Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haji 2003

Haji's Black Book

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Here's another one to add to the list:

Ayad Jamal Aldin, a Shia cleric, is the leader of the secular Ahrar party in Iraq (www.ahrarparty.com)

Comes up with the following:

So change may come, but in the meantime we have to deal with Iran as it is. Governments around the world have been preoccupied, quite naturally, with Iran's development of a nuclear capability. But there is a still greater danger. It lies in Iran gaining control of Iraqi oil and, with it, a region capable of destabilising not only the Middle East but also the world. The mullahs of Iran believe they can wield power over Iraq. If they are right, then the last American soldier to withdraw from Iraq will leave behind an Iranian colony, controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ayad-jamal-aldin-iran-the-truth-the-uk-cannot-admit-1855910.html

Some mullahs and Muslim politicians come up with statements that could have been written by Bush or Blair. This guy copies and pastes out of Netanyahu's speech book. His website is worth commenting on - will do so later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting…

Well, for what I have been able to gather from his website, a couple of articles and his Wikipedia page, the guy seems to have his mind in the right place.

While, in order to gain support and be heard internationally, he may be excused for making pronounced and unfounded statements about Iran such as those you quoted, [i.e; Iran building a nuclear bomb or wanting control of Iraqi oil], the crux of his argument does hold water. In the light of the Guardian’s recent revelations about Iranian interference in Iraq and due to Iran’s support for elements within Iraq, Ayad Jamal Aldin’s fears are not totally baseless.

Two things from his party’s manifesto will irk Iranian supporters. 1) His opposition to Iranian interference of any kind, 2) his idea of the separation of religion and state, i.e, secularism. But this, inter alia, is exactly what Iraq needs at the minimum.

On Iraqi secularism:

He is on record saying that he does not want a secular state in order to reduce the role of God in people's lives; he wants to liberate religion from the state. He wants to see an end to the political sectarianism that puts Kurd against Shia and Turkmen against Sunni… Weblink

On Iranian influence:

Under the current government, Iraq has become a hotbed for interference from neighboring countries. We have seen Iran interfere in our country again and again – supplying militias, violent factions and terrorists with weapons, logistical support, financing and even media. And many Iraqi politicians are happy to turn a blind eye to this influence or even help cover it up for their own benefit. Weblink

From Bro Haji’s link:

Behind Iraqi government rhetoric is a reality of increasing Iranian influence. Mr Maliki's Dawa party is a party created in Iran. Its senior members will never forget the loyalty they owe that state, which gave them sanctuary in the days of Saddam Hussein. The Prime Minister cannot take a stand against Iran because his party has been manufactured by the Iranians and financed by Tehran. They are linked intellectually, religiously, and ideologically.

And this:

We do not want a war with Iran – we have already seen the devastation of the Iraq-Iranian war. We must have a balanced relationship with mutual respect, but we will not get there without a united Iraqi people who refuse to accept foreign influence in our country. Weblink

Just because a shia mullah doesn’t share the Iranian ideal of an Islamic government and wants to put an end to Iranian interference of all sorts doesn’t mean he should be listed in ‘black book’ of mullahs.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff:

Main points:

1) A secular Iraq will protect the rights and freedoms of all religious groups including Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Sabians, Yazidi.

2) There is no pride in Arab/Muslim history.

3) Dhimmis [the protected religious minorities] were oppressed and humiliated during the so called glorious age of Islam.

4) There is no popular resistance against US occupation in Iraq. There are terrorists [ba’athists and non-Iraqi elements] in the guise of patriots.

5) Arabs governments fear a free and democratic Iraq because it is a threat to their dictatorial rule.

6) Terrorism among Muslims isn’t due to Arab-Israeli conflict or war in Iraq. It is due to the culture of hatred and violence which has been breeding among Muslims.

And the best of all:

7) We Muslims should put our own house in order before blaming the West for our troubles. [my phrasing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P3zcjriPnM&feature=related

-------------------------

1) How Israel despite being constantly at war with its neighbours is able to establish democracy while Arabs states have failed?

3) Arab people accept backward and tyrannical dictatorships in their countries. There is no real demand of democracy from the public [bingo!]

4) Thanks to America for helping Iraqis rid Saddam.

5) There is no clash between US and Iraqi interests post-Saddam. They are not here to steal our resources. “Since when our resources were ours before invasion”, he asks.

6) There is no Islam but interpretations of Islam. Some people’s interpretations are bloodthirsty. Other’s are civilised and human.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another video presenting Ayad's views on Iran:

1) Iran does not protect the interests of Shia or Islam. Iran protects its own interests.

2) Iraq must put its interests above Iran.

3) Iran uses the name of Islam, Shia, Palestine etc for their own interests.

4) Iran’s media is playing a role in creating confusion and despair among Iraqis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ru_-AYT5k&feature=related

--------

Fascinating discussion in the following video. Ayad philosophically discusses the historical and contemporary usage of the term "Islamic", "Muslim" and "secular" and explains why, as a person, he is neither Islamic nor secular. He further explains how the term "Islamic" has been hijacked by Muslim political movements post WWII.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMpa1d1WMBk&feature=related

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can say a lot, because he willl never be in power. Anyone who is going to be at the helm of the Iraqi government will have to deal with Iran, so they will not be at liberty to express such opinions openly. However, those who have no chance at such a position, will capitalise on this to maximimse whatver minority of seats their bloc can win.

The Prime Minister cannot take a stand against Iran because his party has been manufactured by the Iranians and financed by Tehran

As if he could have done better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Brilliant man :wub:

"If you are hearing that Iraqi homes have the picture of ayatollah Khomenei in it.. fa hatha KITHB," that was just funny.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can say a lot, because he willl never be in power.

The only positive thing I can see about this guy is that he's obviously taken a lot of dollars off an American foundation somewhere and is spinning whatever line they give him. He won't win, but at least a Bro will have some money.

There are a few giveaways I am afraid, as to where his manifesto is coming from. I'll focus on one, for the time being. From Marbles' post:

3) Dhimmis [the protected religious minorities] were oppressed and humiliated during the so called glorious age of Islam.

Before the 2003 invasion when the neo-cons were trying to whip up Islamophobia to make it easier to justify attacking Iraq, I suddenly found comments in newspapers, blogs etc. all referring to the dhimmi concept (which had hardly ever been mentioned in any newspaper etc. before). A number of these references would give this link:

www.dhimmitude.org/

It was set up by a Jewish woman and the idea was to tell non-Muslims that, because all non-Muslims were seen as second-class citizens, this made Muslims the enemy of everyone else. The irony is of course that because Islam places transparent rights and obligations on Muslim and non-Muslims, this reduced the extent to which these countries would have cycles of Jews becoming very wealthy and then suffering pogroms. The latter, of course, was the reason for eastern European Jewish migration into Palestine in the 19th century.

Anyway the dhimmi issue that was really important to the neo-cons people and obviously a stick to beat Muslims with, but it had never previously been an issue in the West and I daresay in the range of priorities that Iraqis have about their country it does not make it into the top 100.

But it does illustrate how the person paying the piper is calling the tune.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out the FB group linked on his website. Half the fans on there seem to be MKO. If you're going to judge a man by his friends....

himmitude.org/

It was set up by a Jewish woman and the idea was to tell non-Muslims that, because all non-Muslims were seen as second-class citizens, this made Muslims the enemy of everyone else. The irony is of course that because Islam places transparent rights and obligations on Muslim and non-Muslims, this reduced the extent to which these countries would have cycles of Jews becoming very wealthy and then suffering pogroms. The latter, of course, was the reason for eastern European Jewish migration into Palestine in the 19th century.

I don't think it would have happened anyway., True that the Jews have always had it bad at some point or another, but the Ashkenazis had a different historical development than the Middle Eastern Jews. It should be remembered that part of the reason the Jews got so wealthy in the West is because they were the prime money lenders, which wasn't the case in the Islamic empire since interest was forbidden for everyone. The history of Jews in the Middle East is quite distinct from the Ashkenazi history. Apart from not lending money, they also did't have the social pressures that pushed them to be smarter than everyone else. Thus they were never major achievers in the Islamic countries. They are simply a different people. Even today in Israel, the non-Ashkenazis complain of discrimination at the hands of the Ashkenazis.

In anycase, this guy isn't going anywhere. He is a secular with a turban - thus no-ones cup of tea. Mithal al Alousi- a secular Sunni who seems to make regular trips to Zionistan to tell them what they wnt to hear - has more political clout, and even he doesn't have much.

I'm all for Iraq taking a tough stance with Iran, it needs to happen, but I would much rather it were someone with credibility than some two-bit two-face tramp like Agha Ayad and his merry band of munafiqoon kooni boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the mad Mullah says:

7) We Muslims should put our own house in order before blaming the West for our troubles. [my phrasing]

4) Thanks to America for helping Iraqis rid Saddam.

John Pilger says the following about sanctions against Iraq:

The sanctions, UN authorised but imposed by Washington and Whitehall, include a ban on baby food, bandages, stethoscopes, school books, toys and shrouds for the dead. Jane Howarth says the oil-for-food deal, which is supposed to allow some humanitarian supplies from the proceeds of limited oil sales, is a sham. "Because the infrastructure is so damaged and the bombing goes on," she said, "Iraq isn't able to pump enough oil even to match the amount it is allowed to sell. There is what is known as the 661 Committee that oversees oil-for-food, and I have watched the deliberate delays. I have known antibiotics to be held up for so long they passed their use-by dates. It took three years to have a ban on contraceptives lifted. There are no mammograms because X-ray film is banned, and pap smears are out of the question."

By any standards of civilised behaviour, those who perpetuate this state of affairs are guilty of what will be seen, I have no doubt, as one of the great and enduring crimes of the late 20th century. The official apologists will not be forgotten.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=319

We are not talking about some cheap debating points here. Iraq suffered extreme planned genocide at the hands of the U.S. Iran can deal with the cheap shots directed towards it, but Muslims who ignore the atrocities against innocent children shall Inshallah be accountable on the Day of Judgement.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

The only positive thing I can see about this guy is that he's obviously taken a lot of dollars off an American foundation somewhere and is spinning whatever line they give him. He won't win, but at least a Bro will have some money.

There are a few giveaways I am afraid, as to where his manifesto is coming from. I'll focus on one, for the time being. From Marbles' post:

Before the 2003 invasion when the neo-cons were trying to whip up Islamophobia to make it easier to justify attacking Iraq, I suddenly found comments in newspapers, blogs etc. all referring to the dhimmi concept (which had hardly ever been mentioned in any newspaper etc. before). A number of these references would give this link:

www.dhimmitude.org/

It was set up by a Jewish woman and the idea was to tell non-Muslims that, because all non-Muslims were seen as second-class citizens, this made Muslims the enemy of everyone else. The irony is of course that because Islam places transparent rights and obligations on Muslim and non-Muslims, this reduced the extent to which these countries would have cycles of Jews becoming very wealthy and then suffering pogroms. The latter, of course, was the reason for eastern European Jewish migration into Palestine in the 19th century.

Anyway the dhimmi issue that was really important to the neo-cons people and obviously a stick to beat Muslims with, but it had never previously been an issue in the West and I daresay in the range of priorities that Iraqis have about their country it does not make it into the top 100.

But it does illustrate how the person paying the piper is calling the tune.

I think it is really amusing that you think he, of all people, is the one that needs to be called out for getting paid. Maybe there are just certain people you would rather be paying him? All of this indignant outrage when Iran isn't the one filling his wallet :angel:

He isn't going to get anywhere because (as dirac mentioned) no one wants a secular in a turban, so he isn't really appealing to anyone right now except me.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one to add to the list:

Ayad Jamal Aldin, a Shia cleric, is the leader of the secular Ahrar party in Iraq (www.ahrarparty.com)

Comes up with the following:

So change may come, but in the meantime we have to deal with Iran as it is. Governments around the world have been preoccupied, quite naturally, with Iran's development of a nuclear capability. But there is a still greater danger. It lies in Iran gaining control of Iraqi oil and, with it, a region capable of destabilising not only the Middle East but also the world. The mullahs of Iran believe they can wield power over Iraq. If they are right, then the last American soldier to withdraw from Iraq will leave behind an Iranian colony, controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ayad-jamal-aldin-iran-the-truth-the-uk-cannot-admit-1855910.html

Some mullahs and Muslim politicians come up with statements that could have been written by Bush or Blair. This guy copies and pastes out of Netanyahu's speech book. His website is worth commenting on - will do so later.

You shouldn't take this guy that serious... MEMRI often publishes his interviews with alarabiya, aljazeera and some baathist networks in exile. He hates 'everyone'. He dislikes Ay. Sistani's position, he can not get along with Hakims, he hates Sadrists. In most of his clips I saw, he never blames or mentions alqaida or baathist or foreign countries involved in Iraq's troubles... once he defended Alqaida, answering to a question he said, "the assassination plots against his life was not planned by alqaida but Shias in the south...."

We have this kind of Shias everywhere who thinks by going too extremely against his own people and his own 'madhab' he might gain some respect and credit amongst Sunnis and Western agencies..which he is mistaken..

memribyforce.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

So the mad Mullah says:

7) We Muslims should put our own house in order before blaming the West for our troubles. [my phrasing]

4) Thanks to America for helping Iraqis rid Saddam.

John Pilger says the following about sanctions against Iraq:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=319

We are not talking about some cheap debating points here. Iraq suffered extreme planned genocide at the hands of the U.S. Iran can deal with the cheap shots directed towards it, but Muslims who ignore the atrocities against innocent children shall Inshallah be accountable on the Day of Judgement.

Can we stop exploiting the children of Iraq for petty political points? Please? Some of us know the implications of those sanctions on our families, some of us have lived it directly or indirectly, and we would appreciate it if the "children of Iraq" card is not played when it makes no sense in that context. How does him saying that we should sort our own affairs instead of crying foul = ignoring those atrocities? America, Iran, etc, they all have one thing in common- their exploitation of Iraq and their ability to bring the children of Iraq into the picture when anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence knows that none of them really care. We need to take control of Iraq because no one else will do so without extracting every last benefit and resource for themselves first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You shouldn't take this guy that serious... MEMRI often publishes his interviews with alarabiya, aljazeera and some baathist networks in exile. He hates 'everyone'. He dislikes Ay. Sistani's position, he can not get along with Hakims, he hates Sadrists. In most of his clips I saw, he never blames or mentions alqaida or baathist or foreign countries involved in Iraq's troubles...

You're right, but one group that he clearly doesn't hate is the MKO. This is from an interview with Al-Arabiya in 2008:

åäÇß ãÌãæÚÉ ãä ÇáäÇÓ íÓãæä ãÌÇåÏí ÎáÞ Ýí ÇáÚÑÇÞ åÄáÇÁ ÖÏ ÇáäÙÇã ÇáÎãíäí ÇáÍÇßã Ýí ÅíÑÇä¡ æåÄáÇÁ ßÇäæÇ ÖíæÝ ÚäÏ ÕÏÇã ÍÓíä æãÇ ÒÇáæÇ ãæÌæÏíä Ýí ÇáÚÑÇÞ æÝÞ ÞæÇäíä ÇáÃãã ÇáãÊÍÏÉ áÇ íÓÊØíÚ ÃÍÏ Ãä íÎÑÌåã¡ åäÇáß ÍãáÇÊ ÊõÔä ÖÏåã åÐå ÇáÍãáÇÊ åá åí áÕÇáÍ ÇáÚÑÇÞ Ãã åí ÏÝÇÚÇð Úä ãÕÇáÍ ÅíÑÇä Ýí ÇáÚÑÇÞ¿ Úáì ÇáäÇÓ Ãä íÓÃáæÇ ÃäÝÓåã Ðáß.

There is this group of people in Iraq known as Mujahiji Khalq (MKO). These people are against the ruling Khomeini regime in Iran. They were Saddam Hussain's guests, and remain in Iraq today. In accordance with the United Nations laws no one is allowed to force them to leave. There are different attempts against them from different groups, and we have to ask ourselves, are there for the benefit of Iraq, or are they defending Iranian interests?

It gets worse:

ÇáãÓÊæì ÇáËÇäí íÌÈ Ãä äÓãÍ áåÄáÇÁ ÈÃä íãÇÑÓæÇ ÇáÚãá ÇáÓíÇÓí æÇáÅÚáÇãí ÇáÓáãí ÖÏ ÅíÑÇä ÈÇÚÊÈÇÑåã äÇÓ ÅíÑÇäííä ãÚÇÑÖíä ááäÙÇã Ãä ÊÚØì áåã ÅÐÇÚÉ ÊáÝÒíæä¡ ÕÍÇÝÉ¡ íÊÍÑßæÇ ßãÇ íÔÇÄæÇ¡ åÐå ÍÞæÞ ßá ÇááÇÌÆíä Ýí ÇáÚÇáã áÇ Ãä íÍÇÑÈæÇ áÃäå áíÓ ãä æÓíáÉ áÕÏ ÇáäÝæÐ ÇáÅíÑÇäí Ýí ÇáÚÑÇÞ ÅáÇ åÐå ÇáÝÆÉ ÃÈÏÇð.

The first thing is that we have to protect our dignity and the dignity of Iraq. The second is that these people (MKO) should be allowed to carry out peaceful political and media activities against Iran, as they are Iranian people who are against the regime. They should be given a Television channel, a newspaper, and be able to move as they please. These are rights for all refugees around the world, and they should not be fought as there is no other way to curb Iranian influence in Iraq except through this group.

http://www.alarabiya.net/programs/2009/06/28/77221.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Bro, it is not up to this guy what to do with MKO terrorists.. many ex-Baathists also demand to safe MKO camps and use them against Iran...But, Kurds who heavily suffered in the hands of MKO's tanks and ambushes will never forget those times... And most importantly the Iraqi government... it is up to the government.. MKO is not an Iranian enemy only..it is a Marxist-terrorist cult who wants to destroy "Shia Jahfariya" beliefs and history not only in Iran but across the world....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Iran does not protect the interests of Shia or Islam. Iran protects its own interests.

Ok. Iran protects its own interests, but does that hurt Shia's or Islam's interests? Are they in conflict? 98% of Iran is Muslim and 89% is Shia...1/5 of world's Shia population is in Iran..Khomaini's Iran was the reason for many oppressed Shias around the world to be able to 'gain their rights', fight for their rights and protect their lands. And the big question: When Iran protects its own interests, DOES IT HURT Iraqis or Palestinians or Lebanese?

2) Iraq must put its interests above Iran.

Who is saying that "Iraq is not allowed to put its own interests above Iran"? Can you name any Iraqi or Iranian politician or bring any proof on the ground whoever did this? Why this statement is ever made anyways? But, if Iran and Iraq's interests are identical, why to not help Iran's interests where it will also helps Iraqi interests? Instead it is expected to help Israeli interests or Saudi interests or etc?

3) Iran uses the name of Islam, Shia, Palestine etc for their own interests.

Again, this is nonsense. Lets assume it is true..he is right and that is the case. What is so wrong about it? Iran is uses the name Islam, Shia, Palestine for its own interests, and such interest also helps Lebanese and Palestinian to fight for their rights... The mess and the war were already there, imposed on Palestine, on Lebanon and elsewhere... now it suits Iranian interests and Iran comes forward to get along with others to pursuit its interests. By doing that, it benefits not only Iranians, but also the people of Lebanon and Palestine, then let it be...

If Iran were going to help Israel using the name of Shia or Islam for its own interests, then that will be different and we could say that..... As Egypt and Saudis are doing now,,,they are using the term 'peace' for their own interests, to safe their own kingdoms... But, their interests come in conflict with the interests of those living in Lebanon and Palestine...

Marbles, it is an easy math! Why to make things so complicated as you think or as this guy believes? The question is not how Iran is going against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis interests........

There are only two possibilities:

I. Iran is helping those countries voluntarily for the sake of Islam

II. Iran is helping them to protect its own interests

In both cases, it is Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis or others to benefit.

4) Iran’s media is playing a role in creating confusion and despair among Iraqis.

To benefit who? In weakening a Shia/Kurdish government? This is the only government in Iraq who is friendly toward Iran in decades...

Plus, we focus too much on media propaganda, unseen things, hidden agendas that we already forgot close to 1 million death and wounded? Iraq's destruction? All those caused by Saudi Wahabis, Baathists and alqaida?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the 2003 invasion when the neo-cons were trying to whip up Islamophobia to make it easier to justify attacking Iraq, I suddenly found comments in newspapers, blogs etc. all referring to the dhimmi concept (which had hardly ever been mentioned in any newspaper etc. before). A number of these references would give this link:

www.dhimmitude.org/

It was set up by a Jewish woman and the idea was to tell non-Muslims that, because all non-Muslims were seen as second-class citizens, this made Muslims the enemy of everyone else. The irony is of course that because Islam places transparent rights and obligations on Muslim and non-Muslims, this reduced the extent to which these countries would have cycles of Jews becoming very wealthy and then suffering pogroms. The latter, of course, was the reason for eastern European Jewish migration into Palestine in the 19th century.

Anyway the dhimmi issue that was really important to the neo-cons people and obviously a stick to beat Muslims with, but it had never previously been an issue in the West and I daresay in the range of priorities that Iraqis have about their country it does not make it into the top 100.

But it does illustrate how the person paying the piper is calling the tune.

Forget what Bat Ye’or tells you about dhimmis and let’s look at it this way.

Non-Muslim minorities are officially discriminated on the basis of their religious beliefs, for better or for worse, depending on your point of view, in countries where any form of so called “Islamic governance” is implemented. The obvious examples are Iran, Saudia, pre-invasion Afghanistan and even Pakistan. Some minorities like Bahais are not even recognised in Iran let alone ‘protected’, not to mention the fate of Ahmadis in Pakistan. We know pretty well what happened with Buddhist, Sikh and Shia minorities in once “Islamic” Afghanistan. And that is only about official status of minorities in those countries, not about unofficial discrimination at societal level which runs far deeper against particular minorities in some countries.

The funny thing is that Wahhabi groups in Pakistan have demanded that Shias should be declared a non-Muslim minority, i.e; dhimmis, just like the state officially declared Ahmadis a non-Muslim minority back in the 70s.

There is a debate going on about the political philosophy Iraq will eventually follow. Is Iraq going to be a secular state just like Turkey or a follow an Iranian style theo-democratic model of governance? Or will it be quasi-Islamic, such as, creating a nominally Islamic constitution with Islam as official religion and a council of ulema from all sects who would provide non-binding advice on matters important? – something like we have in Pakistan and Egypt?

In the light of the above questions, it is not surprising that non-Muslims as well as Muslims who do not entertain the idea of restricting the rights and obligations of non-Muslim minorities in a Muslim majority country are going to speak about it whenever they get an opportunity. It, by no stretch of imagination, means that “the person paying the piper is calling the tune”, or I would go unpaid.

The thing is that your idea of equality and justice is selective. Ayad and ilk are advocating the same for everyone.

This issue might not be among top 100 problems of Iraq but it is an issue nonetheless. And what do you good bro? You invoke people like Bat Ye’or and make it sound as if it a non-issue.

The Prime Minister cannot take a stand against Iran because his party has been manufactured by the Iranians and financed by Tehran

As if he could have done better.

Why not?

Can we stop exploiting the children of Iraq for petty political points? Please? Some of us know the implications of those sanctions on our families, some of us have lived it directly or indirectly, and we would appreciate it if the "children of Iraq" card is not played when it makes no sense in that context. How does him saying that we should sort our own affairs instead of crying foul = ignoring those atrocities? America, Iran, etc, they all have one thing in common- their exploitation of Iraq and their ability to bring the children of Iraq into the picture when anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence knows that none of them really care. We need to take control of Iraq because no one else will do so without extracting every last benefit and resource for themselves first.

I was also wondering the same. :unsure:

He isn't going to get anywhere because (as dirac mentioned) no one wants a secular in a turban, so he isn't really appealing to anyone right now except me.

I think we need more people like him. It counters the commonly held [and profoundly flawed] belief that secularism must necessarily equal irreligiousness.

A secular turban is a valuable asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you or could you please elaborate on this one?

Yeah sure.

You couldn't miss that. LOOK UP

Watch the video report.

Guardian is not a Murdoch owned right wing paper just in case. . .

1) Iran does not protect the interests of Shia or Islam. Iran protects its own interests.

Ok. Iran protects its own interests, but does that hurt Shia's or Islam's interests? Are they in conflict? 98% of Iran is Muslim and 89% is Shia...1/5 of world's Shia population is in Iran..Khomaini's Iran was the reason for many oppressed Shias around the world to be able to 'gain their rights', fight for their rights and protect their lands. And the big question: When Iran protects its own interests, DOES IT HURT Iraqis or Palestinians or Lebanese?

2) Iraq must put its interests above Iran.

Who is saying that "Iraq is not allowed to put its own interests above Iran"? Can you name any Iraqi or Iranian politician or bring any proof on the ground whoever did this? Why this statement is ever made anyways? But, if Iran and Iraq's interests are identical, why to not help Iran's interests where it will also helps Iraqi interests? Instead it is expected to help Israeli interests or Saudi interests or etc?

3) Iran uses the name of Islam, Shia, Palestine etc for their own interests.

Again, this is nonsense. Lets assume it is true..he is right and that is the case. What is so wrong about it? Iran is uses the name Islam, Shia, Palestine for its own interests, and such interest also helps Lebanese and Palestinian to fight for their rights... The mess and the war were already there, imposed on Palestine, on Lebanon and elsewhere... now it suits Iranian interests and Iran comes forward to get along with others to pursuit its interests. By doing that, it benefits not only Iranians, but also the people of Lebanon and Palestine, then let it be...

If Iran were going to help Israel using the name of Shia or Islam for its own interests, then that will be different and we could say that..... As Egypt and Saudis are doing now,,,they are using the term 'peace' for their own interests, to safe their own kingdoms... But, their interests come in conflict with the interests of those living in Lebanon and Palestine...

Marbles, it is an easy math! Why to make things so complicated as you think or as this guy believes? The question is not how Iran is going against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis interests........

There are only two possibilities:

I. Iran is helping those countries voluntarily for the sake of Islam

II. Iran is helping them to protect its own interests

In both cases, it is Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis or others to benefit.

4) Iran’s media is playing a role in creating confusion and despair among Iraqis.

To benefit who? In weakening a Shia/Kurdish government? This is the only government in Iraq who is friendly toward Iran in decades...

Plus, we focus too much on media propaganda, unseen things, hidden agendas that we already forgot close to 1 million death and wounded? Iraq's destruction? All those caused by Saudi Wahabis, Baathists and alqaida?

Maybe you should put this in an e-mail and send it to Ayad's office. I made those nuggets out of his Youtube vid. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sure.

You couldn't miss that. LOOK UP

Watch the video report.

Guardian is not a Murdoch owned right wing paper just in case. . .

It was rejected by all 3 countries, UK, Iraq and Iran. Your Guardian was thinking in creating a topic of propaganda for its government, but the government did not find it usable at the time and rejected their offers. ;- )

1. Iraq: But Mr al-Askari, who is a member of the Iraqi parliament and adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, told the BBC that Iran had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that he had never flown to Iran. BBC

2. British Spokesman: A spokesman added: "Iran of course has an influence in Iraq, but we have no evidence to substantiate claims of direct involvement in this case." BBC

Maybe you should put this in an e-mail and send it to Ayad's office. I made those nuggets out of his Youtube vid. :D

Well, there is no question that you spread the same rumors. With much of interests you spent lots of your time, posted the texts in bold... now you have nothing to do with it? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rejected by all 3 countries, UK, Iraq and Iran. Your Guardian was thinking in creating a topic of propaganda for its government, but the government did not find it usable at the time and rejected their offers. ;- )

1. Iraq: But Mr al-Askari, who is a member of the Iraqi parliament and adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, told the BBC that Iran had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that he had never flown to Iran. BBC

2. British Spokesman: A spokesman added: "Iran of course has an influence in Iraq, but we have no evidence to substantiate claims of direct involvement in this case." BBC

It was stupid to expect any of the governments to admit it. Both Iran and Iraq could not admit it for obvious reasons. As for the UK, they would have shot themselves on the foot if they admitted it. It would have exposed their lack of efforts to secure the release of hostages.

It would put the lives of the hostages in extreme danger If UK broke the news of them being kept in Iran before they were released. I'm assuming that Brits knew that the hostages were kept in Iran.

Well, there is no question that you spread the same rumors. With much of interests you spent lots of your time, posted the texts in bold... now you have nothing to do with it? :D

Of course not with each and everything out of those vids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro Haji, you'd like this vid.

Two things from his party's manifesto will irk Iranian supporters. 1) His opposition to Iranian interference of any kind, 2) his idea of the separation of religion and state, i.e, secularism. But this, inter alia, is exactly what Iraq needs at the minimum.

Iraq doesn't need it. Nor does this concur to God's principles. Once you introduce such corrupt ideas into a society, you have a failed entity. Any Mullah that propagates such beliefs is a hypocrit, whether he knows it or not, because the Prophet, in fact all of them, would not, and have never preached the separation of Church and State. It's a Western Idea borne out of the French Revolution, it's irreligious and wrong. And, if any human truly believed in the teachings of the Bibles or the Qur'an, cannot believe in such corrupt statements as the ones you just made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was stupid to expect any of the governments to admit it. Both Iran and Iraq could not admit it for obvious reasons. As for the UK, they would have shot themselves on the foot if they admitted it. It would have exposed their lack of efforts to secure the release of hostages.

It would put the lives of the hostages in extreme danger If UK broke the news of them being kept in Iran before they were released. I'm assuming that Brits knew that the hostages were kept in Iran.

I guess you don't have much of a clue about this case....Guardian made the news after the only hostage, Mr. Moorr was released...and British response was to the Guardian a few days later....

"BAGHDAD (AP) - A British contractor was freed Wednesday and in good health more than two years after he was abducted, apparently the only survivor of a group of five Britons abducted in a daring raid outside Iraq's Finance Ministry in 2007." Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq doesn't need it. Nor does this concur to God's principles. Once you introduce such corrupt ideas into a society, you have a failed entity. Any Mullah that propagates such beliefs is a hypocrit, whether he knows it or not, because the Prophet, in fact all of them, would not, and have never preached the separation of Church and State. It's a Western Idea borne out of the French Revolution, it's irreligious and wrong. And, if any human truly believed in the teachings of the Bibles or the Qur'an, cannot believe in such corrupt statements as the ones you just made.

That is the problem with Muslims self-diagnosed. Thank you.

You would be able to see it only when you stop looking at the separation of 'Church' and State through the prism of Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Any form of involvement of religion into the mattes of the state in Iraq is a recipe for disaster. It will bury the Iraq we know in the annals of history.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you don't have much of a clue about this case....Guardian made the news after the only hostage, Mr. Moorr was released...and British response was to the Guardian a few days later....

"BAGHDAD (AP) - A British contractor was freed Wednesday and in good health more than two years after he was abducted, apparently the only survivor of a group of five Britons abducted in a daring raid outside Iraq's Finance Ministry in 2007." Fox

Please read my post again and see what I have said. Are you claiming that Guardian's report loses credibility because it was published after the last hostage was released?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will bury the Iraq we know in the annals of history.

Its history isn't that long. 100 years in a 3000+ year history is minuscule.

World map in the early 1800's http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/blackwood-and-sons_keith-johnsons-physical-school-atlas_1852_natural-history-world-ethnographic-map_3029_2348_600.jpg

World map in the early 1900's http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/world_1910.jpg

I don't see no Iraq. The 'Iraq' you speak of is a Western Colonial Imperial theoretical prism for which you are psychologically bound by. The current system of National Statehood is phoney. The Qur'an (Gods words) distinctly prescribes it as a system that works against the purpose of the creation of nations.

Your preachings are corruptive and anti-Islamic to the core. I would have a deep think and reflect as to why you are the way you are. Using corrupt Mullahs that you've come across in your life isn't an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your preachings are corruptive and anti-Islamic to the core. I would have a deep think and reflect as to why you are the way you are. Using corrupt Mullahs that you've come across in your life isn't an excuse.

Bro

I made a comment in another thread and I'll say something similar here.

There is a class of Pakistanis who believe that life before 1979 was in some ways better than after 1979. For these people it is not just an issue of one/two corrupt mullahs, rather the whole issue of Shi'ism as a political identity. There are a number of facets to their perception of the problem. Not only were Shi'is in Pakistan suddenly seen as potential 5th columnists for Iran, but also this development in their opinion gave rise to a more aggressive form of Sunni/Wahhabism, as a reaction to what had happened in Iran.

There is a personal dimension to this dissatisfaction with the Revolution. If you look at Marbles' references to English literature and a previous statement of interests referring to 'a book of poetry(?), a flask of wine and thou', he clearly sees himself as a debonair, man about town. For such people, especially amongst the Pakistani upper/middle classes, the Revolution was a significant problem because it threw into sharp contrast the lifestyle they had become accustomed to and its incompatibility with Islam. I was very young before 1979 and in the UK, but even here the notion of Shi'ism was only something that made itself evident in Muharram. The rest of the time I can remember uncles going to Asian recitals, concerts etc. with Sunni friends, male and female.

There is therefore a yearning for a more secular lifestyle and social/political/economic system, one where at a personal level the differences between Jew, Christian, Shia and Wahhabi are blurred. It may seem superficially attractive, but I think therein lies the path to being dominated by outside powers and cultures and the people who are proposing this know this full well.

I am writing this, having lived in England all my life and having seen English religion, institutions and culture steadily eroded and the people who have done this have the same plans for Islam and Muslims and their countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ thanks for the informative post bro.

May Allah (swt) guide such people. And if they refuse such guidance, well they'll have to face Him (swt) on a day where none shall come to their rescue.

And may you be given greater knowledge, strength and steadfastness, ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

^ It is sad that administrators on this site applaud slander and are offering up their prayers for those who have the audacity to suggest Iraq should be a religious country with a secular government. Religion will keep the government honest and bring about the best in society through their collective mores and this gradual development of strong mores will ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Religion will never leave Iraq, it will always be part of their social state because it is as essential to the Iraqi people as the two rivers or any other part of their identity. The social state will always be the cause of most laws, and laws will always be rooted in religion. The religions of the Iraqi people (which have so much in common) give them a strong sense of absolute moral truth, while politics will always be up for debate. Political power is fleeting; it is best for religion to remain independent of politics if it wants to be lasting.

Religion in the Iraqi government? Corruption. If you want to issue fatwas about what is corrupt and why the reasoning behind Marbles skepticism and the skepticism of many Iraqis boils down to a wealthy middle class man who wants to go to the cinema with female friends and drink a flask of wine (Haji, do us all a favor and open a book once in a while) so be it, but it is all the same old talking points that have done nothing for the people of Iraq.

You guys talk about how the West has exploited Iraq? How the West has them shackled and chained? You are preaching their ruin in the name of God himself. May Allah protect Iraq from you and your ilk.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its history isn't that long. 100 years in a 3000+ year history is minuscule.

World map in the early 1800's http://www.hipkiss.org/data/maps/blackwood-and-sons_keith-johnsons-physical-school-atlas_1852_natural-history-world-ethnographic-map_3029_2348_600.jpg

World map in the early 1900's http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/world_1910.jpg

I don't see no Iraq. The 'Iraq' you speak of is a Western Colonial Imperial theoretical prism for which you are psychologically bound by. The current system of National Statehood is phoney.

The problem with Muslims today self-diagnosed part 2, [:D] that is, we live in history and fail to recognise the needs and challenges of the modern times. You show me the map of ME from 1800s and ask in 2010 where Iraq is? WOW. Is it so hard to come to accept that Ottoman Empire is no more and Iraq is no longer a province?

Stop whining about colonial map drawings. ME has come a long way after WW1 and every nation-state has developed its idiosyncratic character. Iraq today is a nation-state inhabited by a mix of Shia, Sunni and ethnic Kurds. It’s problems directly come from it’s immediate past not what happened in 1850s. Modern problems require modern solutions; they can’t come from the yore.

Your preachings are corruptive and anti-Islamic to the core.

Terms like ‘corruption’ and ‘anti-Islamic’ are meaningless if you can’t define them, which, of course, you can not.

Anyway, this is yet another judgmental fatwa; something I have become quite accustomed to; the hallmark of the likes of you, with due respect.

I would have a deep think and reflect as to why you are the way you are.

I have done my reflections and I have converted from a staunch pro-Iran/WF to a secular democrat. But you have all the work ahead of you. Good luck.

Before it gets anymore personal, let us revert to Bro Haji’s “bad mullahs.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a class of Pakistanis who believe that life before 1979 was in some ways better than after 1979. For these people it is not just an issue of one/two corrupt mullahs, rather the whole issue of Shi'ism as a political identity. There are a number of facets to their perception of the problem. Not only were Shi'is in Pakistan suddenly seen as potential 5th columnists for Iran, but also this development in their opinion gave rise to a more aggressive form of Sunni/Wahhabism, as a reaction to what had happened in Iran.

I’m sorry but you have painted a factually inaccurate picture of Pakistani Shia’s position vis-à-vis Iran.

I am thinking of the class of Pakistani Shia to which you alluded in your post but I failed to find any. Except malang types who turned against WF and Iranian system of governance due to what they perceive an official attempt by political mullahs to undermine the tradition of azadari, there is no organised opposition against Iran fit to be called a “class”, rooted either in theology or secularism. In fact, Iran has a large support base in Pakistan in the form of many organisations/groups/charities/monthlies who work as megaphones for the regime, often unpaid and unthanked.

The reception of post-revolution Iran among Pakistani Shia has been positive. There is a group which is ideologically loyal to WF and the system in place [this group is for you, Haji]. The other group, which I think is in the majority, views the system favourably in general even if they don’t agree with the WF at the ideological level or have reservations about the qualifications and suitability of the Leader(s). They mostly emulate maraji from Iraq. But these people are still “in”. They quite rightly believe that Iran today is in many ways better than it was prior to Revolution. These are the only two broad groups worth mentioning.

You can put the rest in a third group, Shia who do not bother either due to lack of concern or knowledge or who are rare secularists. But these are individuals with no organised movement against Iran to be labelled a “class.”

Iranian political matters do not concern Pakistanis simply because Iran is not involved in Pakistan at political or social level [and vice versa], as it is involved in Iraq. Also, Pakistan is not one of the centres of Shi’ism, unlike Iraq which can give an alternative view on things. So I am wondering where your anti-Iran Pakistani fifth columnists come from?

There is a personal dimension to this dissatisfaction with the Revolution. If you look at Marbles' references to English literature and a previous statement of interests referring to 'a book of poetry(?), a flask of wine and thou', he clearly sees himself as a debonair, man about town.

You come out as a lot less sophisticated than I originally thought every time I read a post of yours. Odd days I guess.

The reference to the line of poetry which you have already brought up at least twice on these forums is slanderous. It doesn’t suit you. By the way, it is to remind you that the line you quoted comes from Persian literature not English. It’s an English translation of a Persian poem.

For such people, especially amongst the Pakistani Iranian upper/middle classes, the Revolution was a significant problem because it threw into sharp contrast the lifestyle they had become accustomed to and its incompatibility with Islam.

This comment only makes sense after the correction. Yes, there are quite a few people like that, many of them living in self-imposed or forced exile. But this does not apply to Pakistani Shia because what happened in Iran didn't change anything for them on a personal level. They follow the same lifestyles they did prior to the Revolution. If people changed, they changed out of their own choice.

There is therefore a yearning for a more secular lifestyle and social/political/economic system,. . .

It is important to have an agreed upon understanding of concepts in order to build an argument further. I don’t think we have that here but I will nonetheless bring it on record.

“Secular” is not an antonym of “religious.” Individual lifestyles cannot be termed as “secular”. Individual lifestyles sit on the continuum of “religious-irreligious” with each individual practicing a unique lifestyle according to his/her will, understanding and ability. “Secular” is a concept that is only suitable for non-living entity such as a political system.

but I think therein lies the path to being dominated by outside powers and cultures and the people who are proposing this know this full well.

This is just refusing to accept the benefits secular governance brings to multi-factional population, esp Shia and Sunni, under the populist pretext of outside domination. Once again.

I am writing this, having lived in England all my life and having seen English religion, institutions and culture steadily eroded and the people who have done this have the same plans for Islam and Muslims and their countries.

Maybe you should try to ask what are their plans for their countries before writing off their efforts with the stroke of a pen? Maybe you shouldn’t be so arrogant to have lived all your life in the secular British state and still be a good, observant Muslim but dismiss the same possibility for a Muslim, a practicing Muslim, in a secular Muslim majority country?

The fact is; if most Muslims in a secular Muslim majority country observe their religion properly, you will have a just, peaceful and genuine Islamic society, not a phony one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry but you have painted a factually inaccurate picture of Pakistani Shia’s position vis-à-vis Iran.

I am thinking of the class of Pakistani Shia to which you alluded in your post but I failed to find any.

Well it accorded with personal experience of meeting/knowing various upper-middle class Pakistanis. I thought the vignette was fairly neutral insofar as it explained the rationale for a particular mindset. I am also familiar with pro-Iranian/WF type Pakistanis. And have relatives who fall into both camps.

My brother-in-law has vowed that he will only go to ziarat to Iran when the IRI has collapsed. OTOH there are others who have pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini on the living room wall.

The fact is; if most Muslims in a secular Muslim majority country observe their religion properly, you will have a just, peaceful and genuine Islamic society, not a phony one.

As people in Western countries are finding out, secularism is a religion in its own right, with its own fundamentalists, who are perfectly happy to tread on the toes of the religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It is sad that administrators on this site applaud slander and are offering up their prayers for those who have the audacity to suggest Iraq should be a religious country with a secular government. Religion will keep the government honest and bring about the best in society through their collective mores and this gradual development of strong mores will ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Religion will never leave Iraq, it will always be part of their social state because it is as essential to the Iraqi people as the two rivers or any other part of their identity. The social state will always be the cause of most laws, and laws will always be rooted in religion. The religions of the Iraqi people (which have so much in common) give them a strong sense of absolute moral truth, while politics will always be up for debate. Political power is fleeting; it is best for religion to remain independent of politics if it wants to be lasting.

Religion in the Iraqi government? Corruption. If you want to issue fatwas about what is corrupt and why the reasoning behind Marbles skepticism and the skepticism of many Iraqis boils down to a wealthy middle class man who wants to go to the cinema with female friends and drink a flask of wine (Haji, do us all a favor and open a book once in a while) so be it, but it is all the same old talking points that have done nothing for the people of Iraq.

Sorry, don't see the point you're trying to make here. If you can better summarise your argument that'd be appreciated.

You guys talk about how the West has exploited Iraq? How the West has them shackled and chained? You are preaching their ruin in the name of God himself. May Allah protect Iraq from you and your ilk.

Shackled and chained (ABu Ghuraib)

abu-ghraib-leash.jpg

Shackled and Chained (Rumsfeld et al fund Saddam dictatorship)

rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

Shackled and Chained (CIA overthrow Mossadeq to steal Iranian Oil)

RTEmagicC_iran-mosaddeq-trial.jpg.jpg

Shackled and Chained (US Sanctions on Iraq)

hiro-iraq.jpg

The list is endless.

The problem with Muslims today self-diagnosed part 2, [:D] that is, we live in history and fail to recognise the needs and challenges of the modern times. You show me the map of ME from 1800s and ask in 2010 where Iraq is? WOW. Is it so hard to come to accept that Ottoman Empire is no more and Iraq is no longer a province?

Stop whining about colonial map drawings. ME has come a long way after WW1 and every nation-state has developed its idiosyncratic character. Iraq today is a nation-state inhabited by a mix of Shia, Sunni and ethnic Kurds. It's problems directly come from it's immediate past not what happened in 1850s. Modern problems require modern solutions; they can't come from the yore.

Modernity and history are relative terms. If Iraq and was split into three countries, that will be the new today. If the South was joined to Iran, it'd be the new today. Nation formation is dynamic. The question you should be asking yourself is simple. Does Allah (swt) see border lines? Does Rasool (pbuh) see border lines? Did Jesus (as) see border lines? Did the Imams (as) and does the Imam (ajf) see border lines? The simple answer is NO. Should you? Why do you? Don't you know that Gods reality is the ultimate, reality "Haq-Allah". And when Imam (ajf) presents Himself He will wipe out this colonial map with a wave of His hand. Your attempt to portray this future reality as 'backwards' or 'anti-modern' will fail miserably, just as Homos attempt to use such an argument today, where we know the people of Lot (as) existed thousands of years ago, so was Rome with all its corruption that helped bring its eventual demise. The modern problem IS this colonial map. And the 'modern' solution IS the drawing up of a new one based on what God and His Representatives wish it to be.

Terms like 'corruption' and 'anti-Islamic' are meaningless if you can't define them, which, of course, you can not.

Actually it's quite simple. Anything that opposes Gods teachings is corruptive and anti-Islamic.

I have done my reflections and I have converted from a staunch pro-Iran/WF to a secular democrat.

LOL, what a load of nonesense. You once a 'pro-Iran/WF'? It's almost as ludicris as your attempts were to have that perverted scum return under his old nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Sorry, don't see the point you're trying to make here. If you can better summarise your argument that'd be appreciated.

Let me dumb it down for you. I wish I had pictures too :(

Religious people in a secular state = not evil

Religious people in a secular state = The ideal situation for Iraqis

I wish you had shown me all these pictures BEFORE i had responded, it would have completely rocked my worldview and made me more comfortable with the simplistic garbage you preach in the name of Islam.

Oh wait.. it turns out I am completely aware of the actions of rogue soldiers and the fact that the United States cares about Iraqis about as much as the rest of the Middle East does (Iran included). My position remains the same. Thanks for the history lesson though, I am sure some 15 year old on here will read it and form an irrational, deluded worldview that closely parallels your own.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious people in a secular state = not evil

Religious people in a secular state = The ideal situation for Iraqis

Let me ask you a simple question please sis. Is Islamic law compatible with secularism?

and a hypothetical question:

A married man (Ali Muntazar Al-Mussawi (just a made up name)) was caught committing adultery in Iraq.

What is the punishment under the secular Iraqi state?

What is the punishment that someone such as Sayyid Sistani would prescribe (i.e. what would God say this man's punishment should be)?

and, what do you think his punishment should be?

Now you have two options:

the secular man-made punishment, or the Islamic punishment.

And put another way, we'll use your chosen nick here:

Would Sitna Zahra (as) choose an Islamic government to rule over the area ruled over by Baghdad, or a 'secular' government? If She was here today that is.

p.s. of the pictures shown, only 1 could be (half-heartedly justified) as committed by 'rogue' soldiers (though there is much evidence that it wasn't). The rest are state-sanctioned and have nothing 'rogue' about them. Please don't ignore such past actions. The US hasn't become angelic overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...