Liverpool FC Forum

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:01 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
puroresu wrote:Islam has always allowed different schools of thought as long as the source has come from the Quran or Sunnah. The difference between a shia and Sunni for instance is minimal and we agree on the majority of things.

And yet those MINIMAL differences allow both sects to kill each other without pause day in and day out ? . Guess it's fortunate that they agree on the majority of things .

You'll appreciate the my slight sarcasm is prompted by your reference to a Political Islam as being a solution for the people of Iraq . With such divisions I fail to see how it would work but that doesn't mean it wouldn't, I just don't see it.

But who is really behind the secterian violence. i have no doubts there are elements of shia and sunni muslims who want to fight each other however the occupation also likes to capitalise on the sunni/shia divide. A united Sunni/Shia stand against the occupation is not what the occupation needs. Remember when British special forces were caught dressed as Arabs with a car full of weapons and bombs. They were then broken out of a prison by the british military. Now why was these guys dressed as Arabs? Never had any answers.

The Sunnah is a book of hadiths (sayings) of the prophet Muhammed s.a.w. i.e. The Quran tells us to pray, the sunnah tells us how to pray.

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:04 pm

Ciggy wrote:
dawson99 wrote:If we could build a time machine would we not have gone to war with saddam? Let him kill 1000s and stone women in the street just for looking at someone the wrong way? No.

We went to stop an evil dictator, now we got to clear the mess up.

No we shouldnt have gone to war fullstop.
There are still thousands dying because of this war, the arab countries dont stop the Taliban or some loons in Iraq and Iran for stoneing woman to death because its still happening today.

We have captured and killed that evil dictator but IMO Iraq is in a damn sight worst state than ever before.

Our soldiers sign up to fight for THIS country your right but I bet not one of them nor their families want them to be in a war right now, Iraq was not a danger to the UK or the USA.
But because we did go to war we are under more serious threat than ever before.

only idiots deny there is any link between british foriegn policy and terrorist threats to this country.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:06 pm

And pre 9/11 what was the excuse then? there were no UK/US 'Occupations'

by **Anfield rapper** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:11 pm

puroresu wrote:I see the invasions as modern day colonism. The US wants to keep control of the resources in the region and thats why she doesnt mind the tyrannical rulers in the region. 2 to 3 years ago the US were saying "democratise the Middle East".

I disagree. You may have a case for Iraq but Afghanistan was out of control and supporting terrorist groups. Did the muslim world expect the world's biggest super power to just watch replays of 9/11 and think "hope that doesn't happen again". The US should never have invaded Iraq because that was when they lost the moral high ground. I think if they had left it with sorting out Afghanistan they would have had alot more support and probably alot more success.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:14 pm

cant believe absoltuely no one else thinks we were right to get rid of saddam. forget the oil and what happened since, at the time he HAD to be stopped, absokutely no one agree?

by **Lando_Griffin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:19 pm

dawson99 wrote:cant believe absoltuely no one else thinks we were right to get rid of saddam. forget the oil and what happened since, at the time he HAD to be stopped, absokutely no one agree?

I agree mate.

Saddam was a modern-day Adolf Hitler, and HAD to be removed.

Iraq is a sh*thole now, but in time it will improve - something that would never have happened under that tyrant b*stard.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:19 pm

Saddam was a evil sod, but to run a country like Iraq, with so many different ethnic groups, and interference from Syria and Iran, he had to rule with an iron fist, once we leave there will be a huge civil war, lots of proxy wars funded by Iraqs neighbours, and huge numbers of Asylum seekers will come to the UK, i can assure you. We went in for the wrong reasons. Afghanistan needed to be done. Why arn't we sorting out China for Tibet? what of Indonesia and east Timor? mass genocide and nothing, no sanctions, nothing done.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:25 pm

dawson99 wrote:cant believe absoltuely no one else thinks we were right to get rid of saddam. forget the oil and what happened since, at the time he HAD to be stopped, absokutely no one agree?

I agree he should have been removed from power but a war was not the way to go about it.
I dont think it should have been us and the USA to do it.
Arab leaders who didnt like him should have done it therefor no blame lies at our feet and there would be no occupation of Iraq.

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:26 pm

redtrader74 wrote:And pre 9/11 what was the excuse then? there were no UK/US 'Occupations'

Pre 9/11 I dont remember this country suffering any attacks from Islamic terrorist groups?

People say things like "they attack our way of life". Sweden is the most liberal state there is yet I dont see Al Queada attacking Sweden, Why? Because Sweden does not influnce policies and governments in the Islamic world unlike the US which has been meddling in the Middle East for decades.

I think even if one was to try and justify the removal of Saddam because of his evil deeds it is still a stretch. Saddam could only be that evil dictator with the support of the West. The West never minded Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran as Iran was ruled by 'islamists'. However once saddam was no longer onside the US/UK decide he must go.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:28 pm

so we should all be like sweden and let other countries destroy themselves?

by **Anfield rapper** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:29 pm

dawson99 wrote:cant believe absoltuely no one else thinks we were right to get rid of saddam. forget the oil and what happened since, at the time he HAD to be stopped, absokutely no one agree?

The problem i've got mate is that we were told all sorts of things about his weapons which we later found out to be bollox. The whole thing just seems to have been made up so they could tag it onto the war in afghanistan. He was an evil sod, but that was never the reason for the war. I just think the US wanted to secure the largest oil reserves in the world. When they eventually have to leave there will be a huge civil war whoever wins will not be friendly to the US and UK so in the long wrong the security of the oil reserves will be lost anyway.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:30 pm

Read up, plans had been thwarted for terror attacks pre 9/11 in the UK. Explain who the US was occupying for 9/11 to occur?

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:55 pm

there is a consensus that the middle east was more stable with saddam in power, thats why they didnt remove him in 1991. however times obviously changed and a decision was made to remove him, although the decison was based on lies. if bush just came out and said he wanted to remove hom for genocide and to control the oil there then that would have been better.

personally i think the fact that no other middle east country came to iraqs aid speaks volumes

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:01 pm

redtrader74 wrote:Explain who the US was occupying for 9/11 to occur?

Easy mate foreign policy and the USA's constant support for Israel plus America is practically run by Jewish.

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:07 pm

redtrader74 wrote:Read up, plans had been thwarted for terror attacks pre 9/11 in the UK. Explain who the US was occupying for 9/11 to occur?

The US wasnt occupying anyone but her presence was felt in the Middle East.

1. The unconditional support of Israel
2. Propping up dicators all over the Islamic World
3. Military bases all over the Islamic World. US forces in Saudia Arabia.
4. An invasion of Somalia
5. Bombing of a pharmacutical factory in Sudan.

I mean thats just 5 things off the top of my head. Somalia again is another great example of the US causing chaos.

Since 1991 that country has had no real government or stability. Just warlords and clans fighting for power. In June 2006 the Islamic Courts Union took control of the capital Mogadishu and the majority of Somalia. For the first time in a decade there was a clean up of rubbish in the capital, the airport in the capital was re-opened, the major seaport was re-opened, people were free to walk the streets at night without the fear of being robbed or bribed by warlords and trade and business could operate freely without corruption.

For 6 months Somalia finally looked like it was becoming a state. The Islamic courts had popular support and the only ones who oppossed there rule was those who benefited financially before the the IUC cam to power.

However the US couldnt have this. An African nation looking stable and progressing was not allowed as long as it was governed by political Islam. The US government gave authorisation for ethiopa (helped them with airstrikes) to invade somalia and drive the Islamic Union Courts out of power. Now the warlords are back in power and chaos returns.

The US does not realise that interferring in the politics of the Islamic World only brings trouble on themselves.

Liverpool FC Forum

Salmon rushdie knighted - (i can see this getting locked)

Who is online