Alcohol, Prostitution Rife in New Iraq

Clover said:
I love the Blame America Game...

Oh yes, because they drink, we should have never dis-placed Sadam Hussein. Next time a lunatic dictator decides to rule a country and support terrorism, let's let him stay, since, dare I say it, forbid, the people drink a beer!
Click to expand...

American government once supported that ''lunatic dictator.''

I'm rather confused. One minute America is your ally and the next minute their are your enemy. I do wish they could make up their mind.

This clearly points to the obvious, American government only support countries that have the same interests as them. Any disagreements, America labels that country as their enemy.

It shows the American government have not tolerance and no respect for other countries points of view. They use the media as a form of propaganda to gain support from the public.


Amadeus85 said:
I have noticed that Islamonline likes to point out only bad things that happen in nowadays Iraq, as if nothing good happens there lately.
Click to expand...


Well it would have been helpful for you to list all the good things that happened. To provide evidence to back up your claim.

The only good things that happened in Iraq they removed Sadaam Huessin though war was not the answer. They could have been variety of ways to establish democracy.

America went to war to ''save'' Iraqi citizens. Instead, they have killed thousands of innocent’s civilians.

There is horrific evidence of torture used upon suspects by the Bush Administration.

All this outweighs the good the American government have actually done.


amani said:
aah but america didnt always think he was a lunatic dictator when they could use him...
Click to expand...

Yes. If I am not mistakened, Iraq had certain disputes with Iran. America supported Iraq actions.


seeker-of-light said:
as an american, i think the american government is in the wrong for going to iraq to begin with. it just caused more problems (as if the world didnt already have enough of them) and amani is right, the usa government didnt "see" hussein as a dictator as long as he was beneficial for them to tolerate. kind of like the same situation with the previous dictator in pakistan that was backed by the usa. as long as they are pro-usa, they can be as dictator like as they want. sounds hypocritical to me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. These are American government disposable puppets. When they are not in any use, they are disposed of.

That is the impression I am getting from the American government.


Clover said:
How do you know they didn't sell the WMD's back to the original owner? That has been a long-known theory, and we don't know if they ever did or didn't have WMD's.

The U.S. aided them to fight for their own freedom, we didn't know after we did that, they'd help terrorists that planned on murdering Americans.

lol, I am doing what I want, expressing a opinoin.
Click to expand...

What is strange to me is that the American government throw a tantrum where they hear a country developing nuclear energy/weapons.

I think America is the actual big threat. They actually used Nuclear Weapons.

''Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'' Does this ring a bell?

Personally, I cannot trust American government. Based on their actions, they only support those who share similar interests. American government need to learn that not everything can happen meet their needs. They do more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
Zafran said:
Salaam

Just to add Obama is unwilling to release 44 images of Gutanmo/cuba prisoners who have been abused by the US personal - he doesnt want to release them becasue it would give america a worse image in the muslim world - a form of censorship in other words - for the greater good in Obama's eyes.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/graham-lieberman-fight-to-block-release-of-detaine/
Click to expand...

Salaam.

I am not surprised. America needs to learn how to handle the truth. Learn from their past mistakes and never repeat them again. However, the likely chance of that occurring is zero.
 
Guestfellow said:
Salaam.

I am not surprised. America needs to learn how to handle the truth. Learn from their past mistakes and never repeat them again. However, the likely chance of that occurring is zero.
Click to expand...

Salaam

I agree with you - hiding history wont help them one bit - Just hiding the images is going to create a worse image of america.

peace
 
Zafran said:
Salaam

Just to add Obama is unwilling to release 44 images of Gutanmo/cuba prisoners who have been abused by the US personal - he doesnt want to release them becasue it would give america a worse image in the muslim world - a form of censorship in other words - for the greater good in Obama's eyes.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/graham-lieberman-fight-to-block-release-of-detaine/
Click to expand...

They should be released, I agree, for honesty, but I also agree with Obama that the prisoners' faces should not be plastered everywhere for even more embarrassment. Another excuse is national security which is kind of a weak argument to me, but... :X
 
Podarok said:
They should be released, I agree, for honesty, but I also agree with Obama that the prisoners' faces should not be plastered everywhere for even more embarrassment. Another excuse is national security which is kind of a weak argument to me, but... :X
Click to expand...

Thats not his reason - the prisoners faces will blotted out but hes worried about how the muslim world is going to react to these images and what thats going to do there standing in the world - including the images acting as a recruitment tool for terrorism.
 
noorahmad said:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1203758147874

results of democracy and the US invasion...

and yes why the hell did bush invaded Iraq??? link with Al Qaida and possession of mass destruction weapons... of which none have been proved.

if democracy = legalization of alcohol, drugs, prostitution etc... i prefer saddam, and so should every muslim
Click to expand...

salaam

Its an illiegal war - everybody knows that - just nobody can do anything about it as america is the only militery superpower of the world - and nobody can stand up to it otherwise they will be destroyed.
 
and yeah, the silence of the UN and the Arab league.

if only the Muslim leaders had guts, they could rule the world... they could have closed the petrol tap and let the world starve till they decide to change things

and yea, some are gonna think that they got their army, nuclear power etc, but didnt the mujaheddin bring down the soviet union, and now even the US is finding it hard to cope with them.

think of badr, of the first Muslim empires, how they ruled the world... they had tawakul... unlike us
 
noorahmad said:
if democracy = legalization of alcohol, drugs, prostitution etc... i prefer saddam, and so should every muslim
Click to expand...


And Saddam allowed the Iraqi gays to live peacefully !

-
 
noorahmad said:
if democracy = legalization of alcohol, drugs, prostitution etc... i prefer saddam, and so should every muslim
Click to expand...

Don't you think people should have the choice of religion and whether or not they follow Islamic laws? Obviously, because you are a Muslim, you probably think it's no big deal making others do what you feel is right, but to someone else, it is a huge deal when we are restricted by things from that with which we are not involved. Enforcing Islam (or any other religion) on people isn't the most productive thing in the world, and can be even more destructive than the crimes brought by the regulation of alcohol and drugs.

So, I respectfully disagree with you. :-[

(However, personally, I hate alcohol, so I would support its prohibition if it came to choose. :rollseyes)
 
well, that's the second article I've read where people are saying that they preferred the reign of saddam hussein. There were no rape, no illegal abuse of women under saddam, and whether you like it or not, the Saudi king is not better than Saddam, he may have not wage war unto other countries, but people practically have no liberty there,
im not talking against the shariah, but about the fact, that people are not allowed to criticize the government.
 
Podarok said:
Don't you think people should have the choice of religion and whether or not they follow Islamic laws? Obviously, because you are a Muslim, you probably think it's no big deal making others do what you feel is right, but to someone else, it is a huge deal when we are restricted by things from that with which we are not involved. Enforcing Islam (or any other religion) on people isn't the most productive thing in the world, and can be even more destructive than the crimes brought by the regulation of alcohol and drugs.

So, I respectfully disagree with you. :-[

(However, personally, I hate alcohol, so I would support its prohibition if it came to choose. :rollseyes)
Click to expand...

In a Muslim country, you would have Islamic laws because majority of the public are Muslims. A non-Muslim are expected to follow these laws, if they wish to enter a Muslim country.

In a non-Muslim a country, a Muslim will have to follow their laws. For example, Interest/Riba is against the teachings of the Quran; however, Muslims will have to abide by their regulations.

In Iraq majority of the population were Muslims. When Alcohol and Prostitution was prohibited, this did not raise any concern. However legalizing it does create concern. Legalization of Alcohol and Prostitution had put Iraq into a position to face future problems that they are unfamiliar with.

Why did USA invade Iraq? To liberate them or turn it into a Western nation?
 
Guestfellow said:
In a Muslim country, you would have Islamic laws because majority of the public are Muslims. A non-Muslim are expected to follow these laws, if they wish to enter a Muslim country.

In a non-Muslim a country, a Muslim will have to follow their laws. For example, Interest/Riba is against the teachings of the Quran; however, Muslims will have to abide by their regulations.

In Iraq majority of the population were Muslims. When Alcohol and Prostitution was prohibited, this did not raise any concern. However legalizing it does create concern. Legalization of Alcohol and Prostitution had put Iraq into a position to face future problems that they are unfamiliar with.

Why did USA invade Iraq? To liberate them or turn it into a Western nation?
Click to expand...
Iraq was a secular country under Saddam, I don't think alcohol was ever banned during his reign.
 
if we're talking about guessing, saddam was sunni, he prohibited shia rituals of karbala etc, so if he was such a stout sunni as to ban these, why not alcohol and prostitution...
well just guessing...
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top