Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

DA.... BULLS!

 

Kids are so easily trusted

 

Yes but also a warrior..

In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered 800 to 300 in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement.

 

Wasn't Hitler a shoe salesman before he joined his party? Dang, if Al Bundy ever runs for office, remind me not to vote for him

 

I think so.. and stalin was a son of a shoe salesman.

 

I'm not sure about Stalin's father but I don't believe Hitler was ever a shoe salesman. His father died when he was 13 and left him an inheritance; at 18, his mother died and he then received his father's civil service pension. He dropped out of high school when informed that he had failed and would need to repeat a year, and then applied first to the Vienna Academy of Art and then to the Vienna School of Architecture - when he was rejected by both schools, he hung out in Vienna and pretended to be an art student until World War 1. Then he was a soldier and after the war wangled his way into civil service positions and then into politics.

 

Hitler wasn't a shoesales man, he was a housepainter. Doing all kinds of maintenance jobs regarding painting.

To get back on topic and answer the question why do muslims act out an ''holy war''.

Holy war according to the coran is when a country or what kind of military or violent aggression is being used against a muslim country.
Like any other country a muslim country will defends it's grounds and country and citizens, doing so is what they call a holy war.

Terrorists abuse this term to justify their moranic actions by blowing up busses and metro stations such as in Londen and Madrid. And the terrorists in Iraq are blowing up civilians are also the ones that don't have a clue about what the hell they are doing and calling it ''holy war''.

For the insurgents fighting only American forces it's justified calling it holy war because they are truly fighting against a invading nation.
On the other hand what they are doing now is counter productive because the U.S. doesn't want to stay in Iraq only train the Iraqi people to uphold the democracy that is established at this time and soon hopefully they will leave.

So advancement in achieving a original Iraqi military to uphold democracy is a must that unfortunately doesn't come over a night.

Insurgents fighting the U.S. forces have the old fashion moranic believe that they need to uphold the strict muslim laws that where merged with living in a tight muslim society such as, no education for women and other things that restrict people from living a free and enjoyable life. Such as the Taliban in afghanistan.

This is something western countries don't understand but it is something where a lot of people that where under these circumstances accepted and considderd this their way of life ,how idiotic this may seem to us, to them it maked sense.

Also a lot of people don't agree with this and are forced to live these controled lives and fortunately for them change has come but only because of the need of self preservation of the U.S. goverment to uphold the continuing flow of oil that is needed to keep economic stability and not because of U.S. goverments good heart to spend billions of dollars to bring freedom to Iraq.

Bringing freedom and democracy to iraq is only a coincidental advantage for PR reasons towards the worlds society to portrait acting this war out of good faith for the Iraqi people and to deny that this war is solely being held for Monetary reasoning and self preservation.

Was Saddam in a holy war against the U.S.? Yes he was. Was the U.S. the agressor and invading nation? Yes they where.

Do i agree with Saddam's ways how he tiranated Iraq? No, i don't.
Am i happy with removing Saddam from power and the U.S. to uphold their economic strenght?
Yes, i am. Because if U.S. economy crumbles we all go with it so unfortunately i to am for self preservation.

It would have been better if the U.S. spended more time and professionalism in how to deal with the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

 

He was also an musician, drawer, maaan.. Hitler was a lot.

That's just bullshit.. US want to stay so they can pump up more oil and prepare themselfs for OIF. I like that because US is actually a democratic world police.

Actually, the one who fight are sunni baathist loyal to Saddam. They are one of the most secularized people that you can find in ME. Shias on the other hand is very strict to their religion.

I think it makes sense to them mostly because of 'Islamic patriotism'. They are as proud of their religion as americans are about their country.

It's not a lot.. almost all people like the strict rules and there is a great demand to make them even stricter, it's the same in almost every isamic country, even in rich arab countries such as Kuwait and UAE.

Strict islamic rules does however not always mean undemocratic since people wont to have it that way. Terrorists are often the more secular ones.

 

I suggest you do some research on that one, the ones gaining power in Iraq are the ones who believe in items such as what's in bold, not for the most part the insurgents or Sunni's. The Shi’a being the majority is far more likely to wish this and want this in their democracy.

 

U.S. don't have to stay for the oil to be pumped up i think because they would definately have made some agreements about this with the new iraqi president.
I doubt it that they would go trough all this trouble and when they leave iraq have done all for nothing. There must have been agreements made upon this, so that oil wil be sold to the U.S. against a certain price offcourse

U.S. being a democratic world police if that's what you want to call it.

If that's the case there are more wars being held in the future in the name of ''democracy'' against countries that are restricting their citizens from democracy.

It's about money for the U.S. not for the democracy. Or do you really think U.S. goverment is spending hundreds of billions of dollars for the democracy of another country?, only if the reward is there such as in this case a steady continues flow of oil.

Well those sunni baathists maybe are loyal to saddam but they are for restricting freedom as i said, they want the situation to be the same as before the invasion.
It doesn't matter if the Shia's are very strict to their religion but it does matter to give women and men also the freedom that they didn't get in the former regime of saddam.

Hrmm, whe are basicly saying the same thing here For them this type of life is the way of life they intended to live.

I agree that the strict rules not always mean undemocratic and i never said or intended this to say but in the case of the former regime of saddam you have to agree that if you should live there in that time period there was no democracy at all and there was also a lot of control by the secret police.

People where forced to live a certain life that can be referred to as non-democratic in my oppinion.

The strict rules you talk about can not be compared with the tiranic way saddam used to rule iraq, so therefor i stil stand that a lot of people disagreed with their position of islamic citizen in iraq in that time.

What i said did not refer to all islamic countries only to iraq and afghanistan under the former regime of the taliban.
Those people living in that time period did for the majority not agree with the strict in-humane rules that where opposed on them.

These arab countries such as Kuwait and UAE you talk about have a more civilized approach to these strict rules and are not to be compared to the rules the citizens of iraq had to endure under the regime of saddam and also the citizens of Afghanistan in the time the taliban ruled in those areas controlled by the taliban.

If the Shi'a majority is for what's in bold then the situation is quite sorryfull to say the least for applying democracy if you can even call it democracy
And i doubt that not for the most part of the insurgents are wishing this type of restricton of freedom and equality because then they would also realized that their resistence is counterproductive in what the U.S. is at this time trying to accomplish.

 

#1 huh? #2 you do realise under Saddam the Iraqi people including WOMAN had more freedom and schooling than most mideast muslim countries, after the first gulf war these freedoms were taken away to make the Shi'a happy. What you stated is fully inaccurate and untrue.

After rereading your post I think I get what you're trying to say. But how would it be counter productive, if the ones in control wish to have these types of policies how would it be counterproductive for them to fight it? In a democracy the majority wins, the minority does not win with votes they sit back and either take it or fight it.

 

From what i know is that people would be put in prisons and tortured for no grounded an rational reasons, if you would say *i don't like saddam* you would be put in prison,tortured or dismained if the secret police found out.
It doesn't matter if this was the case after the first gulf war, it happend and i can't call this freedom and i doubt what you say that in pre gulfwar 1 iraqi people had more freedom then most islamic countries.

saddam was a suppressor and dictator that would eliminate everybody that even would show the slightest form of discontent and this is accurate and true and this was also the case before the first gulf war.
Yes there where jobs and economic stability to a certain degree but there was no real freedom at any point in time under saddam.

no education for women and other things that restrict people from living a free and enjoyable life if the majority of the insurgency are for education and not opposing restrictions on women and wanting to let the people of iraq having a life of freedom and joy why are they bombing the shit out of citizens of iraq?

This is what you wrote and hence the part that saids *not for the most part the insurgents* here you are stating that the majority of the insurgency is not for no education for women and other things that restrict people from living a free and enjoyable life

why are they bombing the shit out of citizens of iraq? because it's the majority if not all of them that are bombing iraqi people and also U.S> forces that are at this point trying to build stabilty for Iraq.
And why would you say the majority of the insurgents are for women getting eduaction and are for letting people of iraq leading a life of freedom and joy if you see what's going on there, every action of the insurgency is at this point in time an action to prevent iraqi people leading a life of freedom and joy.

That's why i wrote that the insurgency is being counterproductive with their actions and if you say they are for equality of women and freedom why are they killing their own people? people of iraq?
This is my point and that is why it is counterproductive to say the least!!

 

Sigh edz, I wont disagree that Saddam was bad, Iraq was not a good place. However to state what you stated is flawed as it's the other side now in power who would go to that, who is better, how the people were treated, etc has no bearing on the point I made as I was simply stating what you posted was false.

Blowing the shit out of Iraqi citizens, most of the times they are targetting Iraq police, US forces, etc. If you're going to try stating that then I guess every time the US kills innocent people they also are targetting citizens. Mistakes and unwanted casulties do happen in war. The insurgents are also attacking groups they feel are against what they want or are cooperating with the US government, I'm trully failing to see your argument.

 

So my statement that freedom in iraq was not present is flawed?
Come to think of it...yes there where some oppurtunities for women in certain times under saddam but to a certain degree.

But was there freedom? No, and i don't think the other side going to be in power would go that way because this would mean a humilination for Bush that is always saying his little mantra to supply freedom and democracy to iraq!
So i think your assumption is more likely to be flawed honestly.

There are more iraqi citizens killed by insurgents then U.S. forces or iraqi police, there are about 24.000 iraqi citizens killed by insurgents.

So what the hell are they trying to accomplish? freedom for iraqi citizens?

No, i am not stating this, but yes iraqi citizens that where innocent where killed by U.S. forces but these things happen in wartime but the U.S. did a good job to prevent this from happening...

in contradiction with the insurgency that is the cause of the most innocent iraqi citizens killings simply because they don't give a fuck for their own people and that's why they are being counterproductive in their actions and future actions to come.

The killings by insurgents are no mistakes but planned actions in contradiction with U.S. miliary actions that had no intentions to kill iraqi civilians something that the insurgency does have.

 

Edz your point is fully flawed if you have even a clue about the history of Iraq and the people who live there.

Those are the people gaining power in Iraq not the other way around. Your statement is totally false, there is no way of trying to get around it. Have you even read the Iraq constitution? Although progress was made to make it a bit better for Iraqi woman compared to what the Shi'a wanted lets look at Article 2.

As far as the rest above I'm not even going to bother as it realy has no bearing on your statement being totally false. The only reason you've been adding items is because you can not dispute the original statement without saying the insurgents are bad in another form, which does not go to the core of the falsehood you stated.

 

I know enough about the history of iraqi people to say that they endured plenty of suppresion under the days of saddam in pre or post gulfwar period, period!!

So therefor lack of freedom, and as i said before that you where right on the point that at some point in time iraqi women had more priviliges then some other islamic countries.

So my point isn't totally flawed as you say because there was always suppresion and containment of freedom by saddam.

This quote you are quating goes for the people such as the insurgents and the former regime under saddam...keeping in mind that it's not entirely true as i said because like you said iraqi women did had some priviliges.

But for the most part it is true, about restricting people living a free live such us western countries.

The part from the constitution also claims that

so therefor more freedom as before would be the result.

This does cause reason for concern because it could be interpreted in many ways and could be restricting women in certain situations, so this would partially give you credit in your statement that the coming regime would be a danger for the establishment of freedom.

The ''rest'' as you refer to has no relevance with my socalled totally false statement, because i still stand by my point that the insurgency are for restricting people to have a life of freedom and joy.

And i have not been adding items whe where still discussing the same matter and that was why it would be counter productive?

Something you where defending from the insurgency's point of view by looking
at the statement...

and

and what in bold was...a partial quote of mine

The ones gaining power are for what was in bold as you said? and if the insurgency is like you said for the majority against this?

Why wouldn't you agree they are being counterproductive? what would they gain by blowing up people?

If you want freedom for your country then you aren't going to blow your own people up. And if you opposed to the coming people in power you also are not going to use violence because this is counterproductive.

If you think it's not counterproductive then please tell me because there must be something that convinces you that they are doing something productive otherwise you wouldn't be asking me why it would be counterproductive.

 

Wow I was going to respond to the above, but sorry trailing off and not seeing the difference and how what you stated was false still simply makes me not even want to attempt it. Please look at the history of the 2 groups before posting such statements.

 

Here is a question I would like to have answered:

Why are so many people offended when someone asks questions about Islam. Are we not allowed to? Can we not hold Islam to the same standards as any other religion? I swear, there is so much secrecy going on. Just like with the Church of Scientology. You get standard answers and a lot of avoidance. I think this thread is great btw (except a couple of the usual threadjacks ) and especially the first post expressed what's on many people's minds.

Mike

 

If they are actual questions I personally do not see any problem with it

 

Well, I am human and I do have opioninons ... and I do try to hide them hehe