/* */

PDA

View Full Version : 508 DEAD in Iraq in 1 week of Fighting



mahdisoldier19
03-31-2007, 03:49 AM
Officials vow to push for order; al-Sadr calls for anti-U.S. protest

10:18 PM CDT on Friday, March 30, 2007

Associated Press

BAGHDAD – Suicide bombers and militiamen fought back ferociously in the seventh week of the Baghdad security crackdown, killing at least 508 people in six days.

As the deadly week drew to an end Friday, the Muslim day of rest and prayer, radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr blamed the U.S. for the violence and called for a huge anti-American demonstration April 9, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

Marketplaces in Baghdad, Tal Afar and Khalis stood in ruins. Cleanup crews shoveled broken glass and debris into wheelbarrows in bloodstained streets. Bomb victims in wooden coffins were hoisted atop cars and vans for the trip south for burial in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

In a sign of how deeply officials were shaken by the carnage, a top aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sami al-Askari, pledged that the government would not relent in efforts to curb violence.

"There is a race between the government and the terrorists who are trying to make people reach the level of despair," Mr. al-Askari said. "But the government is doing its best to defeat terrorists, and it definitely will not be affected by these bombings."

The new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, issued a statement blaming al-Qaeda in Iraq for the week's first major suicide attack, a twin truck bombing that killed 80 people and wounded 185 at markets in Tal Afar in the far northwest part of the country.

He said al-Qaeda's leaders "once again displayed their total disregard for human life, carrying out barbaric actions against innocent Iraqi citizens in an effort to re-ignite sectarian violence and to undermine recent Iraqi and coalition successes in improving security in Baghdad."

Mr. al-Sadr's statement was his first since March 16, when he urged supporters to resist U.S. forces through peaceful means. U.S. and Iraqi officials say he is in Iran, sitting out the current U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, but aides say he has returned to Najaf.

His latest declaration was read to worshippers during Friday prayers at a mosque in Kufa, a twin-city to Najaf where Mr. al-Sadr frequently led the ritual, and in Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite enclave.

"I renew my call for the occupier to leave our land," he said. "The departure of the occupier will mean stability for Iraq, victory for Islam and peace and defeat for terrorism and infidels."

Mr. al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militiamen have generally cooperated with the crackdown, blamed the presence of U.S. forces for the rising violence, lack of services and sectarian bloodshed.

"You, oppressed people of Iraq, let the entire world hear your voice that you reject occupation, destruction and terrorism," he said in calling for the April 9 demonstration.

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...q.352da37.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Joe98
03-31-2007, 01:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19

"The departure of the occupier will mean stability for Iraq, victory for Islam and peace and defeat for terrorism and infidels."

He is right of course.

When the US leaves, the reason for bombers killing women and children in the market goes too.

Everyone knows that.

-
Reply

MTAFFI
03-31-2007, 01:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
He is right of course.

When the US leaves, the reason for bombers killing women and children in the market goes too.

Everyone knows that.

-
It is funny though that the US is proclaimed to be the ones who the violence is directed at, yet it never really seems to take a toll on the US. But no no no, this is nonsense, of course when the US leaves all these displaced people because of these attacks will harbor no ill will towards their Sunni or Shia neighbor, after all it was all in the name of Islam right?
Reply

Trumble
03-31-2007, 02:34 PM
It's all about grabbing power in the "new" Iraq. Of course al-Sadr wants the Americans to go; he will then find it much easier to grab power by violence himself, just as he and the Mahdi Army tried to do in 2004.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Cognescenti
03-31-2007, 03:06 PM
Here is a thought question:

The widely claimed figure of 600,000 killed in the war in Iraq (from the Lancet study)amounts to about 500 killed per day.


Now...here is a story about a particularly brutal week with 508 claimed killed. Does anyone see a discrepancy?


Shia and Sunni boys gunned down together while playing soccer....Women blown up trying to buy vegetables...policemen blown up manning check points...Shia pilgrims blown up. Why, its obvious to me everything will be fine if the US Army and Marines leave. Dang! Why didn't we think of that before?
Reply

akulion
03-31-2007, 03:24 PM
well the problem in my opinion is that that country came under invasion and then it became the duty of every citizen to repel the invaders.

Majority want to fight back and get them out of their country, but then they came up with a strategy to label all those types as "insurgents and terrorists" and start arresting them.

And as for those who sided with the invaders are now seen as traitors to their nation (not to saddam but to Iraq) because they are supporting the systems being implemented by the invaders in order to occupy iraq.

And this poses a big problem because the US govt in its arrogance fails to see that Iraq is a country and culture much older than them and has many times before faced certain doom at the hand of invaders and when finally left alone have eventually bounced back into stablilty eventually.

So as long as the invaders stay there there will continue this instability because there will always be people who rightfully oppose occupation.
Reply

Cognescenti
03-31-2007, 03:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
well the problem in my opinion is that that country came under invasion and then it became the duty of every citizen to repel the invaders.

Majority want to fight back and get them out of their country, but then they came up with a strategy to label all those types as "insurgents and terrorists" and start arresting them.

And as for those who sided with the invaders are now seen as traitors to their nation (not to saddam but to Iraq) because they are supporting the systems being implemented by the invaders in order to occupy iraq.

And this poses a big problem because the US govt in its arrogance fails to see that Iraq is a country and culture much older than them and has many times before faced certain doom at the hand of invaders and when finally left alone have eventually bounced back into stablilty eventually.

So as long as the invaders stay there there will continue this instability because there will always be people who rightfully oppose occupation.
1) Iraq was not a country "long before the US". There has been a civilization (or more properly, a series of civilizations) in the area comprised by Iraq for thousands of years, but let's not pretend there is a 1000 yr history of statehood. Can you even name what language was spoken in "Iraq" 1000 years ago? I bet you can't without looking it up.

2) On this "repelling the invader" idea...I understand the concept of nationalism, but please explain to me how shooting children playing soccer or murdering Shia pilgrims by offering them a ride in a suicide bomb-rigged bus is going to further that aim. The turmoil in Iraq has exposed a huge Shia/Sunni rift that was not invented by George Bush.

3) Iraq may "settle down", as you say, when the US leaves, but not until there is a bloodbath of revenge killing, sectarian cleansing and bald power-grabbing. If that is what you want, fine. Just don't come whining when it happens. What you seem to be saying is that majority of Iraqis lack the sophistication and foresight to live in a pluralistic society under the rule of law instead of the muzzle of a gun. Sadly, it appears you are right.
Reply

Darkseid
03-31-2007, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
well the problem in my opinion is that that country came under invasion and then it became the duty of every citizen to repel the invaders.
For what reason? America isn't there to control the country or stay there permanently. As soon as a workable government is established, they will leave.

Majority want to fight back and get them out of their country, but then they came up with a strategy to label all those types as "insurgents and terrorists" and start arresting them.
Well they are terrorist. A Terrorist is anyone that uses terror to acheive an adjective. Saddam was a terrorist and still was until he was removed from power and executed. Hiter was a terrorist.

The term terrorist shouldn't just imply those that acting against a state. It should imply anyone that is using terror at all. And Bush therefore can be called a Terrorist.

And as for those who sided with the invaders are now seen as traitors to their nation (not to saddam but to Iraq) because they are supporting the systems being implemented by the invaders in order to occupy iraq.
America doesn't want to occupy Iraq. Senators in the American Government (big time legislators) are pressuring the President to leave Iraq, because they don't want our troops in there forever. Bush does, but Bush isn't the only persont that lives in America.

And this poses a big problem because the US govt in its arrogance fails to see that Iraq is a country and culture much older than them and has many times before faced certain doom at the hand of invaders and when finally left alone have eventually bounced back into stablilty eventually.
WRONG! There are Senators in the American Government that perfectly understand that. Me and my extended family of around two hundred want the United States out of Iraq. We are Americans and we want to not occupy Iraq. What does that say to you? STOP ATTACKING AMERICA! Attack Bush for crying out loud.

Or wait. The reason why they want to occupy Iraq is for two specific reasons.

1) To get the oil. Burn the oil and that reason is gone. So burn your oil, people!

2) To have conflict in order to boast business in the military production. There are people that work for those military production companies and without a war, they can't very well get paid. So if there is no reason for them to make those military good, then they will see no profit in having American Troops in Iraq.

So the only real enemy to the Iraqi people are the oil fields and their own aggressive nature. Become true muslims, which is to be truly pacifistic like a Buddhist Monk, and burn your oil fields.

Then just hold out for a month. Without any killings taking place, America will have to leave or Bush will be impeached and removed from office, there could possibly even be a Civil War in the United States upon Bush not being impeached and removed from office. So that's the bright side to look forward to while following my prophetic words.


So as long as the invaders stay there there will continue this instability because there will always be people who rightfully oppose occupation.
You need to follow what I say.

Burn the oil and stop the fighting for a month. Look foward to Bush being thrown out of office or a second American Civil War. Either way, the Iraqis win.

I swear people need to listen to me more often.
Reply

Keltoi
03-31-2007, 04:03 PM
Of course when and if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and the bloodshed increases, the same people calling for a U.S. pullout will still blame the U.S. for the violence.
Reply

akulion
03-31-2007, 04:09 PM
well thats a big assumption to make that bloodshed will increase.

The thing is bloodshed is now unavoidable under all circumstances, because quite frankly the country has been bombed to a rubble literally.

So now obviously every faction will rise to take a hole of some power somewhere. Same as the USA shooting every tom dick and harry in Iraq to maintain power in their hands.

Well they are terrorist. A Terrorist is anyone that uses terror to acheive an adjective. Saddam was a terrorist and still was until he was removed from power and executed. Hiter was a terrorist.

The term terrorist shouldn't just imply those that acting against a state. It should imply anyone that is using terror at all. And Bush therefore can be called a Terrorist.
Well you seem to have missed all the human rights violations in Iraq by the USA against civilians

In case you didnt watch this video of troops shooting civilians as a 'game' and for 'fun' you really should and dont think of it as an isolated incident, I am sure it happens all over the place really...so who is the real terrorist..not to mention the US waged an illegal war against UN resolution and majority world opinion. bombing and destroying every thing. The country is literally in ruins, its no light matter at all! these people have had their families and homes destroyed and burned to a char. I am only a human and I can tell u if someone killed my family tomorrow and I didnt have a home, I would probably go mad with rage and turn into some sort of rage drive vengance machine. I cant say for sure, but seriously there are some things a person dosent even want to imagine in their head happening to themselves because they are so horrible!

Video:
Media Tags are no longer supported

Video Shows U.S. Soldiers Killing Unarmed Iraqi Civilians
Source:http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17393.htm
Reply

Keltoi
03-31-2007, 04:20 PM
The video doesn't load, but if it is the video I think it is it doesn't appear to be U.S. soldiers at all. Mainly because of the vehicle they are riding in and the firearms they are using. My bet would be private security contractors.
Reply

akulion
03-31-2007, 04:24 PM
try following the source page link
there is no vehicle being used in the video by the troops, they appear to be firing on a corner news stand from the roof and then some civilian cars appear and get fired on it. Where the civilians come out of the cars trying to run away and are shot and killed. And in the background you can hear he troops boasting about how they shot the guy in the head and 'f***ed him up' and also the weapons showed (esp the rocket launcher) appears to be the ones used by american troops shows on tv nearly all the time
Reply

Keltoi
03-31-2007, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
try following the source page link
there is no vehicle being used in the video by the troops, they appear to be firing on a corner news stand from the roof and then some civilian cars appear and get fired on it. Where the civilians come out of the cars trying to run away and are shot and killed. And in the background you can hear he troops boasting about how they shot the guy in the head and 'f***ed him up' and also the weapons showed (esp the rocket launcher) appears to be the ones used by american troops shows on tv nearly all the time
Okay, different video than the one I was referring to.

I watched the whole video and I'm not clear what exactly is going on. I know the soldiers are taking fire from somewhere in the general vicinity. I don't know who the individuals in the car were, and neither does "informationclearinghouse". They do appear to be unarmed though. I'm not going to second guess the decisions made here however. I have no idea, and neither do you, what the circumstances of this event are. If those people were simply civilians then the incident should be investigated, if it hasn't been already.
Reply

akulion
03-31-2007, 04:51 PM
Well either ways the atrocities are from both ends and effecting the Iraqi people in general.

The reason I choose to blame the US admin for this whole mess is because like I said before, today I am a peaceful man, but I truly cannot say that tomorrow (God Forbid) after a bomb falls on my house and I come back to find the charred remains of my baby, wife, mom and dad's skeletons lying in the rubble of my destroyed house, that I wont go mad with rage and totally become the opposite of who I am.

So even though the blame does lie on the actions of those people who may do bombings and abductions, but at the same time every action has a reason behind it. And I see it as a direct reaction to the destruction of countless peoples families, homes, lives, jobs etc. It is easy for all of us here to type but its something to think about deep.

Saddam could have been removed in many other ways, but war was the worst, not for him, but for the Iraqi people really.
Reply

Woodrow
03-31-2007, 04:53 PM
I will agree that each and every war Death is a casualty. Perhaps I am getting bit too old but as a 4 year old child I can still remember June 6, 1944. And we did not have TV then. But this made a huge impact. The newspapers wer putting out new editions almost every hour to keep up with what was happening. For my Family it was a personal impact, my Father and 2 uncles were there. they survived but badly wounded.


Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. SOURCE: http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
That was in a matter of a few hours in one day.

I will agree that 508 killed in one week is horrible. But that is not all out war.
Reply

Keltoi
03-31-2007, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
Well either ways the atrocities are from both ends and effecting the Iraqi people in general.

The reason I choose to blame the US admin for this whole mess is because like I said before, today I am a peaceful man, but I truly cannot say that tomorrow (God Forbid) after a bomb falls on my house and I come back to find the charred remains of my baby, wife, mom and dad's skeletons lying in the rubble of my destroyed house, that I wont go mad with rage and totally become the opposite of who I am.

So even though the blame does lie on the actions of those people who may do bombings and abductions, but at the same time every action has a reason behind it. And I see it as a direct reaction to the destruction of countless peoples families, homes, lives, jobs etc. It is easy for all of us here to type but its something to think about deep.

Saddam could have been removed in many other ways, but war was the worst, not for him, but for the Iraqi people really.
I agree with you for the most part. However, I don't think one can generalize and suggest all the violence going on in Iraq is because each individual involved saw his family die. Much of this is political and religious in nature. Of course the damage to the infrastructure and status quo of Iraq was a major disruption, and people are doing what they deem necessary to insure their own survival, at least from their point of view. I'm just not so cynical that I believe the U.S. should just back out and watch Iraqis tear each other apart. Maybe that is the solution, I don know, but I hope for a more constructive solution.
Reply

Woodrow
03-31-2007, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I agree with you for the most part. However, I don't think one can generalize and suggest all the violence going on in Iraq is because each individual involved saw his family die. Much of this is political and religious in nature. Of course the damage to the infrastructure and status quo of Iraq was a major disruption, and people are doing what they deem necessary to insure their own survival, at least from their point of view. I'm just not so cynical that I believe the U.S. should just back out and watch Iraqis tear each other apart. Maybe that is the solution, I don know, but I hope for a more constructive solution.
I agree with you. But, I have no solution. One part of me says we need to get out of Iraq Yesterday if not sooner. Then I say do we have the right to pull out if we think it will result in the lose of more lives? I don't know. It would be an easy choice if we had an identifiable enemy that did pose a danger to us. But, what we see are people trying to survive and only trying to fight at what they see is hurting them.
Reply

Joe98
04-02-2007, 12:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy.

That was in a matter of a few hours in one day.

No. The battle of Normandy lasted 6 weeks.

And the 508 dead were mostly victims of Muslims killing each other.

And it is really irritating that Muslims killing each other with car bombs is compared to a battle in WW2! People here do it all the time!
Reply

MTAFFI
04-02-2007, 01:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
And it is really irritating that Muslims killing each other with car bombs is compared to a battle in WW2! People here do it all the time!
Isnt it funny the lengths people will go to justify something? "Well half a million people died in a fight in WWII so it is ok for 500 to die in a week in Iraq"

It does sound rather stupid doesnt it?
Reply

Woodrow
04-02-2007, 01:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
No. The battle of Normandy lasted 6 weeks.

And the 508 dead were mostly victims of Muslims killing each other.

And it is really irritating that Muslims killing each other with car bombs is compared to a battle in WW2! People here do it all the time!
Just one Question, have you actually read the Thread?
Reply

Woodrow
04-02-2007, 01:17 PM
It was showing that the number dead is very negligible compared to many wars. This is not a war for the USA. If we were out for an actual war there would be over 2,000,000 troops in Iraq insead of less than 100,000.

Now it is true that any death is unacceptable. But, this is very far short of what could be if, Bush were given the reins to declare war.

It is bad that he was even given the power to use limited force. But, that is what it is , limited force. The people are very much opposed to this invasion and we are trying to get out ASAP.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-02-2007, 05:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
It was showing that the number dead is very negligible compared to many wars. This is not a war for the USA. If we were out for an actual war there would be over 2,000,000 troops in Iraq insead of less than 100,000.

Now it is true that any death is unacceptable. But, this is very far short of what could be if, Bush were given the reins to declare war.

It is bad that he was even given the power to use limited force. But, that is what it is , limited force. The people are very much opposed to this invasion and we are trying to get out ASAP.
But in the beginning who wanted this war and thought it would be an easy win like so called Afghanistan( which is similarly as worse as Iraq, just suppressed by the media)
Reply

wilberhum
04-02-2007, 05:34 PM
just suppressed by the media
What media you talking about?
I see information about "The Other War" all the time. :thumbs_up
I just don't understand how you can miss it all.
I guess you just don't look because you have convinced yourself that it isn't there. :skeleton:
Reply

Woodrow
04-02-2007, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
But in the beginning who wanted this war and thought it would be an easy win like so called Afghanistan( which is similarly as worse as Iraq, just suppressed by the media)
GBW had a personal agenda and now we are paying for it. As bad as the situation is it could have been worse if he had been given war time powers.

We have caused a lot of damage and destruction and we need to get out before we cause more.
Reply

Keltoi
04-02-2007, 07:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
GBW had a personal agenda and now we are paying for it. As bad as the situation is it could have been worse if he had been given war time powers.

We have caused a lot of damage and destruction and we need to get out before we cause more.
Actually, President Bush had all the war time powers he needed. The size of the invasion force was intended to be small and mobile, which was Rumsfeld's transformation of the armed forces. Bush had all the powers he needed to carry out any battle plan he and the commanders desired. Unfortunately the chose the best one to destroy the Iraqi Army in record time, but the wrong one in dealing with a prolonged occupation.
Reply

snakelegs
04-02-2007, 11:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I agree with you. But, I have no solution. One part of me says we need to get out of Iraq Yesterday if not sooner. Then I say do we have the right to pull out if we think it will result in the lose of more lives? I don't know. It would be an easy choice if we had an identifiable enemy that did pose a danger to us. But, what we see are people trying to survive and only trying to fight at what they see is hurting them.
i'm with you - we have created a hideous mess and i have no idea what we should do now. sadly, we didn't give this stuff any thought before we invaded. one thing about dictators - they do hold people together.
we have brought anarchy to iraq and it will quite possibly ignite a regional conflict.
who knows where or when it will end?
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
04-03-2007, 12:36 AM
Why should Iraq remain as it is? It is an artificial creation of british colonists, initial constitution, even it's flag was designed by british. Iraq is a remnant of european colonialism, it only exists for less the 100 years. It bears no historical value to muslims.

The sole existance of Iraq as well as other middle eastern states is a living manifest of a shameful condition Umma finds itself nowadays.

Those petty states should fall along with their useless puppets who should be prosecuted. Insha Allah they will fall, and we'll be united and ruled by Sharia'ah once again.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Khan-Ghalgha
Why should Iraq remain as it is? It is an artificial creation of british colonists, initial constitution, even it's flag was designed by british. Iraq is a remnant of european colonialism, it only exists for less the 100 years. It bears no historical value to muslims.

The sole existance of Iraq as well as other middle eastern states is a living manifest of a shameful condition Umma finds itself nowadays.

Those petty states should fall along with their useless puppets who should be prosecuted. Insha Allah they will fall, and we'll be united and ruled by Sharia'ah once again.
you make a valid point - a lot of countries' problems are because they were arbitrarily patched together by the colonialist. in this sense, it could be said that colonialism is a gift that keeps on giving. yes, iraq is indeed a remnant of colonialism.
given that a khalifa is not going to arise tomorrow - what do you suggest for the meantime? and what about the sunni - shia' mess? a regional civil war?
i certainly have no answers. it is a nightmare.
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
04-03-2007, 01:48 AM
you make a valid point - a lot of countries' problems are because they were arbitrarily patched together by the colonialist. in this sense, it could be said that colonialism is a gift that keeps on giving. yes, iraq is indeed a remnant of colonialism.
given that a khalifa is not going to arise tomorrow - what do you suggest for the meantime? and what about the sunni - shia' mess? a regional civil war?
i certainly have no answers. it is a nightmare.
I see no reason for Iraq to exist any longer. I see no possibility for shia's and sunni's to leave as one nation, I think the point of no return was crossed, Iraq is in fact no more, I see nothing that will bound people as a nation, as Iraqis, never really was actually, it's been imposed on them.

Some kind of confederation might be possible tho, and even that with a tremendous external pressure. In the mean time, sunni's and shia's should be politically separated imho, and maybe reconciliated later, if they still want
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 01:53 AM
who should be the one that politically separates sunni and shia'?
do you think the conflict will go regional?
yes, there is no inherent reason for iraq to exist anymore, since it was artificially created in the first place, but where will the bloodshed end? you are no doubt correct tho - iraq no longer exists.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-03-2007, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
who should be the one that politically separates sunni and shia'?
do you think the conflict will go regional?
yes, there is no inherent reason for iraq to exist anymore, since it was artificially created in the first place, but where will the bloodshed end? you are no doubt correct tho - iraq no longer exists.
Bro Peace upon you

The conflict is already regional, the connection between Iraq, Afghanistan,Kashmir, Somalia, Indonesia, Balkins, Chechyna etc list goes on. Since the invasion of Iraq all these Groups have found a way to maintain a connection with each other and share tactics. Anyone who maintains the videos that are shown, understand this connection. For instance, Iran funds the shias, while Saudi Arabia funds the Sunnis. It is these backboard corporations and private companies that fund these groups, fueling more fire.

The only way it will stop, from an Islamic perspective is that the US Must leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Also stop their funding of Israel, which will never happen since every candidate that runs for presidency needs the approval from the Israel Lobbyists. The Insurgents of Sunnis are establishing an Islamic State as the Talibs in Afghanistan are doing the same, as well as Somalia. Then they will invade iran, saudi arabia, in which they will not stop until they establish their Black Flags on the soil of Al Aqsa. If people believe that once the US leaves, let the iraqis deal with it. No this is a wrong mentality, since things will get worse when the US leaves. This way the Sunnis see only the Shias as the problem.

From a Secular view, the United States must maintain peace which will not happen. Therefore sending Iraq to a civil war, in which funding and weaponry will be commonly flowing in through all of Asia and Middle East. So the USA must accept the fact that they have dug the wrong hole, which will Establish a rule based on Sharia.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 02:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Bro Peace upon you

The conflict is already regional, the connection between Iraq, Afghanistan,Kashmir, Somalia, Indonesia, Balkins, Chechyna etc list goes on. Since the invasion of Iraq all these Groups have found a way to maintain a connection with each other and share tactics. Anyone who maintains the videos that are shown, understand this connection. For instance, Iran funds the shias, while Saudi Arabia funds the Sunnis. It is these backboard corporations and private companies that fund these groups, fueling more fire.
yes, this is probably true. irony is that it may well be western military industry which will profit.

[QUOTE] The only way it will stop, from an Islamic perspective is that the US Must leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Also stop their funding of Israel, which will never happen since every candidate that runs for presidency needs the approval from the Israel Lobbyists. The Insurgents of Sunnis are establishing an Islamic State as the Talibs in Afghanistan are doing the same, as well as Somalia. Then they will invade iran, saudi arabia, in which they will not stop until they establish their Black Flags on the soil of Al Aqsa. If people believe that once the US leaves, let the iraqis deal with it. No this is a wrong mentality, since things will get worse when the US leaves. This way the Sunnis see only the Shias as the problem.[/QUOTE]

interesting perspective and you may very well be correct.

From a Secular view, the United States must maintain peace which will not happen. Therefore sending Iraq to a civil war, in which funding and weaponry will be commonly flowing in through all of Asia and Middle East. So the USA must accept the fact that they have dug the wrong hole, which will Establish a rule based on Sharia.
that would be supreme irony. since the u.s. is obviously incapable of maintaining peace in either country (as it obviously is), is what we have unleashed by the invasions of these 2 countries irrevokable?
sharia may indeed be established but it would be only arise on rivers of muslim blood.
the situation does appear to be rather hopeless, doesn't it?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-03-2007, 02:53 AM
[QUOTE=snakelegs;702624]yes, this is probably true. irony is that it may well be western military industry which will profit.

The only way it will stop, from an Islamic perspective is that the US Must leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Also stop their funding of Israel, which will never happen since every candidate that runs for presidency needs the approval from the Israel Lobbyists. The Insurgents of Sunnis are establishing an Islamic State as the Talibs in Afghanistan are doing the same, as well as Somalia. Then they will invade iran, saudi arabia, in which they will not stop until they establish their Black Flags on the soil of Al Aqsa. If people believe that once the US leaves, let the iraqis deal with it. No this is a wrong mentality, since things will get worse when the US leaves. This way the Sunnis see only the Shias as the problem.[/QUOTE]

interesting perspective and you may very well be correct.



that would be supreme irony. since the u.s. is obviously incapable of maintaining peace in either country (as it obviously is), is what we have unleashed by the invasions of these 2 countries irrevokable?
sharia may indeed be established but it would be only arise on rivers of muslim blood.
the situation does appear to be rather hopeless, doesn't it?

Peace be upon you


Islamic Perspective,

When 40,000 Mujahideen fought 200,000 Persians, situation seemed hopeless by the Muslims Won. When 300 Sahaba fought 1000 Mushrikeen, situation hopeless? But they were victorious. The Deen of Allah swt will be established with the blood of the shuhada and the sacrifice of muslims. As those who fight for the Deen and established of the law of Allah swt will allways be victorious.


Secular Perspective,

The situation seems hopeless considering the rate of deaths, but then again, a democratic government would be always a great solution. Why? Since the Kurds and the Shias have all the oil, the Sunnis feel that they will be out of luck, therefore, they wish to conquer Shia territories for economic purposes.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 03:03 AM
would the establishment of "the deen" on the corpses of the shia's be considered acceptable?
thanks for your thoughts and the 2 perspectives.
i don't know what to think any more about iraq. all i know for sure, is that the u.s. has made one hideous mess and there is no end in sight. but that is obvious.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-03-2007, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
would the establishment of "the deen" on the corpses of the shia's be considered acceptable?
thanks for your thoughts and the 2 perspectives.
i don't know what to think any more about iraq. all i know for sure, is that the u.s. has made one hideous mess and there is no end in sight. but that is obvious.

Islamic Perspective

Why would it not be? They are the people of bidah, they curse some of the sahaba, and have a complete error of Tauheed and understanding of the Quran and the Sunnah and commit Shirk by visiting Shrines.

Secular Perspective

Offcourse not, the establishment of an Islamic Democratic State should include shias, kurds and sunnis regardless of religious differences.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 03:18 AM
democracy cannot be imposed by force - it must come from within.
what chance is there now? bush has undermined all the democratic reform movements in the mid-east and strengthened the very people he says are our enemies.
and of course, many muslims say that shariah and democracy are incompatible.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-03-2007, 03:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
democracy cannot be imposed by force - it must come from within.
what chance is there now? bush has undermined all the democratic reform movements in the mid-east and strengthened the very people he says are our enemies.
and of course, many muslims say that shariah and democracy are incompatible.
Peace upon you

Finally someone understands!
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 05:57 AM
well, i always thought bush and bin laden should be pals - they certainly keep each other well fed. ;D
Reply

muthenna
04-03-2007, 07:08 AM
Its very annoying to read these stupid posts of unbelievers how as if they care about deaths in Iraq, or any muslim blood shed or caused to be shed by their sons. Offering us wisdom of high, while killing us with daggers from behind.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 07:14 AM
i have no wisdom to offer from on high or otherwise.
how do you know that all non-believers don't care about the people being killed in iraq? do you think we are all alike? isn't that as stupid as some believing that all muslims are terrorists?
i see no such thing as muslim blood - (or kufr blood either, for that matter) only human blood.
Reply

Keltoi
04-03-2007, 12:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i have no wisdom to offer from on high or otherwise.
how do you know that all non-believers don't care about the people being killed in iraq? do you think we are all alike? isn't that as stupid as some believing that all muslims are terrorists?
i see no such thing as muslim blood - (or kufr blood either, for that matter) only human blood.
In other words, like in the Sixth Sense, you see dead people.
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 12:35 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 03:53 AM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 07:57 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2007, 11:44 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-18-2006, 03:10 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!