Do people blame Islam for Manchester bombing?

[Abz2000]

Again, more conspiracy theories.

The UK does NOT intentionally target innocent civilians. When it fights idiots like ISIS, it is aiming at the ISIS terrorists. But ISIS terrorists are cowards and force civilians to stay put or they threaten to murder the local population, so the local population in some cities and villages in Syria become hostages to ISIS and are purposefully forced to stay in war zones so that ISIS can then make armies that try to drive them out look bad. This is a well-known terrorist tactic. Note that I am not for foreign intervention in the Middle East because even though I think Western countries believe that they are helping, they are clearly not... in fact, they end up making things worse because of their poor understanding of what's going on on the grounds. They should stay at home and let the people in the Middle East resolve their conflicts on their own.

On the reverse, ISIS intentionally targets innocent civilians. Aside from the horrible murders ISIS commits, it also slanders Islam.

As for the incident with Madeleine Albright, I looked it up. It happened in 1996, and Albright was defending UN sanctions against Iraq. The journalist asked a trap yes/no question: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright answered the question very poorly by saying "yes", as typical US politicians tend to do. But to imply that the half a million children died as a direct result of America's actions is simply not true. As for where that journalist got that half a million figure from is quite questionable. All deaths occurring in Iraq after the 1991 sanctions were passed were being blamed on the sanctions at the time. Either way, this is an old incident from the post-Gulf war era. This article here helps explain another anti-American "myth" of US being "evil": http://reason.com/archives/2002/03/01/the-politics-of-dead-children Please read.

Let's not get everything confused with more conspiracy theories.

Thank you.

Maybe you're referring to britain's installed regional ally Mossad - the
Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
Since your descriptions fit them well.

The manchester incident hasn't been tried in court or had a completed investigation - yet, your secularist politicians and their puppet media are already drawing conclusions and pointing the finger and accusing people of being bombers - including Conspiracy theories and lone wolf theories. Whereas re. 9/11 everybody knows that the biggest conspiracy theory is the story of a conspiracy fed to the public by the bush administration - with some of those accused of blowing themselves up with their wills on board -being found alive in their home countries..

I had thought that the following article would be something I'd quickly scan through due to it's length, but upon reading the first part - have decided to save it as an essential read - it addresses most of your errr..refutations in the quoted post.




https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

Saturday 4 March 2000

.....
.
An excerpt: (though the whole article is a riveting read).

....The next day, I saw a similar line of women and children, and fathers and children, in the cancer ward at the Al Mansour children's hospital. It is not unlike St Thomas's in London. Drugs arrived, they said, but intermittently, so that children with leukaemia, who can be saved with a full course of three anti-biotics, pass a point beyond which they cannot be saved, because one is missing. Children with meningitis can also survive with the precise dosage of antibiotics; here they die. "Four milligrams save a life," said Dr Mohamed Mahmud, "but so often we are allowed no more than one milligram." This is a teaching hospital, yet children die because there are no blood-collecting bags and no machines that separate blood platelets: basic equipment in any British hospital. Replacements and spare parts have been "on hold" in New York, together with incubators, X-ray machines, and heart and lung machines.

I sat in a clinic as doctors received parents and their children, some of them dying. After every other examination, Dr Lekaa Fasseh Ozeer, the oncologist, wrote in English: "No drugs available." I asked her to jot down in my notebook a list of the drugs the hospital had ordered, but rarely saw. In London, I showed this to Professor Karol Sikora who, as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation (WHO), wrote in the British Medical Journal last year: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee in New York]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons."

He told me, "Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. They're very standard. When I came back from Iraq last year, with a group of experts I drew up a list of 17 drugs that are deemed essential for cancer treatment. We informed the UN that there was no possibility of converting these drugs into chemical warfare agents. We heard nothing more. The saddest thing I saw in Iraq was children dying because there was no chemotherapy and no pain control. It seemed crazy they couldn't have morphine, because for everybody with cancer pain, it is the best drug. When I was there, they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go round 200 patients in pain. They would receive a particular anti-cancer drug, but then get only little bits of drugs here and there, and so you can't have any planning. It is bizarre."

In January, last year, George Robertson, then defence secretary, said, "Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute." The British government knew this was false, because UN humanitarian officials had made clear the problem of drugs and equipment coming sporadically into Iraq - such as machines without a crucial part, IV fluids and syringes arriving separately - as well as the difficulties of transport and the need for a substantial buffer stock. "The goods that come into this country are distributed to where they belong," said Hans von Sponeck. "Our most recent stock analysis shows that 88.8% of all humanitarian supplies have been distributed." The representatives of Unicef, the World Food Programme and the Food and Agricultural Organisation confirmed this. If Saddam Hussein believed he could draw an advantage from obstructing humanitarian aid, he would no doubt do so. However, according to a FAO study: "The government of Iraq introduced a public food rationing system with effect from within a month of the imposition of the embargo. It provides basic foods at 1990 prices, which means they are now virtually free. This has a life-saving nutritional benefit . . . and has prevented catastrophe for the Iraqi people.".......

........A courtly, eloquent Irishman, Denis Halliday resigned as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq in 1998, after 34 years with the UN; he was then Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the elite of senior officials. He had made his career in development, "attempting to help people, not harm them". His was the first public expression of an unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning," he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that . . . Five thousand children are dying every month . . . I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these."

When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible."

Inside the UN, Halliday broke a long collective silence. Then on February 13 this year, Hans von Sponeck, who had succeeded him as humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, resigned. "How long," he asked, "should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, resigned, saying privately she, too, could not tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people. Another resignation is expected.

When I met von Sponeck in Baghdad last October, the anger building behind his measured, self-effacing exterior was evident. Like Halliday before him, his job was to administer the Oil for Food Programme, which since 1996 has allowed Iraq to sell a fraction of its oil for money that goes straight to the Security Council. Almost a third pays the UN's "expenses", reparations to Kuwait and compensation claims. Iraq then tenders on the international market for food and medical supplies and other humanitarian supplies. Every contract must be approved by the Sanctions Committee in New York. "What it comes down to," he said, "is that we can spend only $180 per person over six months. It is a pitiful picture. Whatever the arguments about Iraq, they should not be conducted on the backs of the civilian population."

Denis Halliday and I travelled to Iraq together. It was his first trip back. Washington and London make much of the influence of Iraqi propaganda when their own, unchallenged, is by far the most potent. With this in mind, I wanted an independent assessment from some of the 550 UN people, who are Iraq's lifeline. Among them, Halliday and von Sponeck are heroes. I have reported the UN at work in many countries; I have never known such dissent and anger, directed at the manipulation of the Security Council, and the corruption of what some of them still refer to as the UN "ideal".......

Madeleine Albright has said: "We do not agree that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted."........

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9......

 

[fromelsewhere]

Why would anyone admit guilt by way of apology when they are not guilty?

Everyone has categorically said on this forum that there is absolutely NO need to apologize (or feel guilty) for a crime that you have not been involved in. That being said, we need to find ways to stop the hatred that is being preached and promoted by terrorist organizations because there are clearly some Muslims who are being influenced by it. I believe that the solution lies in education. We need to stop systematically vilifying the West (which everyone on here is good at doing) and conversely systematically minimizing/white-washing the conflicts within the Ummah. We need to take a critical look at our society as a whole, and specifically look into what the Muslim community can do to better improve people's education on Islam.

 

[Scimitar]

Everyone has categorically said on this forum that there is absolutely NO need to apologize (or feel guilty) for a crime that you have not been involved in. That being said, we need to find ways to stop the hatred that is being preached and promoted by terrorist organizations because there are clearly some Muslims who are being influenced by it. I believe that the solution lies in education. We need to stop systematically vilifying the West (which everyone on here is good at doing) and conversely systematically minimizing/white-washing the conflicts within the Ummah. We need to take a critical look at our society as a whole, and specifically look into what the Muslim community can do to better improve people's education on Islam.

I can half agree with you,

what I do not agree with is your contradiction:

you said to stop vilifying the west then in the same breath - you said - we need to take a critical look at our society - guess what? that's the same thing.

if I'm to critique the western society - then brother - it will be vilified!

Scimi

 

[Simple_Person]

Everyone has categorically said on this forum that there is absolutely NO need to apologize (or feel guilty) for a crime that you have not been involved in. That being said, we need to find ways to stop the hatred that is being preached and promoted by terrorist organizations because there are clearly some Muslims who are being influenced by it. I believe that the solution lies in education. We need to stop systematically vilifying the West (which everyone on here is good at doing) and conversely systematically minimizing/white-washing the conflicts within the Ummah. We need to take a critical look at our society as a whole, and specifically look into what the Muslim community can do to better improve people's education on Islam.

Dude, i am gonna repeat it again. Who started all of this so to say..the cycle of hatred? Where does one find the crack in the cycle to put education in it, so the cycle breaks? All you say is that we need to educate this and we need to educate that. My conclusion is the crack in this cycle is corrupt western politicians AND i have given you WHY i have come to that conclusion.

Yet, you just repeat and repeat like how mass media does by spreading propaganda..WITHOUT a backing of their story.

So do tell me EVEN IF lets say we educate Muslims. Let's say for the sake of argument ALL the Muslims on the planet have been educated. However the corrupt western politicians keep supporting the dictators in the Middle East..and they keep oppressing Muslims and invasion by western powers keeps on going..AND YES ..no terrorist attacks in the west.

Now is my question to you, what is your solution to this? Hatred of the west is a reaction/outcome of something that has happened previous. I myself have not hatred against the west, because innocent western sheeple are also victims of propaganda, however Muslims are being killed and YOU are defending those monsters that are responsible for it (corrupt western politicians). I want you to go outside and put ALL your money in to putting Blair and Bush behind bars. When you have achieved that, that is the moment i start listening to you. Yet you branding yourself as the messenger who comes in peace. That is just hypocrisy at the top.

 

[DunyaStory]

Dude, i am gonna repeat it again. Who started all of this so to say..the cycle of hatred? Where does one find the crack in the cycle to put education in it, so the cycle breaks? All you say is that we need to educate this and we need to educate that. My conclusion is the crack in this cycle is corrupt western politicians AND i have given you WHY i have come to that conclusion.

Yet, you just repeat and repeat like how mass media does by spreading propaganda..WITHOUT a backing of their story.

So do tell me EVEN IF lets say we educate Muslims. Let's say for the sake of argument ALL the Muslims on the planet have been educated. However the corrupt western politicians keep supporting the dictators in the Middle East..and they keep oppressing Muslims and invasion by western powers keeps on going..AND YES ..no terrorist attacks in the west.

Now is my question to you, what is your solution to this? Hatred of the west is a reaction/outcome of something that has happened previous. I myself have not hatred against the west, because innocent western sheeple are also victims of propaganda, however Muslims are being killed and YOU are defending those monsters that are responsible for it (corrupt western politicians). I want you to go outside and put ALL your money in to putting Blair and Bush behind bars. When you have achieved that, that is the moment i start listening to you. Yet you branding yourself as the messenger who comes in peace. That is just hypocrisy at the top.

I agree with him, but you make a good point aswell brother.
My perspective is that we should do whatever is efficient. You are on point when you say how that cycle of hatred started from western polititans, but we cannot do anything about them.
''A small person'' has limited options of acting, and in my opinion we have an option to talk with others , spread the truth and inshallah hope for best from Allah.
Just my opinion...

 

[Abz2000]

I agree with him, but you make a good point aswell brother.
My perspective is that we should do whatever is efficient. You are on point when you say how that cycle of hatred started from western polititans, but we cannot do anything about them.
''A small person'' has limited options of acting, and in my opinion we have an option to talk with others , spread the truth and inshallah hope for best from Allah.
Just my opinion...

That was usually the method of the Prophets pbut until they gained a strong enough following with help from Allah to enforce the laws of Allah - happened with Musa at egypt until the migration, happened with Muhammad pbuh until the migration - and throughout the life of Jesus under roman occupation.
If I am to blame a person for bombing britain and her allies almost every day for 25 years within Allah's limits of upto equal retaliation - then i must lay more blame upon the british government and her allies , since not a day has gone by that the british government and allies - with backing of it's people (as claimed by the people) hasn't bombed or killed the Muslims of iraq without just cause since around 1992 up until today.
It is the prescription of Allah to those who have been wronged - that Allah allows them to retaliate up to a maximum of the injury received.

Britain and the United States are still bombing Iraq almost every day: it is the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign since the second world war, yet, with honourable exceptions, very little appears about it in the British media. Conducted under the cover of "no fly zones", which have no basis in international law, the aircraft, according to Tony Blair, are "performing vital humanitarian tasks". The ministry of defence in London has a line about "taking robust action to protect pilots" from Iraqi attacks - yet an internal UN Security Sector report says that, in one five-month period, 41 per cent of the victims were civilians in civilian targets: villages, fishing jetties, farmland and vast, treeless valleys where sheep graze. A shepherd, his father, his four children and his sheep were killed by a British or American aircraft, which made two passes at them. I stood in the cemetery where the children are buried and their mother shouted, "I want to speak to the pilot who did this."

This is a war against the children of Iraq on two fronts: bombing, which in the last year cost the British taxpayer £60 million. And the most ruthless embargo in modern history. According to Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month - that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years. If this statistic is difficult to grasp, consider, on the day you read this, up to 200 Iraqi children may die needlessly.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

Operation Shader
In December 2016, it was reported that the Royal Air Force is operating at its most intense for 25 years in a single theatre of operation which far outstripped the UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan – RAF jets have dropped 11 times more bombs (1,276 strikes) on Syria and Iraq in the preceding 12 months than they had in the busiest year of action in Afghanistan a decade previously (119).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shader

Anyway, when the british government claim that isis did it - it could be the sas....

SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis
BRITISH Special Forces are mounting hit and run raids against Islamic State deep inside eastern Syria dressed as insurgent fighters, the Sunday Express can reveal.

The unorthodox tactic, which is seeing SAS units dressed in black and flying ISIS flags, has been likened to the methods used by the Long Range Desert Group against Rommel's forces during the Second World War.

More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country on operation Shader, tasked with destroying IS equipment and munitions which insurgents constantly move to avoid Coalition air strikes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/595439/SAS-ISIS-fighter-Jihadis

Was the british government not arming the mujahideen in order to cause chaos in Syria? It is truly evident that the british government along with it's allies is a criminal organisation run by rothschild and co. And is responsible for all the bloodshed we see and don't see.

 

[Simple_Person]

I agree with him, but you make a good point aswell brother.
My perspective is that we should do whatever is efficient. You are on point when you say how that cycle of hatred started from western polititans, but we cannot do anything about them.
''A small person'' has limited options of acting, and in my opinion we have an option to talk with others , spread the truth and inshallah hope for best from Allah.
Just my opinion...

Brother, i have been brief with the conclusion i gave, in another topic i gave a more detailed version of this conclusion.

Let me expand it a bit more, so you can see what i mean.

Education is key for Muslims, however who is preventing Muslims to be educated? We know it is the dictators that are preventing the people they rule to be educated. Educated people are people who THINK and who PONDER and who pursue knowledge and ideas. When the current idea of society is false or something is wrong with it, these educated people start gathering people to start change...in other words..revolutions. Revolutions are NOT good, as revolutions tend to follow a path other than the one that the dictator wants you to follow. When rulers in those countries are NOT in the pocket of corrupt western politicians, that means no money to be made. Just look at Trump just recently he went to Saudi Arabia and did i believe a $110 BILLION DOLLAR military deal that expands in the coming 10 years.

The Muslims (we) that are living in the west and have educated ourselves, we see what is wrong. We do justice by Islam, but also justice by the ignorant people (western people). We try to educate them of what is going on and what Islam is about and show them other perspectives. There are some percentage that is willing to learn and to listen, while there is a large part that does not want to listen. When you suddenly bring out the REALITY CHECKS, they become all emotional. What am i talking about? The western world by VERY VERY VERY large portion have become like babies. VERY INCAPABLE to survive on their own experience and knowledge with basic things. They are enjoying all the luxurious that are there because of exploitation. When you ask them if they are willing to stand up against their governments but on the other hand will be losing some of the luxuries you are enjoying..many off course will object.

They have become so blind that they do not care what is happening to the rest of the world. It is rather a blessing for many POOR people on this world that they have not been relying on too many luxurious things (tap water, electricity, car, etc.) If just 1 thing might happen, MANY..MANY people here in the west will go savage and/or die. When just randomly ask somebody can you cope out with 1 day without food and water..they GENUINELY say absolutely not.

As long as people in the west and i am talking about majority of them, do not have to lose any luxuries they will not stand up against injustice what is happening in the world. We think about them, but we cannot stop there, we also think about the injustice that is happening to other people around the globe.

It all starts with corrupt western politicians.

 

[Abz2000]

^ do you mean that just revolution is not good - or is it just a reminder of the false thinking of tyrants? Since revelation always sparked revolution (from revolve) to the guidance of Allah.

$110,000,000,000 of weapons in ten years to one government - and that's to be paid for with the resources of the Saudi people who are already struggling to keep up with the bills etc, and what does trump expect people to do with the weapons other than use them to kill more people?
Then when you count the amount given to Israel - or sold - then forgiven when the attention dies down, and to Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Libya regime, and take into account that the u.s.a and Russian weapons industry only plan to expand in future - with Russia arming itself and selling to anyone who's not a direct American customer - I think you can see how sick the planners behind these wars are. Also note that the u.s.a government and it's allies never withdraw from a conflict unless they grab hold of another one or unless they are able to keep the flames of war alight via "diplomacy" and "assistance".




وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُواْ بِمَا قَالُواْ بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاء وَلَيَزِيدَنَّ كَثِيراً مِّنْهُم مَّا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ طُغْيَانًا وَكُفْرًا وَأَلْقَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاء إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ كُلَّمَا أَوْقَدُواْ نَارًا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا اللّهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا وَاللّهُ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُفْسِدِينَ {64
005:064 Khan
:
The Jews say: "Allah's Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty)." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered.
Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched. He spends (of His Bounty) as He wills.
Verily, the Revelation that has come to you from Allah increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and disbelief. We have put enmity and hatred amongst them till the Day of Resurrection.
Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it; and they (ever) strive to make mischief on earth. And Allah does not like the Mufsidun (mischief-makers).

Bear in mind that Orwell wrote 1984 and animal farm after the tehran conference . His map of the world is telling, search: Orwell map - and Orwell tehran conference.

Orwell map






The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill from 28 November to 1 December 1943, after the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran. It was held in the Soviet Union's embassy in Tehran, Iran.

.....The U.S. and Great Britain wanted to secure the cooperation of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany. Stalin agreed, but at a price: the U.S. and Britain would accept Soviet domination of eastern Europe, support the Yugoslav Partisans, and agree to a westward shift of the border between Poland and the Soviet Union.

Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland’s eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border to the Oder and Neisse rivers. This decision was not formally ratified, however, until the Potsdam Conference of 1945.[5]

The leaders then turned to the conditions under which the Western Allies would open a new front by invading northern France (Operation Overlord), as Stalin had pressed them to do since 1941. Up to this point Churchill had advocated the expansion of joint operations of British, American, and Commonwealth forces in the Mediterranean, as Overlord in 1943 was physically impossible due to a lack of shipping, which left the Mediterranean and Italy as viable goals for 1943. It was agreed Overlord would occur by May 1944; Stalin agreed to support it by launching a concurrent major offensive on Germany's eastern front to divert German forces from northern France.[6]

Iran and Turkey were discussed in detail. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin all agreed to support Iran's government, as addressed in the following declaration:

The Three Governments realize that the war has caused special economic difficulties (awwwww how sweet of them) for Iran, and they all agreed that they will continue to make available to the Government of Iran such economic assistance as may be possible, having regard to the heavy demands made upon them by their world-wide military operations, and to the world-wide shortage of transport, raw materials, and supplies for civilian consumption.[7]

In addition, the Soviet Union was required to pledge support to Turkey if that country entered the war. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed that it would also be most desirable if Turkey entered on the Allies' side before the year was out.

Despite accepting the above arrangements, Stalin dominated the conference. He used the prestige of the Soviet victory at the Battle of Kursk to get his way. Roosevelt attempted to cope with Stalin's onslaught of demands, but was able to do little except appease Stalin. Churchill argued for the invasion of Italy in 1943, then Overlord in 1944, on the basis that Overlord was physically impossible in 1943 due to lack of shipping and it would be unthinkable to do anything major until it could be launched.[8]

Churchill proposed to Stalin a moving westwards of Poland, which Stalin accepted, which gave the Poles industrialized German land to the west and gave up marshlands to the east, while providing a territorial buffer to the Soviet Union against invasion.

Dinner meeting
Before the Tripartite Dinner Meeting of 29 November 1943 at the Conference, Churchill presented Stalin with a specially commissioned ceremonial sword (the "Sword of Stalingrad", made in Sheffield), as a gift from King George VI to the citizens of Stalingrad and the Soviet people, commemorating the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. When Stalin received the sheathed sword, he took it with both hands and kissed the scabbard. (He then handed it to Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, who mishandled it, causing the sword to fall to the ground.)[9]

Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.
— Joseph Stalin, during the dinner at the Tehran Conference.[10]

Stalin proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, joked that "maybe 49,000 would be enough". Churchill, however, was outraged and denounced "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country". He said that only war criminals should be put on trial in accordance with the Moscow Document, which he himself had written. He stormed out of the room, but was brought back in by Stalin who said he was joking. Churchill was glad Stalin had relented, but thought Stalin was testing the waters.[11]
— 
Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference

[/quote]

Obviously Churchill didn't mention that Britain had been openly and secretly courting Germany all along and that the British royal family ties with national officials was as thick as blood - many of the Duke of Edinburgh relatives were SS officers and such - so they would have "nun of it" as Churchill would probably say.

---------


The Messenger of God is reported to have said: "A time will come when the nations (of the world) will surround you from every side, just as diners gather around the main dish.
Somebody asked, 'Oh Messenger of Allah, will it be on account of our scarcity at that time?'
He said, 'No, but you will be scum, like the scum of flood water. Feebleness (wahn) will be in your hearts, and fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, on account of your love for the world, and your abhorrence of death.'" [Ahmad, Abu Dawud]

If you look at the state of Muslim lands today, this hadith appears to apply directly to us. The Muslim population of the world is huge, yet our lives or sensitivities do not count for much. It is other nations that are respected, revered or feared. This hadith tells us that being too in love with the things of this world and subsequently hating death, puts us in a position whereby our principles are compromised, and we no longer remain a force to be reckoned with.

http://dailyhadith.adaptivesolutionsinc.com/hadith/Like-Scum.htm

http://theconversation.com/2017-isnt-1984-its-stranger-than-orwell-imagined-71971

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell

 

[Simple_Person]

[MENTION=30946]Abz2000[/MENTION] , no revolutions are NOT good for dictators, because people wake up and see what is going on. There are KNOWN and visible dictatorships and there are invisible dictatorships. These so called invisible dictatorships are known under the name "democracy". The visible dictatorships keep their people visibly oppressed, the invisible dictatorships keep their people a sleep and make them worry about things that are less to not worth paying attention to instead of focusing on the important things. Tv shows like pop-idols and such are ways to keep people busy and asleep of what they are doing.

There are however people who are awake, but those people are often being branded as conspiracy theorists and blocked by police and such.

Jazakallahu khairan, i will look up those things.

 

[Abz2000]

[MENTION=30946]Abz2000[/MENTION] , no revolutions are NOT good for dictators, because people wake up and see what is going on. There are KNOWN and visible dictatorships and there are invisible dictatorships. These so called invisible dictatorships are known under the name "democracy". The visible dictatorships keep their people visibly oppressed, the invisible dictatorships keep their people a sleep and make them worry about things that are less to not worth paying attention to instead of focusing on the important things. Tv shows like pop-idols and such are ways to keep people busy and asleep of what they are doing.


There are however people who are awake, but those people are often being branded as conspiracy theorists and blocked by police and such.

Jazakallahu khairan, i will look up those things.

Are just revolutions which return to the guidance of Allah good? Or will you only speak on behalf of tyrants?
Please bear in mind that I have a duty to clarify when I see a seemingly faulty premise.

 

[Abz2000]

Lol no reply as of yet so I'll have to clarify myself based on what is just:

Revolutions which prophets bring and which the righteous bring in order to return people from chaos and destruction - to the guidance of Allah are good and just.

For those who believe otherwise:

يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِؤُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ {8
061:008 Khan
:
They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of Islam, this Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad SAW) with their mouths. But Allah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it).

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ {33
009:033
:
It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the real deen (way of life) (Islam), to make it prevail over all deens even though the Mushrikun (those who associate partners or opponents with God, polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).


هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ شَهِيدًا {28
048:028
:
He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the real deen (way of life) (Islam), that He may make it (Islam) prevail over all deens. And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.

 

[fromelsewhere]

I can half agree with you,

what I do not agree with is your contradiction:

you said to stop vilifying the west then in the same breath - you said - we need to take a critical look at our society - guess what? that's the same thing.

if I'm to critique the western society - then brother - it will be vilified!

Scimi

Taking a critical look at both Western society and Middle Eastern society does not mean vilifying either and coming up with conspiracy theories to try and explain what is going on. Both societies have problems, but we shouldn't be too severe and accuse kuffars for all the woes of the Islamic world... this seems to be the theme here. No matter what bad things a Muslim does, everyone is quick on this message board to find a way to blame it on the West. Nobody wants to discuss the problems in the Ummah, though. How come did this terrorist guy think that what he was doing was right? (I assume he thought he was doing a good thing because it seems like he had become "religious" in the last little while). How did his perspective become so twisted?

 

[Scimitar]

Taking a critical look at both Western society and Middle Eastern society does not mean vilifying either and coming up with conspiracy theories to try and explain what is going on. Both societies have problems, but we shouldn't be too severe and accuse kuffars for all the woes of the Islamic world... this seems to be the theme here. No matter what bad things a Muslim does, everyone is quick on this message board to find a way to blame it on the West. Nobody wants to discuss the problems in the Ummah, though. How come did this terrorist guy think that what he was doing was right? (I assume he thought he was doing a good thing because it seems like he had become "religious" in the last little while). How did his perspective become so twisted?

Are you serious?

Brother - go learn secular history then try saying that again, coz you just pulverized your intellectual faculties of reason and logic. Do the research - there are conspiracy theories - yes, and there are conspiracy FACTS too - which you probably cannot differentiate between judging by what you just wrote lol

Scimi

 

[Zafran]

How come did this terrorist guy think that what he was doing was right?

The same way Andres Brevik or tony Blair thought what they were doing was right. However nobody says we need to look at western society, or reform the country.

Recently in the US a man killed two men who were defending a Muslim women from being harassed. If this guy was a muslim the whole world would be in a standstill.

There was terroist attack today in Afghanistan that killed 84 people - did the effiel Tower light up with the afghan flag - what about the Germans - what about the Burj.

 

[fromelsewhere]

So do tell me EVEN IF lets say we educate Muslims. Let's say for the sake of argument ALL the Muslims on the planet have been educated. However the corrupt western politicians keep supporting the dictators in the Middle East..and they keep oppressing Muslims and invasion by western powers keeps on going..AND YES ..no terrorist attacks in the west.

Western powers are against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but they are wary of intervening too much in Syria due to their past blunders in the region. So they focus on ISIS: a terrorist group that is everyone's enemy. Personally, I think that the less the West intervenes in the Middle East, the better. Western powers are very supportive of Saudi Arabia's Royal family due to money and oil ties. It is very hypocritical of their part, but I must say that although you can criticize Saudi's royal family on many regards, they are ok - not evil dictators. If they were to be replaced by force by some other 'leaders', things would likely become worse in the region for a long time before they became better. Elsewhere, it depends. The matter of fact is that countries in the Middle East have usually had dictators (sultans, shahs, religious leaders, and so on) because they are not fond of democracy and a lot of countries in the ME have big social divides on religion/ethnicity. It is not the Western power's doing. The West has naively (and dumbly) brought down Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi thinking that the countries under the leadership of these dictators would suddenly improve with these leaders gone, but that has not been the case at all... to the contrary! You now have sectarian fighting and fighting amongst various clans, and terrorist groups like ISIS have emerged.

The fault lies in both the West for intervening clumsily and destabilizing many countries, and the Middle East for not being able to make peace through negotiations.

At the end of the day, though, this does NOT justify in the least the actions of the terrorist who blew himself up in a crowd of kids. You don't "right" a perceived wrong by committing more wrongs.

 

[fromelsewhere]

There was terroist attack today in Afghanistan that killed 84 people - did the effiel Tower light up with the afghan flag - what about the Germans - what about the Burj.

It is very sad that the story of the terrorist attack in Afghanistan has barely been mentioned in the Western media. Unfortunately, it has become so common in some regions to have terrorist attacks that it barely makes the news anymore. That being said, news in Western countries have always been more focused on the West. People tend to worry more about things that happen close to home... it is somewhat selfish. Ideally, terrorist attacks should not be considered the norm anywhere, and the Eiffel Tower should also light up for Afghanistan.

 

[Zafran]

although you can criticize Saudi's royal family on many regards, they are ok - not evil dictators

I'm sure you know what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. Just because they are not killing people in Europe doesnt make them good guys - furthermore doesn't justify why any outside power should support them unless for there own gain (oil) which is also the reason why most countries want Assad out (or in if your Russia and Iran) its because of oil. Nobodies getting involved in Manmyer or any other country that doesn't have resources to exploit. but any place that has oil somebody loves intervening - the same applies to Libya.

 

[fromelsewhere]

I'm sure you know what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. Just because they are not killing people in Europe doesnt make them good guys - furthermore doesn't justify why any outside power should support them unless for there own gain (oil) which is also the reason why most countries want Assad out (or in if your Russia and Iran) its because of oil. Nobodies getting involved in Manmyer or any other country that doesn't have resources to exploit. but any place that has oil somebody loves intervening - the same applies to Libya.

I am opposed to Saudi's intervention in Yemen, and I hate seeing an arms deal of $300 billion between the US and Saudi Arabia. I understand why Saudi Arabia felt justified to intervene in Yemen, though. They are wary of seeing another country that was ruled by Sunnis being toppled and led by Shias. It is a sectarian war just like in Iraq (though Iraq is ~60-65% Shia). I don't think the West is against al-Assad for the oil, though... with Saudi Arabia and Russia alone, the West has more than enough oil. They don't need Libya's oil or Syria's oil. US' own oil production has been increasing as the technology for fracking has been improving.

 

[Zafran]

I am opposed to Saudi's intervention in Yemen, and I hate seeing an arms deal of $300 billion between the US and Saudi Arabia. I understand why Saudi Arabia felt justified to intervene in Yemen, though. They are wary of seeing another country that was ruled by Sunnis being toppled and led by Shias. It is a sectarian war just like in Iraq. I don't think the West is against al-Assad for the oil, though... with Saudi Arabia and Russia alone, the West has more than enough oil. They don't need Libya's and Syria's oil. US' own oil production has been increasing as the technology for fracking has been improving.

No the west isnt scared that it will run out of oil - its scared that if it doesn't interfere then other powers like Russia will gain an upper hand in the region. The whole point they dont like Russia and Iran is because they dont bow down to western hegemony - Egypt and Saudis or Kuwait or the UAE do because they need to keep there monarchies and military rule funded. Its mutual benefit and not some moral act.

You also think that the Saudis and the Iranian wars can be reduced to just sectarian wars. However it seems geopolitical control seems to be a much more important goal for these countries.

 

[fromelsewhere]

No the west isnt scared that it will run out of oil - its scared that if it doesn't interfere then other powers like Russia will gain an upper hand in the region. The whole point they dont like Russia and Iran is because they dont bow down to western hegemony - Egypt and Saudis or Kuwait or the UAE do because they need to keep there monarchies and military rule funded. Its mutual benefit and not some moral act.

You also think that the Saudis and the Iranian wars can be reduced to just sectarian wars. However it seems geopolitical control seems to be a much more important goal for these countries.

Yes, there is definitely a pragmatic alliance system that is going on that is not "moral" but due to convenience. The West does tend to think that it has the moral high-grounds, though, and the anti-Russia sentiment in the media has been running quite high lately.

There is definitely a geopolitical struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran to gain the upper hand on the region, but I do think that the reason behind SA and Iran being so opposed to one another in the first place is chiefly due to differences in faith. If Iranians were Sunni (or conversely, if Saudis were Shia), I think that the two countries would get along much better.