Explosions in London

VB Code:

Private Sub Text1_Keypress(Byref KeyAscii As Integer)
   If KeyAscii = vbKeyReturn Then
      'code here
   End If
End Sub

I disagree with some of the things you said.
There are subtle differences in religion. Take catholics...they are "not allowed" to use contraception, which is why catholics usually have larger families than normal...but other christian faiths have no problems with this.

I am almost sure this is the same with many many religions around the world, be it Christianity, Islam...or Badgerism.
You keep mentioning the word "Ignorance", but can we not apply this to you as you seem to think that how you interpret something is exactly how I would...and if I don't, then I am wrong. Regardless of the fact what part of religion we are interpreting here...be it killing others, or what the significance of the snake was in the garden of Eden. personally I think the snake was there because God had an evil sense of humour :D

Quote:

---

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”

---

I am not familier with these verses, as my indept knowledge of all religions is very limited...I had the choice not to be religious, and I took that path.

I find it a little hard to grasp that these words do not mean what they said, unless at the top of the page the author has written "I AM JOKING HERE!".
If you could point me to a URL where it contains the entire verse I would be glad to read over it.

Would this be like if my friend stole my last beer, or chocolate bar, and I just found out and I would say "I'm going to kill him!". We don't REALLY mean that literally, it's just a phrase.

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

As for your point about the crusades, that was centuries ago in a time when religion was law. Modern times religion is a choice, then you had to follow the religion of the land. A wise man once said "To bring the past to the present will only cloud the future"

---

True true...almost.
The UK is a christian country, our laws ARE based around christianity I am afraid. Some of the highest judges in the UK are members are a funny hand shake christian society to get more christian values into the court room. Personally I went mad when I read this news article a month or so ago.

As for the crusades, we were complete savages. In fact, you only have go to back a few hundred years, and you'll see the British were blood thirsty power mongers. How do you think we build up the British Empire...?! :D

How someone can blow up kids, or even adults for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Extremely good conditioning and brain washing?

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

This just overwhelms me and I am at a loss to understand...

An IRAQI man, yesterday, with a wife and child (I think the child was 8 months old). Friends say he recently became very religious...

He kisses his wife and child goodbye (I'm guessing...)...

Get's into a car - laden with bombs...

Find a likely target - a US military vehicle...

Surrounded by 18 children of all ages...

He drives quickly toward that vehicle and explodes the bombs in his car killing all the children (and the one US soldier)...

Someone explain to me how this is possible for a person to do - please!

---

After his Imam got through preaching about peace and tolerance, he moved on to the "death to infidels, martyr yourself in the name of Allah" thing. Guess the guy missed the part about peace and tolerance. Made sure those kids (innocent I presume) had no chance to ever become infidels.

Didnt read the entire thread to see if its been posted yet but just aired on the news that some 18 year old with explosives in his
backpack was the first bomber on the train! they showed surveilance pictures of him at the station.

@ (1) Valleysboy1978, Please re-read my post, the answer is already in what you quoted me on
(2) Wise man also said "If you dont know your past, you can't prepare for your future", so really its applys bothways.

@ szlamany. Neither you or I where present at that time and place when the event occured, thus neither you or I actually know in detail what ACTUALLY happened. You only know what happened ACCORDING TO what you have been told, ie this infomation may or may not be true, may be partially true, may have ommisions/distorsions etc, therefore you assesement of the situation is based upon speculation. However (allthough i dont really want to comment on this, i will comment based on what we do know for certain) ie:
(a) a bomb was detonated by person X, innocent civilians died (children), so how does this compare when an Americal fighter pilot drops a guided missle? lets see:
(b) a bomb is detonated by person X, innocent civilians die(Woman, Children, Men, animal, Plant, etc), so the question goes back to you in your own words "Someone explain to me how this is possible for a person to do - please!"


@ (1) Wokawidget thankyou for the code, I shall try this.
(2) Please take care to re-read my post, you will find that you are actually in agreement!
(3) At what point did I state that ignorance does not apply to me? please do not confuse interpreation with knowlegde, ignorance is defined as not knowing or lacking in knowlege, and knowlege is defined as : the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning. Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value. I am only giving you what I know to be true, IF you have think it is inocrrect then show me.

(3) That was already linked in the post after demotivator's post: here it again

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/eng...hFatwaID=51761

@ Wokawidget (part II)

you said:
"How someone can blow up kids, or even adults for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Extremely good conditioning and brain washing?"

I totally agree with, yes how can an American pilot drop bombs that "blow up kids", and how can the Israelis fire hellfire missile into a civilan apartment block and "blow up kids", how can the USA drop an A-bomb and "blow up kids" (Hirosima)...

So demotivator you where present during the quthba by the Iman?

Ok let me see, I assume you (demotivator) are an American(please correct me here)
Let me set you a situation;

American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.

Now when the Americans kill civilians it is called "collateral damage".
Where is the 2 minutes silence, where is the intense news coverage, why is not Bush/Western leaders out there out rightly condeming these terrorists act? why is their no investigation of the people responisble for the act?

So when an Iraqi resists/defend himself (a right that you would grant yourself) you label him as a terrorist. when innocent civilians get caught up in an resistacne/defence attack you cannot "comprehend" how someone can do this yet "collateral damage" is "comprehendible"?

Anhar Hussain Miah

P.S wow, it was super hot today in the UK, almost 30 degrees!!

Quote:

---

Posted by Anhar Hussain

American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.

---

Depends on why the occupation was needed. You are suggesting (by the situation you presented) that the occupation of IRAQ by the American Armed Forces was carried out for one purpose and one purpose only. To take over, whether it be for land, oil etcetera etcetera. So is this what you are suggesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain

@ (1) Valleysboy1978, Please re-read my post, the answer is already in what you quoted me on
(2) Wise man also said "If you dont know your past, you can't prepare for your future", so really its applys bothways.

@ szlamany. Neither you or I where present at that time and place when the event occured, thus neither you or I actually know in detail what ACTUALLY happened. You only know what happened ACCORDING TO what you have been told, ie this infomation may or may not be true, may be partially true, may have ommisions/distorsions etc, therefore you assesement of the situation is based upon speculation. However (allthough i dont really want to comment on this, i will comment based on what we do know for certain) ie:
(a) a bomb was detonated by person X, innocent civilians died (children), so how does this compare when an Americal fighter pilot drops a guided missle? lets see:
(b) a bomb is detonated by person X, innocent civilians die(Woman, Children, Men, animal, Plant, etc), so the question goes back to you in your own words "Someone explain to me how this is possible for a person to do - please!"


@ (1) Wokawidget thankyou for the code, I shall try this.
(2) Please take care to re-read my post, you will find that you are actually in agreement!
(3) At what point did I state that ignorance does not apply to me? please do not confuse interpreation with knowlegde, ignorance is defined as not knowing or lacking in knowlege, and knowlege is defined as : the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning. Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value. I am only giving you what I know to be true, IF you have think it is inocrrect then show me.

(3) That was already linked in the post after demotivator's post: here it again

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/eng...hFatwaID=51761

@ Wokawidget (part II)

you said:
"How someone can blow up kids, or even adults for that matter, is beyond my comprehension. Extremely good conditioning and brain washing?"

I totally agree with, yes how can an American pilot drop bombs that "blow up kids", and how can the Israelis fire hellfire missile into a civilan apartment block and "blow up kids", how can the USA drop an A-bomb and "blow up kids" (Hirosima)...

So demotivator you where present during the quthba by the Iman?

Ok let me see, I assume you (demotivator) are an American(please correct me here)
Let me set you a situation;

American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.

Now when the Americans kill civilians it is called "collateral damage".
Where is the 2 minutes silence, where is the intense news coverage, why is not Bush/Western leaders out there out rightly condeming these terrorists act? why is their no investigation of the people responisble for the act?

So when an Iraqi resists/defend himself (a right that you would grant yourself) you label him as a terrorist. when innocent civilians get caught up in an resistacne/defence attack you cannot "comprehend" how someone can do this yet "collateral damage" is "comprehendible"?

Anhar Hussain Miah

P.S wow, it was super hot today in the UK, almost 30 degrees!!

---

I see your point, but the difference with terrorists as their name suggests they try to strike at the heart of communities to insight fear an terror. Its like a two year old throwing a tantrum, they scream louder and louder in the hope they they will get the attention they want. The worst thing you could do is pick up the child and give him a hug because it is showing that the way to get what you want is through screaming.

The same goes for terrorism, they choose their targets to have the maximum emotional and physical impact in the hope they will get their own way. So lets turn this around, although I don't condone the fact that Tony Blair went to war with Iraq, he / or the USA did not target schools, community centres and hospitals - they did not send their men to get on buses full of people and detonate bombs - they chose their targets carefully and only did what was necessary given the circumstances. A death of innocent people is inevitable in any war which is why I do not a agree with them (especially unnecessary wars ;))

But what we see in terrorism is something different. People are targeting the very communities they live in and interact with both in Iraq and the UK. To elaborate on your point, maybe I should go to Leeds and blow myself up because that's where the terrorists lived - then we would be even right? - If we all did that the world/this country would be a mess, but that is exactly what the terrorists are doing, they were British citizens and the Britain we live in today is a very diverse and multi cultural place something which the terrorist leaders do not like.

Like I have already said, I do not agree with the war in Iraq, I am also quite sure that the events of last Thursday were somehow connected. I also believe that the likes of the UK and the USA are greedy and selfish and our way of lives creates an environment for terrorists. This is something I am passionate about and I am quite sure there are many other people how share my view. However, I am not going to go to London and blow myself up on a train nor am I going to recruit and brainwash young people into doing it for me. Why? Because it won't work and it causes un-necessary pain and suffering.

Quote:

---

The worst thing you could do is pick up the child and give him a hug because it is showing that the way to get what you want is through screaming.

---

Right, and beating the seven shades of hell out of them every time they cry does help then...

It's horrible and cludy in Leeds today...BOOOOO!!!
Home made explosives made from stuff over the counter in a shop...that's what they found in Leeds.

Anhar Hussain, hahaha are we in agreement? I agree with most of what your saying. However, your comments comparing a terrorist act, ie London, with a bomb dropped from an F16 has no strength. A terrorist act, like what happened last Thursday, DELIBERATELY targeted civillians...more civillians dead the better! Civillians who get caught up in combat, and thus become collateral damage are completely different to one who are the prime target.
And as for mentioning the a-bomb...ooooo, that's a whole different kettle of fish, and thus shouldn't be brought up in a conversation like this. Lots of people died...lots and lots. But the civillians were still not the main target.

The thing with suicide bombings is that they are 100% indisciminate...that's the beauty of it...sorry, I mean barbarity of it.

Woof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

Like I have already said, I do not agree with the war in Iraq, I am also quite sure that the events of last Thursday were somehow connected.

---

Yup...apparently they have been linked to al-quada (sp)
They know all 4 "suspected" bombers now. They have found explosives and other evidence in raids. blah blah.

Woof

Every sort of violence apparently connected to Islam is attributed to Al-Quaeda these days.

Ever thought about this:
Al-Quaeda is using these events as a PR opportunity? Bomb in the West? Oh we'll claim it's ours. Our prestige will rise, our ranks will swell.
Unwittingly, by immediately linking them, we are giving them a public forum they do not deserve to have. You just can't buy this kind of publicity.

Think about it.

Not sure about that. You never really get 2 groups claiming responsibility for the same bombing.

Woof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

Ever thought about this:
Al-Quaeda is using these events as a PR opportunity? Bomb in the West? Oh we'll claim it's ours. Our prestige will rise, our ranks will swell.
Unwittingly, by immediately linking them, we are giving them a public forum they do not deserve to have. You just can't buy this kind of publicity.

---

That is a good point. It reminds me of when the guy ran on to the track just before the Spanish GP last year and James Allen (commentator) said "Don't give him too much air time, we don't want to glorify that sort of behaviour" or something along those lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wokawidget

Not sure about that. You never really get 2 groups claiming responsibility for the same bombing.

Woof

---

Imagine some muslim youth stabbing four people to death. These days there will be a lot of people saying he's somehow connected to Al-Quaeda.

That's money in the bank for Bin Laden's organisation. Without doing anything or claiming anything they are in the picture, their cause once again highlighted, many other disgruntled youths' interest rekindled etc...

As I said: you can't buy that kind of publicity.

Anhar, I have noticed you have not replied to my point about killing another life.
Would you consider the life of a rose, or fly on an equal par to that of your own son/daughter? So you would react the same if some nutter killed your child as if someone picked a rose from a bush?

No, of course you wouldn't. If you saw someone pick a rose from a bush for his girlfriend you'd think it was sweet. If you saw someone shoot your, or anyones, child in the head in public, the reaction I would imagine would be somewhat different.

Human lives are much more valuable because of our association with each other. As Woka has already pointed out, terrorists have always INTENTIONALLY targeted innocent civilians. Military targets are never civilian, only military. It was unfortunate that Saddam and his army were such cowards that they hid in schools, hospitals and such knowing the Allied forces would not target such places.

unfortunate? If a massive army was coming your way, where would you hide? That's right, in places you know they're reluctant to target out of morality and for fear of public backlash.

If the latter wasn't there, that army would have no qualm targetting civilians and public places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

As Woka has already pointed out, terrorists have always INTENTIONALLY targeted innocent civilians. Military targets are never civilian, only military.

---

I know we try not to hit civilian areas but all too often you do hear of civilians being killed by US bombs etc.

Such is the nature of bombs, which is why I didn't approve of the tactics used.

War isn't the same as watching it on the telly. A soldier's reaction on the spot isn't the same as yours sitting at home. A soldier is trained to pull the trigger or push the release button at the right time. Moral introspection comes later when he's out of the combat stress situation and the realisation of his actions dawns on him.

Either you accept that there's no such thing as a clean war or you try to avoid war at all costs.

I agree, but a trained soldier is less likely to be so indiscriminate as a bomb

it nevertheless takes a trained soldier to drop the bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

Either you accept that there's no such thing as a clean war or you try to avoid war at all costs.

---

I'd take option number two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

it nevertheless takes a trained soldier to drop the bomb.

---

Good point.

Unfortunately I can't see an end to this terrorism in my lifetime :(

Valleysboy, this is a very quick reply as right now i dont have lot of time, later i'll respond in full (to everyone),

(1) ok, this is the SECOND time that i've had to mention it, you said

"Anhar, I have noticed you have not replied to my point about killing another life."

and i've replied I have already answered it, IT IS IN YOUR ORIGINAL QUOTE from me!! scroll up to my post to the exact part that you quoted me on and read it carefully.

Now heres a Challange for everyone please define Terrorism, as this is a pivotal point in this debate/discussion

(I'll buy myself a nice cake if anyone can get it right)

Anhar Hussain Miah

The definition of terrorism is in it's name. An attack designed to terrorise the populace.

This will be my last post in this forum as it has diverted from the original subject and is frankly going nowhere fast. Such discussions should be done face-to-face anyway

yea I agree with you Valleysboy, I just dont have the time either man, I'm already fallen behind on my Visual Basic project ad i've got a lotta people waiting/depending on it. Its just the motivation for it starting to weaken, its like you figure one part only to have to solve another problem, it just never ends...arrrr

Anyways

Anhar Hussain Miah

Quote:

---

So demotivator you where present during the quthba by the Iman?

---

Negative. I can only presume what was said. Even in jolly old England the "Death To America" speechs echo in the streets. Are you proposing it's different in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Ok let me see, I assume you (demotivator) are an American(please correct me here)

---

Thank God.

Quote:

---

Let me set you a situation;

American sovereign soil is under military occupation by the Chinese army. The American people natuarly have a human right to resist this occupation, as well as the right to defend yourself. In any war innocent people die that is a fact of war.

Now when the Americans kill civilians it is called "collateral damage".
Where is the 2 minutes silence, where is the intense news coverage, why is not Bush/Western leaders out there out rightly condeming these terrorists act? why is their no investigation of the people responisble for the act?

---

Quite a few American soldiers have been tried, and some convicted for the murder of Iraqis. Collateral damage is just that, and it's a sad occurence in most conflicts. The U.S. goes to great lengths and great expense to avoid killing innocents, unlike the terrorists you are defending. Many believe we should forget about the expense and trouble it takes it avoid collateral damage and proceed with total war. The reasoning is that striking terror in the hearts of those we are attacking by utterly destroying their cities and making everyday existence nearly impossible would cause them to fear us more than they already do and submit completely But, as a civilized people, we do not stoop to the level of terror our enemies do. Believe it or not, we respect human life despite the fact that this same respect costs us casualties.

Quote:

---

So when an Iraqi resists/defend himself (a right that you would grant yourself) you label him as a terrorist. when innocent civilians get caught up in an resistacne/defence attack you cannot "comprehend" how someone can do this yet "collateral damage" is "comprehendible"?

---

Innocent civilians are not merely "caught up" in resistance/defense attacks. They are deliberately targeted as well as simply ignored by your freedom fighters. Tell me, during Sadaams regime, when women and children were gassed and murdered on a regular basis, where were these freedom fighters then?

Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, they've found TATP in Leeds. LEEDS!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...cks/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain

This is a very clasical question that has asked many times (and answered over and over), and will be continued to be as long as people do not do their homework correctly, it really should be under FAQ's

But anyway simply put, the verse is taken out of its context, one needs to read the entire chapter and understand the history as well. One can not read a small part of sentence and claim to understand the entire chapter that would be illogical.

I don't know if we are allowed to post from external source however the answer to your question is here:

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/eng...hFatwaID=51761

So thankfully demotivater you are incorrect

Anhar Hussain Miah

---

Understanding history may be important, but so is understanding the present.

Look at what's been said in the link/verse. The context becomes different today, and is subject to interpretation on their part. What I think this link or argument fails to do is take into context the present day as well.

By the way, are you a lawyer? You certainly write like one...

Valleysboy said it right first time time round, this is diverging way off topic, and this kind off dissiccusion is best suited to face to face.

demotivator yes the entire world is aware of how "civilised" the Americans are history is a testement to that.

No, i will never defend the actions of terrorist, the unimaginable terror that was unleased in Hiroshima and Nakasaki was nearly 67 times the terror of 9/11. If the exact same event happened to America (ie Say Japan dropped a Nuclear Bomb on an American military target) what do you then think the Americans would say? Would the American people be satisfyied by thinking themselfs as "collateral damage"?
No that event would go down in history as the single most devastating terrorist act known to humanity! yet interestingly thats exactly what happened to the Japanese.

I personally have nothing against American people, (I have some great friends they happen to be Americans).
Now demotivator why the kneejerk patriotic reaction? why are you trying to defend wrong actions of America? you can love your country but that does not mean that you have to love its illegal actions too.

To the question of gassing, WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO THEN, supported him instead because Saddam was a key allie of the US. You also asked "where was these freedom fighters then", they where being captured, tortured and put through meat grinders as well as being boiled alive.

Another point about the "freedom fighters" (you said it not me) how on can you claim that they "deliberatley" targeted innocent civilans? where you there? have you had a telephone converstion with the said person? the fact reamains you don't know and neither do I, therefore you can and I can not label him either way (notice in my post that I have not labeled him as anything)

@ mendak (Thank you for your input). I would advice you to re-read, what I wrote about how interpretations happens in Islam. The second point about context being only correct in that time is not valid, since in Islam has a unique charateristic that other religions do not, if you care to take a year off (perhaps five years?) and do some compative religion reseach you will find that all religions came for (a) for a group of people/select area ad (b) for a time period. Islam on the other hand came for (a) The whole of humanity and (b) All time periods.
So on short yes you are correct times cause change, however Islam is structuted such that the interpreations are valid for all times (past, present, and future).

Now I am going to do exaclty what Valleysboy did (a very sensible and agreeable thing to do) and try and make this my last post. But i will leave with some parting words:

I thank everyone for there input, some interesting things have been said. I hope that I have not come across as rude, impolite or offensive in any way shape of form. I have been told by my professors, lectures, and teachers that I "think out of the Box". The problem I see is that people are rigid in their mental framework, and that is understandable since a person will naturally be a product of their environment and as such people as seem to have thought patterns that are similar (the train runs in the same direction). One of my aims was to get people to break out of there rigid mindset and think laterally. I am bilingurual (can understad a further 3) and as such live between two worlds, I get to see two different mindsets, culture, values etc.

I am an Engineer (hehe now that i've graduated) and as such we (engineers) are analytical people by nature. You have to take infomation disassemble it and set aside the facts, then you have to analise the situation and rationalise with logic and finally draw your conclusions.

One of the sad thing is how Islam is protrayed either directly or indirectly in the media and throughout the general Western world in a distorted and twisted manner. This is not surprising though, again one needs to look to history why this is. During the rapid rise of Islam that swept through an area covering more than half of the civilized world stretching over three continents from the Pyrenees and Siberia in West and North Europe to the farthest end of Asia, up to China and New Guinea in the East; from Morocco in North Africa to the southern tip of Africa, covering two-thirds of the African continent. This was a natural threat to the Christians and thus launched crusades, and also started orientalism.
How did a religion manage to spread so fast? and why did it spread so fast?
It is mostly due to orientalism that much of the anti-islamic distorsions continue to this day.

There are some 1.7 billion people in the world that are muslim, thats a large part of humanity. Ask yourself what do you ACTUALLY know about Islam, and i mean truly know? Go out and study it in-depth, like you would study a for your doctorate.

Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world (from reverts?) from all walks of life, rich, poor, educated, non-eductade, black, white, chinease, Christians, Jews, Buddhas, athesits, scientists etc..

Do you even realise that modern civilastation would not have existed if the Muslims where removed from history, what humanity owes mulsims in terms of contribution is staggering, modern science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, medicine the list goes on.

I will end by saying truth doesn't need defending, it will defend itself.

Good luck

Anhar Hussain Miah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain

The problem I see is that people are rigid in their mental framework, and that is understandable since a person will naturally be a product of their environment and as such people as seem to have thought patterns that are similar (the train runs in the same direction). One of my aims was to get people to break out of there rigid mindset and think laterally.

---

As objective as you make yourself, it is almost impossible to be seen as neutral. People will always naturally want to take sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain

I am bilingurual (can understad a further 3) and as such live between two worlds, I get to see two different mindsets, culture, values etc.

---

Without going into too much detail :p I am in a similiar situation. I have seen how both sides codemn each other for what they do and realise how similiar they are. While the cultures and values are different the attitudes are the same.

On the other hand I think we need to keep discussions pitting religions against religions out of the thread. Let's not forget that is one of the reasons how the things that triggered this discussion were started in the first place. So I think I will make this my last post in here too. My views are here and I've said enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anhar Hussain

No, i will never defend the actions of terrorist, the unimaginable terror that was unleased in Hiroshima and Nakasaki was nearly 67 times the terror of 9/11. If the exact same event happened to America (ie Say Japan dropped a Nuclear Bomb on an American military target) what do you then think the Americans would say? Would the American people be satisfyied by thinking themselfs as "collateral damage"?
No that event would go down in history as the single most devastating terrorist act known to humanity! yet interestingly thats exactly what happened to the Japanese.

---

You're defending terrorism every time you post. And are you really comparing World War II to terror attacks of today? Give me a break, that's so far out there I don't even know what to say.

Quote:

---

Now demotivator why the kneejerk patriotic reaction? why are you trying to defend wrong actions of America? you can love your country but that does not mean that you have to love its illegal actions too.

---

It's not knee jerk, that's the way it is. No illegal actions by America have been discussed, so not sure what you mean by that.

Quote:

---

To the question of gassing, WHAT DID THE AMERICANS DO THEN, supported him instead because Saddam was a key allie of the US. You also asked "where was these freedom fighters then", they where being captured, tortured and put through meat grinders as well as being boiled alive.

---

Key ally may be a tad strong, but I understand your point. And the torture and meat grinder thing is exactly what I was alluding to in a prior post. Where were the martyrs then? Why weren't they rising against Sadaam? Or is it the case that as long as it's the "wrong" kind of muslim being killed it's ok?

Quote:

---

Another point about the "freedom fighters" (you said it not me) how on can you claim that they "deliberatley" targeted innocent civilans? where you there? have you had a telephone converstion with the said person?

---

I guess the guy didn't see the scores of kids that were grabbing up candy from the American patrol before detonating himself in the middle of them, killing 18 Iraqi kids, 9 other Iraqis and wounding 70 more. One American killed, and three injured. Again, give me a break. You're defending actions that have no defense. And as a matter of fact, I personally know a great deal of people that are currently in Iraq and hear first hand accounts almost everyday. You're attempts to justify the actions of fanatical islamofacists are, frankly, laughable.

Anyhoo - I agree this should probably end here. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. I know who's right and who's not. Semper Fi, Anhar.

Anhar Hussain, you keep mentioning the a-bomb and Hiroshima...if the military target is a city...wipe out it's infrastructure, communications blah blah then it's a good target. It just happens that the a-bomb had the advantage of taking out anything else in it's path, which put the heebie-geebies up the Japanease.
I really don't think that they sat there and thought "right, which group of civvies should we take out today?"
You also have to think about societly back then. No one gave that much of a rats arse about civvies...did you hit the target? Yes. Well done. Woohoooo. Times have changed.

Also...it ended the war. How many innocents would have continued to die, on either side, if the war had raged on...remembering that the US was only defending itself, even though it allowed Perl Harbour to be bombed.

The was a story from the 2nd world war where some head gestarpo officers were running part of the war from the basement of an orphanidge, or the building next to the orphanidge (can't remember the exact details) they had taken over when invading holland. The kids still lived in it, and they used it as a human shield...Hmmm..where have we seen this before...I wonder.
Anyways UK bombers flew over and took out the target, and at the same time killed 97 children, this was almost inevitable. The dutch said "thank you" and praised the uk bomber pilots...they knew that these children were "sacrifieced" for a good cause. I believe it ended a german front. The dutch knew what had to be done. Yes it's sad, yes it's not nice for family and friends.

It's only recently that taking out civilians has become a no no.Throughout the ENTIRE of history it has happened everyday...but now, in todays day and age, it's suddenly becoem unacceptable. Damn 60's and hippies! :D

I am joking here, tongue in cheek, but I still have a valid point.

I have just played Leeds Utd and Nowrich Utd youth footy teams in a National competition. Got a body count of 3 against Leeds :D. Hahahaha

Woka

I watched an interview this morning with a spokeman from an Arab organization in the US (I forget which one - maybe Arab American Institute - James Zobgy...). I've seen them before - defending Muslim people as not being all terrorist (an obviously great statement - hard to imagine that you even have to push it!).

At any rate, he made a point this morning about how the US embraces everyone that comes here. America is not a nationality - it's a place of many nationalites (I'm half Italian, half Czech/Slovak)...

When people immigrate here they become part of the fabric pretty much instantly.

He pointed out that in most other countries - he used Germany for an example - a family can live there for 3 generations and still never be German.

Anhar - you keep speaking about America as if we are a nationality. It is an apple and orange situation - maybe you will never be able to see that. Without you grasping that fact, it's hard to talk to you about motivations of American people.

The A-bomb is so not a terrorist act - so not in comparison with what is occuring now. I hate war - but WWII was a war - declared as such, fought as such, ended and treaty'd as such. The A-bomb was a necessary step, in the minds of 1940's and 1950's Americans, in ending that war.

The "terrorist" battle that is being waged by the likes of Osama Bin Laden is a cowardly attack of big boys against simple people. It's not like Osama Bin Laden has a reason - a valid military reason. He's from an extremely rich family - where is the "cause" for his battle? Force the US out of Arab nations? What a joke, those oil producing, Mercedes driving Arab's would never want to end this "circle-of-income".

Sadaam was a nut - a viscious, killing dictator. I personally believe that Iraq is better off without him. I know that the middle-east is better off without him - the stability of the region, ten years down the road from now - is improved by his demise.

There have been no illegal actions on the part of the US against Iraq - what are you talking about?

And just in case you wanted to know - the US does not look down on Islam - that's not a problem in this country. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

At any rate, he made a point this morning about how the US embraces everyone that comes here. America is not a nationality - it's a place of many nationalites (I'm half Italian, half Czech/Slovak)...

---

That's funny, szlamany. I'm sitting here listening to the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem (Irish music). My wife just rolled her eyes and went to bed. To much Ireland in this American house. What a great point you made. I have an awesome picture of a U.S. Marine sprawled out on his carpet saying his prayer to Mecca at 0500 in the middle of the ****storm in Iraq. If that doesn't prove your point, nothing does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

There have been no illegal actions on the part of the US against Iraq - what are you talking about?

---

Quote:

---

UK Attorney General
Regime change cannot be the object of military action. Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.

---

Quote:

---

George Bush,April 6th 2002
We support regime change.

---

I can't find the UN statutes that show that regime change is illegal, but I'm looking for them.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a convention ratified by the U.S., recognizes "self-determination" as a human right and specifies that "by virtue of that right" all peoples have the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Armed interventions for regime change also run contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force "against... the political independence" of another state "or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This includes the need to respect and to observe human rights and to promote self-determination. The definition of aggression adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 also provides that it if "the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination." Violations of this duty may constitute an international crime.

United Nations Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

So if one can prove that regime change was indeed the goal (or at least one of the goals) of the mission in Iraq then it is illegal.

Anyone else hear that hissing sound???
.
Ah! It's just yrywddfa uritating on demotivator's bonfire! :lol:

yrwyddfa - the people did not choose to be dictator'ed by Saddam.

He was a nut - a viscious killer of the people of the country.

He needed to be removed so that "free elections" could take place.

The UN talked about invading Iraq for months - the US simply did it.

So all your posts just now about regime change are meaningless.

Sorry you wasted your time...

Agreed :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

yrwyddfa - the people did not choose to be dictator'ed by Saddam.

He was a nut - a viscious killer of the people of the country.

He needed to be removed so that "free elections" could take place.

The UN talked about invading Iraq for months - the US simply did it.

So all your posts just now about regime change are meaningless.

Sorry you wasted your time...

---

Yes, there is an argument that points out that the Iraqi people did not (I presume could not) exercise the right to self-determination.

I see, however, that you've avoided the bit about political independence which Saddams regime undoutably was. If you read the articles listed, and referenced you will see that if either are present then that constitutes regime change which is illegal under the UN charter of which the US is a signatory.

Thank you for the minor change Woka :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Yes, there is an argument that points out that the Iraqi people did not (I presume could not) exercise the right to self-determination.

I see, however, that you've avoided the bit about political independence which Saddams regime undoutably was. If you read the articles listed, and referenced you will see that if either are present then that constitutes regime change which is illegal under the UN charter of which the US is a signatory.

---

The UN is a weak, powerless - and getting weaker - joke!

We were dozens of "UN referrendums" into waiting for Saddam.

Let's see - we all agreed that Saddam had to go - the UN agreed - all the countries that matter agreed.

The UN - in it's powerless-void-inability to do any action - kept talking, and talking and voting and talking.

Is that a way to wage a potential military action - keep waiting so Saddam could get ready - if he even had the ability to get ready?

He was told that if he left power no military action would occur.

He thought he was the "pan-Arab" - the all powerful leader of all the Arab tribes. The man was a nut case.

The US and UK both believe that a more democratic world will lead to a better society. I subscribe to that same philosophy.

Other then that - all bets are off and all UN treaties are null and void - we are a new world and we are either going to push these thoughts across the globe and succeed, or die attempting it...

I personally am going to keep developing programs ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

The UN is a weak, powerless - and getting weaker - joke!

We were dozens of "UN referrendums" into waiting for Saddam.

Let's see - we all agreed that Saddam had to go - the UN agreed - all the countries that matter agreed.

The UN - in it's powerless-void-inability to do any action - kept talking, and talking and voting and talking.

Is that a way to wage a potential military action - keep waiting so Saddam could get ready - if he even had the ability to get ready?

He was told that if he left power no military action would occur.

He thought he was the "pan-Arab" - the all powerful leader of all the Arab tribes. The man was a nut case.

The US and UK both believe that a more democratic world will lead to a better society. I subscribe to that same philosophy.

Other then that - all bets are off and all UN treaties are null and void - we are a new world and we are either going to push these thoughts across the globe and succeed, or die attempting it...

I personally am going to keep developing programs ;)

---

I agree in the most part with your sentiments regarding the US,UK and the UN; and I was not trying to persuade or argue (either way) whether the Iraq war was morally justified.

I was only responding to your assertion that there was nothing illegal about the Iraq war.

It was an illegal war according to international conventions the 'allies' signed up to. Of course, illegal does not mean immoral. Morality and legality - although often tied - are not necessarily the same thing.

. . . . and I don't think I've wasted my time, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

. . . . and I don't think I've wasted my time, either.

---

That's my NY sarcasm coming through again - born in Queens ;)

The superpowers have been all over the middle east for 40 years now - playing agenda after agenda after agenda. That's never going to change.

And the middle east certainly doesn't mind - they make more and more money pumping oil into the needy hands of the developed countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Anyone else hear that hissing sound???
.
Ah! It's just yrywddfa uritating on demotivator's bonfire! :lol:

---

Pfft. Hardly. Nice try, though. Takes more than some leftist fruitcakes to indict a country for "illegal actions".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Pfft. Hardly. Nice try, though. Takes more than some leftist fruitcakes to indict a country for "illegal actions".

---

Indeed. The UK, the US and others are hardly likely to ever be called to account for their actions are they?

Quote:

---

t was an illegal war according to international conventions the 'allies' signed up to.

---

I saw then National Security Advisor Rice on a Sunday morning talk show near the beginning of th Iraq war. She was explaining that we went into Iraq to effect a change in the Middle East.

The host asked her why we didn't go into Syria or Iran instead?

She answered that it was because we had the clearest legal argument for Iraq.

I think she was referring to all the UN resolutions passed before the invasion that gave Saddam ultimatum after ultimatum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I saw then National Security Advisor Rice on a Sunday morning talk show near the beginning of th Iraq war. She was explaining that we went into Iraq to effect a change in the Middle East.

The host asked her why we didn't go into Syria or Iran instead?

She answered that it was because we had the clearest legal argument for Iraq.

I think she was referring to all the UN resolutions passed before the invasion that gave Saddam ultimatum after ultimatum.

---

AS I've already said: I am not trying to show the Iraq war was morally just, only that it was illegal.

And I was trying to show that it is clearly legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

And I was trying to show that it is clearly legal.

---

Now I'm confused.

I've posted links to more than one legal document that the US has signed up to where it clearly states that regime change is illegal. Although the UK tried to hide from this agenda the US didn't.

Unless you can refute those documents you have no argument. You can go on and on (like a right-wing loon) till you're blue in the face. But you'll still need to show that the arguments presented by those documents are incorrect.

Can someone then please try to explain the months of hammering home the WMD issue? In the build-up that was the primary reason, the reason of reasons. Those who didn't believe it were ridiculed or worse, deemed a lower form of life.

If it was a regime change then why didn't you hammer that point home instead of focussing on his "alleged weaponry"? Perhaps because the other argument wouldn't win you the backing of the allies?

I've never ever seen so many people backpedal so hard, never seen so many people jump from one reason to another, picking out the reason du jour and believing it so firmly that there could possibly no other reason whatsoever

Never ever... Perhaps you lot should work in the media. At least they have a name for it: spin doctoring.

I do believe there are many qualifications to the portion of the UN charter you posted. No leader in his right mind would sign away his own nation's security.

It's like the discussion of the Muslim religion earlier, you can take two sentences out of context and change the intent of the rest of the document.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? I've noticed this tendency in some people in these discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I do believe there are many qualifications to the portion of the UN charter you posted. No leader in his right mind would sign away his own nation's security.

It's like the discussion of the Muslim religion earlier, you can take two sentences out of context and change the intent of the rest of the document.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? I've noticed this tendency in some people in these discussions.

---

YOu will note that I didn't call anyone directly a name; I used a similie. I was implying that unless you can refute those charters and you continue to present unsubstantiated argument you will look like a right-wing loon. I think others will agree with me.

I haven't taken the clause out of context either. Read the document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

And I was trying to show that it is clearly legal.

---

. . . then please show me the legal argument for a preemptive invasion of a politically independant state in order to change the regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

Can someone then please try to explain the months of hammering home the WMD issue? In the build-up that was the primary reason, the reason of reasons. Those who didn't believe it were ridiculed or worse, deemed a lower form of life.

If it was a regime change then why didn't you hammer that point home instead of focussing on his "alleged weaponry"? Perhaps because the other argument wouldn't win you the backing of the allies?

I've never ever seen so many people backpedal so hard, never seen so many people jump from one reason to another, picking out the reason du jour and believing it so firmly that there could possibly no other reason whatsoever

Never ever... Perhaps you lot should work in the media. At least they have a name for it: spin doctoring.

---

I wonder . . .

OK let's assume for argument's sake that the document as written says that regime change is illegal.

I'd have to say that it is contradicted in other UN documents including the dozen or so resolutions the UN passed leading up to the war so that a lawyer could argue that no law has been broken.

Why isn't the UN taking to US to court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

OK let's assume for argument's sake that the document as written says that regime change is illegal.

I'd have to say that it is contradicted in other UN documents including the dozen or so resolutions the UN passed leading up to the war so that a lawyer could argue that no law has been broken.

Why isn't the UN taking to US to court?

---

Regime change is illegal. What other documents does it contradict? Where are the links?

Why is Mugabwe not in an international court of justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I wonder . . .

---

What? That I fit the bill as well?