Yemen Cholera epidemic

**سيف الله** · 08-17-2017

Salaam

Another update on the situation in Yemen

Yemen Cholera epidemic is US and Saudi made!

Yemen is a country that has been ravaged by war and is on the brink of famine. Two years of horrific conflict has killed more than 10,000 people, wounded 45,000 others, and displaced more than 11 percent of the country’s 26 million people.

Yemen is now facing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, according to international health authorities.

The outbreak has surpassed 200,000 cases, and that number is growing by 5,000 a day.

“In just two months, cholera has spread to almost every (part) of this war-torn country”, said World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Margaret Chan and UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake in a joint statement.

More than 1,300 people have already died — one quarter of them children and the death toll is expected to rise.

Cholera is caused by ingesting food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. If left untreated, it can cause severe dehydration and eventual death.

Cholera is preventable and easily treatable with the proper resources, said Kurt Tjossem, the International Rescue Committee’s regional director for East Africa and the Horn. In Yemen, however, the collapsing infrastructure has cut off an estimated 14.5 million people — about half the country’s population from regular access to clean water, increasing the likelihood for the disease to spread.

The crisis is “man-made,” said Stephen O’Brien, the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, in a statement last week. For the past two years, Yemen has been embroiled in a civil war between Houthi rebels from the north of the country and a coalition of Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the United States.

“The cholera epidemic is in part due to the bombing of the water supply in Sana’a”, Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn said. “There is a U.S. imprint on every civilian death inside Yemen.”

The problem in Yemen is even worse considering the ever-widening issue of food insecurity and malnutrition, where 2.2 million children suffer from acute malnutrition.

When malnutrition rises, the immunity of children falls, which makes them more susceptible to diseases like cholera.

Yemen’s economy is crumbling and health care workers continue to work without any pay. According to UNICEF and WHO, an estimated 30,000 local health workers have not been paid their salaries for nearly 10 months.

Almost half the country’s medical facilities have been destroyed. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from the combined effects of hunger and lack of medical facilities.

Yemen has been torn to pieces. The war which is Saudi led and driven by the US ambitions, has left millions of people at the mercy of deadly diseases like Cholera. Poverty has cursed the population where mothers hold their dying children helpless, not knowing where their next portion of food and water will come from.

Saudi led forces have targeted farms, food facilities, water infrastructure, marketplaces, and even the port of Hudaidah, where most of the humanitarian aid was entering the country. Further crimes include of the Saud is the bombing of a funeral procession in October 2016 that resulted in 150 causalities.

However Trump clinched an enormous $110bn deal during his trip to the kingdom in May, which will be used to bomb and murder more people in Yemen. The Saud family promised Trump that their military would undergo rigorous US training to reduce civilian casualties, signing a $750m training program.

The treacherous royal family went further still and agreed that US advisers would sit in their air operations control centre.

It is a damning indictment on the Saudi Kingdom that it has inflicted terrible pain on the Muslims of Yemen and then boasts to the Muslim world that they are the ‘Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques’. The Saud regime are only Custodians to America. Treachery is in their bloodstream and programmed in their DNA, from the days when Ibn Saud was handed Makkah and Medinah by British colonial forces. Just like the Saud family obeyed Britain in the past, they now obey in servitude the USA.

There is only one solution to Yemen and that is to challenge the colonial agenda of the West in that land via the reestablishment of the Khilafah Rashidah.

Since the destruction of the Khilafah, the entire Arab world has been plagued with rulers that are the most evil and deceitful in Islamic history. These rulers support the bombing of Muslim countries like Yemen and pay no heed to the spread of diseases like Cholera, that cause terrible suffering to the people. Only when the rulers of the Arab world are removed and the Ummah has a just leader that applies the Ruling of Allah, will all people gain protection from the malicious design of brutal vultures.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-comment/yemen-cholera-epidemic-us-saudi-made/

**PRND** · 09-20-2017

Originally Posted by OmAbdullah

Then, when Allah gave power to Salahud-Deen Ayoobi, he conquered Al-Quds and his behavior with the Christians was so nice that many Christian soldiers became impressed by Islam and they embraced it with their will. Next time the same convert Muslims were standing to fight the crusaders, and the crusaders were struck with wonder to see that wonderful change.

This is hilarious, it really is. It's hilarious, it's ignorant, it's pathetic, and you don't even know why. But I will tell you exactly why that is.

Lots of people groups have at least a bit of conquering, imperialism, and subjugation in their history. That's normal. But when you're talking about anyone Except for Muslims, you know you'll be talking to someone who's come to terms with most of the facts of their history and they can readily acknowledge the atrocities that exist in their past. For example, you'll never see a French person bragging about when France occupied Algeria, and didn't they do such a good job there. They know what that was, they don't deny it, and they don't lie about it or try to cover it up. You may see English people talk about how their colonialism was relatively light and non-meddlesome, but they do at least know when It's Over and they have no plans to reclaim India or the US or....pretty much anything, really.

Now, you're probably bracing yourself for some bull-headed opinions and baseless criticism, but on the topic of Saladin, I've got some real evidence and a really solid source for you. This will give you an opportunity to look at some disconfirming evidence and utilize that in order to replace some of your beliefs and opinions with Facts. First, this is the source that will be of interest to you.

The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian. And yes, these Arab Historians are all Muslims. Despite the double translation that took place, it is the best English translated resource for Arab Muslim Historians on this particular topic. At least 90% of what you can read in this is from the historians themselves. Each section begins with a bit of biographical detail about the historians, and perhaps a paragraph or two that sets up and leads in, but other than that the historians' work is simply compiled end to end. You should probably know that on more of a macro level, Zangi is actually the one that's depicted as using courtesy and diplomacy instead of violence, while Saladin is described by historian In Asakir as "most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War" and is said to have understood jihad in this manner- to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). He's also criticized for a choice he made pertaining to French Christians in Jerusalem where he had a chance to accept a less bloody surrender but chose to kill Way more people than he had to, for the stated reason of revenge for something in the 11th century. He actually said that. It's in there. And this was significant because it normalized excessive violence between monotheists, even though there were other leaders on the Muslim side that were doing more of the right things.

None of that is really the wake up call that you need though. Prepare for a lengthy quote that will rock your Saladin Was So Nice little world. This is the part that specifically deals with him taking Jerusalem.

"Neither amnesty nor Mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation on you. Tomorrow we will be your masters by main force....we shall kill and capture you wholesale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and women to slavery" (page 156).

Fun fact- in order to avoid slavery, the cost per man was 10 dinar, 5 for women, and 2 for each child. The total number of people who couldn't meet the demands of this frame-by-frame Daesh-style shakedown is listed at exactly 16,000. So this was the fate of Jerusalem's civilians. Oh but wait, there's more.

"Women and children together came to 8,000 and we're quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and misery women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free woken occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things set to the test, and virgins Dishonored and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red lips kissed- and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for them, and celibates we're satisfied by them, and thirsty men were sated by them, and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women's were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices, and close ones set at a distance, and lofty ones abased, and Savage ones captured, and those accustomed to thrones cast down!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 163).

Bear in mind. The man who wrote all this is a Muslim, an Arab, an actual historian, and he lived close to this time and carried out the task of writing some of the actual history of these events. It's a bit wordy and runs on for a bit, but you'll find that's part for the course with these guys. You'll also find that they confidently assert that this victory cake directly from Allah, but that clearly doesn't change the basic facts of what was done with and to the citizens that couldn't afford the extortionary shakedown that was probably called an impromptu sort of jizya.

Do you notice how he's a little bit celebratory about all this? It's kind of surreal. You get to say Hello to the Muslim historical account when victory is fresh and it's time to celebrate. None of this face-saving business, none of this whitewashing and pretend that everyone was merciful and great. Some were a lot better than this, to be sure- but this is specifically Saladin, this is specifically Jerusalem, and this is the kind of disconfirming evidence that you cannot possibly ignore.

At any rate. That's some rather shocking evidence for you to deal with. You have fun with that, and please feel free to track down the primary source and read in more detail. It's not all horrible and awful- it is after all Arab Muslim Historians that are both chronicling and celebrating where they're able to- but there is a Whole lot more in the way of dirty, and mixed results, and murky morality, and just Normal Empire Warmongering that you'd readily expect for anyone else in a comparable situation but somehow you think that conquering Muslims were clean of this, and these types of accounts in your mind are presumed to be made up.

Guess what. It's not made up. Do your research. Look into the source. You have plenty to answer for in your religious history, and maybe it's finally time for you to start doing that in roughly the same way that literally everyone else has been doing for quite some time now.

**M.I.A.** · 09-20-2017

Lol excellent, i see your stand on it now..

Although your lack of belief in a creator is.. misplaced.

Again, as you yourself probably know, most opposition from the famed..

Came from people already belonging to a belief system.

The opposition you want me to seek.. probably did not exist.

And the treatment of such people.. as you would want it..

Does not exist, mankind and society have always excused themeselves of atrocities as they happen.

Planning for tomorrow is only for those with aptitude..competency or strength.

There is none worthy of worship..

Your stance and that of the original athiest.

Your self important challenge.. is THE red herring as far as i am concerned.

Although i feel that way only because im not knowledgeable on history.

I actually had to google, "the first athiest".. to see what came up and what became of him.

Im sorry but i dont think anyone can challenge your understanding of how the world and its people work..

Unless they make things clearer to you.. monothiesm is what you make of it.. and what it makes of you.

You should challenge the status quo sometime, and learn.

Lol i should have been a pharmacist.. in fact i would probably advocate learning a profession to all.

Although i would stress that knowledge is not power, application of knowledge is power..

Its persuit should not be solely the pastime of athiests..

Although today its only an open door for those able to pay the way.

Others see the world in differing intricacies.

EDIT:

Another thread, another perspective.

Mythicism

**Futuwwa** · 09-20-2017

Originally Posted by PRND

I have a handful of objections to your plan, but I mostly want to focus on a specific question that I want to get a coherent response to. First, those objections.

It seems to me that in theory- in theory, I say, on paper and in theory- your idea is identical in form and intent to that of any of the caliphate building terrorists out there. You even want to wave a black flag and most likely set up your caliphate in the same sort of region where ongoing attempts are being made. I'll remind you that it always gets messy- you remember the First Fitnah, and the bloody fate of the first few caliphs?- and if you ever tried to put it into practice, you'd be one of those people who walks, acts, and quacks just like a terrorist. It's the same plan as all these other bad plans.

Now on to that question. As I'm sure you're aware, the last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire. It actually was an empire, that's not an unfair term, it literally was an empire. Previous caliphates were also imperial and expansionist in nature. Soy question to you is this.

Are you an imperialist? In other words, do you wish for a large number of Muslims to stop living in Westphalia style nation states and begin living under the rule of an empire? An empire that would probably be aggressively expansionist, awful to religious minorities, and a menace to the region, but that's beside the point.

Are you an imperialist, in the sense that you really like the idea of an Islamic empire, an actual empire, and you literally want to see another Islamic empire- an actual empire- exist and be powerful and all of that.

Are you an imperialist. You, specifically you, are you an imperialist? Answer the question please, don't get distracted, don't change the subject, don't you dare say WhatAbout in the process of dodging the question. I'm not asking about anyone else. I'm not asking you to identify some other type of person that's an imperialist. I'm specifically asking you to avoid getting distracted.

You. Point to yourself. Do it. Are you an imperialist? I'm asking about you, so please answer the question and don't get lost.

Thank you in advance, I do hope you can answer the question.

ProTip: If you actually want to have a serious, honest discussion, don't ask a question loaded to the brim with presuppositions and dictate that it must be answered as stated.

**OmAbdullah** · 09-20-2017

Originally Posted by PRND

This is hilarious, it really is. It's hilarious, it's ignorant, it's pathetic, and you don't even know why. But I will tell you exactly why that is.

Lots of people groups have at least a bit of conquering, imperialism, and subjugation in their history. That's normal. But when you're talking about anyone Except for Muslims, you know you'll be talking to someone who's come to terms with most of the facts of their history and they can readily acknowledge the atrocities that exist in their past. For example, you'll never see a French person bragging about when France occupied Algeria, and didn't they do such a good job there. They know what that was, they don't deny it, and they don't lie about it or try to cover it up. You may see English people talk about how their colonialism was relatively light and non-meddlesome, but they do at least know when It's Over and they have no plans to reclaim India or the US or....pretty much anything, really.

Now, you're probably bracing yourself for some bull-headed opinions and baseless criticism, but on the topic of Saladin, I've got some real evidence and a really solid source for you. This will give you an opportunity to look at some disconfirming evidence and utilize that in order to replace some of your beliefs and opinions with Facts. First, this is the source that will be of interest to you.

The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian. And yes, these Arab Historians are all Muslims. Despite the double translation that took place, it is the best English translated resource for Arab Muslim Historians on this particular topic. At least 90% of what you can read in this is from the historians themselves. Each section begins with a bit of biographical detail about the historians, and perhaps a paragraph or two that sets up and leads in, but other than that the historians' work is simply compiled end to end. You should probably know that on more of a macro level, Zangi is actually the one that's depicted as using courtesy and diplomacy instead of violence, while Saladin is described by historian In Asakir as "most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War" and is said to have understood jihad in this manner- to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). He's also criticized for a choice he made pertaining to French Christians in Jerusalem where he had a chance to accept a less bloody surrender but chose to kill Way more people than he had to, for the stated reason of revenge for something in the 11th century. He actually said that. It's in there. And this was significant because it normalized excessive violence between monotheists, even though there were other leaders on the Muslim side that were doing more of the right things.

None of that is really the wake up call that you need though. Prepare for a lengthy quote that will rock your Saladin Was So Nice little world. This is the part that specifically deals with him taking Jerusalem.

"Neither amnesty nor Mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation on you. Tomorrow we will be your masters by main force....we shall kill and capture you wholesale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and women to slavery" (page 156).

Fun fact- in order to avoid slavery, the cost per man was 10 dinar, 5 for women, and 2 for each child. The total number of people who couldn't meet the demands of this frame-by-frame Daesh-style shakedown is listed at exactly 16,000. So this was the fate of Jerusalem's civilians. Oh but wait, there's more.

"Women and children together came to 8,000 and we're quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and misery women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free woken occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things set to the test, and virgins Dishonored and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red lips kissed- and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for them, and celibates we're satisfied by them, and thirsty men were sated by them, and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women's were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices, and close ones set at a distance, and lofty ones abased, and Savage ones captured, and those accustomed to thrones cast down!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 163).

Bear in mind. The man who wrote all this is a Muslim, an Arab, an actual historian, and he lived close to this time and carried out the task of writing some of the actual history of these events. It's a bit wordy and runs on for a bit, but you'll find that's part for the course with these guys. You'll also find that they confidently assert that this victory cake directly from Allah, but that clearly doesn't change the basic facts of what was done with and to the citizens that couldn't afford the extortionary shakedown that was probably called an impromptu sort of jizya.

Do you notice how he's a little bit celebratory about all this? It's kind of surreal. You get to say Hello to the Muslim historical account when victory is fresh and it's time to celebrate. None of this face-saving business, none of this whitewashing and pretend that everyone was merciful and great. Some were a lot better than this, to be sure- but this is specifically Saladin, this is specifically Jerusalem, and this is the kind of disconfirming evidence that you cannot possibly ignore.

At any rate. That's some rather shocking evidence for you to deal with. You have fun with that, and please feel free to track down the primary source and read in more detail. It's not all horrible and awful- it is after all Arab Muslim Historians that are both chronicling and celebrating where they're able to- but there is a Whole lot more in the way of dirty, and mixed results, and murky morality, and just Normal Empire Warmongering that you'd readily expect for anyone else in a comparable situation but somehow you think that conquering Muslims were clean of this, and these types of accounts in your mind are presumed to be made up.

Guess what. It's not made up. Do your research. Look into the source. You have plenty to answer for in your religious history, and maybe it's finally time for you to start doing that in roughly the same way that literally everyone else has been doing for quite some time now.

I discard your shameless false statement but only take the following sentence for proof:

"The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian."

So from here came all that false statement. A Christian translated it and edited it. So where is the truth?

In fact you and I were not there at that time of the Crusaders wars with Salaahud-Deen. We just came to know from history. I read a story written by a convert Muslim who was a soldier in the crusaders' army. He wrote that:

They were in a fort like city when the Muslim army reached. Salaahud-Deen informed the city people to leave the city peacefully but those soldiers thought that they were safe so they didn't obey. then the Muslim army started attack with arrows or cannons which were so strong that the walls of the fort broke down. and so the army entered the city. The soldiers were arrested while all of the civilians were advised to leave. they were in fear that they would be killed like the Christians had killed the Muslim civilians but to their surprise that they were allowed to go and when they were leaving, the Muslims gave them money and food. (Yes this is the quality of the merciful hearts of the Muslims, they will never harm the innocent civilians).

The soldiers thought that they would be given terrible punishment because they had killed the Muslims in the past war but they were dealt with such excellent behavior that they started hating the Chritian lairs who had accused the Muslims and Islam with black, false accusations. So they entered the fold of Islam and next time when the Crusaders attacked, the same soldiers (now Muslims) confronted them bravely.

This is a true sensible story. See now what are your people doing with the women and children? In France, a Muslim woman is not allowed to wear head scarf. Your people have mixed up men and women in the name of freedom and rights of women. But in reality they made the girls and women available to men without marriage and then they opened the door of abortion to girls and women. So family is lost, women and children are lost, human-race is lost. Men don't need marriage and don't have to take responsibility of wife and children. He just enjoys girls for free and when they become pregnant they are discarded and new girlfriends are made. The pregnant girls/women cry and die helplessly. I have heard their helpless cries in the Western countries. That is everyday happening. The UN is sitting to give the news of daily thousands of deaths of the children by abortion. Many mothers also die in the process. That is a normal and everyday happening in your system.

**Serinity** · 09-20-2017

In Islam, even in battle we are NOT to kill civilians nor destroy churches or kill those in churches / synagouges.

So what about at times of peace?

**سيف الله** · 10-25-2017

Salaam

Another update

Saudi Arabia may finally face accountability in Yemen as another air strike kills five civilians

Almost 60 rights groups call on UN to establish body to investigate human rights abuses and possible war crimes in war-torn country

Riyadh and its allies have extensively bombed Houthi rebels in charge of Yemen’s capital and north since March 2015 at the request of the exiled, internationally recognised president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The campaign has been repeatedly criticised for causing an excessive loss of civilian life.

Saudi blockades on Yemen’s ports and airspace have also been blamed for causing the current famine facing the country’s 22-million-strong population as well as the worst cholera outbreak in modern history, which has infected 500,000 people.

On Tuesday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and 56 other international non-governmental organisations urged the United Nations to establish an international body to investigate abuses they say may amount to war crimes committed by all the warring parties in Yemen.

Such a panel should “begin chipping away at the impunity that has been a central facet of Yemen's war,” HRW’S Geneva director John Fisher said in an open letter to the UN’s human rights council.

A report authored by several international aid agencies released earlier this month said Yemen suffered more air strikes in the first half of this year than in the whole of 2016, increasing the number of civilian deaths and forcing more people to flee their homes.

Western governments have also faced criticism for their role in the war: arms sold to Saudi Arabia are destined for use in the Yemeni war, rights groups say.

Officials within former US President Barack Obama’s administration were worried the sales could amount to complicity in war crimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-yemen-civil-war-air-strike-kills-five-civilians-masajed-a7920476.html

**Karl** · 10-25-2017

Originally Posted by PRND

Am I comparing any attempt of wanting an Islamic state as someone like ISIS?

Basically yes. That's a qualified yes, it's not like ISIS in every way of course. The core issue is Islamic supremacism, religious coercion through use of force, and religious compulsion. Religion must be optional, and all religions must be treated equally regardless of the demographics of a population. So if a mostly Muslim country votes to make Islamic law mandatory for everyone to follow and a proper police force will punish non Muslims who try to exercise individual religious liberties, that has the same issues, at its core, as the ragtag terror group that blows stuff up in order to attain basically the same outcome. Deny individual religious liberties to non Muslims, impose compulsory Islamic law through force, then make excuses for it and call it by names that make you feel better about it.

Think about it this way. You're familiar with white supremacists, right? Well, suppose you have super violent and scary white supremacists in one situation. Through intimidation and force, they make it clear that non white people are not welcome in a certain place because it "belongs" to white people in exactly the same way that Mecca "belongs" to Muslims. They ensure that non white people have less rights and ultimately go away, due to violence or by leaving due to threat of violence....in much the same way that Pakistan wound up becoming so exclusively Islamic.

Now suppose there's a different group of white supremacists. They wear nice suits and attend political functions. They don't get violent and intimidate. They do innocuous things with Pepe memes, and they also talk about how they'd like to mainstream ideas pertaining to the white ownership of a particular continent and they just want to make sure white people, in slightly more vague terms, have more rights and privileges than non white people. They'll be a bit less blunt and they'll come up with terminology that sounds more innocuous....they might also project more realistic and manageable goals for themselves....but they're basically trying to do the same thing.

When the core idea is evil, when the core idea on All relevant examples here is basic supremacism, I'm going to tell you that and I won't give you bonus points for being a pragmatic and relatively non-violent supremacist. Supremacism is evil, and it's absolutely not okay.

Do I find it problematic that the flag of tawheed is associated with terrorism? No. I find it problematic that people die and embassies get burned over cartoons and caricatures.
End of moral assessment.

On the flag association thing, it's bad for you, it's bad for business, it's bad for Islam. And Islam deserves this. You have bad PR? No, really, do go on. Muslims did this to Islam, Islam did this to itself.

You think that ISIS is an excuse to undermine any Islamic state. I understand where you're coming from, and I believe we can reach an agreement on how that by itself is bad reasoning and it may not have been the best move for me to lead with that. Or did I lead with that?

On the other hand....thinking back and looking back, I didn't specifically mention ISIS. I generally mentioned various terror groups set on establishing caliphates (there are three of them, I didn't name them and barely mentioned them in general) and what little I said about them was meant to imply that practical difficulties would necessitate some procedural similarities- crucially, without the intent of being like ISIS. The main point there was to say this is not easy or even particularly feasible in any way that's going to be humane and just, not to say that so and so is literally ISIS. It's an untenable situation in which the preferred outcome, as stated, leads to a lot of blood and disappointment and not the outcome you're looking for. That was supposed to be the implied point in a larger sense. The only specific mentions that I made were of the First Fitnah (quite bloody and a bit of a false start to the whole thing) and of the Ottoman Empire. Which, in fairness, you have to admit was an empire. An actual literal empire. I think it's fair to ask if the goal of this specific person is to establish an empire, and again, in fairness, Empire and ISIS are not associated very closely or at all. My main question linked up with an actual, proper caliphate, specifically the most recent one, and I think it's a good question deserving of a proper answer.

Back to the main point, though. I do think it's lazy and a bit unfair to make a full and formal equivalence between any such attempt and Daesh. At the same time, I also think that any attempt to impose mandatory, compulsory religion is evil and there are better arguments against it than pointing to Daesh. This is specifically because the worst aspects of Daesh don't really get to the core issue of religion and the state and the public sphere. You can get there, but there's a lot of distractions. I prefer to make comparisons between different types of white supremacists and then challenge you to start seeing the supremacism in Islam, which is found in A Lot more places than just the terror groups with giant military budgets. It's just like how white supremacists aren't all skinheads or hood wearing scary people. There's a core ideology that can be readily defined without bringing up names of specific groups in order to get at the real problem, which is supremacism, meaning that a certain place or region specifically belongs to white people (or to Muslims) and no one else, the other people that somehow happen to be there can suck it, and just have to live with the decisions of the dominant group, that non white people (or non Muslims) get to have less rights and liberties and less of a life, and that's somehow okay under the right circumstances. I mean we're not blowing people up so it's all good right?

No, it's not all good. Supremacism is evil, it must go away and stay gone. That's the point that I'll keep coming back to.

I don't think you know how humans tick. In reality they are ALL supremisist self centred bigots no matter the race or religion. It is the power they have that controls their ability of conquest. I am a lot more worried about Jewish supremism as they are the most intelligent and effective in our modern times.
What about white supremisist Islam? Wouldn't that be fun...they could join with the Christians and the ones that worship the Hammer gods, a perfect trinity to bring peace and prosperity to the world LOL .If there is any people to fear, fear the "virtuous" ones the most.
Cholera is a real problem. The Europeans always made wine or beer to get around that problem and I supose everyone else did too, even Jesus.

**Islamopeace** · 10-29-2017

I find it hilarious that some of you have deluded yourselves to the point that you think your ancestors were merciful during battle.
Every historian knows the crusades were brutal, on both sides. Women were raped, men and children killed, and since Islam permits children of 6-9 to be married to men, often after the war, after there parents were killed, they were sold as slaves and wives. It's commonplace for children to be married to men multiple times there own age even today, and people are stoned to death as cited as acceptable punishment in the islam.
How you defend this behavior and actually condone it in the name of Islam is disgusting

**Karl** · 10-31-2017

Originally Posted by Islamopeace

I find it hilarious that some of you have deluded yourselves to the point that you think your ancestors were merciful during battle.
Every historian knows the crusades were brutal, on both sides. Women were raped, men and children killed, and since Islam permits children of 6-9 to be married to men, often after the war, after there parents were killed, they were sold as slaves and wives. It's commonplace for children to be married to men multiple times there own age even today, and people are stoned to death as cited as acceptable punishment in the islam.
How you defend this behavior and actually condone it in the name of Islam is disgusting

Wow! This humanist socialist anti Islamic ramble has not even mentioned cholera. What is your hang up with young people getting married? No religion has. Find me one religion that does. Global socialism (which is the only ideology with an age regulation mentality) is not a religion, so that does not count even though it is the most zealous and obnoxious of beliefs.

**PRND** · 11-01-2017

Originally Posted by Karl

Wow! This humanist socialist anti Islamic ramble has not even mentioned cholera. What is your hang up with young people getting married? No religion has. Find me one religion that does. Global socialism (which is the only ideology with an age regulation mentality) is not a religion, so that does not count even though it is the most zealous and obnoxious of beliefs.

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

**happymuslim** · 11-01-2017

Originally Posted by PRND

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

Yemen’s state right now is much more important, the cholera outbreak is not something to take light of, Also This debate is so irrelevant to talk about, How is islam directly responsible for a certain condition bruh, the blame game at its finest

**happymuslim** · 11-01-2017

Originally Posted by happymuslim

Yemen’s state right now is much more important, the cholera outbreak is not something to take light of, Also This debate is so irrelevant to talk about, How is islam directly responsible for a certain condition bruh, the blame game at its finest

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23526304/

**Karl** · 11-01-2017

Originally Posted by PRND

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

To begin with, such a domestic matter is simply none of your business, PERIOD. How I raise MY daughters is simply none of your concern, so for you to say that you would have a "hangup" over it is not my concern. It does however become an act of war the moment you allow your self-righteous hangups to TRESPASS ON MY PROPERTY and attempt to dictate how I am to raise my own family. You do however (understandably so) have every justification to have hangups when it comes to matters to do with YOUR offspring. You as their parent should raise your offspring as you see fit, so there is every justification for you to have hangups whenever your offspring disobey you or if an outside party initiates force against them. When it comes to anything like that, I can fully understand all the way.

I as the biological father of my offspring shall raise them however I see fit rather than how my enemies (i.e: external forces such as any government, the UN, or any other social engineering collectivist scourge) see fit. This means that I and only I as their father shall determine at my discretion and prerogative who and when they are to marry. The practice of arranged marriage is ancient in my race and it is NOT something we will ever stop doing just because all the leftists-united and other enemies of my race have expressed how much they hate it.

You seem to completely overlook though that prepubescent marriage in and of itself does NOT automatically mean that coitus will be immediately involved anyway, nor should any wise husband indulge in it either, as it can result in damage, I agree. The vast majority of prepubescent marriage would involve being restricted to either non-coital erotic acts or simply no sexual activity at all. And on your topic of "uterine perforation" (which is really more to do with very narrow items such as wires, knitting needles etc being inserted)...what you are really more meaning, I think, is vaginal damage caused by penile insertion, that's really more a matter of sexual partners being too different in size rather than an issue of age. Sure, there are instances of prepubescent females who are far too small being damaged by male partners, but there are also increasing instances of women who are too small being damaged by sexual activity with incompatible men who are too big for them, often resulting in vaginal damage and caesarean sections due to the baby being too big. Also, girls mature at very different speeds, depending on race. For example, girls of my race are sexually matured by age 8 or 9, and are at their full adult breeding size by the time they are 12. I'm not sure what approximate age group you are referring to when you are talking about "extremely young girls" but for girls of my race that means YOUNG (like age 2 or 3, not 9 or 10 year old maidens).

The expression "prepubescent children" is a ridiculous one too. It is about as ridiculous as saying "dead corpses". ALL children are of course prepubescent, just as all corpses are dead, so there is simply no need to say "prepubescent children". Either prepubescents or children will perfectly suffice.

Anyway, just in case no one has realized, this thread is about cholera, so let's try and keep it on topic. if you want to discuss this off-topic stuff any further please send me private messages.

**سيف الله** · 11-26-2017

Salaam

More misery in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia still barring aid to Yemen despite pledge to lift siege

Saudi-led coalition has failed to lift blockade on Yemen’s ports, leaving tens of thousands without food and medicine

Aid agencies said Saudi Arabia has not fulfilled its promise to reopen humanitarian aid corridors into northern Yemen, leaving the main aid lifeline closed for tens of thousands of starving people.

Following intense pressure from western governments, Saudi Arabia agreed on Wednesday to lift a fortnight-long blockade of the port of Hodeida from noon (9am GMT) on Thursday, but in an update at lunchtime on Friday, aid agencies said no permissions for humanitarian shipments had been given.

A UN source in Yemen said: “We have submitted the request to bring in aid, as we have every day, but there has been nothing. At this stage, we do not know the reason for the delay.”

Jamie McGoldrick, the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Yemen, said: “There is a system where we notify [the Saudi-led coalition] and ask for space or time slots to bring our planes in, and we negotiate in terms of getting space on the port as well. We’ve actually gone through the normal procedures and we’re just waiting to find out how that goes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/24/saudi-arabia-continues-to-block-humanitarian-aid-to-yemen

**JustTime** · 12-01-2017

This is such an exaggeration

**Noobzz** · 12-01-2017

Originally Posted by JustTime

This is such an exaggeration

oh yeah , counted and verified dead bodies by the UN is an exaggeration.

**سيف الله** · 12-14-2017

Salaam

Another update

**سيف الله** · 02-14-2018

Salaam

Another update

Yemeni Nobel laureate: Saudi Arabia, UAE occupy Yemen

Yemeni Nobel Peace laureate Tawakkol Karman has called for an end to what she says is a military occupation of her country by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an exclusive interview with the Reuters news agency. An outspoken rights advocate and activist with Yemen's Islah party, Karman won the prize in 2011 after camping out in a tent for months in pro-democracy protests that eventually forced Yemen's longtime leader Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down.

As in other lands shaken by Arab Spring uprisings that year, like Syria and Libya, Yemen descended into a war which drew in foreign powers, seeming to dash the dreams of progress by the thousands who took to Sanaa's makeshift "Change Square".
A Saudi-led military coalition joined the Yemen conflict after Houthi rebels seized much of the country in late 2014 and eventually drove the government into exile in Saudi Arabia.

"The Saudi-Emirati occupation ... betrayed the Yemenis and sold them out, exploiting the coup of the Houthi militia backed by Iran on the legitimate government, to exercise an ugly occupation and greater influence", Karman told Reuters by phone in an interview from her base in Istanbul, Turkey.

She alleged that President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, along with other top officials, were being kept under "house arrest" by Riyadh and prevented from governing on the ground in order to preserve Saudi and UAE influence.

Officials from the Saudi-led coalition and the UAE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Yemeni government official denied her charges.

"This lady, unfortunately, no longer means what she says. President Hadi isn't under house arrest and can travel wherever he wants ... the government and the coalition are in complete coordination," the official said.

The coalition says their campaign was launched at Hadi's request and aims at restoring his rule and Yemen's future as a unified state in line with UN resolutions. But Karman says Saudi Arabia and the UAE, monarchies where the state and ruling families are intertwined, seek to turn back the clock on political progress in Yemen and abroad.

"They regard the Arab Spring as their first enemy and this is a strategic error they have fallen into ... I call on the two countries to reconcile with the Arab Spring, not to clash with it, because the future is a future of change, and the wheel of history does not roll backward."

According to the United Nations, more than 10,000 people have been killed in fighting - nearly half of them civilians - since a Saudi-led coalition launched air attacks on Yemen in March 2015.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/yemeni-nobel-laureate-saudi-arabia-uae-occupy-yemen-180208062638767.html

**سيف الله** · 02-28-2018

Salaam

Another update

An Easy Riyadh

When the high court threw out a judicial review by campaigner seeking to suspend UK export licences for weapons heading to Saudi Arabia last year, given the evidence of their use in human rights abuses, one of its main reasons was the effectiveness of a programme to monitor such allegations.

Human Rights Watch, Amensty and er, Oxfam had argued that the joint incidents assessment team (JIAT), set up by coalition forces to examine alleged violations of humanitarian law, was inadequate. Given the hundreds of alleged abuses, around 10000 deaths and millions of displaced refugees, they were too superficial and too few. Even the head of the governments Export Control Organisation had written in an email that 'my gut tells me we should suspend' sales.

The judges, however decided the Saudis 'growing efforts to establish and operate procedures to investigate incidents of concern is of significance and a matter which the secretary of state (for International Trade, Liam Fox) was entitled to take into account as part of his overall assessment of the Saudi attitude and commitment to maintaining international huminatarian law standards.' Taken with the Riyadh regimes warm words and promises, this meant licensing arms exports to Saudi Arabia was eminently reasonable.

Just a couple of months later, the UNs office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) described the JIAT system as 'wholly insufficient'. Now, seven months after the courts judgment, the answer to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Stephen Doughty shows the Saudis 'growing efforts' at marking their own bombing homework are going.

Of around 320 attacks alleged to have violated humanitarian law, just 41 have been investigated and reported on. So far a small number of 'errors' have been admitted, but nothing that would call into question the sale of missiles to Riyadh. Naturally, there is no explanation for how the minority of cases 'investigated' are selected.

Although the evidence undermines the basis for rejecting the judicial review of the export licences, the JIAT system is still held out as an answer to awkward questions about the carnage in Yemen. It will no doubt be cited when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, de facto ruler in Riyadh, steps on to the red carpet in London next month. Sales to the country have been booming recently and Theresa May is unlikely to want anything to spoil that.

Private Eye No 1464.

**سيف الله** · 03-28-2018

Salaam

Another update

We are going to end Yemen war, Pentagon chief tells Saudi crown prince
#YemenWar

After meeting with Saudi crown prince, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis stresses 'urgent' need to find political solution

There is an urgent need to find a political solution to Yemen's war, US Defense Secretary James Mattis told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Thursday, as he voiced hope for a UN special envoy's peace efforts. Since March 2015, Riyadh has led a bombing campaign in Yemen to push Houthi rebels out of the capital and reinstall the government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

"We must also reinvigorate urgent efforts to seek a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Yemen and we support you in this regard," Mattis said.

Dubbed by UN officials as the world's "largest man-made humanitarian crisis", Yemen has witnessed a massive cholera outbreak, shortages in basic needs and more than 10,000 deaths. Asked by reporters at the start of his talks whether he would raise the issue of civilian casualties in Yemen, Mattis said: "We are going to end this war, that is the bottom line. And we are going to end it on positive terms for the people of Yemen, but also security for the nations in the peninsula."

Earlier this year, UN chief Antonio Guterres appointed former British diplomat Martin Griffiths as his new envoy charged with trying to broker peace in Yemen. Will Picard, executive director of Yemen Peace Project, a Washington-based advocacy group, called Mattis statement "empty rhetoric".

"We heard from the beginning of the war US officials saying they want to put an end to the war, yet they keep perpetuating it," Picard told MEE.

Mattis praised Saudi Arabia for the "significant amounts of humanitarian aid" it had provided to civilians in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition said earlier this year it would commit $1.5bn in humanitarian aid for the country. Critics say Saudi aid in the shadow of the coalition’s blockade on Yemen exclusively puts the response to the humanitarian crisis in the hands of an active party in the conflict and does not reach Houthi-controlled territory.

The war in Yemen has displaced more than 2 million people and driven the country - already the poorest on the Arabian Peninsula - to the verge of widespread famine. On Tuesday, the US Senate killed a resolution seeking an end to Washington's support for Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen.

During the Senate debate before the vote, some backers called the three-year-long conflict in Yemen a “humanitarian catastrophe”, which they blamed on the Saudis. Mattis had lobbied Congress to reject the bill, warning that restrictions could increase civilian casualties, jeopardise counterterrorism cooperation, and "reduce our influence with the Saudis".

The United States provides refuelling and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition. Picard said the legislation would have been an important step towards peace.

"Ending American military involvement in this conflict is crucial to ending the war in whole," he said. "The United States cannot play a useful role in bringing peace to Yemen while it continues to be a belligerent in this conflict and to support the coalition's war efforts."

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said that during the meeting, the crown prince talked about increasing cooperation with the US military, including training. President Donald Trump gave a warm welcome to the crown prince during a meeting at the White House earlier this week and credited US defence sales to Saudis with boosting American jobs.

Picard noted that Thursday's comments were not made by the secretary of state "because the US doesn't have one".

Trump sacked Rex Tillerson last week, and his new appointee, Mike Pompeo, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

"That vacuum at the top of America's diplomatic apparatus tells you all that you need to know about Trump administration's commitment to the peace process in Yemen," Picard said.

The Pentagon said Mattis and the crown prince also discussed Afghanistan, and Riyadh was willing to help members of the Taliban and their families who were interested in reconciliation efforts.

White said the Saudi crown prince was "quite positive" that Gulf countries involved in a long-running dispute would be able to move past it. Washington is keen to end the standoff between Qatar on one side and several other Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, on the other. The rift has divided the Gulf Cooperation Council group of countries and hurt US-led efforts to maintain a strong front against Iran. Meanwhile, the US formally approved defence contracts totaling more than $1bn with Saudi Arabia on Thursday.

The department confirmed it had green-lighted a $670m deal for anti-tank missiles, a $106m contract for helicopter maintenance and $300m for ground vehicle parts. An official said the deals had been in the pipeline since Trump has announced more than $100bn in possible new contracts on a visit to Riyadh last year.

"This proposed sale will contribute to US foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/we-are-going-end-yemen-war-pentagon-chief-tells-saudi-crown-prince-1218609448