stuwii

The war on terror

Recommended Posts

If we invaded every country that lcoked up political opponents, we'd have to introduce conscription. The difference is, the Taliban were murdering people in their thousands. Egypt is a good example of a secular country in the Muslim world, largely because of its 20% Christian minority. Egypt is an example of a Middle Eastern country gone right because of its secularity, and the result? The most powerful country in the Middle East alongside Israel.

 

I am not saying egypt should be invaded. I am making a point that it is a brutal dictatorship that the west have no problem supporting. Oh and when Egypt was under Islamic Rule, Christians always lived there in peace. Same with Turkey and Palestine. Jews fled to islamic turkey during the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and portugal. The Khilafah invited them to live under islamic rule.

 

 

Really? Please post a link to these street masses that oppose the law. Thw only example I can think of was in Luton, and the Muslim community in Britain was quick to denounce their actions! Further proof that a minority of Muslims share your views. Oh, and Muslims shouldn't elect those governments in the first place if they don't represent 'peoples views' lol.

 

 

Oppose the law? I am saying they oppose the invasion of muslim lands. Go to Baghdad, Islamabad, Gaza, Kular lumpur, Riyahd, Cairo and see if the masses support occupation of muslim lands. Oh and most of these governments are un-elected because they are dictatorships all supported by the west.

 

Would that be the same sharia that the Taliban used to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists then?

 

Just because the Taliban say they use sharia does not mean they are. You should maybe do some research on sharia and you will see for yourself. Also Sharia is not just about some brutal laws as you like to describe it. Sharia has it's own social, political and economic system.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't see this. Would this be the same history as Hitler and Stalin, or are we talking about the history of a parallel universe here?

 

By the way, if it's so easy to overthrow dictators, why don't Muslims overthrow their governments if they don't represent their views? Just interested.

 

Who said it was easy? It has been a long struggle and will take time as these dictators have a brutal grip on the country. Like I said though, it will take help from the people with influence.

 

Before i deployed we met some afghan men in the UK who talked to us about there culture etc. The first comment he made was "you british and we afghans are very simaler. Almost all of your jokes are about Pakistanis, well all of ours are about Pakistanis."

So if nationalism has no place in Islam why is it that the entire comedy of a nation is about mocking another people who also believe in Islam?

 

Yes it exists just like plenty of other things but like racism it has no place in the religion.

 

Do you have a list of countries?

 

An islamic state is not restricted to borders. All the muslim world would hopefully be united under one state.

Edited by khilafah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I feel like Paxman.

 

Answer my question Mr Howard.

 

What countries would be in this unified state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do I feel like Paxman.

 

Answer my question Mr Howard.

 

What countries would be in this unified state.

 

see above, i not gonna list every muslim country.

 

Also support for sharia and a caliphate is not the small minority. Sharia has huge support all across the muslim world. University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org done a poll two years ago in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia which showed that majority of people asked favoured sharia law.

 

65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minorityâ€-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphateâ€), including 49% of “moderate†Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
see above, i not gonna list every muslim country.

 

Also support for sharia and a caliphate is not the small minority. Sharia has huge support all across the muslim world. University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org done a poll two years ago in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia which showed that majority of people asked favoured sharia law.

 

So you think that Iran and Iraq could live together in one unified state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two follow up questions.

 

Would majority non Muslim countries be excluded from this list? I am assuming they would be what implications would this have on Muslims living in them.

 

My 2nd question is in majority Muslim countries what would happen to Non Muslims after unification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, a Muslim who takes all the benefits of an open democratic society to preach for a suppressive society! Joy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh look, a Muslim who takes all the benefits of an open democratic society to preach for a suppressive society! Joy!

 

HAHA. always makes me laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh look, a Muslim who takes all the benefits of an open democratic society to preach for a suppressive society! Joy!

 

Brilliant stuff.

 

Also support for sharia and a caliphate is not the small minority. Sharia has huge support all across the muslim world. University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org done a poll two years ago in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia which showed that majority of people asked favoured sharia law.

 

One poll conducted by a questionable source proves shit. They didn't ask every Muslim in those countries, just a small amount. It therefore isn't reliable.

 

Oppose the law? I am saying they oppose the invasion of muslim lands. Go to Baghdad, Islamabad, Gaza, Kular lumpur, Riyahd, Cairo and see if the masses support occupation of muslim lands.

 

So you're telling me the Muslims I know have less valid opinions because they don't live in the aforementioned cities? I don't need to travel to those cities, thank you.

 

Who said it was easy? It has been a long struggle and will take time as these dictators have a brutal grip on the country

 

You were under the dillusion that people could simply decide for themselves when they wanted a dictator or not, thus implying it was easy.

 

An islamic state is not restricted to borders. All the muslim world would hopefully be united under one state.

 

 

I'm sorry, if it doesn't have borders, it isn't a country. Maybe an organization? Is that what you mean?

 

Nationalism has no place in Islam.

 

 

Bullshit. Iraq was ruled by a nationalist (Saddam Hussein) and his nationalist Baath Party. There are plentiful pan-Arabs in the Muslim world. but I like this idea of yours, though. I'm going to unite all people with brown hair under one state. Forget the fact there are plenty of blondes and black haired people in the world. As long as the people in government all have brown hair, abide by my special brown hair laws and pay taxes to brown haired peoples, it should be fine. Do you think it's likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think that Iran and Iraq could live together in one unified state?

 

yes of course. Like I said before, the state is built on the islamic Aqeeda and not on any national prinicples etc. Majority of people in Iraq and Iran are muslims so we share the same values and are part of the same muslim ummah.

 

I have two follow up questions.

 

Would majority non Muslim countries be excluded from this list? I am assuming they would be what implications would this have on Muslims living in them.

 

My 2nd question is in majority Muslim countries what would happen to Non Muslims after unification.

 

Muslims and non muslims from all over would be weclome to live in the state. Non Muslims will become citizens of the state, will be free to practise there religion.

 

Brilliant stuff.

 

 

 

One poll conducted by a questionable source proves shit. They didn't ask every Muslim in those countries, just a small amount. It therefore isn't reliable.

 

Fair point. Although I not seeing any survey's showing the muslim world wants liberal democracy.

 

 

So you're telling me the Muslims I know have less valid opinions because they don't live in the aforementioned cities? I don't need to travel to those cities, thank you.

 

I never said that there points are not valid. I am saying in general the muslim world does not accept occupation. I not sure why anyone would find this strange. I mean would you accept the UK being under occupation?

 

 

You were under the dillusion that people could simply decide for themselves when they wanted a dictator or not, thus implying it was easy.

 

Not at all. I am saying we want to put these dictators to the dustbin of society. we just don't want invading troops doing it for us.

 

 

I'm sorry, if it doesn't have borders, it isn't a country. Maybe an organization? Is that what you mean?

 

Yes the Islamic State is not a country as you would put it. It in theory it could unite lands from Morocco all the way to Indonesia. It was never a single country before and wont be in the future.

 

 

Bullshit. Iraq was ruled by a nationalist (Saddam Hussein) and his nationalist Baath Party. There are plentiful pan-Arabs in the Muslim world. but I like this idea of yours, though. I'm going to unite all people with brown hair under one state. Forget the fact there are plenty of blondes and black haired people in the world. As long as the people in government all have brown hair, abide by my special brown hair laws and pay taxes to brown haired peoples, it should be fine. Do you think it's likely?

 

Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant who oppressed muslims who did not rule by islam so of course his party was nationalist. All the muslim countries in the world today are nation states. This is what I want to see removed!

 

Well the islamic state ruled for over 1000 years and was abolished in 1924. Do I think it is likely? Well yes I think I will see this happen. To achieve this state you need to change people's ideas and views. Also remember it is not gonna be the whole muslim world to start off with. You will see a nation state fall and replaced with a khilafah state and then it will expand from there. Will be a perfect Utopia state? Of course not but it will be a state that will challenge capitalism and actually aim to end poverty and hunger in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes of course. Like I said before, the state is built on the islamic Aqeeda and not on any national prinicples etc. Majority of people in Iraq and Iran are muslims so we share the same values and are part of the same muslim ummah.

 

Fair point. Although I not seeing any survey's showing the muslim world wants liberal democracy.

 

 

So you expect the people of two nations who not that long ago spent a long period kicking the shit out of each other, along with doing some other very nasty things to each other to live as one people? They cant even do that in Iraq itself never mind adding Iran to the mix.

 

And the majority of people in afghan seem to want it. Otherwise. Ok i admit they dont want ISAF forces there, who would. But they dont want to go back to the bad old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just come out with it as I think you are misunderstanding my line of questions.

 

Would the UK be part of this state during conception or the future or would it just be based on a past Muslim Empire like the Ottoman Empire etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharia law is subject to interpretation. Strict interpretation is pretty shitty, and robs people of the right to dress as they want, socialize with whom they wish and enjoy life in a reasonably free manner. Lax interpretation is better, but it's still scary.

 

No, people shouldn't routinely use drugs, cheat on their partners or walk around with their tackle hanging out, but every religion and state, secular or otherwise says that.

 

And stoning people to death? Barbaric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel a bit sorry for the muslim majority, can be nice as they like but could be completely despised if his mate blows up a school. That's the scary reality, I don't think that many muslims know who the Al Queda members are and won't say anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all want to be taken seriously, but a good few of you can't even be bothered to use a spell check. Massive fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Went to a talk by Paddy Ashdown recently. And he actually said while he was against the Iraq war the people who pro war people had very good Legal arguments and the legality side wasn't where the argument should be centred.

 

Well he is showing his age then. The Attorney General, that's the Attorney General, wrote a lengthy document explaining how the old resolutions were not sufficient for a legal occupation based on the evidence they had.

 

Of course, he was then 'talked to' and a few days later produced a half-page revision to his document explaining how they suddenly were sufficient.

 

Two weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, Goldsmith gave Blair a detailed legal opinion that doubted its legality.

 

Six days later, on 13 March, Goldsmith met Lord Falconer, then a junior minister, and Sally (now Lady) Morgan from Blair's office.

 

On 17 March, he published a single-page parliamentary answer, asserting that the war would be legal on the basis of existing UN resolutions.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/13/iraq-iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well he is showing his age then. The Attorney General, that's the Attorney General, wrote a lengthy document explaining how the old resolutions were not sufficient for a legal occupation based on the evidence they had.

 

Of course, he was then 'talked to' and a few days later produced a half-page revision to his document explaining how they suddenly were sufficient.

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/13/iraq-iraq

 

Hes a legend I don't think he is going senile and is an expert in Foreign Policy. You may be right you may be wrong I'm no expert I'm just citing Ashdown. As I said legality doesn't affect if I support something or not, see my previous example about China's abuse of the veto system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well he is showing his age then. The Attorney General, that's the Attorney General, wrote a lengthy document explaining how the old resolutions were not sufficient for a legal occupation based on the evidence they had.

 

Of course, he was then 'talked to' and a few days later produced a half-page revision to his document explaining how they suddenly were sufficient.

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/13/iraq-iraq

 

The leaglity of something dosent matter. Was it moraly right to let saddam be in power? In my eyes no.

They gave deplomicy 12 years it didnt work.

How long were we going to give it?

 

As for spelling i dont care its a web forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said that there points are not valid. I am saying in general the muslim world does not accept occupation. I not sure why anyone would find this strange. I mean would you accept the UK being under occupation?

 

To be honest, if there was a government that took away all my rights and freedoms, whipped my neighbours to death for petty crimes and took away my rights to have whatever religion I choose, I think occupation/liberation by a liberal, advanced democratic society would be a total Godsend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will just come out with it as I think you are misunderstanding my line of questions.

 

Would the UK be part of this state during conception or the future or would it just be based on a past Muslim Empire like the Ottoman Empire etc.

 

Yes like the Ottoman Caliphate. Hereditary Rule will not be allowed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes like the Ottoman Caliphate. Hereditary Rule will not be allowed though.

 

Problem there is Islams spread was based on aggressive expansion and relentless war. Wiped out Byzantine Empire for one thing. I mean are you including Greece in your new Empire or not? Cause the Ottomans sure did, what about Spain, parts of France, parts of Italy. All fell under Muslim rule at one point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't come in here to give any further information on the topics being discovered, but I did come here to say this: Haden, you have a brilliant knowledge of history. I envy you. Same to Danny as well. I now feel inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem there is Islams spread was based on aggressive expansion and relentless war. Wiped out Byzantine Empire for one thing. I mean are you including Greece in your new Empire or not? Cause the Ottomans sure did, what about Spain, parts of France, parts of Italy. All fell under Muslim rule at one point.

 

I not sure if you are saying Islam was spread by the sword or not. That is not true so I am gonna refute this. This is the wrong topic to debate that though so I am not gonna write a whole long post about the spread of islam.

 

As for the future islamic state. the main thing for now is creating a caliphate in the muslim world and work from there.

 

Anyway back onto war on terror. The colonialists have killed over 100 afghan civilians.

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=28223381001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the future islamic state. the main thing for now is creating a caliphate in the muslim world and work from there.

 

Anyway back onto war on terror. The colonialists have killed over 100 afghan civilians.

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=28223381001

 

Firstly, not every Muslim country is 100% Islamic in terms of population, so what would happen to those people? Secondly, what are the benefits to, well, anyone, of a Caliphate?

 

As for that video, your use of the term "colonialists" demonstrates you that you know the presence of ISAF/NATO forces is justified and that you need to resort to labelling them with negative ideas to make them look bad. 100 civilian deaths is nothing compared to those caused by the Taliban, and a lot more civilians living in the "safer" areas would have been killed by the Taliban if the ISAF/NATO troops wasn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the creativve assembly are reading this thread : Caliphate - Total War

 

Awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, not every Muslim country is 100% Islamic in terms of population, so what would happen to those people? Secondly, what are the benefits to, well, anyone, of a Caliphate?

 

Jews and Christians should be respected as 'People of the Book'. (They'd still have to pay taxes, mind, and wouldn't have any jobs in government. Plus, the legal system would always be in favour of Muslims.) The future for atheists wouldn't look so bright. I think some Muslims just want to go back to the golden olden days, just like some Brits want to go back to the day of the British Empire. Thankfully, neither looks likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites