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.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Syria was already on the list since the 90's
I am not defending assad nor FSA(I know that alot of these brigades dont want intervention, only its zionist leadership wants it) i seriously hope though that the zionists will fail, although the damage already has been done.
This crusade in favor of israel needs to stop. Hopefully it will end in their demise insha'Allah
I dont believe Assad nor FSA planted this WMD, it could be mossad or CIA. Assad is crazy, but i dont think he is that crazy to launch a chemical attack while the UN arrived on the same day.
This all being pre-planned.
At 42:10 a interesting subject which is currently happening, we dont need politics to realize this.
Last edited by Jedi_Mindset; 08-29-2013 at 07:44 PM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
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.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Salaam
Yes he lost the vote. It was close though. And the reasons given by many Mps for voting against were mainly tactical and pragmatic rather than principled. But then again that's politics for you.
Regardless, it was a good result.
I think the public are far more warier of Leaders pontificating on their burning need 'intervene' for 'humanitarian' purposes. Perhaps people understand that wading in blood is not the best way to express humanitarian sentiment.
Stop the War Coalition welcomes Parliament's rejection of war on Syria
The Stop the War Coalition welcomes the defeat of David Cameron’s plan to attack Syria in parliament tonight. We didn’t stop the war in Iraq, but we did create a mass anti war opinion in Britain. That tide of anti war opinion has made itself felt in the past few days. MPs have in their majority refused to back a fourth intervention by western powers since 2001. They have for once reflected the majority public opinion in this country.
We now have to reject all attempts at intervention in Syria and to develop a foreign policy which is based on equality and justice, and the rights of national sovereignty.
The Tory led government will try to recoup the situation. We will demonstrate on Saturday against this intervention, whether by the US alone or with Britain involved. It is the aim of the anti-war movement to ensure that the US is forced to abandon the attack on Syria now that the country with which it is supposed to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ has carried a parliamentary vote against war.
A brief word of thanks to those among you who followed my advice and contacted your Members of Parliament about Syria. I noted that some readers said the matter was foreordained and there was no point in this. I believe they were wrong. This country is not what it was, but still has independent public opinion, free speech and an adversarial parliament whose members in many cases pay attention to their constituents.
In instinctively felt that there was a chance of influencing events. Perhaps the matter was already settled when I wrote, but the closeness of the vote (which in all justice should have been more like 500 to 130) suggests that the usual counter-forces of ambition, cowardice, stupidity and dogma were still very much at work.
In any case, I thank all those who responded, and I thank those MPs who listened. This is the first time in years that I have felt actively proud of my own country.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
The reaction of Cameron and his supporters has been quite interesting. PM has gone into damage limitation mode. Meanwhile the rest of them are bleating on about how Britain doesn't 'care' what happens in the rest of the world and that we are a 'lesser' power now. Its interesting to see how deeply ingrained the colonial mentality is amongst certain sections of British society.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Regardless, it was a good result.
For once we are in agreement. I'm delighted at the result. In my view the UK and the US should not intervene unless they have a genuine consensus of backing from other Muslim states (even if unanimity is unlikely for obvious reasons). For instance, Gulf War 1 was a properly supported war with clear, justified objectives which were carried out to the letter (even to the extent of leaving Saddam in power).
The stuff in the UK media from some commentators talking about 'decline in world influence' is wrong. They fail to understand that world politics have changed. This decision by the UK government is a model for the future. The US will also begin to pick and choose its fights more carefully. Increasingly, they will only support allies rather than trying to be the world policeman. Once consent for this role has been lost, it can't be continued.
However, it looks like the US will still make some kind of gesture on Syria because they have said too much to back down.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Salaam
Commentary on the wider situation.
We Should Have Been Traumatised Into Action By This War In 2011. And 2012. But Now?
By Robert Fisk
Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all now have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the Cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic Republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable. Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So there is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we nightmared over. And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.
And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982 in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”. And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. “Hama Rules,” is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath. Anyway, there’s a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn’t even bring himself to say ‘boo’ when their elected president got deposed.
So what in heaven’s name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria’s awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But now? Why? Well, I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hizballah – Iran’s ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.
And while we’re on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel’s Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan’s nightmare (a much more potent one than the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that Palestine will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.
But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the ‘civilised’ world, it’s only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shiite Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. That’s what civil war is made of.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Salaam
Comment pieces from the UK mainstream press. Too optimistic interpretation for my liking but its interesting nevertheless.
Britain’s message: out, but not down
The question that will be asked in some quarters is whether Thursday’s vote on intervention in Syria is symptomatic of a new attitude in Britain
Seven days ago, David Cameron was in the political ascendancy, his greatest worry – after a summer of unremitting good news – a few mildly embarrassing holiday photos. By the middle of the week, it appeared as though Britain was barrelling towards war with Syria. By its end, both the Prime Minister’s plans for military intervention, and his own reputation, had suffered a bruising and humiliating reverse.
More than 24 hours after the House of Commons voted against the Government resolution that would have paved the way for military action – something that seemed to surprise most MPs almost as much as it did ministers – the implications are still being digested. It was immediately obvious, as we wrote yesterday, that the ghost of the Iraq war had played a large and probably decisive role. After 2003, it is no longer possible for a prime minister advocating overseas intervention to plead for the nation’s trust and receive it, at least without the most stringent proof of overwhelming necessity. But the consequences for Britain’s international position, for our relationship with America, and for the people of Syria, have yet to be determined.
Still, there are many things that can be said with certainty. The first is that this was a day in which Parliament did much to restore its reputation. In reclaiming the right to decide on such great questions, MPs not only asserted their own prerogative but spoke up for a population alarmed and dismayed by the seeming rush to war. It was symbolic that they defeated both the Government motion and the Opposition amendment: this was not a carefully laid parliamentary plot, but a moment at which it became painfully apparent that ministers were too far ahead of the country. Indeed, while it will be cold comfort to Mr Cameron, he too deserves credit for giving Parliament the chance to debate the issue. In his excellent speech on Thursday, in which he laid out the evidence against Bashar al-Assad with both conviction and courtesy, the Prime Minister deliberately came across as the anti-Blair, a politician determined to be honest with and respectful of Parliament.
It was not, however, enough to save him from his own errors. Allowing his team in Downing Street to brief, disgracefully, that his opponents were giving “succour” to the Assad regime was bad enough. But the loss of Thursday’s vote, and the manner of it, said dreadful things about Mr Cameron’s party management skills – about his knowledge of his back benches; about the whipping operation that was in place (symbolised by the fact that the International Development Secretary missed the vote after failing to hear the Division Bell); and ultimately about the level not just of trust, but of faith, that he could draw on in order to persuade his MPs to vote against their instincts.
This was all the more glaring because of the details of the vote: thanks to the shabby game-playing of Ed Miliband, the Government’s initial resolution had been watered down to the point where it was thought that most MPs could accept it. While the direction of travel was clear, any military action would still require specific further endorsement by Parliament. It was for that reason that the vote on Thursday was expected to be something of a formality, with the real fireworks coming in the wake of the UN inspectors’ report.
We are left with a situation in which, while Parliament has regained its lustre, all three of the party leaders have lost much of theirs. Ed Miliband has a tactical victory, but it came almost accidentally – the product not of his leadership, but of his pathological reluctance to lead. That vacillation, combined with his monumentally unimpressive performance in the Chamber, scarcely burnished his prime ministerial credentials. As for Nick Clegg, his efforts to command the Commons while summing up for the Coalition were hardly more impressive.
While Mr Cameron will not thank us for saying so, it is no bad thing that the vote went as it did. True, for Britain to stand aside while others act goes against both our recent traditions and, perhaps, our sense of ourselves as a nation. Yet neither this newspaper, nor the British public, had been anything like convinced of the case for intervention – or, if there was to be intervention, that Britain should be to the fore.
The question that will be asked in some quarters – not least among our traditional allies – is whether Thursday’s vote is symptomatic of a new attitude in this country, a sounding of the recessional and a drawing in of horns. That should not be taken as the intention: we are one of the few nations with the capacity and inclination to intervene militarily on the side of the weak, where diplomatic efforts have failed. No one should doubt that Britain remains a full-blooded member of Nato and the UN, an ally of America and committed to its international responsibilities.
At the same time, it may be no bad thing that our leaders have learnt that they do not have free rein to commit the nation to overseas adventures – especially not when the public is unconvinced, the consequences are wildly uncertain and our military capabilities have been cut to the bone. Or that Britain has been left a humbler nation – with a far humbler Prime Minister.
The country has not become isolationist. It is merely fed up with the debilitating post 9/11 years of national sacrifice
So, after a tumultuous political week dominated by the government defeat over Syria, which Britain do we inhabit now? Is it the free-at-last nation which is "no longer a plaything of the US military adventure," as one Labour MP put it on Friday. Or the humiliated irrelevance which awoke that day with "the international credibility of Luxembourg", as a Daily Telegraph blogger suggested. The reality, as soon as you think about it, is neither of them.
There is no doubt, however, that Thursday night's Commons vote on Syria was a major parliamentary moment. Prime ministers do not often put their foreign policy on the line. They get rebuffed by MPs even more rarely. Thursday's 272-285 defeat for David Cameron's watered-down Syria policy has few precedents. It is as big a defeat as the modern Commons has delivered to any PM on a foreign policy issue. It should not be belittled, least of all by Mr Cameron. But nor should it be exaggerated.
The first question is: where does Thursday leaves Mr Cameron? The answer is that he is in much the same place he was in on Wednesday, though with a big and largely self-inflicted new political bruise. When earlier prime ministers lost the confidence of MPs over foreign wars, they had to resign. As the result was announced on Thursday there was a solitary diffident Commons call for Mr Cameron to quit. Neither his own party, nor his coalition partners, nor even Labour, wants Mr Cameron's head. His standing has taken a big knock, at home and away. But the next election has not got a single day closer as a result of the vote.
It is not even certain that British policy towards Syria has done a total U-turn either. Yes, Mr Cameron was very quick to say after the vote that there would be no military action when he could have simply promised a second vote later. Yet all three main UK parties still support in principle the case for strong action against Syria over the use of chemical weapons. What should MPs do if the case that John Kerry made in Washington yesterdayon Friday is solidly proven, or if the Assad regime launches another mass chemical attack or if al-Qaida does the same? Still vote to stand aside? Perhaps. Or press for action in the generally cautious terms promoted in the Commons this week? It is not necessarily inconceivable for the issue to be back on the table at some later stage and even to win some form of Commons backing.
There is no evidence that British public opinion has turned isolationist. There is plenty of evidence that it is fed up with the debilitating post 9/11 years of national sacrifice, with the humiliating excesses of US national security policy (not least its abuses of human rights and surveillance), with the unequal burden-sharing among allies and, above all, with the failures of policy. Iraq casts a very long, very dark shadow. As a result, right from the start of its spiralling civil war, Syria has felt like a sacrifice too far. When the latest call to arms came, though it came from a respected American president and was provoked by clearly intolerable war crimes, the answer was a clear one. Enough.
Mr Cameron made a massive miscalculation this week. But he is not the only one who has had a wake-up call. So have the Foreign Office and the armed forces. So have the intelligence services and the government lawyers. All of them have something tough to absorb about public tolerance for dangerous military engagements in hostile environments which, ever since Iraq, have felt variously precipitate, illegitimate, excessive, costly, unfocused and even, in the end, not really our fight either. Should we feel ashamed about these limits of national will, as Paddy Ashdown said yesterday? No. We should feel ashamed that our instinct for legitimacy and our patriotism have been too often and too cheaply taken for granted. It is not the public's credibility on the line. It is the government's. The mood is not never again. The mood is not now, not again, not like this.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
i dont understand...again.
there is civil war in syria.
from what has been reported there are already huge civilian casualties.
there is already collateral damage.
the question is possibly not about any intervention by the west, because anybody in a position to step in and save people from there own bloodlust should do so.
but on who's side they will intervene on.
i do understand the region is of huge importance.
but none of its neighbours or religious brethren have taken any time to make any discernable difference.
i may be wrong again, maybe they have.
there was talk of supplying weapons as always.
and lets face it, even in conspiracy theories relating back decades. at least somebody had a plan and worked towards it with intent.
the rest of us are literally floating on the tide.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Syria was already on the list since the 90's
I am not defending assad nor FSA(I know that alot of these brigades dont want intervention, only its zionist leadership wants it) i seriously hope though that the zionists will fail, although the damage already has been done.
This crusade in favor of israel needs to stop. Hopefully it will end in their demise insha'Allah
I dont believe Assad nor FSA planted this WMD, it could be mossad or CIA. Assad is crazy, but i dont think he is that crazy to launch a chemical attack while the UN arrived on the same day.
This all being pre-planned.
At 42:10 a interesting subject which is currently happening, we dont need politics to realize this.
This is an interesting idea you've presented and it is a possibility that someone is trying to play both sides against each other and give the U.S. an excuse to intervene.
The question is which country or countries have most to benefit from an attack on Syria?
Let's see what the UN Inspectors have find. That should help to clarify things.
But even if they find evidence of a chemical attack, they wouldn't be able to prove who was responsible for it.
They will have to turn to other forms if intel to work out the source of the crime.
But going by how previous political attacks have been orchestrated, chances are the truth will be buried with planes that have the capability of flying below radar and causing as much damage as they want without anyone finding out.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
The question is which country or countries have most to benefit from an attack on Syria?
Oh thats easy to guess, every heard of the clean collar and the yinon plan? The destruction of arab countries surrounding israel by first destroying the state armies of iraq, syria and egypt? http://members.tripod.com/alabasters...nist_plan.html (Yinon plan)
Iraq is done, the country is divided in shia, sunni and a kurdish state. Syria will be divided in two sunni states, a druze one, and a alewite one at the coast (The alewites actually are planning this if Assad does lose). Egypt the start is already done, a classic one, dividing the country between pro-morsi and secularist camps.
Now the last video i presented is because all these three countries would be under severe blockades prophecied by rasoolAllah(Saw)
The War and Sanctions on Iraq, Syria, and in Future Egypt - as foretold in Hadith
With what has been transpiring in Iraq, and now Syria - it is extremely sad that the Muslim Ummah is SLEEP WALKING from one disaster into another - without paying much attention to what has been foretold to us in Ahadeeth and without realizing that Taaghooti forces are conveniently PLAYING our differences and Perceived fault-lines while the vast majority of the Ummah are getting exploited resulting in thousands of Muslims getting killed.
I encourage and invite all to go through some Ahadeeth and see for themselves what has been foretold and then put their hand on heart and ask themselves - if they want to be part of the problem - or part of the solution - a solution that unites and brings the ummah together - rather than cause its further destruction.
The following very interesting Hadith clearly foretold what is happening in Middle-East these days.
I first read the following hadith in Ibn'e Katheer's summary of Bidaya Wan Nihaya... but then on noted that it is from Sahih Muslim (as the original source).
Sahih Muslim Book 041, Hadith Number 6923.
The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Hour
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as saying:
1. Iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz;
2. Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and
3. Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and
4. You would recoil to that position from where you started and
(Repeated). You would recoil to that position from where you started and
(Repeated). You would recoil to that position from where you started,
5. The bones and the flesh of Abu Huraira would bear testimony to it.
Muslim: Book 41, Number 6961:
Abu Nadra reported: We were in the company of Jabir b. ‘Abdullah that he said:
“It may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams. We said, “Who would be responsible for it?” He said, “The non-Arabs would prevent them.” He again said,
“There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinar and mudd.” We said, “Who would be responsible for it?” He said, “This prevention would be made by the Romans.” He (Jabir b. Abdullab) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having said: “There would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it”. I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-’Ala, “DO you mean ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-Aziz?” They said, “No (he would be Mehdi).”
When reading the above two ahadith together – it clearly explains what is happening in the Middle-East these days and who would be responsible for it.
Some research on this Hadith:
According to this Hadith - "sanctions" would be imposed on 3 countries in the Middle-East in specific order as mentioned in the Hadith:
1st Iraq, 2nd Syria, and finally 3rd Egypt.
Let us do some detailed evaluation of this Hadith.
The hadith above mentions – Dirham and Qafiz in reference to Iraq.
The Hadith says:
“Iraq would with hold its dirham and qafiz”
Dirham = Money (see below for details)
Qafiz = A Measure of Oil!
1 Dinar = Gold Coin weighing 72 grains of average barley. This is now calculated as: 4.45 gm of Gold.
1 Dirham = (7/10) = 0.7 Dinar. (i.e. Dirham is 70% of a Gold Dinar).
It should be noted that the word “Qafiz” has been used through history for a measure of oil! Because of the Arab influence over southern Italy the Sicilian language has also borrowed some words from Arabic. One such word is clearly from the Arabic “Qifaz” and that word in Sicilain language is “Cafisu” - (cafiso: measure of oil) - [Arabic: qafiz]
This means that the sanctions imposed on Iraq would be about “Money and Oil”. i.e. An economic sanction with holding Money and Oil. (Remember the UN sanctions on Iraq and the Oil for Food programme).
The Non-Arabs would prevent them
As the Hadith about Iraq sanctions mentions - "The Non-Arabs would prevent them" - meaning that generally the Arab population would not be in favour of the sanctions in Iraq and it would be implemented by groups of nations - mostly non Arabs (i.e. Western Powers + United Nation)
We now know as a fact that economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq - after which there was 1st Persian Gulf War and then a 2nd Persian Gulf War.
The Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged under the U.N. authorized coalition force from 34 nations led by the US and closely in cooperation with UK, against Iraq.
Duration of the Sanctions & War on Iraq
Sanctions were imposed (which can be seen in military terminology as a technique with the goal of “Softening up the Target”.
The war against Iraq started in August, 1990 – and ended in December, 2011 (although very strong foreign influences remain). The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was completed on December 18, 2011
Approximate Total time: Around 22-23 years. However – if you add the pre-war sanctions – the actual duration against Iraq is much longer. According to some estimates just the pre-war sanctions on Iraq were responsible for nearly 5 million deaths of children due to lack of medicine, medical supplies, and healthy nutrition.
The Number of Muslims Killed in Iraq
The result of the war on Iraq is clear. Although Saddam Hussain is gone – thousands upon thousands of Muslims have perished in this “foreign imposed war”.
A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion (as of July 2006). Iraqis have continued to be killed since then.
The updated estimate as of 2012 is that more than a million Muslims died in Iraq. The estimate that over a million Muslims in Iraq have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in January 2008. Opinion Research Business estimated that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 was 1,033,000.
Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar ...
The Hadith mentions “Mudd and Dinar” in reference to Syria.
Mudd = typically used as a measure of Wheat, or more generally food (rice, wheat, barley, bread, etc). One Mudd is equated to ¾ of a kilogram, or sometimes as 708 grams. A mudd is a measure, commonly translated in today's terminology as a "Bushel"
This means that the sanctions imposed on Syria would be about Wheat and possibly general Food and (dinar) Money.
Further - the general food sanctions/witholding would be of a smaller nature compared to the sanctions imposed on Iraq (as Mudd refers to a small measure of general food items of around 708 grams).
Considering the sanctions on Syria - the hadith mentions “This prevention would be made by the Romans". Also please note that this time it was not mentioned that "The non-Arabs would prevent them" - this means that not just non-Arabs but even Arab government and population will be included in this.
This is clearly visible by the direct involvement of many Arab countries in the Middle-east such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Gulf Countries, and even “fighters” have poured in from as far as Tunisia and Libya.
This means that the key driver of sanctions against Syria would be present day Romans - i.e. Europeans and USA plus UK.
Considering what happened with Iraq - a similar fate seems to now be emerging as the expected outcome in Syria - resulting in war, then destruction of the country and finally withdrawal of occupation forces. Already nearly 80,000 plus Muslims have perished in this internal strife and war in Syria.
Considering that war in Syria started in 2012 – although without direct and visible involvement of “Roman” forces yet (no boots on the ground) - if we expect this to take around the same time as in Iraq, it may take potentially until 2012+22 = 2034.
Muslims should pray that insha Allah – that the situation in Syria does not drag out in a long drawn out war and would end quickly.
Egypt would with hold its irdab and dinar and
Taking the hadith to its logical conclusion - we can expect that after the conflict in Syria finishes - a situation similar to that which happened in Iraq / Syria - would finally happen in Egypt.
When Husni Mubarak was in power - I used to think how the west can be against Egypt - as Mubarak was their own man. However - as the "revolution" started and Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) started to come to power - it became clear to me that - this will happen after Ikhwan or may be a combination of "Islamist" parties stay in power for sometime in Egypt and start to change the policies - specially the policy of being friendly with Israel and blocking aid to Palestinians. Further imagine if the Islamic parties in Egypt rip apart the agreement signed with Israel about Sinai - and take ownership of Sinai - then - it will be considered as "open challenge" to Israel and the US and according to the current terms of agreement would be “an act of war”. Only Allah (swt) knows how the situation in Egypt would develop – however – already the “Islamist” parties have come to power in Egypt and already the relationship between Egypt and the Western Powers has changed.
The words used in reference with Egypt are Irdab and Dinar.
Irdab is a special measure especially related to Egypt.
1 Irdab = 73 KG (of Wheat)
When talking about grain - Irdab generally means wheat free from rubblish, dirt and the husks. More generally Irdab also refers to fruit in their dried state - such as dried dates and raisins.
Hence the economic sanctions against Egypt would impact dried fruits and wheat imports/exports and ofcourse dinar (money).
The present and future governments and citizens of Egypt - specially those who have any concern for the Muslims there - should take heed and start preparing for such eventuality by making sure that they can protect and defend themselves from certain onslaught that is to befall them in the future - as Hadith can never be wrong.
Finally the hadith mentions
you would recoil to that position from where you started and
you would recoil to that position from where you started and
you would recoil to that position from where you started,
It is good to remember that when Rasul Allah (saw) wanted to emphasize some pointso that those who listen - can memorize and pay special attention – he (saw) repeated in 3 times. Hence when we notice that this phrase is repeated 3 times - this is a sign that we should pay special attention and take heed/note.
"You would recoil to the position from where you started" to me means exactly what it says - that the muslims in various parts of the world - would recoil (i.e. return) to the position from where they started. This can most likely mean that muslims return to their places of origin - so the majority of muslims in non-muslim lands (like Muslims living in North America, and Europe) would potentially return to their land of origin in the Middle-East in great numbers. This would happen if the economic situation in these countries continue to deteriorate to the point that racism, islamophobia and islam bashing becomes common place and a muslim wearing islamic dress or a woman wearing Hijab or Niqab will be banned... early signs of all these have already started happening and I fear that this trend will only continue over time.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Salaam
A harsh assessment on PM David Camerons performance.
David Cameron is a vainglorious fantasist. He should quit
The Good Samaritan did not have a gun. I make this simple point to deal with those who seem to think that you can show mercy and pity by lobbing cruise missiles into war zones.
I make no claims to be a good person, but I am more and more annoyed by warmongers who dress up their simple-minded, vainglorious desire to bomb foreigners as moral.
Take Lord Ashdown, who moaned on Friday, after MPs voted against an attack on Syria, that he had never felt so ashamed. Really? Many of us can remember at least one occasion when Lord Ashdown certainly ought to have felt more ashamed.
But these days, our moral worth is not judged by such things as constancy and trust close to home, but by our noisy readiness to bomb people for their own good. The moral bomber is one of the scourges of our age. He gets it into his head that he is so good that he is allowed to kill people (accidentally of course) in a noble cause.
This stupid conceit was – at long last – challenged last week in the House of Commons. MPs, many of them rightly prompted by the fears and concerns of their constituents, refused to be stampeded by emotional horror propaganda. They kept their heads. The response of the moral bombers was typical of them. There was twaddle about ‘appeasement’. There was piffle about how our world status has suffered (don’t these people know what the rest of the planet has thought of us since the Iraq War?).
There was tripe about damage to the non-existent ‘special relationship’ between this country and the USA. Anyone who has spent two weeks in Washington DC knows that this ‘relationship’ is regarded there as a joke.
There was foul-mouthed fury from taxpayer-funded Downing Street aides, who I don’t doubt echoed their master’s voice. There were the usual snivelling attempts to portray dissent as disloyalty, cowardice or as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. These flailing, spiteful acts were the reflexes of a babyish despot deprived of a toy. Luckily, we are not yet a despotism. Despite a long assault on our free constitution, MPs can still follow their consciences, and public opinion cannot be entirely suppressed or manipulated.
In some ways, most shocking has been the behaviour of the BBC. It uncritically promoted atrocity propaganda from the beginning, making no effort to be objective. It frequently treated opponents of the rush to war with nasty contempt. If the BBC Trust is to justify its large budget and fancy offices, it would do well to investigate this grave failure to be impartial.
But it was not just the BBC. Until a couple of days before Mr Cameron’s War was abruptly cancelled, most of the media were still braying for an attack.
What bunkum it all was. The ‘West’ has no consistent or moral position at all. The ‘West’ readily condoned Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and ignored his use of them in Halabja for years, trying to blame others for it.
Saddam, later a villain, was then our ally. Hypocrisy continues to this day. The US and British governments, as they vapour about the wickedness of Syria’s government, refuse even to admit the obvious fact that the Egyptian military junta came to power by a bloody and lawless putsch.
And, as they weep loud tears for the dead of Damascus (whose killers have yet to be identified) they are silent over the heaps of corpses piled in the streets of Cairo, undoubtedly gunned down by the junta, which used weapons paid for by the USA to do so, and didn’t even try to hide its actions.
Mr Blair himself, in an article for the Warmonger’s Gazette, formerly known as The Times, actually says we should ‘support the new [Egyptian] government in stabilising the country’.
That’s one way of putting it.
No doubt Bashar Assad would say he was stabilising his country. If outrage is selective it isn’t really outrage.
President Assad, for instance, was a welcome guest at Buckingham Palace on December 17, 2002, when his country was already famous for its torture chambers, its sponsorship of terror and its harbouring of grisly Nazi war criminals such as the child-murderer Alois Brunner.
If you know anything at all about the subject, it is rather difficult not to laugh at Mr Cameron’s righteous pose.
As for the rest of the Prime Minister’s arguments, they are not fit for an Eton junior debating society. WHAT is wrong with ‘standing idly by’, if the only alternative is to do something stupid? Why does it matter so much that this country takes part in the stupidity? How can he be sure that any military action is limited? If you start a fight, you provoke retaliation. And you then start a chain whose end you cannot possibly know. So it isn’t limited.
And, as he has been bursting to intervene in Syria for months, how can he claim that his passion is solely to do with the use of poison gas? If his aim is to deter future use, what is the mad rush?
As for Cameron’s ‘intelligence’ document, I could have written it myself. It all came off the internet.
Truly, he is the Heir To Blair. But having had one Blair already, we are at last learning the folly of indulging such fantasists. I don’t quite understand why he hasn’t resigned, as I’ve never in 40 years of journalism seen a Prime Minister more totally and personally repudiated by Parliament and nation. But, whether he knows it or not, I think he is now finished. That at least is one good thing to come out of this self-righteous, ignorant posturing.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Salaam
Not expecting this, Could it be that Barack Obama is attempting a 'reverse ferret'?
A US military attack against Syria was unexpectedly put on hold on Saturday, after president Barack Obama said that while he backed the use of force after what he called "the worst chemical weapons attack of 21st century", he would first seek the approval of Congress.
A US military attack against Syria was unexpectedly put on hold on Saturday, after president Barack Obama said that while he backed the use of force after what he called "the worst chemical weapons attack of 21st century", he would first seek the approval of Congress.
Obama said he had decided the US should take military action against Syria and had been told by his advisers that while assets were in place to launch strikes immediately, the operation was not "time sensitive". He said Congressional leaders had agreed to hold a vote when lawmakers return to Washington next week.
It was a dramatic turnaround by the White House, which had earlier in the week indicated it was on the verge of launching strikes against Syria without the approval of Congress. Only on Friday, secretary of state John Kerry had delivered a passionate case for taking action against Assad.
In an address to the nation from the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama said he had decided that the US should take military action that would be "limited in duration and scope", designed to "hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behaviour and degrade their capacity to carry it out".
The surprise came when Obama said that he had made a second decision: to seek the approval of Congress before launching any strikes. The president said he had listened to members of Congress who had expressed a desire for their voices to be heard, and that he agreed.
Obama insisted the delay did not have any tactical consequences. His most senior military advisor had told him an attack would be "effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now," he said.
The White House sent draft legislative wording to the House and Senate leaders on Saturday evening, which authorised actions designed only to neuter the threat of chemical weapons or to prevent their proliferation. The narrow wording was intended to make it clear that the administration had no intention of being drawn into to the wider Syrian civil war.
The move was a huge political gamble for Obama. There is no guarantee that Congress will approve military action and Obama did not say whether he would order air strikes if Congress failed to give its backing. A failure to secure approval would be a significant blow to Obama's authority, and some presidential observers suggested it could undermine the executive's traditional authority to make independent decisions on military actions.
Congress is not due to return from the August recess until 9 September. A statement from Republican leaders including John Boehner, the House speaker, said there would be no early recall. The statement said: "In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people."
Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, welcomed Obama's decision, saying in a statement that the president's role as commander-in-chief was strengthened when he has the support of lawmakers.
The president's decision to seek the formal backing of Congress took Washington by surprise. Obama was widely believed to be on the cusp of military action against Syria over the chemical weapons attack last week, which the administration has said killed almost 1,500 people.
Obama said that while he still believed that as president he has the authority to launch strikes, he was mindful of the need for democratic backing and would "seek authorisation for the use force from the American people's representatives in Congress".
Senior administration officials told reporters on Saturday that the president had come to his decision to seek congressional approval at about 6pm on Friday evening. He discussed it during a 45-minute walk with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and then called a meeting of his top national security aides at 7pm.
The officials said there was a "robust debate" in the two-hour meeting. Some aides were concerned about the risk of seeking the approval of Congress, but officials did not say which advisers had argued against the decision. All now approved of it, the officials said.
Obama's decision was a sign that the White House feels exposed over Syria, amid waning international support, minimal public backing and a chorus of concern on Capitol Hill. In 2011, Obama was strongly criticised for not consulting Congress before launching strikes against Libya.
The president's critics in Congress were emboldened by the vote against military action in the British parliament on Thursday, and there was growing pressure on Obama to show he had the backing of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Obama directly referred to the vote in Britain, saying that some advisers had advised against a congressional vote after "what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week, when the parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the prime minister supported taking action."
But he insisted that taking limited military action against Syria was the right choice, even without the support of the United Nations security council, which he said was "completely paralysed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable". Russia and China have used their veto to block authorisation for the use of force against Syria.
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
Iran news agency, however if this is true than i am not suprised, alot of syrians wont be happy when US attacks syria this includes many groups of the FSA.
Syrian Opposition Vows to Join Ranks with Assad if US Attacks Syria
A senior Syrian opposition figure warned Washington that all its
interests in the region will be attacked by battalions of suicide
bombers formed by the Syrian opposition forces if it dares to attack
Syria, stressing that homeland is more important to the dissidents than
opposition to the government.
"Although, we are among the Syrian government's opposition forces, we
assume our homeland's interests to be more important than any other
interest and therefore, we have formed a number of battalions to conduct
suicide operations and target the US interests in the Middle-East,"
Secretary-General of al-Shabab Party Mahir Marhaj told FNA on Saturday.
He blasted the US and its allies' warmongering policies and threats,
and said, "We in al-Shabab party are highly prepared to confront any war
against Syria."
Marhaj warned the White House against the consequences of war in
Syria, and said even a limited western invasion of the country will turn
into an open and unlimited war with unforeseen consequences when
Damascus gives back its crushing response.
The White House has signaled that Obama is still open to launching a
“limited” strike against Syria after reports alleged that Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for a chemical
gas attack that left hundreds of Syrians, including children, dead. The
Syrian government has strongly rejected the accusation.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Iran news agency, however if this is true than i am not suprised, alot of syrians wont be happy when US attacks syria this includes many groups of the FSA.
Syrian Opposition Vows to Join Ranks with Assad if US Attacks Syria
^^ We recently had a Qiyam-ul-Layl (Night Prayer) programme on behalf of our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Syria and all other parts of the world.
From his many duaas, the imaam made the following duaa: O Allah, we do not know who are our enemies and who are our friends are anymore. Make it clear for us, that we may be able to discern between the two (not exact words, but to a similar effect).
I thought that this was very important to mention in duaa - because truly, it has become soo difficult to understand what each agenda is really about.
Allah knows best, and we ask of Him to show us the way that is true and free of doubt.
Ameen
(Ps. Its a good idea to encourage your local masaajid to also have a Qiyam-ul-Layl/ Zikr programme, or create one with your friends.
We often may feel so discouraged and depressed when we see our brothers and sisters suffering so many hardships - because we may not be able to physically do much/ directly assist them.
One of the ways that we can (and one of the best ways) is through duaa.
It is indeed, the believers 'strongest weapon'. SubhanAllah.)
Re: Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
I just don't trust any "reports" about chemical weapons attacks. Anyone remember how our country was going to save the world from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? All credibility is loss...and that is one item of many.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks