What is the way forward for Iraq? Your Views

[AvarAllahNoor]

According to the Pentagon, we used 25,000 munitions (bombs and missiles) during the invasion. Tens of thousands of people were killed, Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed, and anarchy has prevailed ever since. Is it reasonable to expect the Iraqis to collaborate and respect those that killed their relatives and destroyed their country?

The only solution is to leave and let the Iraqis work out their differences, the same way they did for centuries before we intervened in their affairs.


Get rid of US puppets/lackeys and the US colonial outpost that is the new Embassy.

The Iraqi oil contracts need to be voided cause it was written by US appointed puppets to the detriment of Iraqis

LEAVE NOW!! :raging:

[AvarAllahNoor]

Thousands protested yesterday, as a few on here keep saying ''oooh but they want us here'' THEY DO NOT WANT YOU THERE!!!

ARGGGGGGGH!! LEAVEE

[Keltoi]

Al-Sadr doesn't want us there, and his call for a protest will be accepted by thousands of his followers. Do you truly think Al-Sadr is concerned with the future of Iraq? Of course not. He is concerned with his own power base and those Shia who follow him.

As to the way forward, more efforts must be made to improve and protect the infrastructure, including the economy. Jobs and economic progress will do wonders to accomplish what bullets and manpower cannot.

[siFilam]

:salamext:

best thing to do for US and the Muslim world --> US needs to get out and the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East need to come together to help with the reconstruction of Iraq, for the Sake of Allah. In that way it will be Muslims in Muslim land and maybe, just maybe, it won't seem like an occupation.
And Allah knows best.

-SI-

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

[Keltoi]

:salamext:

best thing to do for US and the Muslim world --> US needs to get out and the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East need to come together to help with the reconstruction of Iraq, for the Sake of Allah. In that way it will be Muslims in Muslim land and maybe, just maybe, it won't seem like an occupation.
And Allah knows best.

-SI-

That is a good idea, but what countries do you think would approach that kind of mission with honest intentions and goals? Iran? Hardly. Turkey has a problem with the Kurdish. Saudi Arabia is already involved with the Sunni portion of Iraq. What other "Muslim" countries have the means of carrying something like this out?

[AvarAllahNoor]

*Yawns at Ketioi*

Change the record will you, it's boring.

[Chiteng]

I fear that the US should leave as soon as possible.
Let the Sunni and Shia kill each other.
It seems that killing each other is all they want to do.

But what Bush is doing now, is not working. It is obvious to the entire
world it isnt working.

There are ways to defeat insurgency, and they have been well known
for centuries. Bush is doing NONE of them. All are men are, are targets.

Men are DYING for NOTHING. Just like Vietnam.

The US should impeach Bush, and withdraw, with apologies.

[Malaikah]

I don't think it is realistic for the US to just leave... they can't just enter a country, stuff it up and leave with out fixing it!

But then I guess the real question is whether they even have the potential to fix it?

[ummAbdillah]

salaam

But then I guess the real question is whether they even have the potential to fix it?

They had four years to do just that and it only seems to get worse.
we can only pray for the suffering innocent iraqis.
wa salaam

[Idris]

The US should impeach Bush, and withdraw, with apologies.

That will never happen. A lion kills this is what it's made for. The same with the USA, they will just move to Iran and start more killing.

[siFilam]

That is a good idea, but what countries do you think would approach that kind of mission with honest intentions and goals? Iran? Hardly. Turkey has a problem with the Kurdish. Saudi Arabia is already involved with the Sunni portion of Iraq. What other "Muslim" countries have the means of carrying something like this out?

I know. don't remind me....:cry: it ran through my mind while I was writing my post. We're so disunited. :raging:

-SI-

[siFilam]

:salamext:

I don't think it is realistic for the US to just leave... they can't just enter a country, stuff it up and leave with out fixing it!

But then I guess the real question is whether they even have the potential to fix it?

your right, its not realistic for the US just to leave without fixing the problem they helped to create. But they can't fix the problem. Muslims need to fix Muslim problems. US can help financially and Muslim countries need come together to fix the social and political problems in Iraq.

I know, which Muslim country would do that. don't remind me. :cry: '

wasalam
-SI-

[siFilam]

I fear that the US should leave as soon as possible.
Let the Sunni and Shia kill each other.
It seems that killing each other is all they want to do.

thats not true. Sunni and Shia are capable of living together.

There are ways to defeat insurgency, and they have been well known
for centuries. Bush is doing NONE of them. All are men are, are targets.

what r the ways to defeat insurgency?

-SI-

[Chiteng]

thats not true. Sunni and Shia are capable of living together.




what r the ways to defeat insurgency?

-SI-

You dont really want to know. But examples abound.

The Romans were experts at suppressing insurgency and thruout
the centuries other countries have done just as well. Russia for example
is quite good at it. However, it isnt a policy that people call enlightened
or 'nice'. A post-modern example would be the Boer war.
The Boer Insurgency was defeated. And no one tried harder, than the
Boer.

The problem is that in the modern world, people forget that insurgency IS
a military problem. They keep trying to find a 'political' solution.
There isnt any.

[Keltoi]

You dont really want to know. But examples abound.

The Romans were experts at suppressing insurgency and thruout
the centuries other countries have done just as well. Russia for example
is quite good at it. However, it isnt a policy that people call enlightened
or 'nice'. A post-modern example would be the Boer war.
The Boer Insurgency was defeated. And no one tried harder, than the
Boer.

The problem is that in the modern world, people forget that insurgency IS
a military problem. They keep trying to find a 'political' solution.
There isnt any.

Do truly defeat an insurgency a nation has to become more ruthless than the enemy. The U.S. cannot go down this road.

[Chiteng]

Do truly defeat an insurgency a nation has to become more ruthless than the enemy. The U.S. cannot go down this road.

That is why I said we should leave.

The USA is too interested in playing games, than in actually WINNING.

The adventure in Iraq has now gone on LONGER than its entire involvement in
World War 2.

If you dont wish to win, why start in the first place?

But, insurgency CAN be defeated. Yes indeed it can.

[- Qatada -]

I know. don't remind me....:cry: it ran through my mind while I was writing my post. We're so disunited. :raging:

-SI-

:salamext:


Sister, this hadith cheers me up so much.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said:


"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.


According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah.

[siFilam]

:wasalamex brother,

:salamext:

Sister, this hadith cheers me up so much.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said:


"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.

Jazakallah Khair, that does make things easy to bear. I hope I get to see the return of the Khilafah Rashida. That would really be a great blessing to witness.

wasalam
-SI-

[ACC]

That is why I said we should leave.

The USA is too interested in playing games, than in actually WINNING.

The adventure in Iraq has now gone on LONGER than its entire involvement in
World War 2.

If you dont wish to win, why start in the first place?

But, insurgency CAN be defeated. Yes indeed it can.

Sadly, I agree with a good amount of this. The people of the USA forget how wars used to be won. It did not include smart bombs and pinpoint attacks. The will of the enemy to fight was utterly crushed, which is not a pretty sight.

[siFilam]

Sadly, I agree with a good amount of this. The people of the USA forget how wars used to be won. It did not include smart bombs and pinpoint attacks. The will of the enemy to fight was utterly crushed, which is not a pretty sight.

I hope u guys r NOT thinking about nukes.

-SI-

[Keltoi]

Sadly, I agree with a good amount of this. The people of the USA forget how wars used to be won. It did not include smart bombs and pinpoint attacks. The will of the enemy to fight was utterly crushed, which is not a pretty sight.

It's a little different when you can concentrate on battlefield strategy, where the enemy guns are located, where the tanks are, etc. Insurgency is a contest of will. The only way for a nation to stomp out a true insurgency is to be absolutely ruthless. The U.S. should not and cannot stoop to that level.

[ACC]

It's a little different when you can concentrate on battlefield strategy, where the enemy guns are located, where the tanks are, etc. Insurgency is a contest of will. The only way for a nation to stomp out a true insurgency is to be absolutely ruthless. The U.S. should not and cannot stoop to that level.

Yes, that is what I am saying for the most part.

The French were ruthless with North Africans, the Turks with the Greeks, the Japanese with the Koreans and Chinese, etc. In the end, who has the stamina.

[ACC]

I hope u guys r NOT thinking about nukes.

-SI-

No, I dont think so. This is not one of the scenarios I would envision using nukes in.

[Chiteng]

I hope u guys r NOT thinking about nukes.

-SI-

What type of nukes? Surgical? (used against the underground factory)
Or strategic? (used against cities)

Strategic Nukes have ONE advantage, they remove the problem.
That is their ONLY advantage.

However, destruction ISNT, winning. Because, in the end, what have you won? Nothing.

However, surgical nukes are not the same thing.

[Chiteng]

It's a little different when you can concentrate on battlefield strategy, where the enemy guns are located, where the tanks are, etc. Insurgency is a contest of will. The only way for a nation to stomp out a true insurgency is to be absolutely ruthless. The U.S. should not and cannot stoop to that level.

Actually, they have. Many times. So yes, we could.
The Phillipines Insurrection is a classic example.

However.....the President is too concerned about how he looks in the history books, rather than upon WINNING the conflict.

He should NEVER have gone in. It is the greatest mistake of this century.

[siFilam]

:salamext:

He should NEVER have gone in. It is the greatest mistake of this century.

well, I'm glad we agree on something. US isn't going to win this war and the war in Afghanistan isn't over either.


wasalam
-SI-

[MTAFFI]

I have to agree with Chiteng. The US could easily "win" the war in Iraq against the insurgents if it truly wanted to, but it is a political game. It is good to see though that the US is a peaceful nation and strives for peace, unlike those who are causing the destruction in Iraq, I wish more people would see it this way rather than blaming everything on the US. I say pull out and let the chips fall where they may, you cannot truly defeat an enemy like what is faced in Iraq without crushing them, and the US wont do it so unless we really want to fight a war then I say just leave and let them do whatever they want to each other. All sides are equally ruthless, someone will come out on top and a new dictator will be installed and the Iraqis will be oppressed again which apparently the only way there will be peace.

[siFilam]

I have to agree with Chiteng. The US could easily "win" the war in Iraq against the insurgents if it truly wanted to, but it is a political game. It is good to see though that the US is a peaceful nation and strives for peace, unlike those who are causing the destruction in Iraq, I wish more people would see it this way rather than blaming everything on the US. I say pull out and let the chips fall where they may, you cannot truly defeat an enemy like what is faced in Iraq without crushing them, and the US wont do it so unless we really want to fight a war then I say just leave and let them do whatever they want to each other. All sides are equally ruthless, someone will come out on top and a new dictator will be installed and the Iraqis will be oppressed again which apparently the only way there will be peace.

you are forgetting your own history. who helped to install Sadaam? Who walked into Iraq in the first place? and NO US couldn't win this even if it wanted to. No, can't just pull out, have to pay for the damages financially.

-SI-

[MTAFFI]

you are forgetting your own history. who helped to install Sadaam? Who walked into Iraq in the first place? and NO US couldn't win this even if it wanted to. No, can't just pull out, have to pay for the damages financially.

-SI-

are you on some kind of medication? How did the US "help" install Saddam? The US uninstalled Saddam for the Iraqi people and US security. Oh believe me oh great naive and arrogant one, the US could very easily defeat the Iraqi insurgency, it would just be a matter of being as brutal as the insurgents rather than continuing to try to reach a diplomatic solution with heathens. The US shouldnt pay for anything in Iraq, the insurgents have destroyed far more than the US has, not to mention the money we are already paying our soldiers to try to police the country (pointless). The US owes Iraq nothing, why would we pay for a country that does nothing for us? What a joke, I just hope we get our people out and let these people fend for themselves

[Chechnya]

Oh believe me oh great naive and arrogant one, the US could very easily defeat the Iraqi insurgency, it would just be a matter of being as brutal as the insurgents rather than continuing to try to reach a diplomatic solution with heathens]

For those thinking utter ruthlessness can defeat an insurgency, im afraid the Russia-Chechen war proves otherwise.

Russia has ruthlessly destroyed whole cities and towns - has killed about 25% of the population and still counting - has commited large-scale massacres from the air and the ground - has used rape as a weapon of war - has opened concetration camps where men, women and even children are executed, tortured or raped - it has 1 soldier for every 6 civilians in chechnya inculding children...

and after all that brutalilty, only last week the insurgency attacked a russian held village and killed 71 russian and chechen puppet soldiers - the insurgency has itself admitted that russias crimes has increased its ranks tenfold to the point where they cant arm everyone

America can be as ruthless as it wants, it wont change the situation greatly except create more hatred and inevitably more dead US soldier - the best thing left for the US is to cut and run

[MTAFFI]

For those thinking utter ruthlessness can defeat an insurgency, im afraid the Russia-Chechen war proves otherwise.

Russia has ruthlessly destroyed whole cities and towns - has killed about 25% of the population and still counting - has commited large-scale massacres from the air and the ground - has used rape as a weapon of war - has opened concetration camps where men, women and even children are executed, tortured or raped - it has 1 soldier for every 6 civilians in chechnya inculding children...

and after all that brutalilty, only last week the insurgency attacked a russian held village and killed 71 russian and chechen puppet soldiers - the insurgency has itself admitted that russias crimes has increased its ranks tenfold to the point where they cant arm everyone

America can be as ruthless as it wants, it wont change the situation greatly except create more hatred and inevitably more dead US soldier - the best thing left for the US is to cut and run

I dont think the fighters in Chechnya should be compared to Iraq, Russia is trying to seize that land not protect it as the US is doing in Iraq. By war in Iraq as I spoke of above I am talking about pull the majority of ground troops out and drop bomb after bomb until the enemies morale is nonexistent and they realize their fight is pointless. There is a way to defeat them it would just be at the cost of many civilian lives and the cost of the reputation of the US as being a peace pursuing country. Make no mistake the US has the power to kill everyone there, but as I said that is not the goal and not a good strategy if the US is in pursuit of peace.

[Chechnya]

I dont think the fighters in Chechnya should be compared to Iraq, Russia is trying to seize that land not protect it as the US is doing in Iraq. By war in Iraq as I spoke of above I am talking about pull the majority of ground troops out and drop bomb after bomb until the enemies morale is nonexistent and they realize their fight is pointless. There is a way to defeat them it would just be at the cost of many civilian lives and the cost of the reputation of the US as being a peace pursuing country. Make no mistake the US has the power to kill everyone there, but as I said that is not the goal and not a good strategy if the US is in pursuit of peace.

I dont think you understand the enemy to well if you think they'll simply give up because they are totally outgunned by the US - if that was their thinking patern, they wouldnt be standing against the US.

Your plan of utter brutality will not only fail, as we have seen in chechnya (i dont understand your explanation in the differences between the two situations) but just confirm for everyone that the US really is a murdering crusading nation and push muslims into the bin laden camp - its not something the US can afford to do

weighing up the acceptable level of brutality and a decent public image is almost impossible - I think even the Bush team will soon realise there is no victory for them in Iraq

[MTAFFI]

I dont think you understand the enemy to well if you think they'll simply give up because they are totally outgunned by the US - if that was their thinking patern, they wouldnt be standing against the US.

They arent really "standing" up to anyone right now, since they just hide and send some poor sap out to kill himself every day

Your plan of utter brutality will not only fail, as we have seen in chechnya (i dont understand your explanation in the differences between the two situations) but just confirm for everyone that the US really is a murdering crusading nation and push muslims into the bin laden camp - its not something the US can afford to do

The difference between Chechnya and Iraq is the Chechnyans are fighting for their land and the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their own agendas. The US is not fighting in Iraq right now, they are trying to create stability and let the Iraqis have their own country, whereas the Chechnyans just want their own country and Russia wants to take it from them. The Chechnyans have good reason to fight, whereas the insurgents have no reason. As far as the US being a murdering crusading nation, that is why we havent just blown Iraq off the map, because that is not what the US is, in fact if people looked at the US beyond some of its negativity they would find that the US is a peace loving nation and has done a lot more good things for the world than probably any other nation in the world

weighing up the acceptable level of brutality and a decent public image is almost impossible - I think even the Bush team will soon realise there is no victory for them in Iraq

The US has been victorious in Iraq already, the main objective of the war has been completed, so I guess it what you consider a victory. Iraq making peace within itself benefits only Iraq, what difference does it ultimately make to the US?

[Chechnya]

They arent really "standing" up to anyone right now, since they just hide and send some poor sap out to kill himself every day

Depends what way you look like it - in the past 3 weeks alone they have killed more than 40 coalition troops

they dont have the training nor the equipment of the coalition troops but are still prepared to fight against it

The difference between Chechnya and Iraq is the Chechnyans are fighting for their land and the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their own agendas.

What are you basing that on?

The difference between Chechnya and Iraq is the Chechnyans are fighting for their land and the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for their own agendas. The US is not fighting in Iraq right now, they are trying to create stability and let the Iraqis have their own country, whereas the Chechnyans just want their own country and Russia wants to take it from them. The Chechnyans have good reason to fight, whereas the insurgents have no reason.

It may seem like that to you on the outside but with the insurgency showing no signs of slowing, it seems like those in Iraq dont think so - and it certainly seems that the Iraqis dont trust the Americans

Lets not forget that all the pretty words that the US has used in Iraq such as "creating stability", "liberation", "restoring constitutional order" etc. have all been used by the Russians in Chechnya.
Clearly the people in those countries dont see it that way.

The US has been victorious in Iraq already, the main objective of the war has been completed, so I guess it what you consider a victory. Iraq making peace within itself benefits only Iraq, what difference does it ultimately make to the US?

If victory is achieved, then why not get out?

I thought the main objective was to destroy the Wmd's - or was it to kill Saddam - or was it to "liberate" the Iraqis - or was it to kill terrorists...i forget, theres been so many...

[Keltoi]

Depends what way you look like it - in the past 3 weeks alone they have killed more than 40 coalition troops

they dont have the training nor the equipment of the coalition troops but are still prepared to fight against it



What are you basing that on?



It may seem like that to you on the outside but with the insurgency showing no signs of slowing, it seems like those in Iraq dont think so - and it certainly seems that the Iraqis dont trust the Americans

Lets not forget that all the pretty words that the US has used in Iraq such as "creating stability", "liberation", "restoring constitutional order" etc. have all been used by the Russians in Chechnya.
Clearly the people in those countries dont see it that way.



If victory is achieved, then why not get out?

I thought the main objective was to destroy the Wmd's - or was it to kill Saddam - or was it to "liberate" the Iraqis - or was it to kill terrorists...i forget, theres been so many...

The goals of the Iraq War were fluid. One day it was WMD, the next it was Saddam's brutality, the next it was to create a stable independent government. I would say the main goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. However, they went further than that and attempted to nation build.

[Chiteng]

For those thinking utter ruthlessness can defeat an insurgency, im afraid the Russia-Chechen war proves otherwise.

Russia has ruthlessly destroyed whole cities and towns - has killed about 25% of the population and still counting - has commited large-scale massacres from the air and the ground - has used rape as a weapon of war - has opened concetration camps where men, women and even children are executed, tortured or raped - it has 1 soldier for every 6 civilians in chechnya inculding children...

and after all that brutalilty, only last week the insurgency attacked a russian held village and killed 71 russian and chechen puppet soldiers - the insurgency has itself admitted that russias crimes has increased its ranks tenfold to the point where they cant arm everyone

America can be as ruthless as it wants, it wont change the situation greatly except create more hatred and inevitably more dead US soldier - the best thing left for the US is to cut and run

I would argue that Russia is not being ruthless.
Compare what Putin is doing, to what Stalin would have done.

But ruthlessness alone isnt what I was saying.
Study the Boer War and the Phillipines Insurrection

Insurgency CAN be defeated. But it does take a certain amount of will.

[Chiteng]

The goals of the Iraq War were fluid. One day it was WMD, the next it was Saddam's brutality, the next it was to create a stable independent government. I would say the main goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. However, they went further than that and attempted to nation build.

Actually, I think Bush's goal was to obtain control of the USA.
Sadly, it worked.

I dont think he ever really cared about Iraq or Iraqi. He still doesnt.
Another good reason to leave.

[Link]

Iraq will be saved by Muqtadal Al-Sadr (ha). Just as lebanon was saved by Nasrallah (ha). And just as Iran, and even can be argued Islam in general, was saved by Khomeini (qas).

[MTAFFI]

Depends what way you look like it - in the past 3 weeks alone they have killed more than 40 coalition troops

Where do you get your info? I dont see this as true

What are you basing that on?

I am basing that on the Chechnyans are not killing each other at exponential rates. If the insurgents were truly fighting for their land and people their wouldnt be so many dead Iraqis. They fight for political reasons or for sectarian reasons, not for land or freedom. All they have to do is stop killing each other and the US would have been gone, if the Chechnyans stopped killing they would just be under Russian rule.

It may seem like that to you on the outside but with the insurgency showing no signs of slowing, it seems like those in Iraq dont think so - and it certainly seems that the Iraqis dont trust the Americans

I guess it depends where you look, I have seen plenty of Iraqis that are happy about US troops, and the insurgency is slowing or at least moving, look at all those who still live in baghdad, they arent killing anyone, it is groups of people killing not the Iraqis.The insurgents are just as much invaders and as the US and they are the true occupiers because they actually want the land for themselves whereas if the violence stopped the US would very happily hand over all control of the land to the Iraqis.

Lets not forget that all the pretty words that the US has used in Iraq such as "creating stability", "liberation", "restoring constitutional order" etc. have all been used by the Russians in Chechnya.
Clearly the people in those countries dont see it that way.

Russia is also killing everyone in sight over there as well and not policing the country.

If victory is achieved, then why not get out?

Because it would be wrong to leave the innocent Iraqis to be slaughtered like that, although at this point I agree, we should just leave, we wont win policing the area and if we dont want to just pull an all out offensive then why stay

I thought the main objective was to destroy the Wmd's - or was it to kill Saddam - or was it to "liberate" the Iraqis - or was it to kill terrorists...i forget, theres been so many...

Find WMDs mission complete, none found
Saddam and liberate Iraqis was hand in hand, objective complete
Kill terrorist- many have been killed, mission partial complete
Again I will say the only reason the US is still there is because Bush has some personal issue with leaving these people to fend for themselves, but with all the complaining and the image it is projecting for our country, I say let the world see what will happen

[MTAFFI]

Iraq will be saved by Muqtadal Al-Sadr (ha). Just as lebanon was saved by Nasrallah (ha). And just as Iran, and even can be argued Islam in general, was saved by Khomeini (qas).

If the US pulls out I actually hope Al-Sadr would win against all the other organizations over there, I think he would probably be the less of all the evils, he seems to want democracy and a country free of violence. I think he may be one of the only ones actually wanting peace. I applaud him for calling off the attacks as he did recently.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Sunni and shia lived side by side before the nutters invaded. Now they've caused a rift so they can stay longer. Yanks will not prosper. Mark my words! Lets invade the US....

[wilberhum]

Sunni and shia lived side by side before the nutters invaded. Now they've caused a rift so they can stay longer. Yanks will not prosper. Mark my words! Lets invade the US....

Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for 1400 years.
It is nothing but sectarian hate. It has nothing to do with the invasion.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...8CBF5D0C03.htm

Scores dead in Pakistan clashes
Sunni and Shia Muslims have exchanged gunfire in northwestern Pakistan villages, where the government has said that a week of sectarian violence has left at least 49 people dead and others 115 wounded.

However, other reports on Thursday suggested the fighting has inflicted a much higher death toll than government's official figures suggest.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for 1400 years.
It is nothing but sectarian hate. It has nothing to do with the invasion.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...8CBF5D0C03.htm

IRAQ is the topic here not PAKISTAN!!

[MTAFFI]

Sunni and shia lived side by side before the nutters invaded. Now they've caused a rift so they can stay longer. Yanks will not prosper. Mark my words! Lets invade the US....

Why would the Yanks wish to stay longer?

Please do attempt to invade the US, I would love to see it :D

[wilberhum]

IRAQ is the topic here not PAKISTAN!!

Da, :skeleton: it just shows that your invasion theory is junk. :D

[MTAFFI]

IRAQ is the topic here not PAKISTAN!!

So if it isnt sectarian what is it? Are you suggesting that there hasnt always been this sort of conflict in Iraq?

[MTAFFI]

Da, :skeleton: it just shows that your invasion theory is junk. :D

NOT JUST JUNK BUT A COMPLETE AND UTTER LANDFILL OF GARBAGE AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Sorry, i guess you all know the rules.


No Sectarian issues allowed.


Thread Closed.