| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-21 19:05:54 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
 |
 |
|
oh do tell which is which i do love when you go ahead and put your radical america hating leftist spin on things
atleast shobar is from another country with suspect sources for information, what's your excuse? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-21 19:47:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
oh do tell which is which i do love when you go ahead and put your radical america hating leftist spin on things
atleast shobar is from another country with suspect sources for information, what's your excuse? |
suspects sources of information is pretty funny considering you often times copy and paste, quote, re-package opinion pieces from right wing mags. Or is it ok because all US media tells the truth. I mean only two days ago you were defending WMD in iraq....months after the people that invented that claim had said it was wrong. So how are you going to come up in here and say somebody's source of info is suspect because it's not american? riddle me that one |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 04:14:11 |
|
|
| Shobar |
|
 |
|
|
|
Hey Karl
God has never oppressed anyone, it is so-called leaders who have used religion at times to oppress people, but the message of the Bible sets people free.
Hey im sure you would agree that me being a Christian and being nice to my enemies (which is short of loving them as the Bible dictates us to do, but hey Im not an ideal Christian) is a lot better than other faiths that seem to want to wipe out non-believers. It doesnt mean that if my enemies atatck me I dont fight back.
Christianity has been on the forefront of rights, like I said in relation to the anti-slavery movement in America and UK it was christians that lead the fight against it. The genocide happening in Sudan, it was evangelicas that lead the outcry and lobbied President Bush to make it a priority.
Jesus instructed his followers to care for the widows and the orphans, and the poor and the oppressed.
And if it werent for the Crusades stopping the Ottomans from conquering the rest of Europe (after they have conquered the Middle East, Africa and huge chunks of Europe) we would be speaking Arabic, or even worse than that maybe not even alive.
Women would have no rights
Gays would be killed
Other religions wouldnt be allowed unless you paid a huge tax
No questioning of the Koran
Women and Men would be segregated almost all the time
Arranged marriages
Child Brides
No TV
No radio
No music
No sports
Most if not all images wouldnt be allowed
No more fashion, except for black, black, and more black
We would have to grow long beards
We would have to gather up more phlemn in our throats to speak arabic
And most of all No Cardigans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day |
part bigot, part fantasy land, part hypocrite. Good job on this post, i give it B+ |
Well...I would say it is full bigot, full fantasy, full hypocrite. I give it A  |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 05:48:22 |
|
|
|
|
^
Thank God he's got a sense of humour! |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 06:30:48 |
|
|
| Shobar |
|
|
|
^
Hey Kv2.0, hehehehehe I'm definetely a humorous person but sometimes life at work really put me on the edge.  |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 11:49:36 |
|
|
| J-m13 |
|
 |
|
Woi... get over it guys! bentar lagi mo puasa getoloh :) maaf2an yuk! :-) |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 12:30:07 |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I'd fail the post for factual inaccuracies (I could have sworn the Ottomans spoke Turkish not Arabic) but top marks for hypocrisy.
I have to clear my throat to spit out the bile and remember that Philip is a fellow human being I should feel compassion for. You've got soooo far yet to travel, Christian lamb. Must try harder to follow your own spiritual teachings. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 14:57:26 |
|
|
| Shobar |
|
|
|
|
| Woi... get over it guys! bentar lagi mo puasa getoloh :) maaf2an yuk! :-) |
Happy Ramadhan for you Jim.
Oww...and peace to you all. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 15:53:15 |
|
|
|
|
And Happy Equinox to every single living organism on our little planet, irrespective of whether you're a child of Mr God or of Mother Nature. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 17:41:53 |
|
|
| J-m13 |
|
|
|
Case Closed then!! :)
Thanks Shobar, Minal Aidin Wal faidzin for ya'll people :-) |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-22 18:04:15 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
Hypocrisy?
That's rich coming from all you kettles calling me mr. Pot black.
I fail to see any hypocrisy, or bigotry (perhaps a sense of humor, but all truths.) Youre right about the Ottomans spoke Turkish, but as you can see most muslims in the middle east speak arabic now.
Thats how people under the caliphate lived, and how people under the taliban lived and in the other middle eastern countries they all have varying degrees of what I posted. But nothing I wrote was wrong or bigoted.
Tell me what kind of rights women have in Saudi Arabia, they cant even drive.
When muslims convert to christianity they get executed, or thrown in jail neither of which are pleasant. You all read it yourself, when that guy in afghankistan was turned in by his family. If the Americans, Germans, Canadians and Italians didnt intervene he wouldve been another in a long line of Muslims that converted to be murdered.
My friend from Iran, after his mother and sister and himself converted to Christianity, his mother was tortured before she was let go after a huge bribe.
So where are my lies? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-23 00:19:05 |
|
|
| Shobar |
|
|
|
|
Hypocrisy?
That's rich coming from all you kettles calling me mr. Pot black. |
kettle and mr. pot black?
|
| I fail to see any hypocrisy, or bigotry (perhaps a sense of humor, but all truths.) Youre right about the Ottomans spoke Turkish, but as you can see most muslims in the middle east speak arabic now. |
it seems to me that you failed to understand on almost everything.
Ow…now you know that the Ottomans spoke Turkish add on from me: the Turks nowadays was Ottomans indeed
Woooow, so you are surprised if Arab spoke Arabic??
Oww....and I believe Iranian spoke Parsi not Arabic.
|
| Thats how people under the caliphate lived, and how people under the taliban lived and in the other middle eastern countries they all have varying degrees of what I posted. But nothing I wrote was wrong or bigoted. |
I’m still confused why you bring Ottoman into this?
Anyway I can show you with valid argument that you are wrong but what for? you won’t believe it anyway and I just end up tired
But still I can’t let you talk non sense without any challenge so these several links will do the job to clear misconception about Islam:
Women would have no rights --> Roles of Women - More rights than one might think
Gays would be killed --> About Homosexuality in Islam
Other religions wouldnt be allowed unless you paid a huge tax --> The Protection of Life and Property in the Shari`ah
The Fair Logic of Jizyah
No questioning of the Koran --> The Qur'an's Appeal to Rationality
Is the Qur'an Outdated?
Women and Men would be segregated almost all the time --> Segregation of the sexes
Arranged marriages & Child Brides --> Distinguishing Culture from Religion Concerning Marriage
No TV, No radio --> Movies and food for Muslims
No music --> Music Makes Me Remember The Glory of God
No sports --> Muslims’ Physical Fitness
No more fashion, except for black, black, and more black & We would have to grow long beards --> Is It Religion or Cultural and Personal Habits?
|
| Tell me what kind of rights women have in Saudi Arabia, they cant even drive. |
We need regime changing in Saudi Arabia but I’m sure US government won’t allow it. 
|
| When muslims convert to christianity they get executed, or thrown in jail neither of which are pleasant. You all read it yourself, when that guy in afghankistan was turned in by his family. If the Americans, Germans, Canadians and Italians didnt intervene he wouldve been another in a long line of Muslims that converted to be murdered. |
Aaahhh…at last this story come out again, this story must be your As card, huh?
Anyway, there are recorded occasions during the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when people were found guilty of abandoning Islam, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) never enforced a death penalty to them.
Ow…and do you know When there is a regime that don’t inline with US policy or somewhat against US interest, US so called intelligent will try to overthrown that regime, assassin its leader and worse, attack its country and killed its innocent civilians…..‘by accident’ .
|
| My friend from Iran, after his mother and sister and himself converted to Christianity, his mother was tortured before she was let go after a huge bribe. |
you have friend from Iran? Okaayyyy.
Hey....I thought you hate Arab/Parsi?!
I have a good lough indeed! |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-23 08:56:32 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
Keep laughing, funny man, and you enjoy your humid eternity with the hoven dude :-) |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-26 22:55:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Keep laughing, funny man, and you enjoy your humid eternity with the hoven dude :-) |
he's going to Tennessee? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-27 06:53:30 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
 |
|
Shobar:
|
| I show the OBL speech to counter your wrong reason why OBL attack US, it’s is a prove that your claim "a pain in their side because we represent the biggest obstacle to them having a Taliban-style government for the world" is wrong refuted by OBL himself. |
Uhh... yeah... and we all know how trust worthy he is, don't we? Of course he's going to refute it, but you might dig up some of his other speeches from....
|
OBL said: “We fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.”
I think it’s pretty clear statement. What he meant by oppression in here is regarding nation like what Israeli/US done to Palestine and some Arab nation not about Taliban oppression to women/human right.
Well actually we can educate Taliban not to violate human right without gun, it takes times indeed, but I’m sure it will work unless you need badly to secure the oil pipelines though |
Okay... you do remember the so-called "freedom" provided by the Taliban, right? No music (especially) from the west, no TV, no kite flying, do I need to go on?
Bin Laden wasn't making any attempts to "Educate" the Taliban. He was supporting them!
The conflict with Israel is merely one theater in Bin Laden's war with the west, my friend. If he's talking about that, then he can stop supporting Mullah Omar and his buddies. Get real.
What pipelines?
|
I believe people also not to be fooled into believing that Israel/US legitimate to murder ‘by accident’ innocent civilians and destroy public infrastructure in Lebanon prior to Israel invasion 1982, and people also not to be fooled into believing that Palestinian don’t have the right to seek justice and get their stolen homeland.
I haven’t read that book, can you let me know the online version so I can read? |
"...murder 'by accident'..."? Murder implies intent. You can't "murder" someone by accident. I believe the original Palestinian homeland was Jordan. I think there is some land Israel should give up (and they have let some of it go), but Israel does have a right to most of the territory it claims.
Now, I'm not saying that Palestinians don't have any legit gripes with Israel, they do. However, if terrorists go and kidnap people, they should expect a response. And if Lebanon is giving them shelter, then they are at fault too.
I don't know if there is an onlime version somewhere (probably not), but you can try Googling it.
|
Any so called intelligence who said that Saddam had WMDs but still after 3 years passed still haven’t found any are liar. Bush turn to be a liar because he said that lies though he want to believe the info’s from so called intelligence is true.
And Bush also a liar when he said the first reason to attack Iraq was WMDs threat meanwhile his best friend Dick Cheney said “President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction”.
BTW, this is what I call real deal intelligence:
In an interview with Reuters, former weapons inspector David Kay is asked about the WMDs. He opines:
1)"I don't think they existed. I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95."
2)During a joint press conference at Elysee Palace with President George W Bush, French President Jacques Chirac declares: "I have always said that I had no information that would lead me to believe that there were, or were not, for that matter, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's a fact. All the information available to us at that time and on that subject did not allow us to take a stand or to reach any conclusion, which is why I said to President Bush that I, personally, was incapable of saying whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction." |
Ok, so basicly, every major world intelligence agency was "lying" about Iraq having WMDs? uh-huh... And again, look up the definition of a "lie".
If I want to believe or choose to believe something and repeat it to others and that statement turns out to be false does not mean that I've believed in a lie or told a lie.
If someone told me that the Lennon and McCartney wrote "Twist and Shout" and I repeat that to someone else, that doesn't make me a liar. It means I said something that wasn't true, but it's not a lie. It would only be a lie if I knew that they didn't write the song and I told people they wrote it anyway. Got it?
As for Kay, again "large stockpiles" is the key here. They had everything they needed to go back into production as soon they wanted.
And yes, I believe that Bush would have invaded Iraq eventually. And I'm fine with that. Bush gave as the main reason (you may have even heard this speech) for going into Iraq: That we were going to go after terrorists and the nations that support them. Fighting terrorism is the main reason, one should not lose sight of that.
Posthuman:
Well, I had a private conversation over this issue with another fan here who is also Christian and we have some disagreements on this subject (which is normal). I guess I should avoid this subject as you suggest (but I can't help it! ;-)), the Bible does actually give some distinctions on how to deal with evil that we have to face. Mainly it is broken into dealing with others as an individual and dealing with matters that effect the society at large... okay, nevermind, I'll stop! :-)
Mishoto:
Yeah, there are other ways to combat terrorism, obviously you need good intelligence and so on, but sometimes war is unavoidable and certainly justifiable.
I think I did read somewhere someone suggesting the tape found in Afghanistan was "doctored" (although there's no evidence of that). Plus, since then he and other Al-Qaeda members have admitted it several times. Now they just try to justify it. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-27 07:17:45 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
Bac, instead of thousands of soldiers getting stuck in Iraq, is it truly silly to imagine sending 100 000 US aid workers across the world and with a year's budget of military spending, the US could almost single-handedly deliver on most of the Millennium Development Goals?
Can you imagine the example and respect your country could inspire across the world? How better to project your values of freedom by showing all the good your freedom can bring? It's just not happening at the moment, is it?
But it not just the USA who has this problem, it's pretty much all of the developed world, happily rich on the world's labour and production, and unable to get off the consumption train. In the meantime, we protect our national interests by military or diplomatic force, trying to hide our hypocrisy behind words of freedom. That's why nutters like Bin Laden can drum up support in the name of resistance. If we could truly bring freedom to the oppressed of the world, Bin Laden would disappear in a puff of irrelevance. |
Well, it is hard to imagine it, karl. Many people seem to think that government aid workers and spending more and more money is going cause poor countries to develop.
The U.S. could throw a trillion dollars at all the poor countries in the world and it will hardly make a dent. In many of these cases, it's not that tons of money (including from NGOs) isn't already being spent. It's that many of these countries are run by greedy thugs, dictators, commmunists, etc. and no matter what you give them, it will be drained by the government.
So yes, it is silly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to something. I would say that charities are better than using government means to help people.
If anyone wants to see some of the great reasons to model after the U.S., then they can look within the U.S. itself. Now, does that mean we've always lived up to our ideals? No. Does that mean that we can't improve in some areas of foreign policy? Absolutely not.
The examples are there. And some are right in the world's face, but they fail to embrace it.
You are right that Bin Laden uses the "have-nots" and poverty to his advantage. If we could bring true freedom and representative government to the oppressed world, then poverty would me less of an issue (although it would, of course, still exist to some degree).
But they need the freedom to get out of poverty. It has to happen in that order. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-27 15:43:37 |
|
|
|
|
too much to reply to right now ...but here's where proof is needed. You claim (much like everyone that supports the war claims) Intelligence Agencies from around the globe all said he had WMD. This may be true but i think it's misleading statement...typcial of the "cherry picking" methods used to sell the war.
1.) we can all agree he had a program and he had weapons. but did he have them in 2001-2003? I don't think that's what the nations were saying...maybe you have proof otherwise? What I have seen is that the nations knew he had programs...i mean he used them. but what they saw instead was the fact that he couldn't prove he no longer had one and that equipment (and the ever so convenient dual purpose equipment) existed. and if that was the case......the imminent threat and need to topple the regime immediately was a misrepresentation....there are ways to achieve goals without invasion and we had this guy where we needed him in order to do so. What we wanted was to make an example of a mideast country to get everyone else in line...but it actually turns out to be joke on us.
2.) terrorism and iraq. it's not really working out now is it? or in afghanistan? the terrorism there is a result of our being there. It's not really stopped attacks on american interests.....it actually increased terrorism around the globe (ie just because nothing has happened in america doesn't mean they're succeeding..unless you just think american lives are more important) and the list goes on...but this is getting long so i'll end it because i'm sure you've heard it all before. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-27 22:38:32 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
2) The terrorists were already there, what do you call Sadam Hussein? He gassed his own countrymen to death, tens of thousand as of kids starved, he used to have people ordered executed based on paranoia. We didnt invade soon enough, tell the hundreds of thousands of bodies we have found in mass gravs of youngmen, women, children that we had no business in there.
Al Queda existed in Iraq, he allowed them to be there, and the borders are so pourous that terrorists from around the middle east and central europe have been joining the fight.
The terrorists know what the stakes are with Iraq, if Iraq becomes a functioning democracy, then the rest of the middle east will want the same freedoms and style of government and then terrorists will no longer be able to attract recruits. The question is do you or the rest of the lefties out there? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-28 16:40:13 |
|
|
|
|
2.) i call him the leader of that country at the time, assisted to power by the US. Was he a f**Khole? there's definitely documentation for that. but not a terrorist...and certainly contained. Granted we made that mess so it was nice of us to clean it up...but you know if you just keep screwing things up over and over again...maybe you should let someone else that knows what they're doing handle it. Or an even better idea....let countries decide their own fate. Everytime a country in that region loses favor with the US....we can't just work around it. we have to get involved in coup or sanction or pressure or invade etc. . .. I mean i think 1.25 is too much to pay for coke and they may not want to buy my cheap homemade cookies to sell to their customers......but i'm sure as hell not going to get a gang together and take over the shop to force them.
AL-q existed in iraq as a result of threats from the US. he knows that military of the us was superior in terms of equipment/technology/training...survival would require alternatives to marching to your death.
You know it's not like all the ideas are bad...it's the execution. Invading and oppressing people and forcing onto them your style of govt and way of life.........isn't winning the country over. Granted....most people just want to make money have a family feed and house them...and if things stabilize that's exactly what they'll want to do. BUT the way in which the goals are accomplished is what most people against it have.
1.) you find this guy and help him come to power. 2.) you support him against a foe. 3.) you turn on him once you think he's no longer serving you 4.)act surprised people want to claim you oppress them.
It's not saddam's removal or even the desire to spread our style of democracy in the region. It's the method in which you take and it's the forceful way in which you meddle in their business. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-28 16:53:38 |
|
|
| Realphilip747 |
|
|
|
We didnt help saddam into power, he went into power right around the 1979. The Reagan administration briefly helped him because Jimmy Carter screwed things up by not supporting the Shah and letting the Islamist mullahs take over in Iran. So who do you help? You help the enemy of your enemy, hoping they hurt each other enough so that the victor will be nice and weak for the kill.
Yes most people just want to make a living, provide for their family, but under Saddam this just wasnt happening, people lived under constant fear and threats.
I am glad that you have changed your mind and agreed that the terrorists were already there before we invaded.
Iraq is not some powder keg, with the exception of Bagdhad and one or two other small cities the country is safe and quiet. At this point its up to the Muslims to stop their infighting. Shia versus Shiite? Arent they all supposed to be brothers? I guess not, its just their sect they want to promote. Its sort of like the situation that happened in Northern Ireland, but over there it wasn't a fraction as bad as this.
Sistani needs to go make peace with his counterpart.
Also force is necessary because a dictator will not give up their power. With Iran the people want western style democracy and freedoms, so we have to use as much diplomacy as possible. The people will win their freedoms within the next 5 years of so I believe |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-09-28 23:22:17 |
|
|
|
|
no time to respond to everything right now but....
In 1958, a year after Saddam had joined the Ba'ath party, army officers led by General Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew Faisal II of Iraq. The Ba'athists opposed the new government, and in 1959, Saddam was involved in the attempted United States-backed plot to assassinate Prime Minister Qassim.[11]
Saddam was shot in the leg, but managed to flee to Tikrit with the help of CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents. Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred to Beirut for a brief CIA training course. From there he moved to Cairo where he made frequent visits to the American embassy. During this time the CIA placed him in a upper-class appartment observed by CIA and Egyptian operatives
Concerned about Qassim's growing ties to Communists, the CIA gave assistance to the Ba'ath Party and other regime opponents.[4]Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party.
In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy. Saddam soon became the regime's strongman
In 1979 President al-Bakr started to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Saddam, the Vice President and de-facto ruler of Iraq, acted to secure his grip on power. He forced the ailing al-Bakr to resign on July 16, 1979, and formally assumed the presidency. |
|
|
|