he is saying

[Keltoi]

you still fail to answer the questions...

What question? You mean the hypothetical of an invasion of my country? I suppose that would depend on the circumstances..you know..those pesky details. If my country was being destroyed by a ruthless dictator with an interest in mass murder, rape, and torture I would probably be happy that regime was brought to an end. Then I would expect whichever entity removed that dictator to leave when a new government was elected. Then of course you have to consider whether that new government can stand up to the outside terrorists and agents whose intent is to start a civil war. In that case, the entity that removed the dictator would have a responsibility to aid the fledgling government stand up for its responsibilities. After all is said and done, I would begin to wonder if it might not have been better under the dictator. Freedom is a hard thing to create and a harder thing to protect.

[KAding]

Well, Holland was occupied. What the Dutch resistance didn't do was blowing up Dutch or German civilians. The resistance could have crossed quite easily into Germany and attack soft targets there. But we didn't.

But then again. The allies were already bombing these German civilian centres to pieces, so it would have hardly made a difference. :rollseyes

Besides, the comparison is flawed. The struggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is (and has been for ages) not between foreigners and 'natives'. It has always been between Muslims. The foreign presence was only an addition to an already active underlying conflict. Before the Americans invaded Afghanistan there was already a civil war raging for over a decade. Before Americans invaded Iraq the Kurds already have their defacto state in the north and the Shi'ites where horribly oppressed by a Sunni dominated authoritarian ruler.

Quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think these attacks are stupid and counter-productive from a political point of view, but it is not morally wrong. For me the issue was never the attacks on the occupiers. The main cause of death and instability is the civil conflict between different social groups. The same could really be said in Afghanistan, the Taliban have very little support among non-Pashtuns. These tribal and religious divisions simply didn't play a role during WW2. While there were token French, Belgians, and Dutch fighting for Germany, they were sent to the Eastern Front and not used fight fellow countrymen. Occupied Western Europe at least was actually quite peaceful, especially in the first few years of the occupation.

[MTAFFI]

how would you react if your country was invaded? would you fight back? would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?

would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?

now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,.

how would you feel about such occupation schools?
would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?

ask yourself if such invasions occured on and off for a period of hundreds of years, with parts of your land being taken and handed to other nations to run despite the wishes of the people living there.
how would you feel then if you had such a history?

now imagine that one of these lands that was taken from the whole 50 or 100 or 200 years ago rebels against such oppression and fights to rejoin the lands together again? are such people terrorists or is their cause just?

imagine that your country had been invaded and a puppet ruler placed in charge, perhaps like the vichy regime in france during WWII? how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS:
"how would you react if your country was invaded?"
if my country was invaded and my country was Iraq I would be happy just like everyone was when Saddams Regime was toppled.

"would you fight back?"
I would not fight back, since nobody was there to fight me, I would rise and fight against anyone left in Saddams regime.

"would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?"
I would not support any resistance run by known terrorist, AND DEFINITLY NOT A GROUP OF RADICALS WHO KILL OTHER PEOPLE OF THE MUSLIM FAITH INDISCRIMINATELY.

"would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?"
No one is fighting against your way of life, Muslims and any other religion in Iraq are more than welcome to live their life and religion any way they choose.

"now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,. "
The country is underdeveloped in many places and schools are not destroyed they are made better. It isnt promoting a way of life either, maybe just in some cases showing other ways of life but never asking to change theirs

"how would you feel about such occupation schools? "
there is no occupation of schools

would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?
I would be happy to support it

how would you feel then if you had such a history?
History is History I live in the present. The other nations that may or may not have "taken" land were not the US either

"how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?"
I would just be happy that I wasnt ruled by a torturer and murderer like Saddam Hussein, and as Keltoi said this is no puppet, the Iraqi people voted for it. This government could be a good government if it were given a chance, and definitely better than the previous one. I would not fight this government, if any i would have fought against the previous one. I would view the ones fight for this government as intelligent people who know what is right and wrong. Those people are heros and should be viewed as such.

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
I would be overjoyed that a merciless ruler was no longer in power and that some sort REAL government was put into place.

"perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view."
I understand that your views are incredibly distorted, and that you have maybe watched a little bit too much al-qaeda television. The US is not in your country to hurt you, we are there to help you. If all of these crazy extremist had not come out killing innocent people and bringing Iraq to a near state of civil war, the US could have probably already left, and then when the next elections came around and if they didnt like the people in place, they could change it. this may sound crazy since this hasnt been done in over 3 decades, but it is true. There would be human rights and freedoms! Unfortunately this probably will never happen because of people like you and then the US will withdrawl and these people that you say are fighting for a cause will take over and then you will blame the US for all of your problems, just like now. Maybe the US should leave, maybe we should let all of what is going on just continue and see how you would like it. Maybe another dictator would take over and torture these people for no reason, would you like that? Are you into Sado Masochism or something? Look the bottom line is that now at this point in Iraq, the US is trying to help the people that are not doing all of this killing and prevent a bunch of psycho-paths from coming into power. Does all this make sense to you or do you have more questions?

[Umm Khalid06]

i never understand why poeple kill them selfs for thier country just me part of the army and fight:? :?

[Hijrah]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

you aren't answering the questions and even more you have to realize that some of the people along the iraqi resistance aren't doing any of that, they are simply killing soldiers without harming civilians and are still being called terrorists while Americans can kill and rape whole families and it's a completely different story.

[wilberhum]

how would you react if your country was invaded?

I find that an odd question. Why would non-Muslims feel differently than Muslims? So I ask you how did you feel when your country, the UK, was attacked?

[Muezzin]

How would y'all react if I locked this thread?

I'm keeping an eye on this thread and will close it at the first sign of trouble. Make sure you keep it civil, everyone.

[Keltoi]

you aren't answering the questions and even more you have to realize that some of the people along the iraqi resistance aren't doing any of that, they are simply killing soldiers without harming civilians and are still being called terrorists while Americans can kill and rape whole families and it's a completely different story.

You're right, it is a completely different story. The soldiers who commit such acts in Iraq are punished and universially condemned by the military leadership and the American people.

[wilberhum]

Dawud_uk
It is not possible for me to answer complex questions with almost no information. Would I fight etc? Well that depends on what kind of government was being overthrown and what government was going to replace it and why they were doing it. So with no definite details, I can not give definite answers.

Are we to assume that you would fight regardless of the circumstances?
There are some things I can assure you.
I would not torture my neighbor to death because he belonged to a different sect than me.
I wouldn’t decapitate some poor man who was trying to restore the electric while yelling “Jesus saves”.
I wouldn’t drive a car bomb into a market place and kill women and children shoppers.

Thos are just a few of the things I would not do.


I still would like an answer to my question.

How did you feel when your country, the UK, was attacked?

Here is something else I wouldn't do.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...84672F00BA.htm
Several children were among those killed when a car bomb exploded during a wedding party in Iraq.
The bomb exploded outside a family home hosting a wedding reception in the north Baghdad district of Ur, just as the bridegroom's party was arriving in a convoy of cars late on Tuesday.

[AbdulHassanAmir]

Well, Holland was occupied. What the Dutch resistance didn't do was blowing up Dutch or German civilians. The resistance could have crossed quite easily into Germany and attack soft targets there. But we didn't.

But then again. The allies were already bombing these German civilian centres to pieces, so it would have hardly made a difference. :rollseyes

Besides, the comparison is flawed. The struggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is (and has been for ages) not between foreigners and 'natives'. It has always been between Muslims. The foreign presence was only an addition to an already active underlying conflict. Before the Americans invaded Afghanistan there was already a civil war raging for over a decade. Before Americans invaded Iraq the Kurds already have their defacto state in the north and the Shi'ites where horribly oppressed by a Sunni dominated authoritarian ruler.

Quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think these attacks are stupid and counter-productive from a political point of view, but it is not morally wrong. For me the issue was never the attacks on the occupiers. The main cause of death and instability is the civil conflict between different social groups. The same could really be said in Afghanistan, the Taliban have very little support among non-Pashtuns. These tribal and religious divisions simply didn't play a role during WW2. While there were token French, Belgians, and Dutch fighting for Germany, they were sent to the Eastern Front and not used fight fellow countrymen. Occupied Western Europe at least was actually quite peaceful, especially in the first few years of the occupation.

That is a severely flawed statement, the Dutch were afraid of the Nazis because they feared them. Also, isnt it actually sort of WEIRD how the first resistance movement (in Yugoslavia) was headed by a muslim himself? In world war 2? And whilst this was going on christians were joining the croatian waffen SS? :? The Muslim SS werent even known for any warcrimes against civilians, and showed extremely little resistance against the allies.

[north_malaysian]

The only non Muslims that did whatever the terrorists are doing in Iraq ... are the LTTE in Sri Lanka... I cant thing of other groups...

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Well, my country was also invaded by the nazis in WWII, but we still knew who was our enemy: The Nazis !
We didn't blow up innocent civilians with bombs on suicide attacks, neither flew airplanes in buildings. No, we fight against the army, and ONLY the army !
Neither we yell, we do our action in the name of god ! That makes the difference !

im sick of this!!!! how do you know its not george bush (or anyone else for that matter) hiring ppeople, and framing the muslims. think about it, its such a repetitive pattern. everytime an election happens, or peace talks occur, BOOOM!! its those muslims again, oops, better call off the peace deal between palestine and israel, say the isrealies.

guys, really get over it!!!

[north_malaysian]

im sick of this!!!! how do you know its not george bush (or anyone else for that matter) hiring ppeople, and framing the muslims. think about it, its such a repetitive pattern. everytime an election happens, or peace talks occur, BOOOM!! its those muslims again,!!!

I love conspiracy theories because politicians have the tendency to lie ALOT!!!

But still I want peace deal between Palestine and Israel.

[Dawud_uk]

Well, Holland was occupied. What the Dutch resistance didn't do was blowing up Dutch or German civilians. The resistance could have crossed quite easily into Germany and attack soft targets there. But we didn't.

But then again. The allies were already bombing these German civilian centres to pieces, so it would have hardly made a difference. :rollseyes

Besides, the comparison is flawed. The struggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is (and has been for ages) not between foreigners and 'natives'. It has always been between Muslims. The foreign presence was only an addition to an already active underlying conflict. Before the Americans invaded Afghanistan there was already a civil war raging for over a decade. Before Americans invaded Iraq the Kurds already have their defacto state in the north and the Shi'ites where horribly oppressed by a Sunni dominated authoritarian ruler.

Quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think these attacks are stupid and counter-productive from a political point of view, but it is not morally wrong. For me the issue was never the attacks on the occupiers. The main cause of death and instability is the civil conflict between different social groups. The same could really be said in Afghanistan, the Taliban have very little support among non-Pashtuns. These tribal and religious divisions simply didn't play a role during WW2. While there were token French, Belgians, and Dutch fighting for Germany, they were sent to the Eastern Front and not used fight fellow countrymen. Occupied Western Europe at least was actually quite peaceful, especially in the first few years of the occupation.

read your history again,

what happened to those who colaborated with the germans after the netherlands was liberated by the allied forces?

Abu Abdullah

[north_malaysian]

read your history again,

what happened to those who colaborated with the germans after the netherlands was liberated by the allied forces?

Abu Abdullah

are you referring to Ottoman?:rollseyes

[Dawud_uk]

Dawud_uk
It is not possible for me to answer complex questions with almost no information. Would I fight etc? Well that depends on what kind of government was being overthrown and what government was going to replace it and why they were doing it. So with no definite details, I can not give definite answers.

Are we to assume that you would fight regardless of the circumstances?
There are some things I can assure you.
I would not torture my neighbor to death because he belonged to a different sect than me.
I wouldn’t decapitate some poor man who was trying to restore the electric while yelling “Jesus saves”.
I wouldn’t drive a car bomb into a market place and kill women and children shoppers.

Thos are just a few of the things I would not do.


I still would like an answer to my question.

How did you feel when your country, the UK, was attacked?

Here is something else I wouldn't do.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...84672F00BA.htm
Several children were among those killed when a car bomb exploded during a wedding party in Iraq.
The bomb exploded outside a family home hosting a wedding reception in the north Baghdad district of Ur, just as the bridegroom's party was arriving in a convoy of cars late on Tuesday.

hi wilberhum,

as it happens my attitude towards the twin towers and 7/7 attacks are a matter of public record and you can find the letters i wrote to the papers by googling "Daw'ud Mannion"

i also attended public meetings and condemned the attacks there. does that answer your question?

now as you know large parts of the resistence do not commit those acts you mention and many of them are also committed by the govt of iraq. how many times do 'terrorists' kill using police uniforms?

do you not remember that a senior iraqi general and brother of the iraqi deputy president was shot recently by a group of people 'wearing police uniforms and driving police cars'

it is a bloody mess and torture is more common and more terrible now than it ever was under saddam, as sad and terrible as that is.

Abu Abdullah

[Dawud_uk]

The only non Muslims that did whatever the terrorists are doing in Iraq ... are the LTTE in Sri Lanka... I cant thing of other groups...

kemar rouge in cambodia, viet kong in vietnam, shining path in peru, naming just a few.

now if you go back far enough in each countries history there are people behaving in this way, this doesnt justify or condemn it. but people should not be untruthful about their own people's past.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[north_malaysian]

kemar rouge in cambodia, viet kong in vietnam, shining path in peru, naming just a few.

now if you go back far enough in each countries history there are people behaving in this way, this doesnt justify or condemn it. but people should not be untruthful about their own people's past.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

actually... I'm referring to 'SUICIDE BOMBINGS'

[Dawud_uk]

why use the kaffir name for it? what is wrong with martyrdom operation?

now if we think of this as going on a military mission where there is zero chance of survival and i think you will find there are hundreds of such examples just in the history of wwII nevermind other conflicts.

there are also such examples from the early generations of islam where people would rush towards the enemy lines seeking a certain death and martyrdom and no one ever accused them of suicide because their intention was martyrdom and to please Allah.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Muezzin]

Please, please do not turn this into a discussion of suicide bombing/martydom operations/whatever the heck you want to call someone blowing themself up. It has nothing to do with the topic as I see it, and will turn the discussion extremely ugly as it has other topics in the past.

[justahumane]

how would you react if your country was invaded? would you fight back? would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?

would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?

now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,.

how would you feel about such occupation schools?
would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?

ask yourself if such invasions occured on and off for a period of hundreds of years, with parts of your land being taken and handed to other nations to run despite the wishes of the people living there.
how would you feel then if you had such a history?

now imagine that one of these lands that was taken from the whole 50 or 100 or 200 years ago rebels against such oppression and fights to rejoin the lands together again? are such people terrorists or is their cause just?

imagine that your country had been invaded and a puppet ruler placed in charge, perhaps like the vichy regime in france during WWII? how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view.

Brother I can understand how U feel, but permit me to add that the way these things are being dealt with by muslims is utterly wrong and counter productive. I m sure that ways of Mahatma Gandhi would have solved the problems long ago, that too without loss of that much precious and innocent lives. Plz read the article below.


Eric Weiner, Correspondent for National Public Radio


MIAMI - One of the last foreigners to visit Yasser Arafat before he fell ill was Arun Gandhi, grandson of Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi. He traveled to Arafat's compound in Ramallah with a simple message: Put down the gun and adopt Gandhi's way of nonviolent resistance.

By that time, it was a bit late for Arafat to change tactics. The Palestinian leader's strategy, all through his life and in his final days in Ramallah as well, had been one of victory at all costs and by any means. But my advice to the next Palestinian leader would be this: Look to Gandhi, not Arafat, as your role model.

This doesn't mean capitulation, but rather the opposite. Gandhi's strategy of satyagraha - literally "soul force" - isn't some granola idea conjured up in the halls of the University of California, Berkeley, nor should it be confused with weak-kneed pacifism. It is a potent weapon - one that helped topple the British Empire and that could prove far more effective in Palestine than the bullets and bombs that have characterized the four-year-old intifada so far. That strategy, which has killed hundreds of Israelis and helped cause the death of thousands of Palestinians, has gotten the Palestinians precisely nowhere. It is time for new thinking, even if that means dusting off some old ideas.

A hundred years after Gandhi first experimented with nonviolent tactics in South Africa, his approach to conflict resolution remains widely misunderstood. A wily lawyer who understood the nature of power and how to use it, Gandhi was no pacifist. He was a fighter whose aim was to transform his opponents, not merely defeat them.

Gandhi's nonviolent tactics won't work everywhere. They couldn't move a Stalin or a Hitler - or a Saddam Hussein. But Israel, like Britain in Gandhi's time, is a nation that views itself as morally accountable and is therefore a perfect target for nonviolent resistance.

Already, there are inklings of a nascent nonviolent movement among some Palestinians. The prisoners who recently embarked on a hunger strike at an Israeli prison borrowed a page from Gandhi's playbook, knowingly or not. So have those who advocate a boycott of Israeli goods and peaceful protests against the wall that Israel is erecting along the West Bank.

But these actions haven't gone far enough, and too often they have been overshadowed by the suicide bombings and other violent acts carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other factions.

These groups argue that the ends (a free Palestine) justify the means (violence). But Gandhi didn't see it this way. He made no distinction between means and ends. For him, they were one and the same. He once said no man "takes another down a pit without descending into it himself." If Gandhi were alive today, he would no doubt tell Arafat's successor that freedom won through violence is no freedom at all.

By adopting nonviolent tactics, the Palestinians would have plenty of company. Martin Luther King Jr. borrowed heavily from Gandhi during the US civil rights movement. The Philippines' "people power" revolution, Solidarity in Poland and, more recently, the peaceful demonstrations in Serbia in 2000 are all successful examples of nonviolent resistance.

There are examples from the Muslim world as well. In the '20s and '30s Abdul Ghaffar Khan used nonviolent methods to resist British occupation along what is now the Pakistani-Afghan border. Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani used his moral standing to end the standoff at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf peacefully. Why can't the Palestinians be next? True, Hamas and Islamic Jihad aren't likely to adopt nonviolent tactics, at least not immediately, and even mainstream Palestinians worry that "nonviolent resistance would look like a form of surrender."

Gandhi would counter that such resistance is a continuation of the struggle, only through different means. Pictures of unarmed Palestinians lying down before bulldozers about to raze their homes or marching up to the gates of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza - again unarmed and completely peacefully - would be powerful images that could do more to advance the Palestinian cause than 100 suicide bombings.

It wouldn't be easy. In fact, nonviolence is in many ways more difficult to practice than violence. Many Palestinians might die in the process, perhaps in greater numbers than they are dying now. On this point, Gandhi was clear-eyed. He and his followers were willing to die for their cause, just like the Hamas suicide bombers. Unlike the Hamas bombers, they were not willing to kill for it - under any circumstances.

After years of terrorism, the world would, understandably, cast a wary eye toward a new Palestinian leader espousing nonviolence. But once this nonviolent intifada, or what some Muslims are calling a "civil jihad," took hold, it would enable the Palestinians to reclaim the moral high ground and garner international support. And surely Israel wouldn't object to a shift away from violence.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ripe for Gandhi-style civil disobedience. That's a fact that Arafat was unable - or unwilling – to grasp. It is one that his successor would be wise to embrace.



Source:http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/Newsa...fm?NewsID=4088

[Dawud_uk]

it is an interesting idea... just dont fight and disobey Allah in his command to fight back, disobey Allah's messenger saws in his commands to fight back, ignore the history of islam wherever we have been oppressed and conquerred in the past we have fought back and won.

so no, that is not the way as it is turning away from Allah and his Rasool saws and also from what has worked over and over in the past.

as well as gandhi's non violence you must realise others were fighting and so the brits knew their time was up. non-violence will only get you so far and what they dont mind giving up anyway.

Abu Abdullah

[AvarAllahNoor]

Our country is invaded by indians.....Khalsitan is not allowed to exist in the punjab by the hideous hindu regime. I'd support any attacks on the army but not on civilians as this is not the Sikh way. - Army against army full-out war

[Asyur an-Nagi]

it is an interesting idea... just dont fight and disobey Allah in his command to fight back, disobey Allah's messenger saws in his commands to fight back, ignore the history of islam wherever we have been oppressed and conquerred in the past we have fought back and won.

so no, that is not the way as it is turning away from Allah and his Rasool saws and also from what has worked over and over in the past.

as well as gandhi's non violence you must realise others were fighting and so the brits knew their time was up. non-violence will only get you so far and what they dont mind giving up anyway.

Abu Abdullah

brother, what is fighting back in your point? blowing or gasing the enemies, flip them off in a negotiation, or just fight back whatever it means?
and for quite sometimes, fighting back is not necessarily translated as drawing your sword or such.

"non violence will only get us so far"...would a violence be a solution to avoid this?

[Dawud_uk]

look,

someone slaps me i will ask him why he slapped me, he does it again i will knock him to the floor and give him a good kicking.

violence is something we should avoid if we can, but sometimes there are no alternatives.

Abu Abdullah

[Asyur an-Nagi]

look,

someone slaps me i will ask him why he slapped me, he does it again i will knock him to the floor and give him a good kicking.

violence is something we should avoid if we can, but sometimes there are no alternatives.

Abu Abdullah

so brother, the term of 'fighting back' here is performing equal or worse violence?:?

[Dawud_uk]

no it means making sure he doesnt do it again either to me or any other muslim.

we used to go in jihad because one muslim women was exposed by a corrupt roman ruler, now thousands of women are raped and assulted by hindu nationalist mobs, babies cut from wombs and we sit and do nothing.

Abu Abdullah

[justahumane]

it is an interesting idea... just dont fight and disobey Allah in his command to fight back, disobey Allah's messenger saws in his commands to fight back, ignore the history of islam wherever we have been oppressed and conquerred in the past we have fought back and won.

so no, that is not the way as it is turning away from Allah and his Rasool saws and also from what has worked over and over in the past.

as well as gandhi's non violence you must realise others were fighting and so the brits knew their time was up. non-violence will only get you so far and what they dont mind giving up anyway.

Abu Abdullah

Brother its only here that I smell foul. U guys (read majority of muslims) are disobeying ALLAH and the holy prophet left and right. every muslim nation is living testimony of this claim. But when it comes to peace, ALLAH's commands are on top of muslim agenda, and fighting and killing becomes a must do. I cant say that I wish U all the best.

U guys(read majority of muslims) can turn away from ALLAH and his Rasool for ur personal greed, but if it comes to peaceful existance, live and let live, than ALLAH and Rasool stops U from doing so.

If violence was a reason for brits to leave India, than they would have left way back in 1857 when whole Northern India was on kiling spree against british ppls. But that resulted only in more atrocities on Indians. Gandhi always knew that India cant win freedom by fighting mighty brithish Raj, so he opted for a more potent way of fighting than violence, and did he deliver? History will always remember answer to this question.

May ALLAH show U the right path of peace and co-existance. AMEEN.

PS: Plz dont take any of my remark as personal coz I know very well that U are someone who only give logistic support to violence and never indulge personally in this cruel act.

Thanks.

[justahumane]

look,

someone slaps me i will ask him why he slapped me, he does it again i will knock him to the floor and give him a good kicking.

violence is something we should avoid if we can, but sometimes there are no alternatives.

Abu Abdullah

Brother, I can well understand that U are speaking in typical muslim voice. Had this not been a typical muslim voice than I would have not been able to tell U that history tells us that far far more muslims have been killed by muslims rather than non-muslims. I hope U are aware of this fact. if not than plz ask, I will show U the reality.

Its not the question of if someone slapped U, its like U invited someone to slap U so that U can retaliate to appease the violent creature inside urself.

May ALLAH show U the right path. AMEEN.

[justahumane]

no it means making sure he doesnt do it again either to me or any other muslim.

we used to go in jihad because one muslim women was exposed by a corrupt roman ruler, now thousands of women are raped and assulted by hindu nationalist mobs, babies cut from wombs and we sit and do nothing.

Abu Abdullah

Brother, working on ur modus operandi, if I can give U proof that some muslims guys did same things to some hindu women in the past, will U justify what those fanatic hindu animals did in Gujrat? Plz dont fail to answer this question.

BTW It seems that extremist elements of both side are cut from same cloth, coz they too speak exactly same language as U do.


Thanks.

[- Qatada -]

Fighting has been prescribed upon the muslims so they can destroy the enemies who oppress the believers and so they can apply Allaah Almighty's law in the land. We don't expect them people to carry on harming the believers without any retaliation.


This was prescribed upon the children of Isra'eel, and the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Allaah will destroy the enemy through the believer's hands, instead of sending natural disasters upon the disbelievers [like what happened to the earlier nations before us.]

Anyone who says that Allaah/God does not like justice is lying, because Allaah is the Most Just. How then can Allaah forbid a law such as defending one's fellow brothers and sisters? How can Allaah allow the enemy to have the upperhand forever? That can't be, because in the end - the victory is always for the believers - in this life and the hereafter, because they are the best of creation.


War is hated by the people, but if all war is evil - then there has to be a side which is good, who is fighting in the way of their Lord, their Creator to establish the truth, to establish justice and to establish peace. Islaam is that law, and victory can only come from Allaah. In the end - every single soul will return to it's Creator, to Allaah Almighty - who will decide and judge between us.



Allaah Almighty know's best.

[justahumane]

Fighting has been prescribed upon the muslims so they can destroy the enemies who oppress the believers and so they can apply Allaah Almighty's law in the land. We don't expect them people to carry on harming the believers without any retaliation.


This was prescribed upon the children of Isra'eel, and the ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Allaah will destroy the enemy through the believer's hands, instead of sending natural disasters upon the disbelievers [like what happened to the earlier nations before us.]

Anyone who says that Allaah/God does not like justice is lying, because Allaah is the Most Just. How then can Allaah forbid a law such as defending one's fellow brothers and sisters? How can Allaah allow the enemy to have the upperhand forever? That can't be, because in the end - the victory is always for the believers - in this life and the hereafter, because they are the best of creation.


War is hated by the people, but if all war is evil - then there has to be a side which is good, who is fighting in the way of their Lord, their Creator to establish the truth, to establish justice and to establish peace. Islaam is that law, and victory can only come from Allaah. In the end - every single soul will return to it's Creator, to Allaah Almighty - who will decide and judge between us.



Allaah Almighty know's best.

Brother, in fact those who are fighting are not believers, thats why they are biting dust repeatedly and causing misiries to the Ummah of the holy prophet. Battle of Badr is the proof of my statement.

May ALLAH show all the right path.

[- Qatada -]

Brother, according to your beliefs their not believers. But realise that those who fight to defend their brothers and sisters, are much better than those priests who lock themselves up in buildings to worship God/Allaah.

This is a religion of action, and helping people to please Allaah is more rewarding than locking yourself up to perform prayers and to fast. Your helping society as a whole, instead of turning away from society. Any normal person believes that.



The only reason the US, UK, Europe etc. armies are supported are because of their nationalism, patriotism etc. But the muslims fight as a more bigger/greater force - because they don't split themselves up into nations, but as one whole ummah - to establish truth and justice. They don't care about their differences in skin color, or their castes, or their wealth - they have a greater aim, and that is to please Allaah by establishing the justice that everyone would desire.

If you feel that's not right, then i really don't understand what you mean.




Allaah Almighty know's best.

[justahumane]

Ameen, we should all pray to Allaah for the true guidance. I will pray for you to insha'Allaah.


If you find anything confusing or wrong about my post, i look forward to a response from you insha'Allaah. :)



Peace.

Nothing as such brother, I respect ur belief and views, only dont subscribe to them.

[justahumane]

Brother, according to your beliefs their not believers. But realise that those who fight to defend their brothers and sisters, are much better than those priests who lock themselves up in buildings to worship God/Allaah.

This is a religion of action, and helping people to please Allaah is more rewarding than locking yourself up to perform prayers and to fast. Your helping society as a whole, instead of turning away from society. Any normal person believes that.



The only reason the US, UK, Europe etc. armies are supported are because of their nationalism, patriotism etc. But the muslims fight as a more bigger/greater force - because they don't split themselves up into nations, but as one whole ummah - to establish truth and justice. They don't care about their differences in skin color, or their castes, or their wealth - they have a greater aim, and that is to please Allaah by establishing the justice that everyone would desire.

If you feel that's not right, then i really don't understand what you mean.




Allaah Almighty know's best.

Well brother, I may be wrong, but I must say that all the fighting which U describe is to defend their brothers and sisters have proven to be counter productive.

If the intention of fighters is only to save their brothers and sisters than how come that fighters for the Ummah dont fight in Darfur? How come that fighters for the Ummah didnt fight when Saddam was wrecking havoc on the Ummah? Had those brave and holy fighters fought that time than we wouldnt have seen invasion of Iraq by monkey bush. Dont they or U know that Saddam's son used to rape women at will?

And to conclude, My belief are definetely different from urs, and I believe that if those figthters were fighting for noble cause of ALLAH, than ALLAH would have rewarded them with victory by now, again I will like to remind U of battle of Badr.

Cant U see that those fighters are only bringing more sufferings to the Ummah they claim to be fighting for?

Thanks.

[- Qatada -]

Well brother, I may be wrong, but I must say that all the fighting which U describe is to defend their brothers and sisters have proven to be counter productive.

If the intention of fighters is only to save their brothers and sisters than how come that fighters for the Ummah dont fight in Darfur? How come that fighters for the Ummah didnt fight when Saddam was wrecking havoc on the Ummah? Had those brave and holy fighters fought that time than we wouldnt have seen invasion of Iraq by monkey bush. Dont they or U know that Saddam's son used to rape women at will?

The muslims don't fight to gain attention in the media. So Allaah Almighty know's best, they may have fought against the oppressors, but they never got the media attention that people might have expected.

How can we say what we don't know? The only real source we have, which is totally biased is the media. And obviously, they not going to show the one's who fight against the oppressers, because in the view of the west - these people are a threat to them anyway.

And to conclude, My belief are definetely different from urs, and I believe that if those figthters were fighting for noble cause of ALLAH, than ALLAH would have rewarded them with victory by now, again I will like to remind U of battle of Badr.

Cant U see that those fighters are only bringing more sufferings to the Ummah they claim to be fighting for?

I think you've just thought about one form of victory, and that may be to have authority in the land, while gaining the spoils of war.

However, islaam introduced a totally new definition of victory, of which include; victory of authority in the land, the spoils of war etc. the idea of dying in the cause of Allaah - in return for paradise, because the person sacrificed his/her life solely for Allaah, the victory against shaytaan (satan) and pushing away ones evil desires.


Islaam is totally different because throughout a muslims life, he/she is striving for the hereafter. This world is an exam hall which will end soon, and we will be judged on all our actions, then be punished or rewarded according to what we did.


I don't understand how the battle of badr is anyhow related to this, but they did end up being victorious in many ways - they won against the oppressors, they fought against their desires and shaytan, some of them died for the sake of Allaah.




Also, i've discussed it with you earlier, the reason why the authority isn't in the lands yet is because people have left the idea of striving in Allaah's cause, and they have preferred this world over the hereafter. Why should Allaah honor us if He only honored us because of our islaam, because of our submission to Him, Almighty. We've turned away from that, and only once we return to Islaam whole heartedly will Allaah honor us once again insha'Allaah.

Thanks.

You too. :)

[Dawud_uk]

assalaamu alaykum,

many fighters did go and fight against saddam and the proof of this is that the US before starting the ground invasion of iraq started with a bombing raid against ansar al islam which is a mainly kurdish but also arab islamic resistence group that used to attack the secular armies of the disbelieving saddam as well as the secular armies of the disbelieving kurdish communists and socialists.

this group is now called ansar al sunnah and is one of the largest of the mujahadeen groups fighting in iraq.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[justahumane]

The muslims don't fight to gain attention in the media. So Allaah Almighty know's best, they may have fought against the oppressors, but they never got the media attention that people might have expected.

How can we say what we don't know? The only real source we have, which is totally biased is the media. And obviously, they not going to show the one's who fight against the oppressers, because in the view of the west - these people are a threat to them anyway.






I think you've just thought about one form of victory, and that may be to have authority in the land, while gaining the spoils of war.

However, islaam introduced a totally new definition of victory, of which include; victory of authority in the land, the spoils of war etc. the idea of dying in the cause of Allaah - in return for paradise, because the person sacrificed his/her life solely for Allaah, the victory against shaytaan (satan) and pushing away ones evil desires.


Islaam is totally different because throughout a muslims life, he/she is striving for the hereafter. This world is an exam hall which will end soon, and we will be judged on all our actions, then be punished or rewarded according to what we did.


I don't understand how the battle of badr is anyhow related to this, but they did end up being victorious in many ways - they won against the oppressors, they fought against their desires and shaytan, some of them died for the sake of Allaah.




Also, i've discussed it with you earlier, the reason why the authority isn't in the lands yet is because people have left the idea of striving in Allaah's cause, and they have preferred this world over the hereafter. Why should Allaah honor us if He only honored us because of our islaam, because of our submission to Him, Almighty. We've turned away from that, and only once we return to Islaam whole heartedly will Allaah honor us once again insha'Allaah.






You too. :)

Thanks for ur response brother, I have nothing new to add apart from my earlier views and I stand for them. And I differ with U.

Lets meet again on this issue on the day of judgement, Inshallah.:)

[MTAFFI]

dawud

did i answer your questions on page 2

[blunderbus]

"But the muslims fight as a more bigger/greater force - because they don't split themselves up into nations, but as one whole ummah - to establish truth and justice. They don't care about their differences in skin color, or their castes, or their wealth - they have a greater aim, and that is to please Allaah by establishing the justice that everyone would desire"

Is that what's going on in Darfur? Muslims there are being subjected to horrific treatment far worse than Iraq or Palestine or Kasmir, so what exactly is the "muslim nation" doing to help them?

BTW to answer your original question. If my country were ruled by Saddam and the Baathist, I would welcome an invasion. I would also support a government democratically elected by my countrymen and women.
Would I want the foreign troops to leave? You bet I would, but only after my country could defend itself against the beheaders and car bombers.

[thirdwatch512]

if america was attacked.. well, it depended on the nation who took us over.. if it was like some radical country like iran, i would take up arms, but if it was like france or something, i would leave them alone because that is a nation i can trust that would not hurt us if we left them alone.

i personally think america invading iraq was wrong, but if i lived in iraq i would just left america alone so they would get out quicker.

violence is never the answer to anything.

[GARY]

LOL! Talk about a loaded question!
Things are rarely so black and white Dawud_uk. You clearly are a victim of the propaganda war that is going on. Try reading between the lines of both sides, and think for yourself.

[- Qatada -]

You guys should do the same ^^



Peace.

[GARY]

You guys should do the same ^^



Peace.

Which guys?

[IB-Staff]

Hello GARY,

I think he means that everyone needs to exercise objective judgement and be cautious of propaganda, not only Muslims.

[GARY]

Hello GARY,

I think he means that everyone needs to exercise objective judgement and be cautious of propaganda, not only Muslims.

I agree. Unfortunately very few people anywhere in the world do this. Even in countries like Britain and the US where many sides of a story are accessible, most choose their sources and stick with them. most times the truth lies somewhere in the muddy waters between the polarized views of western propaganda and eastern propaganda.

I hate to use a cliche, but we need to reed between the lines.

[- Qatada -]

That's the reason why most muslims don't accept what they see on the news. :)

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.

(Qur'an 49:6)

Peace.

[duskiness]

how would you react if your country was invaded? would you fight back? would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?

my country was being invaded few times every century.. and we fought back (not always with success...quite the opposite) and we are proud of it

would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?

if they would kill civilians then yes- they would be terrorists.

now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,.

in Poland that happened since 1875 until 1918, then during 2WW, and then during communist regime, which ended in 1989.

how would you feel about such occupation schools?
would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?

you know, what we have been doing here? We were making underground classes, libraries and so on. We didn't destroy them. Destruction is not a solution.
In the end, they thought something .....although not only "truth"

ask yourself if such invasions occured on and off for a period of hundreds of years, with parts of your land being taken and handed to other nations to run despite the wishes of the people living there.
how would you feel then if you had such a history?

That's also normal here. Take any historical atlas and try to find Polish borders (watch out! they change almost every season ;)). After 1945 we have lost almost 1/3 of our land. Huge parts of todays Lithuania, Belorussia, Ukraine belonged to Poland before '45. Then my grandparents were put to cattle carts and send west. They have lost homes and land And what? Do we fight for it? Do we ask Lithuanians to leave their homes, so we could go back? No. We try to live together. It's their home now, and our memory.
(silly trivia: the most famous polish poem starts with: "O! Lithuania - my home", and most popular folk song is about love to Ukraine)

now imagine that one of these lands that was taken from the whole 50 or 100 or 200 years ago rebels against such oppression and fights to rejoin the lands together again? are such people terrorists or is their cause just?

definition of terrorism: Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals.(wiki)
No matter what is the aim of terrorists, terror is terror. Aim doesn't justify means.

imagine that your country had been invaded and a puppet ruler placed in charge, perhaps like the vichy regime in france during WWII? how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?

44 years of communism counts?

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view.

Maybe in the end you will stop thinking of Muslims as only victims in this world? Many nations went through same things!
Maybe you will see that what non-Muslims say here doesn't necessary come from ignorance?

[stannis]

If my country were invaded, I would resist the invasion in any way I reasonably can... but I wouldn't kill my fellow civilians in suicide blasts in order to defend my country, which is what some Iraqi insurgents are doing.

[north_malaysian]

If my country were invaded, I would resist the invasion in any way I reasonably can... but I wouldn't kill my fellow civilians in suicide blasts in order to defend my country, which is what some Iraqi insurgents are doing.

I gave you some reps for this...

[GARY]

That's the reason why most muslims don't accept what they see on the news. :)

At least we can agree that the propaganda comes from both sides.

[stannis]

I gave you some reps for this...

Thanks :)

[Mr. Baldy]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

hmm, what about the NATO killing muslims (ALLEGED terrorists) in a madrassa? what about american and NATO troops attacking afghan villages where the taliban dont even hide or fight from, what about the killing of innocent civillians indiscriminantly by US/UK troops in iraq and by israeli trigger happy troops in palestine, and what about the numerous weddings and FUNERALS the US have 'accidentaly' attacked?

if you look back to the start of the war, the muslims in iraq were united, until the US decided that the united muslims against it was not a good thing, so they started these bombings in the hopes that shia and sunni secterian violence be created. this tactic worked. and if you actually analyxe these bombing you will find that there mostly iraqi secterian muslims, rather than Al-Qaeda, or foriegn muslims coming into fight against the US.

and yet you say that muslims are terrorists

[Keltoi]

hmm, what about the NATO killing muslims (ALLEGED terrorists) in a madrassa? what about american and NATO troops attacking afghan villages where the taliban dont even hide or fight from, what about the killing of innocent civillians indiscriminantly by US/UK troops in iraq and by israeli trigger happy troops in palestine, and what about the numerous weddings and FUNERALS the US have 'accidentaly' attacked?

if you look back to the start of the war, the muslims in iraq were united, until the US decided that the united muslims against it was not a good thing, so they started these bombings in the hopes that shia and sunni secterian violence be created. this tactic worked. and if you actually analyxe these bombing you will find that there mostly iraqi secterian muslims, rather than Al-Qaeda, or foriegn muslims coming into fight against the US.

and yet you say that muslims are terrorists

Wow, who could have thunk it. The U.S. "feared" united Muslims in Iraq, as the Muslims in Iraq are so obviously "united". Fearing this behemoth of unity in Iraq, the U.S. military decided to bomb mosques, funerals, and weddings, capture and mutilate entire families, behead Iraqi politicians, etc so as to create strife in this behemoth of Iraqi unity. Since Iraqis are so obviously stupid, since they believe it is Sunnis attacking Shi'ite and vice versa, this widespread CIA/NSA black ops project remains a mystery. Incredibly, you have seen through the smokescreen of lies, but the poor dumb Iraqis still believe it is Sunni and Sh'ite killing each other. This way the U.S. can stand around at checkpoints for another ten years and drain more money from the U.S. Treasury.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it begged for it.

[i_m_tipu]

Wow, who could have thunk it. The U.S. "feared" united Muslims in Iraq, as the Muslims in Iraq are so obviously "united". Fearing this behemoth of unity in Iraq, the U.S. military decided to bomb mosques, funerals, and weddings, capture and mutilate entire families, behead Iraqi politicians, etc so as to create strife in this behemoth of Iraqi unity. Since Iraqis are so obviously stupid, since they believe it is Sunnis attacking Shi'ite and vice versa, this widespread CIA/NSA black ops project remains a mystery. Incredibly, you have seen through the smokescreen of lies, but the poor dumb Iraqis still believe it is Sunni and Sh'ite killing each other. This way the U.S. can stand around at checkpoints for another ten years and drain more money from the U.S. Treasury.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it begged for it.

it seems to u me interesting.
it is easy to say but on the ground i believe Iraq is full of hopelessness with a full of horror memory.

a mirror never look the same when u join it after broke it. it does not matter how hard u try. it will never be the same.

iraq is totally broken...

anyway at the end of the day u will find (if u really study) israeli and usa is responsible for all massacre. bcoz all happening for their amazing game plan.

read this game plan history

1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq

Sunday November 5, 2006 7:46 AM


AP Photo BAG102

By JOHN HEILPRIN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its ``Desert Crossing'' games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

``The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops,'' said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. ``But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.''

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at ``worst case'' and ``most likely'' scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

-``A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,'' the 1999 seminar briefings said. ``A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.''

-``Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.''

-``Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,'' the briefings read. ``The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.''

-``The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.''

-``Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.''

-``A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...192951,00.html

i believe israelis doing all the thing they can to destroy Islam. they using usa and media and together they funding a huge among of money to the munafig and forcing their poor slaves (allies) to get approval for all game they planed.

they called as a king of humanity and justice and we called terrorist.:giggling:
and lot of people dying to defend it.:cry:

[Mr. Baldy]

Wow, who could have thunk it. The U.S. "feared" united Muslims in Iraq, as the Muslims in Iraq are so obviously "united". Fearing this behemoth of unity in Iraq, the U.S. military decided to bomb mosques, funerals, and weddings, capture and mutilate entire families, behead Iraqi politicians, etc so as to create strife in this behemoth of Iraqi unity. Since Iraqis are so obviously stupid, since they believe it is Sunnis attacking Shi'ite and vice versa, this widespread CIA/NSA black ops project remains a mystery. Incredibly, you have seen through the smokescreen of lies, but the poor dumb Iraqis still believe it is Sunni and Sh'ite killing each other. This way the U.S. can stand around at checkpoints for another ten years and drain more money from the U.S. Treasury.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it begged for it.

well, actually they do fear united muslims in iraq... becaue if the iraqi muslims were united it would be much harder for the US and friends to fight them, wouldnt it dum dum? so what do the US do? spark hatred between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims and there away, plus this gives them an excuse to stay there longer, 'destabilising' the region, and actually most iraqis do realise this and very few attacks are secterian, but there the attacks that are hyped by the media. its exactly the same as GB and 1924...

[MTAFFI]

well, actually they do fear united muslims in iraq... becaue if the iraqi muslims were united it would be much harder for the US and friends to fight them, wouldnt it dum dum? so what do the US do? spark hatred between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims and there away, plus this gives them an excuse to stay there longer, 'destabilising' the region, and actually most iraqis do realise this and very few attacks are secterian, but there the attacks that are hyped by the media. its exactly the same as GB and 1924...

or maybe if the muslims and everyone else in Iraq would unite then the US wouldnt need to be there and they would leave. Think about it, if there wasnt these people killing innocent people with roadside bombs, suicide bombs, etc the US would have no need to be there and would have nothing else to do but leave. Believe me my friend America does not want its troops in Iraq anymore than anyone else, it is just that an entire government was just toppled and without an army or police force it would be total anarchy and then the US would be blamed for that. Ultimately it is a lose, lose for the US. The best thing that could happen is for these people to unite, say we dont need the US anymore and please leave, and establish peace amongst each other. I pray to God every day for this to happen.

[GARY]

hmm, what about the NATO killing muslims (ALLEGED terrorists) in a madrassa? what about american and NATO troops attacking afghan villages where the taliban dont even hide or fight from, what about the killing of innocent civillians indiscriminantly by US/UK troops in iraq and by israeli trigger happy troops in palestine, and what about the numerous weddings and FUNERALS the US have 'accidentaly' attacked?

if you look back to the start of the war, the muslims in iraq were united, until the US decided that the united muslims against it was not a good thing, so they started these bombings in the hopes that shia and sunni secterian violence be created. this tactic worked. and if you actually analyxe these bombing you will find that there mostly iraqi secterian muslims, rather than Al-Qaeda, or foriegn muslims coming into fight against the US.

and yet you say that muslims are terrorists

LOL! HA! HA!

[i_m_tipu]

well, actually they do fear united muslims in iraq... becaue if the iraqi muslims were united it would be much harder for the US and friends to fight them, wouldnt it dum dum? so what do the US do? spark hatred between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims and there away, plus this gives them an excuse to stay there longer, 'destabilising' the region, and actually most iraqis do realise this and very few attacks are secterian, but there the attacks that are hyped by the media. its exactly the same as GB and 1924...

:sl:
definitely...usa or anyone fear united enemy. why other people have a problem to accept it.

these sectarian violence only benefiting USA. i really don't know who is behind this. but it benefiting the USA most. it help them a lot to eliminate, capture and control the resistance groups more easier way.

This resistance groups are definitely freedom fighter.
they involved to free their religions and themselves from the dajjal and kafir.

may Allaah help their good tries and guide them for not to do dubious things and thinkings.

[starfortress]

or maybe if the muslims and everyone else in Iraq would unite then the US wouldnt need to be there and they would leave.

Do you think so..wheter they choose to withdraw the force or remain staying in Iraq,every decision are all wrong for them in this current situation.For sure it will decrese the US credibility in the eyes of the world.

the US would have no need to be there and would have nothing else to do but leave.

It should be more relevance 5-6 years ago.Its too hard to stayed,and too shame to retreat.They have to pick one,and none of both is easy.

Believe me my friend America does not want its troops in Iraq anymore than anyone else.

The other countries already knew the consequent,that should explain why US is alone in Operation Iraqi Freedom....

then the US would be blamed for that.

This is not a blame game.Its about how the U.S. is perceived in the world and particularly in predominantly Muslim countries,with the arrogant Mr Bush administration,world hegemony policy,justice in the name of human right,Unbalance policy in mideast,illusion war(Iraq/Afghanistan/Terrorist) all this thing didnt make this world become a safer place.

I pray to God every day for this to happen.

:)

[Mr. Baldy]

or maybe if the muslims and everyone else in Iraq would unite then the US wouldnt need to be there and they would leave. Think about it, if there wasnt these people killing innocent people with roadside bombs, suicide bombs, etc the US would have no need to be there and would have nothing else to do but leave. Believe me my friend America does not want its troops in Iraq anymore than anyone else, it is just that an entire government was just toppled and without an army or police force it would be total anarchy and then the US would be blamed for that. Ultimately it is a lose, lose for the US. The best thing that could happen is for these people to unite, say we dont need the US anymore and please leave, and establish peace amongst each other. I pray to God every day for this to happen.

so why is it that the west doesnt want muslims to determine there own political destiniy?

[GARY]

so why is it that the west doesnt want muslims to determine there own political destiniy?

I don't know if it is a question of muslim political destiny so much as a question of Iraqi political destiny.
To answer your question in regards to Iraq, it is exactly as was stated by MTAFFI. At this point, the political destiny of Iraq will only be determined through severe violence and civil war, if they are left to their own devices. Not to say that the current "solution" is much better, but the fear is that it would get much worse. I don't say that this is the U.S. government concern, but the concern of people of the 'west' as was asked in your question.

[MTAFFI]

so why is it that the west doesnt want muslims to determine there own political destiniy?

who says that we dont, regardless of the conspiracy theory (that i would bet you believe) the Iraqi people voted for their current government, and once something is established they can vote again and again. That is the wonderful thing about not being under a dictatorship. If they dont like the government then they can vote and get a new one. What does this have to do with a united muslim community though?

[T@z@belle]

A terrorist is a terrorist. If you load a car full of explosives and detonate it at a wedding party or a funeral, you are not fighting the evil Americans, you are killing Muslims. Does this chaos make it more difficult for the Iraqi government, who the Iraqi people put in place?, obviously. The whole diatribe in the above post is based on a false premise. I know many Muslims, usually adolescent males living in Western countries, like to believe in some noble grand gathering of god-fearing Muslims fighting to resist the evil colonial West. It is a myth, and not even a good one.

hey....i wonder if YOU were ever killed,abused and humiliated in your OWN home country and then told you were an evil terrorist.....OH THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED TO YOU YET....hmmm i rest my case.

[SilentObserver]

hey....i wonder if YOU were ever killed,abused and humiliated in your OWN home country and then told you were an evil terrorist.....OH THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED TO YOU YET....hmmm i rest my case.

I imagine if keltoi was told he was a terrorist after being killed, he really wouldn't mind much.

As for the statement, it makes little sense to fight the enemy by mass murdering civilians with a car bomb.

[sudais1]

Listen The Diffrence between Iraq and Holland is there. Iraq is not developed let alone have an army, they nver had good governace and the Invaders didnt make anything change, The Iraqi "terrorists" only fight Invaders and Iraqi supporters of the Invaders.


Not only is Holland more powerful but they have better they have good allies, like France, Italy, Iraq have almost no allies which can even fight poland. Now Imagine a superpower (america), along with Canada, Britain, Holland, Australia, all send troops to Iraq to fight. This was going on for 5 years,


Now i will try to rephrase they Question the Dawud_UK Asked

IF YOU were an Iraqi and you have close to no supplies to fight these nations and all you have is motors and rocks how you you react and fight :?

[SilentObserver]

I wouldn't fight these nations. I would fight the terrorists that were destroying my neighborhood and killing my family and friends with car bombs.

[sudais1]

Donald Rumsfield once told The American Army why they supplies to fight dont arrice earlier during his visit to Iraq. He said "We fight with what we have"

Now using his terms dont Iraqi fight with what they have, they have small Bombs. It dosent inflict as much damage like an F-16 but fighting is fighting

[Ismahaan]

I find it hard to believe that Iraqi insurgents are the ones behind the daily bombings in Iraq. Why would Iraqis target and kill one another? It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the occupying forces are the ones trying to wreak havoc in the country. They wanted to start a civil war and they got their wish. They wanted to divide the people so they could conquer and rule them. Invading a country and killing its people is not something new to Americans, after all they managed to kill 89 million American Indians.

[sudais1]

SilentObserver if you were Iraqi you woudnt think like that but thats not to be, most ppl on here would say the same thing but if this really happend then you wouldnt say this

[sudais1]

I find it hard to believe that Iraqi insurgents are the ones behind the daily bombings in Iraq. Why would Iraqis target and kill one another? It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the occupying forces are the ones trying to wreak havoc in the country. They wanted to start a civil war and they got their wish. They wanted to divide the people so they could conquer and rule them. Invading a country and killing its people is not something new to Americans, after all they managed to kill 89 million American Indians.

true

[Ismahaan]

I wouldn't fight these nations. I would fight the terrorists that were destroying my neighborhood and killing my family and friends with car bombs.

What if those terrorists are the Americans in your country, who are blaming the car bombings on your fellow countrymen when they were in fact behind them?

[SilentObserver]

I find it hard to believe that Iraqi insurgents are the ones behind the daily bombings in Iraq. Why would Iraqis target and kill one another? It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the occupying forces are the ones trying to wreak havoc in the country. They wanted to start a civil war and they got their wish. They wanted to divide the people so they could conquer and rule them. Invading a country and killing its people is not something new to Americans, after all they managed to kill 89 million American Indians.

? Here we go again...... The conspiracy theory and blame the west routine. Yawn.:uhwhat

[Keltoi]

I find it hard to believe that Iraqi insurgents are the ones behind the daily bombings in Iraq. Why would Iraqis target and kill one another? It just doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the occupying forces are the ones trying to wreak havoc in the country. They wanted to start a civil war and they got their wish. They wanted to divide the people so they could conquer and rule them. Invading a country and killing its people is not something new to Americans, after all they managed to kill 89 million American Indians.

Americans killed 89 million American Indians?....that is news to me since there were only estimated to be 6 million Natives in the New World when Columbus arrived. Completely off topic of course.

As for why Iraqis are killing each other, I think it is fairly obvious to everyone looking at the situation with any inkling of honesty that it is a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia. These conspiracy theories about Americans supporting civil conflict in Iraq is (1) Completely insane given the objectives of the U.S. in Iraq, and (2) not supported by anything other than conspiracy theories.

[Muezzin]

This thread has veered off the metaphorical road into a metaphorical ditch and has become mired in metaphorical mud.

Therefore, I'm (not metaphorically) closing it.