Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

**سيف الله** · 08-29-2013

Salaam

Western governments and media are engaging in propaganda campaign to brainwash the public into getting (directly) involved in another war.

You cant make this up

.

However some do resist.

Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.

It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly.

This posting is designed to help them to do so, calmly, reasonably, politely and logically while there is yet time. A decisive vote against British involvement is still quite possible, and would be an important demonstration of national maturity and responsibility, as well as a permanent check on the incurable enthusiasm of some politicians for war and its alleged glamour and glory.

Here are some arguments which you might wish to use, if and when (as I urge you to ) you contact your MP in the next two days.

It is being suggested (as it always is) that the planned attack will be precise, surgical, proportionate etc etc etc.

The truth is that nobody ever really knows the final consequence of any act of violence. Violence generally results in retaliation, which in this case might take many unpredictable forms.

Wars often begin with minor incidents, minor anyway to start with, which then bleed without ceasing until they have spread a vast red stain on much of the surface of the Earth. They are often begun on the basis of mistaken information, or indeed of lies. They are often begun by credulity, by emotionalism and by the failure of responsible persons to see through propaganda.

That is why thoughtful people hesitate greatly before even contemplating such acts, generally preferring to do them only in self-defence. When the violence involves a military attack on a sovereign country with which we are not at war, the matter is still more risky.

Precision warfare is a myth. On several occasions, supposedly super-accurate airstrikes on Libya resulted in the undisputed deaths of several entirely innocent people, including small children. Our attacks on Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis killed such dangerous persons as a make-up lady at Serbian national TV headquarters. If our concern is for the innocent, the launch of bombs and missiles is an odd way of showing it.

The moral clothing in which this attack is dressed is a mass of rags and tatters. The very same people demanding punishment for the Syrian state (including the discredited Anthony Blair) are those who defend or overlook the terrible mass killings by the Egyptian government. That government, which came to power in a blatant military coup, has - and I put this at its mildest – no more legitimacy than the government in Damascus. What is more, there is no dispute at all about who is responsible for the recent mass shootings of demonstrators in Egypt. Yet neither Washington nor London (who claim to be be to descry Syria's guilt by some sort of magic process) will even concede that a putsch has taken place in Cairo.

If we are outraged by governments that kill their own people, our outrage cannot be selective and aimed at only one government which does this. If it is selective, then it is false and has another purpose. What is that purpose? We are not told.

At the time of writing, the United Nations teams have barely begun their investigation into the episode. The Syrian government deny their involvement. There is no proof that they are lying. It is far from impossible to believe that the rebels have resorted to such weapons. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to have done so than for the Syrian government. That government has the upper hand in its civil war at present. It knows perfectly well that proof of its complicity in the use of poison gas will open it to attack. It also knows that such proof will remove the protection it has had up till now from the UN Security Council and the Russian-Chinese veto.

The rush to take action before those teams have reported is frighteningly reminiscent of the rush to attack Iraq, and the withdrawal of Hans Blix’s inspection teams from that country, which were of course on the point of discovering that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Governments simply cannot be trusted to act wisely or responsibly in such matters. They have repeatedly shown this in recent years. That is why we have a Parliament and a free press, to scrutinize and question such things. What is the rush? Why are we having the sentence first, and the evidence and the verdict afterwards? Mr Cameron should be told he cannot have his war until he has proof that it is justified, and until he can show that the actions that he plans are in the interests of this country.

Please do what you can, while you can. There are many honourable reasons for opposing this attack. Whether you are of the Left or Right, liberal or conservative, Christian, of another faith or without faith, patriot or internationalist, all can unite on the simple issues of preferring truth to falsehood, calm justice to wild, flailing vengeance , and careful deliberation to rush to judgement.

Please, do what you can to stop this.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

This video helps to understand how western propaganda systems work.

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

My lack of understanding of English (per you) still can't trump your lack of understanding of science or chemistry, or mere common sense (given the outcome is similar if not worse as it is the gift that keeps on giving!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

The link you quote does not say that white phosphorus is regarded as a chemical weapon under international law. So as it contradicts your argument, I don't know why you provide it.

Originally Posted by جوري

What you endorse or oppose also evolves based on the response of your audeince such as the case with most hypocrites!

i don't endorse the use of white phosphorus, but it isn't a chemical weapon, so it's not relevant to the use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by جوري

again, if your govt. or countries don't classify or have a different definition for that and you prefer to subscribe to said definitions doesn't allow you

International law is agreed by all or most governments. That's what makes it international.

**جوري** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

The link you quote does not say that white phosphorus is regarded as a chemical weapon under international law. So as it contradicts your argument, I don't know why you provide it.

it classifies it as a chemical weapon. 'International law' is semantics that you can shove!

Originally Posted by Independent

i don't endorse the use of white phosphorus, but it isn't a chemical weapon, so it's not relevant to the use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else.

What you endorse or don't endorse is irrelevant. ---I can think of no good reason for it- Your condemnations or praise has no bearing on how any world govt. runs- your words are simply irritating is all!

Originally Posted by Independent

International law is agreed by all or most governments. That's what makes it international.

In what way does it matter? Especially when the same law is imposed on some and turned a blind eye to for others?

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

it classifies it as a chemical weapon

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by جوري

Your condemnations or praise has no bearing on how any world govt. runs

At last, you're starting to understand. My personal opinion has no bearing on international law. Now the bit you're missing - neither does yours. So just because you think something should be classified as a chemical weapon, that doesn't mean it actually is in reality. You need to separate reality from your imagination..

**Mustafa2012** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

If you read down past the highly misleading headline on this article, you will see that the chemicals were in fact never actually exported.The initial permit was granted, but then stopped because of the sanctions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-8793642.html

The chemicals involved have legitimate industrial uses but, in the case of suspicions over Syria, it was correct to prevent the export.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

The article doesn't say anywhere that the chemicals were never exported. It just says they were granted and then revoked 6 months later. In that 6 months, a lot could have happened.

But let's just say you're right for a moment.

That still leaves the question...

What about the chemical attacks that were carried out by the U.S. on places Hiroshima, Vietnam, South America?

How can the U.S. and the U.K. be at the forefront in accusing Assad of using chemical weapons when they have in the past and up to recently have been involved in the use and supply of the very same.

So far, and I don't want anyone to think I'm on either side but there is no proof supplied that Assad's forces carried it out, nor any proof that the rebels carried it out which leaves some questions as to who was actually responsible.

A third party makes most sense.

Someone who wants to get both sides into trouble possibly.

As for international law. It is a joke.

The law is made and broken every day by the very people who make it. The only difference is that the rich and powerful escape it and the poor and weak are made the scapegoats of it.

It is used to serve the ends of whichever country has the most power and against those who are weaker.

The U.N. for e.g. is a puppet organization that is there so serve the interests of the largest members.

If something doesn't suit a particular member and they don't get U.N. approval for their intended crimes, then they just find some other legal loophole to achieve their goals. Iraq was a big example of how the U.N. was bypassed when it didn't serve their purposes.

With Syria, they were recently discussing how to bypass the U.N's ruling (against an attack without credible proof that Assad's forces were responsible) and use some other law to get around it. This is another example of how the U.N. is just a puppet organization. A tool that is used whenever is needed and bypassed whenever is needed.

**Independent** · 09-06-2013

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

The article doesn't say anywhere that the chemicals were never exported.

It does here: The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “You see the system working, with materials not exported. The facts are that the licences were revoked and the exports did not take place. Bear in mind also that these materials are not chemical weapons in themselves, they have normal commercial usage too.

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

What about the chemical attacks that were carried out by the U.S. on places Hiroshima, Vietnam, South America?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes a chemical weapon. Hiroshima involved an atomic bomb, which is not a chemical weapon by anyone's definition. With Vietnam - are you referring to Agent Orange? This is classified as a herbicide rather than a chemical weapon and was not even considered a poison at the time of its use (this changed as the long term consequences of heavy use became clear). With regard to South America - I'm not sure what events you're referring to.

Therefore, it remains the case that the US does not use chemical weapons as defined under international law, whereas Syria admits to having very large stocks. They wouldn't have developed them if they weren't prepared to use them. In addition Syria has an extensive biological weapons programme which many people would view as even worse.

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

So far, and I don't want anyone to think I'm on either side but there is no proof supplied that Assad's forces carried it out, nor any proof that the rebels carried it out which leaves some questions as to who was actually responsible.

I agree there is no absolute proof yet made public that Assad did it. However, it's extremely difficult to see how the rebels could have managed it, and even more difficult for some mysterious third party (especially considering it is suggested there have been more than 10 attacks in total).

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

Someone who wants to get both sides into trouble possibly

if you look at the politics of this, it's the US that's in trouble because of this attack. Obama plainly thought the warning, the 'red line', would be enough to prevent usage. Now he's forced himself into a corner where he has to back up his warning. As i write this it's very far from certain he will get Congressional approval.

Originally Posted by Mustafa2012

The U.N. for e.g. is a puppet organization that is there so serve the interests of the largest members.

When you criticise the UN, I think there is no one who would agree with you more than American right wingers. The largest members have the biggest influence - but none of them control it.

The UN has been hamstrung for most of its existence by the vetoes of one or other party. It is a deeply flawed organisation. But bad as it is, I find it hard to see how getting rid of it is going to make things any better.

Any organisation composed of many states is going to be at the mercy of individual interests.

**جوري** · 09-06-2013

lols at this guy- to him dying or being maimed or tortured or torn apart or torched or born with defects isn't what is important. What is important is defining this as chemical and that as atomic and such as plant feeding agent and its okay(ness) by his govt. or 'world govt.
You can't have any dialogue with a person like that!

**IAmZamzam** · 09-07-2013

I came here so that I could spread around this link to a popular online petition: http://dontattacksyria.com/

I would also like to encourage all of my fellow Americans to email, tweet, and especially call up their local congresspeople. We need to latch onto them like a series of stubborn little dogs on a mailman’s route.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that it was a chemical weapons attack.

On the contrary that has *indeed* been disputed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et1NSxT1K4w (I don’t know how to embed videos in forum posts. An alternate link can be found here: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=64...BD336C2196AD17) Imagine that a few dead housewives in the same county of the U.S. happened to have remote traces of mustard and bleach on their skin and the papers started jumping to the conclusion that they’d been gassed to death by terrorists. You’d think your society had turned into a madhouse. Now I’m not saying that the video is valid—I don’t know enough about either chemistry or the chemical investigation to say—but I do know one thing:

Assad *shmassad*: Wikileaks has revealed the only true reason why the U.S. government cares one whit about Syria:

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06...html#efmAcfAfB

And we already knew about the pipeline. And the ever diminishing supply of oil and other such resources on this planet which is making the hoarding of such things an increasing necessity. And about drinking buddy Israel’s stake in this game. *They’ve* got the goods, as well as lots of financial backing for ol’ Sam. In the end the energy companies (the lobbyists in general, to a fair extent) are always in charge. I don’t know who it was that first said that as long as war is profitable there will never be peace but he sure knew what he was talking about!

Call. Write. Sign. And don’t just follow the link. Feel free to find stuff, and think of stuff, on your own too.

That stuff is a good start but I've come up with something else. Here is President Obama's contact info. God willing I plan to write him myself--but surely I won't be the only one here to do so?

**faithandpeace** · 09-07-2013

Since Independent has made it clear that his intentions here are not to convert to Islam but to instead spend his time here spreading disinformation about political events and endlessly argue against and insult Muslims on an Islamic discussion board during political discussions, I have to wonder what his purpose is for being here. Since defending or supporting Islam obviously isn't one of them, I wonder what he is promoting and defending and why.

**Independent** · 09-07-2013

Originally Posted by جوري

lols at this guy- to him dying or being maimed or tortured or torn apart or torched or born with defects isn't what is important. What is important is defining this as chemical and that as atomic and such as plant feeding agent and its okay(ness) by his govt. or 'world govt.

No, I am wholly opposed to the use of Agent Orange and other items too - however they are not chemical weapons and were not illegal at the time of use, as has been suggested here.

As for violence in general, you have consistently argued in favour of war and against negotiation in practically every issue that has come up since I joined this forum. You're not anti violence, anti suffering, or anti dictatorship - it's just the identity of who's in charge that you care about. If

**Independent** · 09-07-2013

Originally Posted by faithandpeace

Independent has made it clear that his intentions here are not to convert to Islam but to instead spend his time here spreading disinformation about political events and endlessly argue against and insult Muslims

I joined the forum not to convert, but to learn both about Islam and about the politics in the Muslim world. I have found the religious side fascinating in so many ways. I have read the Quran but it did not have the effect on me that Muslim converts have described. I have also read widely about Muslim history and society, including many areas i didn't know much about before. I had been led to believe that this would be a good thing to learn, although it would seem you disagree.

On the political side - most of what we are talking about here is not 'Islamic politics' but 'politics involving Msllims and Muslim states.' If someone says that the UK exported nerve gas to Syria, and I correct this misinformation, what I am doing is not an attack on Islam. It has nothing to do with Islam. The idea that there is no separation between church and state in Islam has led many people into substituting politics for religion.

More generally - and this is getting to the issue that motivates me most - if many Muslims believe in an international conspiracy of the west against Islam - going back perhaps all the way to the Crusades and beyond - then we are in a state of de facto war. If you believe I am at war with you, then war it is, whether I want it or not. There is no possibility of peace because I can't undeclare a war i never declared in the first place. This would be a catastrophe on so many levels, but especially for all Muslims in western countries and Christians in Muslim countries.

This conspiracy theory of a secret elite was around perhaps a 100 years before it ever got taken up by Muslims, but in the last 50 years it has been thoroughly adopted and, for many of them, has become an article of faith. Religious faith.

The 9/11 conspiracy might as well be in the Quran, or a hadith (in fact many Muslims try to see this in the scriptures). In effect, many Muslims spend more mental energy worshipping politics than their God.

Originally Posted by faithandpeace

endlessly argue against and insult Muslims

I agree with some members and disagree with others. Like anyone else here. I may not agree with you, but that's another matter.

I am certainly rude to one particular member, but there is no other way to talk to her, since 80% of what she writes are personal insults. If I didn't reply to the insults, there wouldn't be much left. I don't think I insult Islam itself, I certainly try not to. But it's difficult. For example, if I say that 9/11 was an attack by Al Qaeda, not an Illuminati conspiracy, some Muslims regard that statement as itself an attack on Islam. This is so alarming - it becomes impossible for anyone to argue another point of view about world events. That doesn't matter about me so much, but it does matter that other Muslims can't make such statements without being told that they are 'not Muslim enough' or 'kaffir lovers'. The real battle that's going on is not with people like me, with non Muslims, but within Islam.

Politics has become their religion.

Originally Posted by faithandpeace

I have to wonder what his purpose is for being here.

My purpose is as described above. I am a private citizen with no affiliation to any group or party. Personally, I think that's obvious from what I've written over time, but I can't make you see that and I can't think of any way to prove it. I have many faults but that's not one of them. If I'm lying, your God will punish me for it, so why not leave it up to Him?

**جوري** · 09-07-2013

When Muslims fight against occupying raping, pillaging kafirs it's called resistance!
- peaceful negotiations don't work when your enemy comes in to gang rape 14 year olds spread the falsehood of Christianity and change our doctrines and constitutions and tell us which weapons we can or can't have and force a colony of Zionists in our midst while displacing and killing us and then pointing out how it's all legal under their laws!
Capice? All I've said about you is true and stands and anyone with foresight and a seeing heart can see through ---!

**سيف الله** · 09-07-2013

Salaam

Just another update

1348 big 1 - Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

HP Sauce

David Cameron lost his Commons Syria motion in part by insisting UN weapons inspectors shouldn’t finish their work before an allied strike. It might seem surprising to some that he would risk his authority trying to pre-empt them – bit it reflects a long-running Anglo American hostility to the weapon inspectors. Cameron was backing Barack Obama, who pressurised the inspectors to leave Syria so that bombing could begin – reminiscent of 2003, when the US ‘advised’ the UN to pull its inspectors out of Iraq with their work unfinished. The friction is partly down to the fact that those pesky inspectors keep contradicting duff claims made by the US and Britain.

In 2003, just before the Iraq war, nuclear weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed that the ‘Niger forgeries’, which the US claimed were evidence that Saddam Hussein was importing uranium from Africa, were poor quality fakes. The Americans tried to keep the IAEA from spotting how dodgy the documents were by holding the most obviously ridiculous of the forgeries back from the inspectors, but the IAEA was still quickly able to see they were rubbish.

US authorities have admitted that the Niger forgeries were behind false claims made about Saddams nukes – but to this day British intelligence refuses to disown the Niger story.

This wasn’t the first time the IAEA had shown up absurd lies about weapons of mass destruction. In 1995, the Sunday Times published a series of stories claiming that Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza had tried to defect with proof of Saddams nuclear programme. Papers obtained by the Eye under freedom of information show the Foreign Office believed these ‘documents smuggled out of Iraq by a defector are credible’ and ‘will provide further justification for continuing to take a firm line with Iraq’, which at that time was under a sanctions regime. The Foreign Office was soon disappointed, as the IAEA showed the Hamza papers were ‘crude forgeries’ and the whole story nonsense.

Unfortunately, the IAEAs judgement was not reported by the press, so Hamza was able to peddle a whole new set of fake tales in the run up to the 2003 war. The IAEA exposure of these forgeries made the US and UK authorities very cross, and Britain discreetly backed US attempts to oust Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s capable leader, because his organisation was too independent. Edward Snowdens recent leaks about spying by Americas National Security Agency also show the US authorities put much effort into snooping on the IAEA.

It seems much less likely that UN inspectors will contradict British assertions on Assads use of chemical weapons. But it looks as if Obama and Cameron cent deal with an independent voice on Syrian war, as controlling both what is said and when it is said are crucial to building the shaky consensus for an attack.

**Signor** · 09-07-2013

Hello Independent

Originally Posted by Independent

More generally - and this is getting to the issue that motivates me most - if many Muslims believe in an international conspiracy of the west against Islam - going back perhaps all the way to the Crusades and beyond - then we are in a state of de facto war. If you believe I am at war with you, then war it is, whether I want it or not. There is no possibility of peace because I can't undeclare a war i never declared in the first place

I have requested you to read Clash of Civilizations written by a non Muslim author(Samuel Phillips Huntington) who endorsed a theory by another Non Muslims author of 1930's.Seems like you didn't...!Anyway,this piece may help you to understand

Five essential areas which should be taken into account while drawing any meaning comparisons and possibilities of dialogue between the West and Islam; ontology, epistemology, concept of man, Concept of self, and concept of universe.

West had an overwhelmingly materialist perspective regarding the nature of life and universe. The west is almost oblivious to an ulterior and superior hand involved in the creation of the universe. The modern western epistemological tradition, beginning mainly from René Descartes, believes in rationalist paradigm.

It considers man to be the center of universe and human reason to be the sole source of knowledge, emancipation and even salvation. It is equally true that there has been potent criticism on the limitation of human reason, namely, Immanuel Kant’s “critique of Pure Reason”; we can know phenomena but not noumena. The concept of man plays a pivotal role in outlining the salient features of a society. Unfortunately due to a rugged materialist tradition, the west has not gone beyond a bio-chemical conception of man. Man has only a material existence devoid of any sanctity and “deep” spirituality.

The modern western psychology had a very limited notion of self; it confines self into something that has only a bleak and ugly side. The materialist concept of universe espoused by notable western thinkers like Darwin, Marx and Stephan Hawking has only a one-dimensional perspective; there is nothing beyond this immediate universe.

Unlike the West, the supreme source of knowledge in Islam was revelation. Human reason does have its significant place in Islamic epistemology but the supreme verdict is always based on revelation. Moreover Islam has a profoundly spiritual perspective on the meaning of human life that essentially negates the notions of greedy materialism and consumerism.

Man in Islamic tradition has the responsibility to discover the true reality that can make him successful here and in the hereafter. Islam rejects the materialist notion of universe and man; it in no way means rejection of modern scientific technological developments. It is truly a monotheistic religion that fills all avenues of human life with concept of oneness of God.Islam gives a larger than life picture to humanity which can be the best possible satisfaction of real human aspirations.

Originally Posted by Independent

but in the last 50 years it has been thoroughly adopted and, for many of them, has become an article of faith.

How can you speak for MANY?Do you know one billion muslims while alleging them for considering conspiracy theories as article of faith.

Originally Posted by Independent

The 9/11 conspiracy might as well be in the Quran, or a hadith (in fact many Muslims try to see this in the scriptures). In effect, many Muslims spend more mental energy worshipping politics than their God.

Again MANY Muslims.

Islam(Quran and Hadith) collectively forbids killing of Innocent civilians.Period.How can it permits this act?

As for the confusion about Muslims who see this in their scriptures,its due to sheer ignorance.They use numerology to justify there blasphemous claim when its is unlawful to use it anyway.

Originally Posted by Independent

The real battle that's going on is not with people like me, with non Muslims, but within Islam.

There is no battle within Islam,only a conflict happens to be there among Muslims.

You have yet to study a lot about Islam,Question respectfully without passing judgements and we will try to answer God-willing.This is what beneficial for both of us.

**Independent** · 09-07-2013

Greetings Signor

Originally Posted by Signor

I have requested you to read Clash of Civilizations

Unfortunately I have been very busy the last few weeks - emigrating.

Originally Posted by Signor

How can you speak for MANY?

Well, there seem to be quite a number on this forum, and many more on other websites. How many overall? I have no idea. I hope it's not so many but there are people who like to say it's millions...

Originally Posted by Signor

As for the confusion about Muslims who see this in their scriptures,its due to sheer ignorance.

As a non Muslim it's hard for me to judge but I agree with you. People seem to find what they want to find.

Originally Posted by Signor

There is no battle within Islam,only a conflict happens to be there among Muslims.

Please accept my apologies for making this error. What I meant to say is, there is a battle or crisis between Muslims as individuals, not within Islam as a faith. For a non Muslim, the terms are pretty much synonymous, so it's a mistake that's hard to avoid. But I know that's not how it sounds to Muslims and it's the wrong way to say it.

Originally Posted by Signor

Islam(Quran and Hadith) collectively forbids killing of Innocent civilians.Period.How can it permits this act?

I agree 100%. That's why the demonisation of the entire western world and the invention of a conspiracy is so dangerous. It permits people to say all westerners are bad, that a state of de facto war already exists, so anything goes. Western countries and governments do plenty of bad things - but they are very far from being the sole source of trouble in this world.

**جوري** · 09-07-2013

This isn't an issue of all or some- I can't stand pendentary and recycled meaningless rhetoric which changes nothing and adds nothing!

**سيف الله** · 09-07-2013

Salaam

Ive been trying to get hold of this book 'Wars a Racket' for some time, finally managed to order it. Again a very good insight into why the USA does what it does.

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler is a famous speech denouncing the military industrial complex. This speech by two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposes war profits that benefit few at the expense of many. Throughout his distinguished career in the Marines, Smedley Darlington Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree. To Hell with war.

More relevant A very good debate about the coming war on Syria.

**Muhammad** · 09-08-2013

Greetings Independent,

Originally Posted by Independent

I agree 100%. That's why the demonisation of the entire western world and the invention of a conspiracy is so dangerous. It permits people to say all westerners are bad, that a state of de facto war already exists, so anything goes.

Believing in conspiracy theories does not automatically mean that the entire western world is demonised. Conspiracy theories usually involve governments and particular groups, not the west as a whole. I don't know where you have received the impression that Muslims believe the whole of the west is evil - if that is the view of one or two members, it should not be reflected upon Muslims as a whole, certainly not when this forum is actively used by a handful as compared with the billions of Muslims out there.

More generally - and this is getting to the issue that motivates me most - if many Muslims believe in an international conspiracy of the west against Islam - going back perhaps all the way to the Crusades and beyond - then we are in a state of de facto war. If you believe I am at war with you, then war it is, whether I want it or not. There is no possibility of peace because I can't undeclare a war i never declared in the first place.

I hope you will also be motivated to learn what drives many Muslims to believe in such theories and hold distrust for western powers in the first place.

The 9/11 conspiracy might as well be in the Quran, or a hadith (in fact many Muslims try to see this in the scriptures).

Yet it is propounded by non-Muslims and Muslims alike, being presented in documentaries, articles and all kinds of media, as with other conspiracies. Why should Muslims be singled out or even blamed for believing in it? Let us not forget they suffered a far greater number of fatalities following that incident and continue to be viewed with increasing suspicion till today.

**جوري** · 09-08-2013

Simpleton minds draw satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusions.. what is the expectation?

btw this is courtesy of br. ABZ:

Main article: White phosphorus

White phosphorus sample
White phosphorus is made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions.[2] Other common names include "WP", and the slang term "Willie Pete," which is dated from its use in Vietnam, and is still sometimes used in military jargon.[3] As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death.

In addition to its offensive capabilities, white phosphorus is also a highly efficient smoke-producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke-producing white phosphorus munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in grenade launchers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smoke screens to mask movement, position or the origin of fire from the enemy. White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, mortars, and short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact.

The use of white phosphorus as an obscurant is legal, as well as use as an incendiary weapon against military targets that are not in close proximity to civilians or civilian property. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or against military targets in close proximity to civilians or civilian property.

On November 9, 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", alleging that the United States' used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns. The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties.[6][7] The documentary also included footage which purported to be of white phosphorus being fired from helicopters over Fallujah. It also quoted journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had been in Fallujah, as a testimony. [8]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White...us_use_in_Iraq

**WarriorforMarie** · 09-08-2013

Originally Posted by Signor

I have requested you to read Clash of Civilizations written by a non Muslim author(Samuel Phillips Huntington) who endorsed a theory by another Non Muslims author of 1930's.Seems like you didn't...!Anyway,this piece may help you to understand

Wow Signor, you have read a work by Samuel Huntington? His is some serious political science. But be careful, Clash of Civilizations is considered to be one of his weakest works. The section "Islam's Bloody Borders" is particularly controversial. It has been a while since I've read it but I did find that his inclination to describe Islamic Civilization as being more prone to violence with its neighbors was full of spurious logic (pages 254-265 in my edition).

**جوري** · 09-08-2013

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

Wow

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

you have read a work

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie

But be careful

got to love that brazenly sardonic style!
Only one book is taken in totality Marie and it is the noble Quran.. the rest of the books can be taken for what they're worth!

best,