THe United States: Best Country On Planet

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm
http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/cps/public/index.html

Can't find mention of 3 million deaths in any of them articles. The numbers I've read are always between 4-6 hundred thousand.

Citizens of Iraq died during the sanction years at the hands of Saddam and his regime. He had the power to single handedly help his citizens and he chose not to. The blood of those children are on his hands, not at those that enforced UN sanctions.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Scourge
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm
http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/cps/public/index.html

From the UNICEF site: Wednesday, 12 August 1999: The first surveys since 1991 of child and maternal mortality in Iraq reveal that in the heavily-populated southern and central parts of the country, children under five are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago....

I.E. The non-Sunni regions.

They died cuz Saddam and the UN power brokers that he was bribing didn't give a shit about making sure the supplies Iraq received were distrubuted properly. C'mon man, don't you keep up? You just posted links that are dated from 1999. Give me a break!

 

[Scourge]

If I disagree I'm not being intellectually honest?
Come on! That should be a preamble to all your posts, then we would all know you're correct.

Anyhow, Saddam is a fanatical Muslim??? How so? Because Iraq was under Shariah law while he ruled it? Because he treated the all his muslim subjects with dignity and respect? Or is it because he was at war with a Muslim country for years? Our foreign policy is the catalyst... not the Qu'ran.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
Because he treated the all his muslim subjects with dignity and respect?

That's perhaps the most laughable statement I've ever read on this board.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Scourge

If I disagree I'm not being intellectually honest?

I said if you attack me. If you attack me, then I would suggest you have not read up on the subject as if you have, then it would be very difficult to argue with me. If you want to disagree, then put up some valid facts to dispute me. Not just rhetoric and ad hominem.

Come on! That should be a preamble to all your posts, then we would all know you're correct.

Pehaps it should. I am confident in knowing that I examine all aspects of a subject. I have traveled abroad (and a few broads too) extensively and I often discuss various subjects with my friends all over the world. How do you come to your conclusions? MOVEON.ORG?

So, are you being intellectually honest? Have you seriously looked at the situation? Or are you just regurgitating what you are hearing from the left? I believe it is the latter. No, I am sure it is.

Anyhow, Saddam is a fanatical Muslim???

Where did I say that? I asked do you think there might be a little fanatacism going on. In other words, Saddam was first and foremost a Muslim. Secondly, he was a money-hungry, diabolical dictator. He just flipped flopped depending on the needs of the situation.

How so? Because Iraq was under Shariah law while he ruled it?

.

Dude, get a grip. Syria is not under Shariah law and neither is Palestine but they are fanatical.

One of my closest friends is an Armenian from Iraq. His family fled his hometown of Tikrit in 1985. Ask him what it was like to be an Armenian Catholic living in a Muslim world.... (and don't point to Tariq Aziz as an example of Saddam working with Christians - Tariq was a "token" Christian so Saddam could claim he was secular).

Or is it because he was at war with a Muslim country for years?

That was a war of oil (money), but also of competing religious sects. I hope you will read up on your history of the region as you obviously do not know much about it.

Our foreign policy is the catalyst... not the Qu'ran.

Continue to tell yourself that if it makes YOU feel better.

One question.... have you ever sat down with a Muslim in a Muslim country and had a discussion on this subject? I have in Malaysia and I can tell you, they truly want the world to be ISLAM. There can't be utopia until it is. Don't you get that?????????

Dillusional are you?

 

[Scourge]

I have lots to respond to, but firstly: Jimmynyc, I was being sarcastic. Saddam treated his Muslim subjects like hell. And the Iran - Iraq war was about competing sects??? Although Saddam was a "Sunni" muslim, the majority of Iraqis are of the Shia sect. Coincidentally the same sect of the Iranians..... So it wasn't a war of sects. It was the US attempt to thwart the Islamic revolution in Iran (revolution in Iran began in 1979. Iran-Iraq war began in 1980). Because everybody knows that the US was a staunch supporter of the Shah (the dictator in power before the Ayat Allah).

further responses to follow fellow citizens!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Scourge
.

further responses to follow fellow citizens! [/B]

Is that a threat or a promise?

 

[Sabir]

I dont think Saddam ever flip flopped from dictator to fanatic or more correctly fundamentalist. Fundamentalists do not flip flop as you say, they have principles they stick to, however disgusting those principles may be.

Saddam has always been a dictator who has used whatever means necessary to achieve his goals. If that meant gaining the support of Muslims by encouraging terrorism then he did just that but he himself remained an evil dictator, not an Islamist fundamentalist leader.

I do however concede that many (may be even the majority) of Muslims within most Muslim nations would like to see the destruction of the US. The reasons for this are more complex than just Islam, although it is a major contributing factor. Another major factor is that it is conveniant for leaders of these countries to use America as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings and failures.

I'm on hols for a few days now so catch up with you when I get back.

Stay cool and Happy debating.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Scourge
Although Saddam was a "Sunni" muslim, the majority of Iraqis are of the Shia sect. Coincidentally the same sect of the Iranians..... So it wasn't a war of sects.

It was. Saddam just had the advantage of having the power to force people to fight for him.

I will grant you that Saddam was not a "devout" Muslim. But he is a Muslim and in the Muslim world, if you have to choose between helping a horrible Mulim and an overly kind and generous non-Muslim, the Muslims are required, according to the Q'uaran, to help the Muslim and the non-Muslim is sub-human.

It was the US attempt to thwart the Islamic revolution in Iran (revolution in Iran began in 1979. Iran-Iraq war began in 1980). Because everybody knows that the US was a staunch supporter of the Shah (the dictator in power before the Ayat Allah).

What was going on during the 70's and 80's? The cold war. The US made a lot of "allies" out of undesirables. I grant you that keeping the region in conflict was a way that the US and the SOVIETS prevented one or the other from gaining too much power in the region.

Sabir:

I dont think Saddam ever flip flopped from dictator to fanatic or more correctly fundamentalist. Fundamentalists do not flip flop as you say, they have principles they stick to, however disgusting those principles may be.

Perhaps I was not succinct enough. I meant what you are saying. He flipped flopped on his outwardly religious appearance based on his needs.

However, I still submit that the war with Iran was as much a war of different sects (Sunnis vs. Shia) as it was anything else. We cannot forget that Saddam desired to strengthen his position within the Sunni clans to ensure his continued power. So his attacking Iran was WELCOMED by the Sunni poplulation.

 

[the truth hurts]

It's too much! So much wrong... Where do I begin?

Quote
I do however concede that many (may be even the majority) of Muslims within most Muslim nations would like to see the destruction of the US. The reasons for this are more complex than just Islam, although it is a major contributing factor.

Seeing that I am a muslim, am also an Arab, and a born&bred North american - I think its safe to say that I have a better grasp on the opinions of both sides of the Atlantic.
The majority of muslims do not want to see the destruction of the US. They want to see the destruction of the US foreign policy. Believe you me, if the US just left them alone and allow them to form their own governments - the world would be a safer place.
But since that won't happen (unfortunately), we won't see any peace any time soon.
Islam is a contributing factor?....
Based on what? I'm a muslim, never have I read (and I have read the Qu'ran--many times) in the Qu'ran where it says kill the Americans. I don't understand this sentiment that gets repeated... It's as if no one has read the Qu'ran at all. Or if they did, they take 1 sentence in the middle of the book and take it completely out of context, then uses it to judge an entire religion.
Saddam was just Saddam. Not a muslim leader (I, a muslim, sure as hell didn't elect him to represent my religion). He is just evil just like Bush.

Oh, and freeandfun1. I got one for you too. Stand by.

Be safe everyone.

 

[freeandfun1]

The 54 Muslim countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have conceived their own human-rights charter, contained in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

This document states in its preamble, and in articles 24 and 25, that all its provisions are in conformity with the sharia, the religious Islamic law, which has primacy. Moreover, it proclaims that God has made the Islamic community (umma) the best nation — and, hence, its role is to guide humanity. We can see here the differences between the Cairo Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, but stresses the absolute equality of all human beings.

The institution of jihad belongs to a religious, Islamic domain, outside the realm of Western universalism and secularism. These two domains do not meet. Secular laws can be changed, abrogated, or ameliorated, but jihad regulations are believed to express divine commands. By definition, human beings can neither discuss nor scrutinize the divine will, and so those jihad obligations — attributed by the theologians to Allah — place jihad in the domain of faith. I would like to emphasize strongly that jihad is a special domain of Islamic law. Not all Muslims know it, and many reject its ideology. It would be a great mistake to believe that each and every Muslim identifies with the jihad-war ideology.

The ideology of jihad was formulated by leading Muslim theologians and scholars from the 8th century onward. Their voluminous writings make clear the notion of jihad as a holy war of conquest. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 966), for example, stated,

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution... We Malikis [one of four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah, except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them...

Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb).Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law.. Therefore, Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit. The current relevance of this ideology is apparent, and disturbing.

For example, Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, published an article on January 27, 2001, which declared:

Upon the establishment of the Islamic State, the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb since the foreign policy of the Islamic state is aimed at conquering the world... Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves.

Such an attitude assumes that the infidels have no rights and are totally dehumanized. It breeds hatred and contempt and has led to historical negationism, and the destruction of non-Muslim cultures. Moreover, such views are not confined to the most radical Islamists. They were confirmed in the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, held in 1968 (General Organization for Government Printing Offices, Cairo, 1968), and regularly since then by eminent Islamic scholars. These authoritative pronouncements have recapitulated the theory of jihad in a manner completely consistent with the Al-Muhajiroun statements.

The theory of jihad against the infidels is composed of two parts: the ideology, and the military institutions aimed at implementing this ideology. According to these rules, the infidels without a treaty have no rights at all: they can be deported, reduced to slavery, abducted for ransom, or killed. Women and children can be taken into slavery. Infidels can be spared by a temporary treaty which should not go beyond ten years. The treaty must conform to Islamic rule and serve Islamic interests, hence a ransom should be paid. The infidels who submit to Islamic rulers are given a pledge of security against the rules of jihad, so long as they accept a condition of humiliation, and of total inferiority to Muslims.

Jihad is therefore a genocidal war, according to the modern definition of genocide. It encourages terrorism against civilians and does not differentiate between innocent civilians and soldiers. All infidels without a treaty of protection can be killed. Jihad does not recognize universal human rights, for there is no equality between Muslims and infidels, and no reciprocity between Muslims and infidels in legal matters. Jihad warriors do not accept that either the Geneva Conventions or the conventional rules of war have any validity for them.

Jihadists have associated the notion of a reward in paradise with the practice of killing infidels. Killing at war was, and still is, practiced by all societies. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, wars, because they imply the acts of killing, are hateful and peace is praised. In the jihadist ideology, it is war that is praised, along with the killing of the infidels. Tragically, jihad ideology will not disappear soon. It is shaping the minds of a generation of young Muslims in many countries. Jihad ideology is a well-constructed system, created after the death of the prophet Mohammed. It has remained alive and well since then — except under secularized Muslim governments like that of Turkey, after the Kemalist revolution. It is delusional and dangerous to maintain that this ideology is rooted in social deprivation, backwardness, injustice, or despair. Moreover, paying subsidies to suspend global jihad terrorism is tantamount to paying a tribute to terrorist states, and buying one's own peace and security as temporarily ransomed privileges — instead of living by the principles of universal human rights, which proclaim the inviolability of every human being. Societies that pay a tribute to survive are destined to disappear.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
t's too much! So much wrong... Where do I begin?

Based on what? I'm a muslim, never have I read (and I have read the Qu'ran--many times) in the Qu'ran where it says kill the Americans.

Of course not, America did not exist when the Q'uaran was written. Tell me specifically, if you will, what does the Q'uaran say about the infidels.....

I posted some information on the subject. Please counter if you can. I am willing to change my opinion if I am presented with a reasonable argument. I am not a religious person, so I am not making statements as a Christian/Jew/Whatever against Islam. I am using the words of your own MAJOR not MINOR clerics, leaders and "book" of YOUR religion that you are defending.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
It's too much! So much wrong... Where do I begin?

Quote
I do however concede that many (may be even the majority) of Muslims within most Muslim nations would like to see the destruction of the US. The reasons for this are more complex than just Islam, although it is a major contributing factor.

Seeing that I am a muslim, am also an Arab, and a born&bred North american - I think its safe to say that I have a better grasp on the opinions of both sides of the Atlantic.
The majority of muslims do not want to see the destruction of the US. They want to see the destruction of the US foreign policy. Believe you me, if the US just left them alone and allow them to form their own governments - the world would be a safer place.
But since that won't happen (unfortunately), we won't see any peace any time soon.
Islam is a contributing factor?....
Based on what? I'm a muslim, never have I read (and I have read the Qu'ran--many times) in the Qu'ran where it says kill the Americans. I don't understand this sentiment that gets repeated... It's as if no one has read the Qu'ran at all. Or if they did, they take 1 sentence in the middle of the book and take it completely out of context, then uses it to judge an entire religion.
Saddam was just Saddam. Not a muslim leader (I, a muslim, sure as hell didn't elect him to represent my religion). He is just evil just like Bush.

Oh, and freeandfun1. I got one for you too. Stand by.

Be safe everyone.

There's a reason you're in North America. Someone in your family tree had the foresight to get out of that racist, sexist, xenophobic hellhole.

 

[the truth hurts]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
There's a reason you're in North America. Someone in your family tree had the foresight to get out of that racist, sexist, xenophobic hellhole.

Your right! All those poor attributes where derived from leaders the west forcefully placed in our countries. Democracy for some, but definately not for my people.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
Your right! All those poor attributes where derived from leaders the west forcefully placed in our countries. Democracy for some, but definately not for my people.

C'mon man, reply to my post! I want to hear your counter argument. I am open to change if you can present a counter view that is as documented as I presented.

PLEASE!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
Your right! All those poor attributes where derived from leaders the west forcefully placed in our countries. Democracy for some, but definately not for my people.

Look. we go with whoever controls the society. Your societies are dominated by warmongering islamic clerics, who divert attention from themselves and lay all of THEIR tyranny at the doorstep of the U.S.

And what about infidels, how are they to be treated, according to your nasty little work of pulp fiction.

 

[the truth hurts]

freeandfun1 I will illustrate my position soon. I applaud your openess to hear another opinion.

 

[Zhukov]

Scourge,

You originally said:

It is absolute fact that US sanctions on Iraq has directly caused the death of over 3,000,000 Iraqi children over the last 14 years.

Then you yourself later provided links that claimed:

Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?

The short answer to all of these questions is no. The sanctions, first imposed in 1990 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, are administered by the U.N., not the U.S

and

The dictatorial Iraqi government, which has blamed nearly every civilian funeral since 1991 on sanctions, claims there have been more than 600,000 deaths of under-5-year-olds these past 11 years (4,500 per month) and 1.5 million deaths overall.

http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

These statements directly contradict yours. I would like you to retract that statement.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by the truth hurts
freeandfun1 I will illustrate my position soon. I applaud your openess to hear another opinion.

No problem. As I said, I am not religious so I am not going to be offended if you attack Christianity, etc. as vigorously.

If you recall, Christianity in this country not so long ago was just as hateful in many ways as Islam is today (granted, not all Muslims are.... I have many, many Muslim friends in Malaysia and Indonesia that I have become to know well over the last ten years doing business in that region). The difference is that Christianity has been, for the lack of a better term, tamed. While Islam appears to be the raging bull in the china closet at the moment.

 

[the truth hurts]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Look. we go with whoever controls the society. Your societies are dominated by warmongering islamic clerics, who divert attention from themselves and lay all of THEIR tyranny at the doorstep of the U.S.

And what about infidels, how are they to be treated, according to your nasty little work of pulp fiction.

Run by Islamic clerics?.... Is King Mohammed VI a cleric?. How about Saddam? Okay, what about King Fahd? Hmmm, Hosni Mubarak?
It appears you know very little about Arab politics (not to insult). There is no leader in the middle east that has been elected with a free and clear public election (less the Ayat Allah of Iran).

Who nephew of the king did the US train to assassinate so that King Fahd can take power? Remember the oil crisis of the 70's??

When did the late King Hasssan 2 stand for elections?

Who placed back the existing government in Algeria when an Islamic government was democratically elected in?

Who put Saddam in to power, and kept him there?

Who put the Shah of Iran in power?

Who put in place the leader of Afghanistan (despite public dissaproval)?

The leader of Lebanon, Syria (his father), Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Egypt, the list goes on and on.....!!!!!!

Even outside the middle east... Who sent 20,000 troops to put back into power the then-ousted Aristide of Haiti.

Elected officials???? Laughable to say the least.


According to sharia law. People of the book (infidels-you refer them as) must pay a tax to the governing Islamic body. They will then be protected by the Islamic armies. Allow to operate their own governments within the Islamic State, with their own religious laws, with their elected officials.
Shariah law, and history if far more complex and detailed then one can consume reading one or two books. This area must be studied for years, to begin to derive an opinion.