58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 12:34 am
@oralloy,
Oralloy, please do some reading into how the Global economy works, and why reserve currency, and in particular buying oil in US dollars, is important to the US economy.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 12:43 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
There was no lie. People genuinely believed that Saddam possessed chemical weapons.
People genuinely believed it. Neither the intelligence community, nor the Governments believed it. Most of the 'intelligence' that govt used was either false, or 'sexed up' as the Blair govt later termed it.

Anyone who actually followed the rhetoric, saw how they changed their reasons for Iraq.

Having followed it at the time, I came to a conclusion before the war broke out that:
- they didn't exist
- the US govt was always going to attack
- it was looking for an excuse
- it was doctoring it's intelligence.

Not funnily enough...these were later shown to be the case.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 02:03 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Oralloy, please do some reading into how the Global economy works, and why reserve currency, and in particular buying oil in US dollars, is important to the US economy.

I am already well informed about the functioning of the global economy.

I assure you that the United States truly does not care what currency oil is sold in.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 02:04 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
People genuinely believed it. Neither the intelligence community, nor the Governments believed it.

No. The world's intelligence communities and the world's governments did believe it.


vikorr wrote:
Most of the 'intelligence' that govt used was either false, or 'sexed up' as the Blair govt later termed it.

True, but they still believed that Saddam possessed chemical weapons.


vikorr wrote:
Anyone who actually followed the rhetoric, saw how they changed their reasons for Iraq.

It looked to me like it was a continuous focus on claims that Saddam had chemical weapons, and was trying to produce new chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

The claims that were exaggerated were the ones about him trying to produce new weapons. Everyone honestly believed that he still had chemical weapons from before.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 02:23 am
@vikorr,
You're dealing with the wilfully ignorant, like I said the only "facts" he believes are the ones he makes up.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 02:36 am
@izzythepush,
Says the clown who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 04:05 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
No. The world's intelligence communities and the world's governments did believe it.
Other than your own government reviews disagreeing with you...and other than intelligence agencies around the world subtly or outright disagreeing with you...

Don't forget that you are starting with the preposition that 'WoMD' = reason to invade...so the US needs to invade: Russia, GB, France, Germany, Pakistan, China...etc

So...it has to be more than that right?

Perhaps preparation to use them? There was no recent evidence of that.

WoMD simply wasn't the reason for the invasion of Iraq.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 04:10 am
@izzythepush,
He's not the first person to strenuously disagree with me. I do think it's very difficult to get a handle on everything, because of the incredible breadth of one sided 'history' out there (on both sides). I doubt I have a proper handle on it. And as I mentioned earlier, western media provides a very one sided view of the world.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 04:19 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
It looked to me like it was a continuous focus on claims that Saddam had chemical weapons, and was trying to produce new chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

The claims that were exaggerated were the ones about him trying to produce new weapons. Everyone honestly believed that he still had chemical weapons from before.
No, not everyone. And look into claims that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda...which was the main claim that was first tried on the public when the focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq
---------------------------

If you care to, read up on the history of countries behaviours (regards to propaganda for their own public) as they lead up to a war, and then apply that to what you remember about the US' behaviour in the lead up to the Iraq war. I recall the US' adherence to such tried and true methods to be remarkably conforming.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 05:32 am
@vikorr,
I can strenuously disagree with a lot of people but we normally agree on facts, it's the interpretation of them that's different. Oralloy doesn't seem to understand the difference between facts and **** he'd like to believe because it makes him feel better, and it's the latter that he clings to.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2017 01:07 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No. The world's intelligence communities and the world's governments did believe it.

Other than your own government reviews disagreeing with you...and other than intelligence agencies around the world subtly or outright disagreeing with you...

I do not believe that such disagreement exists.


vikorr wrote:
Don't forget that you are starting with the preposition that 'WoMD' = reason to invade...so the US needs to invade: Russia, GB, France, Germany, Pakistan, China...etc

So...it has to be more than that right?

Perhaps preparation to use them? There was no recent evidence of that.

WoMD simply wasn't the reason for the invasion of Iraq.

The additional factor was the fear that Saddam might actually provide such weapons to terrorists. Most of those other countries could be relied on to keep their WMDs out of unsafe hands.

We probably have the same fear with Pakistan too. But the situation is complicated because Pakistan is somewhat of an ally.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2017 01:09 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It looked to me like it was a continuous focus on claims that Saddam had chemical weapons, and was trying to produce new chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

The claims that were exaggerated were the ones about him trying to produce new weapons. Everyone honestly believed that he still had chemical weapons from before.

No, not everyone.

Pretty close to everyone. Even the UN believed that they had Iraqi chemical weapons under seal.


vikorr wrote:
And look into claims that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda...which was the main claim that was first tried on the public when the focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq

I forgot about that one. Yes that was an exaggeration too.


vikorr wrote:
If you care to, read up on the history of countries behaviours (regards to propaganda for their own public) as they lead up to a war, and then apply that to what you remember about the US' behaviour in the lead up to the Iraq war. I recall the US' adherence to such tried and true methods to be remarkably conforming.

I'm not denying that some things were exaggerated. But the belief that Saddam had chemical weapons was genuine.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2017 01:10 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Oralloy doesn't seem to understand the difference between facts and **** he'd like to believe because it makes him feel better, and it's the latter that he clings to.

Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing I've ever said.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2017 01:12 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
He's not the first person to strenuously disagree with me. I do think it's very difficult to get a handle on everything, because of the incredible breadth of one sided 'history' out there (on both sides). I doubt I have a proper handle on it. And as I mentioned earlier, western media provides a very one sided view of the world.

About seven years ago I challenged some of izzythepush's horrible rants about Israel, and he apparently took it so badly that he has spent the last seven years following me around voting my posts down and spreading lies about me to anyone who will listen.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2017 11:49 am
@oralloy,
I have been to Israel a couple of times, and have concluded you know very little to nothing about that country.
I have spoken to Jews and Palestinians in that country. What's your background?
Read the section "legal and political status" from the following link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Also, Muslim's license plates are green, and there are armored checkpoints on the roads. They are restricted from using certain roads, and must travel miles out of the way to get to their destination.
It is not a democracy by any sense.
I have spoken to a Palestinian woman, and she told me she does not have the freedom to travel any place she wishes, and her family has lived in Israel for many generations.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2017 02:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I have been to Israel a couple of times, and have concluded you know very little to nothing about that country.

And yet you are unable to point out any facts that I am wrong about.


cicerone imposter wrote:
What's your background?

I know and understand all the facts.


cicerone imposter wrote:
Also, Muslim's license plates are green, and there are armored checkpoints on the roads. They are restricted from using certain roads, and must travel miles out of the way to get to their destination.
It is not a democracy by any sense.

Non US citizens are not allowed to freely come into this country and use our roads either. That does not change the reality that we are a democracy just like Israel.


cicerone imposter wrote:
I have spoken to a Palestinian woman, and she told me she does not have the freedom to travel any place she wishes, and her family has lived in Israel for many generations.

No, she lives outside Israeli borders and is not an Israeli citizen. And of course Israel is not about to allow hostile foreigners to flow across their borders.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2017 08:34 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I forgot about that one. Yes that was an exaggeration too.
That wasn't an exageration. It was a flat out deception. So that was the first attempt at justification...

- After that attempted deception was shot down by intelligence agencies / didn't gain traction with the public, they tried the nuclear weapons line (with no evidence /similar results).

- When that attempted deception didn't find traction with the public, they tried 'well Saddam wants nuclear weapons' (similar results)

- After that didn't find traction public, then they hit on the WoMD line...and finally found something that people could fear about Saddam.

So why did they need to change their reason (read 'story') so many times? As I said, WoMD wasn't the reason for the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2017 03:03 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/manchester-arena-attack-22-killed-suicide-bomber-ariana-grande/

Quote:
Manchester Arena attack: 22 killed at Ariana Grande gig by bomber named as Salman Abedi

The suicide bomber who brought carnage to the Manchester Arena has been named as Salman Abedi.

Monday night's attack at a concert by US pop star Ariana Grande left 22 people dead, including an eight-year-old girl, and dozens injured.

Theresa May raised Britain's terror threat level from severe to critical and said the military could be deployed to support armed police officers at public events.

Abedi, believed to have been born in Manchester and of Libyan descent, studied business at Salford University but dropped out before completing his degree.

The 22-year-old is thought to have attended the Manchester Islamic Centre, also known as Didsbury Mosque, along with his parents and siblings.

A family friend, who asked not to be named, described him as "normal" and said they were known to the Libyan community in the city.

He said: "He was always friendly, nothing to suggest (he was violent). He was normal, to be honest."...
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 04:49 am
http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/television/muslim-leaders-clash-in-fiery-debate-on-sunrise/news-story/6b12d1ea61b82dca878d702e2fcba7e9

TV interview with a surprising argument between two muslims

Quote:
Muslim leaders clash in fiery debate on Sunrise

TWO prominent Australian Muslim leaders have clashed live on air during a fiery debate about extremism and Islam.

Appearing on Sunrise this morning, Dr Jamal Rifi and Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi condemned the terror attacks in Manchester which has claimed 22 lives.

Both leaders agreed the devastating act didn’t represent Islam, however this is where any common agreement ended.

Imam Tawhidi said the reality was young people were getting radicalised, even in Australia, “because of the Islamic scriptures that we have.”

“They push the Muslim youth to believe that if you go out there and you kill the infidel that’s how you will gain paradise,” the Imam said...

Dr Rifi also said the Muslim community had spoken out against the Manchester terror attack and the Prime Minster had also spoken for all Australians in doing so.

“But we are Australian, our Prime Minister has expressed the feeling of the nation and that’s good Australian Muslims,” he said.

“The Grand Mufti condemned it, we have shouted from the rooftops our condemnation of this act. What more can we do?”

But Iman Tawhidi shook his head and launched into the reasons why he disagreed.

“We have a situation where a month doesn’t go by without a terrorist attack happening somewhere around the world,” he said.

“For 1400 years we have had a religion of war, that’s exactly what we have had. This is not something I’m imagining,” he said.

He added Islam had spread from the Middle East to other parts of the world through war.

“The Islamic scriptures are exactly the thing that’s pushing these people to behead the infidel,” he said.

But Dr Rifi was having none of it.

“There is nothing in Islam that justifies killing innocent people,” he said.

Imam Tawhidi accused Dr Rifi of lying to the Australian people.

“Our books teach the beheading of people,” he said adding the Manchester bomber would have believed he was going to heaven for what he did....
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 May, 2017 02:07 pm
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/05/25/three-killed--10-wounded-in-jakarta-blasts.html

Quote:
Jakarta terorrism blast 'linked with I.S'

The two suicide bombers who attacked Indonesia's capital are believed to be linked to Islamic State and could have been inspired by recent attacks overseas, police say.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has called for calm and unity hours after twin blasts broke out in Jakarta's east on Wednesday night, killing three police officers and leaving 11 people injured.

National Police spokesman Inspector General Setyo Wasisto said the perpetrators were believed to be 'related' to Islamic State.

Authorities are trying to identify them through forensic testing and the help of Indonesian anti-terrorism agency Detachment 88.

The attack comes just days after the suicide bombing at Manchester Arena in the UK, which killed 22 people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 04:11:55