junior Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 And where did he get such wonderful toys? I don't see how who supplied the "materials" and "know-how" makes a difference in the context of whether or not the Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam. Regards abuses by coalition military personnel, I can only repeat what I said earlier: when whole towns of innocent people are getting killed by chemical weapons, I will accept that Iraq is no better off today. I'd be willing to bet that rape and murder was one of the main tactics of the previous Iraqi military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 when whole towns of innocent people are getting killed by chemical weapons, I will accept that Iraq is no better off today. What a full scale civil war and another refugee crises dont cut the mustard with you.Of cource with the iraq police getting their jobs back once the coalition had the power stick, it will be buisness as usual on the rape and murder front and now with our forces there helping out, "rape and murder being the only skills sqaudies are good for" I cant see much change for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 ^^^ "full scale civil war" is not my understanding of the current situation in Iraq. In fact, as I understand it, the Kurds in the North are getting on very well indeed. If "rape and murder being the only skills sqaudies are good for" is your opinion, why put it in quotes? Is this what you think? Our boys would be so proud ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 civil war is already underway in Iraq. Most people do not see it, because it is not following the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd fault lines on which we have been lead to focus. As is usually the case in war, we are the victims not of deception but of self-deception.http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3120 rape and murder being the only skills sqaudies are good forNo not entirely true, but take it as an example of how generalising and stereotyping of the many by the actions of the few can be upsetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hentilaget Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Boys, you need tae grow up. It's a gret muckle world oot yunder, an your no goin' tae come tae an' agreement by disagreein' apo da things dat you agree apo?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Unless you come to an agreement, to agree to disagree upon the things that you agree on.Would you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMascus Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 Did anyone else see Dispatches. I thought it was a bit muddled at times but definitely worth a watch. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/britain+under+attack/656252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 ^^^ Yes, I thought it was excellent, a good variety of British Muslim opinion. Parts seemed to bring together what we had been discussing, saying the foreign policy argument is based on Islamic theology, "defending the Ummah" and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMascus Posted August 7, 2007 Report Share Posted August 7, 2007 The question of Ummah, where the Islamic people is one entity and and have a "contract" of security with secular entities. It is up to the individual to assess the contract and make up their own mind whether it is broken or not. I wonder what people here think. Do you perceive the contract as being broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I don't believe that any such contract, or covenant, has ever existed in Britain. At least not in the form of an agreement made by the British government or authorities. It's existence as an Islamic concept even seems a bit dubious to me tbh, based on some jaunt Mohammed made through Ethopia. I haven't seen any Islamic text which says that behaviour should be followed by Muslims. Perhaps it is implicit in the life of Mohammed. Assuming that it does exist as an Islamic concept, the question of whether it is broken, is one for individual Muslims (if you agree with my mate Choudry) or, I would say, those with authority over sharia. Do you think it exists? What do you think it consists of? Are you Muslim? Do you think it has been broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMascus Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Do you think it exists? What do you think it consists of? Are you Muslim? Do you think it has been broken? From the programme most of the scholars seemed to believe in it in some sense. There was quite a bit of discussion between the people interviewed on the programme, as to what is allowed under such a contract or lack of contract. I agree there was no formal agreement with the British state, but with it being part of Islamic theology, it cannot be dismissed offhand. Ummah is also quite an interesting concept that may seem quite alien to people who live in the current individualistic consumerist societies of the west where society generally pushes people into competition instead of solidarity. I am not a Muslim, I am an atheist, petty devout, but - I hope - not bigoted. The 7/7 bombers listed UK foreign policy among the reasons for taking such action, and the scholars seemed to link that through the Idea of Ummah. There has been no statements released from the Glasgow bombers but they were from Iraq and India, so they may have a similar internationalist perspective. From the viewpoint in the programme, regarding whether the contract is broken, is seems to be pretty much at the individuals discretion to decide. I would probably say that if the idea of Ummah holds as the Islamic people being one and survival depends on the wellbeing of all Muslims, our actions in the middle east have been directly responsible for destabilising the regions Muslim countries. we are a threat to certain sections of the Arab world. One point from the programme to raise is the fact that the UK security forces while discussing the problems and security issues didn't even bring a foreign policy argument to the table, I'm sure that no-one will argue with the fact we live in a Global world, where the wellbeing of people and countries are dependent on things that may happen anywhere in the world, take the current economic crisis as an example. With these types of possibilities and freedoms in our hands we also have great responsibilities, which we ignore to our own detriment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 The idea of the contract is based on a religious right, or obligation, to violently attack innocent people in the country they reside. Which would mean that Islamically(?) speaking Muslims could have either a right, or obligation, to violently attack you or I. Ummah is also quite an interesting concept that may seem quite alien to people who live in the current individualistic consumerist societies... There's a joke in there about loyalty cards somewhere... but seriously, the Ummah is a religious belief which prejudices against people based on their beliefs, I'd give that more importance than any admirable quality. I am not a Muslim, I am an atheist, petty devout, but - I hope - not bigoted. ditto The 7/7 bombers listed UK foreign policy among the reasons for taking such action, and the scholars seemed to link that through the Idea of Ummah. There has been no statements released from the Glasgow bombers but they were from Iraq and India, so they may have a similar internationalist perspective. So assuming these attacks were in defence of the Ummah, I would far rather place the importance on the (apparently) religious belief, rather than the foreign policy. To do otherwise you are not only arguing the case for the terrorists, but also dangerously missing the underlying problem. Regards "responsibilities", and "solidarity". Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place? Looking through your previous posts you seem to be doing your best to break up any national solidarity by instilling a lack of trust in the government. I have only ever seen talk like that in response to a terrorist attack on sites used by some of the less respectable members of a certain religion. I heard a phrase the other day which I think kind of sums up a lot of peoples attitudes lately, including yourself (no offense intended, it sounds worse than it is) and myself at times: "cultural self-hatred". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMascus Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I don't know if I fully understand what you mean by "cultural self-hatred", but it don't think it really describes anything, and seems too much like a blanket insult used to scare people into a line of thinking like "bleeding-heart liberal", you are right that most of my posts instill a lack of trust in the government, but I feel most of it is rooted in fact and the records are there, if you want me to clarify any of my points I hope I can. Solidarity isn't about standing by your government it is about standing with people you share ideals with, and currently I don't see our government standing up for many of these ideals. The idea of the contract is based on a religious right, or obligation, to violently attack innocent people in the country they reside. Which would mean that Islamically(?) speaking Muslims could have either a right, or obligation, to violently attack you or I.I think it was still a bone of contention as to whether they could attack innocent people, which really depended on the individuals interpretation of the Qur'an. There's a joke in there about loyalty cards somewhere... Wink but seriously, the Ummah is a religious belief which prejudices against people based on their beliefs, I'd give that more importance than any admirable quality.I don't think Ummah is prejudice it is it is more akin to solidarity, bringing people together that share a belief system though the actual visualisation of the people being one may seem extreme, and the use of Ummah to invoke violence is dependent on a part of the whole being under attack. Loyalty cards! Zombie Plus - loyalty card. So assuming these attacks were in defence of the Ummah, I would far rather place the importance on the (apparently) religious belief, rather than the foreign policy. To do otherwise you are not only arguing the case for the terrorists, but also dangerously missing the underlying problem.I still don't see how I am arguing a case for the terrorists, and what is the underlying problem I am missing. we do seem to have narrowed down the our disagreement to religion or foreign policy. Me being on the side of foreign policy, I would like to know what you think about our current foreign policy and how effective do you think it is? Regards "responsibilities", and "solidarity". Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place?The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline? Please remember, I have a lack of trust in our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place?Yes do tell. In the days I first heard of the Taliban, it was from the Talban update section in Loaded magazine where we were told who's head was getting pealed and who was being stoned to death etc. This was at the same time they got all those red carpet tours of Disney world, NASA etc from the Americans who were of course fine with their behaviour until deals between them and Russia involving the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline saw the bombs flying, under the handy excuse of blaming them for the Saudis flying planes into their buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Maybe you guys should start a conspiracy theories thread, if there is any proof of these claims I'd be interested in hearing it. I don't know if I fully understand what you mean by "cultural self-hatred", but it don't think it really describes anything, and seems too much like a blanket insult used to scare people into a line of thinking like "bleeding-heart liberal", you are right that most of my posts instill a lack of trust in the government, but I feel most of it is rooted in fact and the records are there I can assure you it was not a blanket insult, nor was intended to scare people form you (what ). There's a degree of humility in the term, so it is, at least in part, complimentary. "Bleeding-heart" maybe now, but you'll have to do more than protest against the war to make me think you are liberal. Paranoid conspiracy theories are traditionally the realm of those with right of centre thinking. I repeat that I meant no offense, but I you have taken some, well, that's your problem. If you are still interested in what I meant, the first part of this article (ignore the potentially patronising headline) does a reasonable job of explaining it. I don't think Ummah is prejudice... So was Mohammed Sidique Khan concerned about his athiest/Christian/Buddist/Yazidi "brothers and sisters"? To quote old Choudary again "I will stand by my Muslim brother whether he is oppressor, or he is opressed." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4 That might explain why there is never Muslim outrage at the (near endless) list of abuse carried out against Muslims in Islamic countries. Whether this type of thinking come form the idea of the Ummah, I don't know, but it does show prejudice. I think it was still a bone of contention as to whether they could attack innocent people, which really depended on the individuals interpretation of the Qur'an. Again, see the link above for an apparently Islamic definition of innocence. You might dismiss this as a single view, but consider the word "dhimmi", it is used as a name for a (primarily) Jew or Christian living under Sharia law (living Islamically). The literal translation is "guilty". "Dhimmitude" then being the second class status given to all dhimmis. So, is it also up to the individual to determine guilt/innocence? I still don't see how I am arguing a case for the terrorists, and what is the underlying problem I am missing. If people started murdering people because they disagreed in a different government policy, would you still argue for a change in that policy as a solution? If have nothing against people who object to certain policies, my problem is with people who threaten my life (or way thereof). So, you tell me, what is the difference between someone like yourself, with seemingly very strong objection to foriegn policy, and a terrorist willing to blow themselves up for the cause? There are various beliefs that I believe are the difference, each is spread in the name of Islam, through Islamic channels: the Ummah concept; the concept of martytrdom in murderous suicide ("kill and be killed"); with it the idea that martyrdom leads to guaranteed paradise (virgins included); the idea of superiority; the idea that Muslims not living under Sharia are living in an "house of war" (Dar al-Harb). There will always be people who object to government policy, there have not always been people willing to murder because of their objection. There are now though. If the government change that policy those people still exist, and so there is still a danger to myself. Without the concepts I list above those people wouldn't exist, they would not have that willingness to murder. So, as a solution to this particular problem, I look towards those concepts, and the ways in which they are spread. So, you tell me what you are missing, here's one last clue "Airport bomber's email to relative said he wanted to die for Allah" http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2152282,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront Oh, what the hell, here's another http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22278311-2,00.html?from=public_rss Quote: "Muslims were "brainwashed" from an early age to believe Western values were evil and that the world would one day come under the control of Sharia law. The US-based psychiatrist - who has two fatwas (religious rulings) issued against her to be killed - warned that Muslims would continue to exploit freedom of speech in the West to spread their "hate" and attack their adopted countries, until the Western mind grasped the magnitude of the Islamic threat. "You're fighting someone who is willing to die," Dr Sultan told The Australian in an Arabic and English interview. "So you have to understand this mentality and find ways to face it. (As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed. You're here for only a short life and once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God." " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now