58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 09:32 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
No. I am the victim of people who deny atrocities committed against my country.


America is my country as much as yours. The only difference is that I look at both sides of the picture and come to my own conclusions instead of believing our politicians and media.

Just so that you can see what I mean. The cost of war on Afghanistan is estimated to be $975 Billion. This cost is second only to the $4.1 trillion dollars (inflation-adjusted) spent during World War II.  Economists estimate that the U.S. incurred an extra $453 billion in interest on the debt to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Over the next 40 years, these costs will add $7.9 trillion to the debt. Who is going to pay for this?

You and I through our taxes. Don't expect our politician to pay for this debt, our president has not even paid tax for several decades declaring himself bankrupt ( anyways that's a side topic). This is only one of the many things you can think of how these wars can impact US citizens. Every time economy starts doing well, we get into war for no reason because Govt does not want economy to do well all the time. Good economy means, people start doing well and once their basic needs are met, they can start questioning the process and ask for free medical for the amount of tax we pay for example among many other things which we need to fix in our political setup. That's why we have recession in every 10-15 years. People loose their jobs and homes, but it never impacts our politicians. They can still spend millions out of our taxes to play golf. We need to wake up and stand against our own corrupt leaders. Only enemy of US is US itself.
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 09:43 am
@georgeob1,
Ok my friend, we can agree to disagree. I have no intention to push my views down anyone's throat. Evidence speaks for itself and it is enough for those who have an open mind and no evidence is ever enough for those who choose to remain ignorant. All the best!
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 09:43 am
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
America is my country as much as yours.

That doesn't make it any less horrible when you deny atrocities committed against America.
HabibUrrehman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 10:46 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
you deny atrocities committed against America.


And you are denying atrocities committed by America against innocent people, many of them were children.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 11:22 am
@HabibUrrehman,
That because we've committed no atrocities.
HabibUrrehman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 11:31 am
@oralloy,
If killing documented 400,000 people is not an atrocity for you then you should check with a Psychiatrist.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 12:08 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Quote:
And you are denying atrocities committed

By Islam long before America was America. The hate in Islam is for all non-Muslims, it does not depend on what others do and never has.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 12:10 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Quote:
If killing documented 400,000 people is not an atrocity

It is called war. People die in a war and always have..
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 01:38 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
If killing documented 400,000 people is not an atrocity for you then you should check with a Psychiatrist.

We didn't kill 400,000 people.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 04:31 pm
@oralloy,
From the first page only of a search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Quote:
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war…The Lancet surveys are controversial because the mortality figures are higher than in several other reports, including those of the Iraqi Health Ministry and the United Nations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Quote:
Estimating war-related deaths poses many challenges.[1][2] Experts distinguish between population-based studies, which extrapolate from random samples of the population, and body counts, which tally reported deaths and likely significantly underestimate casualties.[3] Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million

The Iraq Body Count project documents 183,348 - 205,908 violent civilian deaths through April 2019


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
Quote:
War and occupation directly and indirectly claimed the lives of about a half-million Iraqis from 2003 to 2011, according to a groundbreaking survey of 1,960 Iraqi households.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html
Quote:
BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 — A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.


There's a significant range above, and it appears it depends on how you measure, and whether or not you include just direct deaths, or indirect deaths (that would not have occurred but for the war)

To me, indirect deaths are valid, as they measure the true cost of a war / of an invasion. Of course, such says nothing of the economic impact the invasion had on Iraq.

But the oil still keeps coming.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 07:11 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:

Ok my friend, we can agree to disagree. I have no intention to push my views down anyone's throat. Evidence speaks for itself and it is enough for those who have an open mind and no evidence is ever enough for those who choose to remain ignorant. All the best!


That's true but the fantasy theories you cited all lack evidence, and your expressed concept of how the building failed is contradicted by ample incontrovertible evidence. It is necessary to have sufficient understanding of the underlying material to detect the validity or lack thereof of any conspiracy theories such as those you indicated,: they were all seriously flawed in terms of the basic engineering facts, and evidently you are still unaware or unappreciative of that rather evident fact.
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 09:00 pm
@georgeob1,
As usual fantasy statements but no facts and proofs. Forget everything, just explain building 7 how did that collapse?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 12:32 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Fires ignited by falling debris from the twin towers burned in Bldg. 7 ,uncontrolled and without intervention, for about seven hours before the collapse occurred. softened steel framing separated from the vertical structure starting the collapse.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 01:02 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Quote:
As usual fantasy

Did you give up on trying to convince people that Islam is peaceful? Sure seems like it.
0 Replies
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 04:08 pm
@georgeob1,
That fire only affected building 7 which was 350 feet away from twin towers and no other building around. BBC knew 20 minutes before that building 7 is going to collapse. The owner of the building himself is recorded saying “pull it” which is a signal for controlled demolition. Steel columns were cut precisely at 45 degree angel similar to twin Towers and lastly many heard explosions before the building 7 came down.

The official report for the destruction of building seven was released 7 years after the incident. Why it took so long? Anyways you clearly are showing no proofs and ignoring many simple facts.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 05:10 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Please provide some citations and sources for your "facts". So far you have only recited stuff from unnamed sources you say you have read.

The fact is the building burned unattended, and without any firefighting, for over six hours, as a result of the collapse of the twin towers and the mass death of firefighters there, and the debris that filled the area. That is confirmed in the government report oft the event and was evident to anyone who watched the event on TV, as I did.

The fact is this atrocity was carefully (and skillfully) planned and executed by a group of Islamist terrorists under the leadership of Bin Laden, and carried out as a suicide mission by deluded and hate-filled Muslim fanatics.
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 05:25 pm
@georgeob1,
I gave you countless sources in my earlier posts but you are so programmed to believe in media that all of that does not matter to you. Keep believing in the media and on your politicians and keep living in the state of fear.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 06:08 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
We have successfully fought off much more powerful enemies. Most Muslim nations are far to backward socially and economically to do much more than the terrorism they practice.
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 06:23 pm
@georgeob1,
Still you believe that few men living in caves planned and carried out 9/11 attack in the heart of most powerful country?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 06:57 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
I have a brother who's come to believe in 9-11 as an inside job. I do notice that 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and I have no particular buy in one way or another if it's true or not, never deal with the operational requirements of such an event (being an inside job), nor the motivations of each of the U.S citizens who would have had to participate - each having intent to mass murder <and each knowing they would be killed afterwards to keep them quiet>, nor with the willingness of particular attackers to die. (Reminder - this is from the point of view that it was an inside job - the questions that need to be asked). When I run through the permutations of this - I cannot see it ever happening.

Compare that to the official version of hijackers, and the operational ability and motivation is there. It's confirmed in prior history and in events to this day. The version of how it unfolded is also credible.

That aside - one of the most interesting aspects of the collapse, was where did all the steel girders go? Not even conspiracy theorists explain this particularly well. It appears to me, that if they (the twin towers) collapsed on themselves, that at least the girders above the strike site should have survived intact, with the concrete falling down in between it. But this isn't the case.

I'm not surprised by the suspicion of controlled demolition. But at this stage, having read a fair bit on it, and not being able to find satisfactory answers
relating to operational requirements and motivation - I still don't think it is the case - that of course, is an opinion only.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:06:24