Showing posts with label Gulf War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gulf War. Show all posts

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Was the Invasion of Iraq Justified?

[I wrote this up while doing some research this morning, I think worth some time to read, you could also watch the video on YT.]

“The making of aggressive war is a war crime”


The United Nations had not sanctioned or permitted the Iraq war. Therefore, Bush and Blair may have to face criminal charges at the Hague. George Galloway heads the discussion which aired on Press TV.

Under several sections of the Geneva Conventions, investigation is done under two heads, says Ali Mohammad Azhar.

War crimes are killing, torturing, and detaining under inhumane conditions. Anyone who is aware of such, not only the perpetrators, are guilty of war crimes.

Mr. Mansfield a prominent legal counsel was also sourced by Al Azhar.

Bush and Blair were supported by the United States Congress and the UK Parliament. So they’re hands are clean. It is a contrary point of view, however.

Is it unfair to blame them for a political decision which was made with support from the US Congress and UK parliament?

“It’s ridiculous” says David Casavis, one who says he would be lawyer for Bush and Blair if asked.

Kofi Anan had said the war was illegal. Galloway argues that this is “not ridiculous”.

The fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran, according to Casavis, was reason enough to kill half a million children, according to his statements of support for the two leaders.

The chief prosecutor to the United Nations and the secretary general of the United Nations, neither of whom are politicians, were correct in saying that both Bush and Blair had committed war crimes. IN Tehran, he speaks next to the man, Ayer, who has filed against Blair, and his colleague who has filed against Bush in The Hague, hope they would be called to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence (which later took place, after the airing of this program).

“You don’t get a much more serious person than the chief prosecutor”, says Galloway.

It’s illegal to plan and orchestrate a war, which is not a direct threat. By that definition alone, Bush and Blair did something illegal.

Galloway mentions Bush had the power to enter into the war without the Senate’s approval, but in fact he did get authorization from the Security Council.

“The evidence has been building up… and it’s quite obvious the occupation was unnecessary.” And “they did not find anything.” comments one female audience member.

“Their leaders have killed their own people, that’s why Saddam Hussein was tried in The Hague”, says another woman. “This is the point of what a witch hunt is”… “This just seems… that now they have an opportunity to put the blame on other people”. He’s looking at it legally (Acampo), but she doesn’t agree with that. She wants to look at the issue from a completely political perspective.

Another member says that millions of Iraqis have been killed up to date, so it doesn’t seem justified, and suggests that their lives are worth less than American’s lives, for example.

In other words, because Saddam had killed his own people, doesn’t justify killing Iraqis in an “illegal war” or even in an invasion to catch a criminal like Saddam Hussein. Saddam was tried in The Hague and executed for war crimes. Bush and Blair have not been tried, though the Kuala Lumpur meeting found them guilty of war crimes.

The [Vietnamese]  war criminals were prosecuted for waterboarding at the end of the war. Why are Bush and Blair not also prosecuted for the actions of their government, which knew about the torture and interrogation techniques which were clearly inhumane and against human rights and/or the Geneva conventions?

Patrick Basham says he doesn’t believe the war was justified. “I think the war was a mistake.” But he believes it is wrong to criminalize the political questions. He believes people are just making themselves to “feel better” but it is correct to assert that these policy makers, the President and Prime Minister, made decisions which others would disagree with, “generally believed they were doing the right thing” and “logically doesn’t make sense”. “There has been a double standard but not compound an error by then going after other people, whether Bush or Blair [or others in power] who are currently unpopular”. He is saying, this doesn’t justify going after all the other people who supported the war.

“That at least has the intellectual consistency of applying one standard to all” replies Galloway.

David Casavis says “… some things are unwise, but not illegal”. “Bush was not interested in Iraq, he not interested in anything but Mexico.”” …when we were attacked at the World Trade Center that changed everything.”

“Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centre though”, counters Galloway.

Casavis continues, “Colin Powell presented … at the UN that proved to be wrong. And our own state department contradicted that… but you enter into war with the facts that you have.”… “Unwise but not illegal”.

“It’s not a coincidence that Nixon was pardoned and then you have several illegal wars after that”, says an ex-soldier, and a spokesperson, who served in Iraq and now walks with a cane, by his own admission participated but now is against [illegal] wars.

“The US has a long list of war crime”, says one woman. “I stood in the United Nations lobby and watched Colin Powell lie through his teeth and he knew he was lying about the supposed facts that got us into Iraq. That was wrong, that was criminal and it really must be prosecuted.”

“Well, he himself [Colin Powell] now describes it as a blot on his career record” reminds Galloway.

Admiral Elmar Schmaehling, an ex-military man, joins the debate from Berlin. Asked why he thinks torture took place, he says, “Because Bush and Mr. Blair they both believe that they are superior to everybody as persons and as states. And so they think they can do this. And they can do [whatever they like of] all kinds of war and aggression and crimes without having to expect consequences.” He believes that torture is clearly against international law and making excuses for it is clearly wrong. “I’m very astonished that Mr. Bush even today defends the use of torture…”

A young man with a European accent comments next, “What I see is that there are two ideologies here, one is the humanitarian [looks at the value of the human being] and the other one is emphasizing the Western culture conquering culture.” “And we are [at] a point to decide which world, which way we are going.”

“You remember about the Nuremburg process and the values of the society were set up [after] the Second World War. And Bush and Blair respect it and follow those values when they invaded Iraq.”

“And I have in my mind the image of Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin. Stalin was a war criminal and in place of Stalin I could put uh, Saddam, and the other two, Churchill, Blair, Roosevelt, Bush.” And we could judge Churchill and Roosevelt as war criminals with the values and that ideology which we respect today, he adds.

Galloway says it is a long time since he has heard Bush and Blair compared to Roosevelt and Churchill.

The titles of war criminal, atrocities perpetrator, etc. were titles given to Bush and Blair by their own western people, says, a man via satellite from the Tehran audience. It is very obvious that they have committed atrocities, he says, and should receive justice. A woman in the audience speaks next, “can anybody answer me, why…” is her only question, and response to the debate. She says, “it is a matter of geography.”

Galloway responds, "...perhaps a three letter word, O-I-L".

So we discover that usually a debate like this comes down to the question of resources, and motivations for the war, and we have to wonder, were the motivations of Bush and Blair pure or evil?



Monday, June 17, 2013

The post before the post

I revised this Q/A and will link to an older post on the same kind of discussion; enjoy :)
Abe Lincoln's legacy will be in the next post, insha allah.


Q./A.

Good day Jane, thanks for the reply again. I hope you are well.

<<<

although I am an atheist, I was a Christian for 25 years. This is what Christians believe as well. They believe that God created human beings with the ability to know and love him. If God did do this, then it is expected that he would reveal himself adequately to all human beings, particularly if heaven or hell is on the line. But I don't think that we can say that God has done this. There are billions of people today who believe other things than you do about God/Allah. There are billions of people who have lived previously who have believed in the spirits and polytheism. What humans believe about the gods is complex and not totally understood, but it can certainly be said that the most important determinant in this is culture; when and where a person was born.

I also have some experience with the Mormons. One day after they gave me their book, I decided to read. After finishing, I found nothing to make me believe that this was the prophetic word of God. When I told them this in a follow-up appointment, they asked me if I had prayed to God while reading to reveal to me if it was true. I came to understand that these people had had a religious experience where they were confident that this book was inspired by God. I have had my own religious experiences as a Christian that convinced me that Christianity was the true religion. These types of experiences are common to all human beings and I am sure that some pagans had the same experience regarding Zeus, Thor, and Shiva.

It’s also quite bizarre to think that everything that happens is according to God's will. There are 9 million children that die every year before the age of five, before they had ever had a chance to formulate any solid beliefs about a deity. And millions of human beings have died before birth as a result of spontaneous miscarriage. Hundreds of millions of other humans are born with congenital brain defects, so hardly can be expected to formulate correct beliefs about God.

to my mind, these facts are inconsistent with a God that wants to have a relationship with human beings, but quite consistent with religion being a human phenomenon. It is unreasonable to believe that human beings who follow other religions are deliberately being wicked. There certainly are some frauds out there, but the majority of regular people are earnest in their belief. They are not deliberately rejecting Allah and the Prophet; they have just come to believe other things.

it seems quite clear to me, that this world is not governed by any divine will, but by cold impersonal mindless physical forces. This beautifully explains all phenomena in the world from tsunamis, floods, drought, the plague, malaria, birth defects, a world governed by survival of the fittest and dominated by survival of the strongest, the diversity of life. And suffering. IMHO, a loving deity who wants a relationship with human individuals does not.

. <<

my point about the four witnesses is that we have better ways to determine whether adultery occurred. It is not a very practical requirement for adultery because it's almost never going to happen. It is more likely that a rich spouse hired 4 witnesses. In addition three reliable witnesses could be enough. Why not five witnesses?

Finally stoning to death is a horrific punishment for adultery. There are many people who have committed adultery who have reformed themselves to become valuable citizens in the world. My best friend was one of them. If he had been stoned to death his two children and wife would've missed out on a great provider, husband and father. He was suffering his psychological issues at the time when he was in his early 20s.

My point about rape was that Islam has difficulty deciding what rape is. There are many people claiming to know Islamic jurisprudence on this who feel that sometimes the woman is responsible, at least partly, if she is inadequately accompanied or dressed. Apparently Islam feels that men are barbarians and cannot resist women.

Reply – many non-Muslims also say things like this, it doesn’t mean it is okay for a man to commit rape, and most Muslims know that rape isn’t justified because the woman is not properly dressed; many rapists are non-Muslims, I’d say more than likely most are non-Muslims. India at the moment has a big problem with gang rape; the question is obvious – why is it happening? Are all men "barbarians" after all?It seems men there regard women as objects, and many men may well be affected by drugs, alcohol, pornography, and so on. If they are not able to marry or have sex with women, they resort to rape, because it is a gang activity, I doubt it is a group psychosis, but a group activity which has gained acceptance among youth or men there. Obviously, the society has many ills if this is the case.)

in my country, rape is not very common. The vast majority of women live their lives never experiencing it. I think it is far more prevalent in poor countries, like India and Pakistan. Not sure how much rape is reported in some countries and as I said before, we can always make rape very unlikely by chaining women to their homes, but that would[not] increase the quality of lives for women. The vast majority of Western women value their freedom and the ability to make their own decisions.

Reply – Stu, you said you are from America or the west? Where do you actually live and call home, then, because rape happens every five minutes or even more than that in America. I think you are not telling me the whole truth…? I believe it was also, Stu, but I could be mistaken who said his wife was at the Boston Marathon or nearby, when the explosion happened!) Allah knows better than I.

<<

<<


Actually, when you read the saying, it illustrates that the Prophet was telling men, if they beat their wives they shouldn't sleep with them, which is like a deterrent.<<<<< I

These two above statements reveal to me that you believe that the man has authority over the woman. Do you think men have some sort of special knowledge and moral authority to dictate to women how they should dress? Are women so inferior that they need a man to tell her, with authority to beat her if she doesn't comply?

1) Yes, man has a responsibility to care for and protect his woman, or wife or daughters. 2) I was obviously speaking about the past (that men should beat their wives; is something not done by regular Muslim men anymore, which I speak about elsewhere, probably I mentioned this to him , so I'll check the details of other emails), which is 1400 years ago, if you would pay closer attention when reading, you wouldn’t be asking this question; I am a self-respecting and good woman, therefore, I do take care to dress modestly and believe many women would do so, if they believed it was for their own good; problem is many women believe it is beneficial to dress provocatively, though it is 2013, so they can find a companion who will love them; this is the wrong approach, but they think it will work. Women are raised from childhood to believe that their looks are the most important thing when it comes to finding love. Society also encourages women by the magazines, advertising, fashion shows, etc. to like to dress in the latest fashions and spend their earnings on clothing and makeup, and accessories, so they can be trendy and this will compensate for their feelings of ugliness, shortcomings in appearance or skills, etc. Many women are not following the crowd and are brainy enough to shun at least some of the unnecessary and frivolous spending on new clothing and instead care about more important matters. They also would seem to have more self-respect and dignity than someone who needs to seek approval from others. There are Western women who boycott products or companies they believe exploit women in sexually suggestive ways, or abuse workers (e.g. Calvin Klein becasue of its ads, is sometimes boycotted by individual women, others which employ girls in sweat shops). 3) “No” men don’t have “some sort of special knowledge” and I can’t imagine what you think that I or anyone would think that would be?? Women and men both have their duties to family, society and God. They will also be equally rewarded for their good deeds. There isn’t a huge movement among Muslim women to have the Quran changed, because they understand that Islam says they are equal in the sight of God and before the law. Women wear hijab (the Islamic clothing, a long outer garment or hijab and cover their hair with a veil, not out of fear of the husband, but in obedience to God, who demands it; if they don’t, no one should force them, or abuse them in any case. There are many uncovered women in GCC and also many covered women. Many women have grandmothers who didn’t cover in their youth, but their mothers began to cover and now they also may or may not cover; it is their choice. In Saudi Arabia and Iran women cover as per their government’s laws. In France women don’t wear niqaab as it is banned. Therefore, it is also governments which dictate the type of hijab. Even non-Muslims now can tell women how they should dress, which is definitely not a sign of absolute freedom of choice, either. Whether the government is Islamic or applies some of the sharia, or is a secular or democratic government, women are finding that they are being forced to demand their freedom of choice and conscience. All the power and God’s help to them, I say. Note that in Saudi Arabia, actually, not all women are forced to keep on the face veil, though it is something the government prefers (and it is the law - which is sometimes ignored) women do, as they are asked to abide by sharia law (almost but not quite in every area of life). No non-Muslims are permitted to enter Mecca, but other than that, they are free to travel the Kingdom, with visas. It is as other countries concerned with security so people are required to have jobs and place of employment or a valid reason for being in the Kingdom, or they can be expelled. One might see Americans as well as Indonesians or Chinese living and working in Saudi Arabia, and they do so with respect for the law in most cases.

[A famous female who works in television in Riyadh does not cover, this shows that she is not being abused because she is not covering though she knows it is the law. She also says she is intelligent and understands Islam, therefore the reason for her lack of face veil and the reason for her makeup and hair (she partly covers her hair only) is that she prefers to dress and behave in a manner against the Sharia. Yet she accuses the Sheikh of being extremist and against the rights of women. She should not defend her tendency to exaggerate the govt's crimes against her, when she is able to do so on national television and was not in any way abused (prior to her statements; in the video on YouTub). Whether or not she is still alive is for the audience to answer, I have no interest in the question or her campaign against sharia.]

<<

well indeed, some of the topics might be irrelevant. I'm not sure that slavery today is irrelevant in the Muslim world. There are some countries in the world that claim to be based on sharia who have not outlawed slavery. It is strange to me that God would condone slavery by giving rules for its management if he knew that ultimately these rules would be irrelevant. Slavery has become irrelevant in most of the world because all humans have come to understand that slavery is abhorrent. Concubinage and, for the most part polygamy, have also become irrelevant for the same reasons.

********

Allah permitted slavery in His wisdom, but He revealed to the prophet on many occasions the great reward for freeing slaves. It was also forbidden to make a free person a slave as per the prophet Muhammad’s saying (revise – find direct quote). Yes, it is absolutely the case that all people have come to see that it is a practice of past ages, and most communities, who are modern don’t even think about slavery anymore, because it is so far from our idea of equality and human brotherhood. Islam definitely had something to do with the almost complete eradication of slavery; as I mention, people in the more modern Islamic countries still today express interest to free the remaining slaves in such countries as Sudan or Nigeria, where people often live in desert tribes, away from modern life. It is likely some slave owners are Christians.There are hardly slaves in the cities or towns anymore, though one might be able to find some (How many? I can’t honestly say I know, nor do I think anyone knows, but maybe there is someone who can study this; it would be a worthwhile endeavor for some Islamic nations to do so, maybe one day, they will allot resources to this question). We realize that even Saudi Arabia is not a perfect model of an Islamic nation, and while some people claim that leaders such as Ghaddafi promoted women’s rights in their own country, it isn’t the case, but a false understanding of what he was actually promoting, which was the disrespect and enslavement of women (and men) to his ideology (a kind of socialism). He imprisoned many innocent men and even women and boys, therefore how could it be claimed that he was “elevating” women or promoting “women’s rights”? Nonetheless, Islam encourages freeing of slaves, people free slaves voluntarily or others pay to have the slaves released (pay the price of the slave to the Sayyid (master). There was never a racist attitude in Islam however, and slaves were not only black people. Therefore, it was an economic and societal norm (which was slowly changing) and freedom for slaves necessitated understanding of Islamic teachings; this knowledge spread very far and in the epicenter there were fewer slaves than at any time in history when the Prophet died and the love for his Sunnah meant that people continued to free slaves all the time. Perhaps in some countries this didn’t progress as fast and with the fall of the Islamic Empire, though there was slave trading by Christians (which continued even to the last century in a Westward movement, to America, which was also “necessity” because the slaves helped build the country and were used as cheap labor, etc. their humanity was questioned, and only until very recently in the West the law stated that black person is only 3/5 of a white person. The government (not the Bible) probably along with some encouragement from religious leaders taught that because the bible says that God put a mark on the son of Adam who killed his brother, eg. Cane killed Abel, which was taught in some circles or churches as the origin of black people. Muslims were forbidden from racism, racist remarks or racist attitudes and hatred of people based on race (xenophobia, etc.). No doubt this is in part why Muslims had no animosity or thoughts of enslavement because of race. In Arabia race wasn’t a factor in enslavement, but wars and the capture and necessary development of a system (long ago) necessitated that tribes and societies find a way to deal with their war captives without necessitating killing all the men and boys. People in communities must have thought of the need to use bonds such as chains, and if necessary beating with whips to discipline incompliant or disobedient slaves. Women were easier to control than men because they are weak, and obviously men liked to use women for sex, so that was also part of the social order in many societies long ago. One wonders how people in societies without slavery managed to defeat their enemies and avoid enslaving them. Did they kill almost all their enemies? Did they prefer to let them go after paying money? Or did they have to kill them because there was no other option, and their enemies would sooner or later come back to fight them again, with stronger more determined forces? Or did they make peace with their enemies so that there was no need for retaliation on either side, and how did they accomplish this? I can try to imagine what people long ago would have considered before either agreeing to enslave their enemies or to make peace with them. Even the environmental conditions, whether there was food enough for different tribes or nations (as in American Indian and Canadian native societies long ago, different “nations” or “clans” and “tribes” often differed or competed for food and grazing land, etc) It was probably a matter of survival that they didn’t take slaves but probably killed most of their enemies; maybe they also killed most of the women and children, which is the popular idea we have of turmoil in the “old west” between Indians and white people, and what occurred between many different native Indian groups (tribes or nations).

I definitely have no arguments (which justify) (for) slavery today (in most places) though, it is just that from a purely historical and anthropological perspective I can understand it much better than if I were to merely judge people - whether ancient or modern (modern in the sense that they exist today).

We don’t equate slavery of women with polygamy. It isn’t true that all people agree that polygamy is “abhorrent”, that is your own feeling and belief. Many women today accept polygamy, and I know some. They are happy as co-wives and I have even sat and visited with them, and gone camping with women who were co-wives. Something “abhorrent” would be unnatural, and polygamy isn’t unnatural, despite your dislike of it. You come from a Western or Christian background, so it seems strange and even a hateful practice, but that is your personal feeling and belief, others do not and shouldn’t have to live life exactly as you do, nor accept your personal likes and dislikes as their own; where is the freedom of choice which Westerners and Europeans always speak about? Where is the sincerity and humility? You say your best friend committed adultery and you forgive that, but you cannot understand why some societies and people prefer marriage (which is often a religious covenant and very serious and entered with necessary forethought and care.) There are also times when women prefer their husband to have another wife, whether you can find this even remotely possible or not. The Prophet taught that women and men should take care of their bodies’ cleanliness, to shower after sexual intercourse and to respect lovemaking as a God-given right for both spouses to enjoy, to fulfill their natural desires. Polygamy, like all marriage isn’t something dirty which brings to mind images of sexual perversion or abuse. Many in the west will shake their heads at Muslims or other polygamous groups, but easily fall into adultery, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, orgies, wife swapping and other sinful, hateful, dangerous or perverted acts. Please don’t talk down to me, it is very annoying. You are not “forceful” you are a very biased individual, as you say “biased”. At times, you contradict yourself.



When you say Muslims have "progressed" do you mean that they have become morally superior to the Quran?

“No” they are not superior in their faith, general ideas, beliefs or actions to the early Muslims nor do they have any other teaching or belief system which is superior to the Qur’an; their “progress” is the same progress which most nations and tribes have gone through, e.g. they have learned to give others their due rights, to respect individuality, to be patient in adversity, to live side by side with others in peace, they follow the laws of the land whether founded on religious or secular laws (e.g. in the GCC there are Islamic family courts, and also secular courts, because not all residents use the Islamic courts and also, secular laws don’t necessarily contradict most of the sharia(Islamic law) such as laws against stealing, drugs, trafficking, rape, physical assault, littering, disrupting the peace, violent protest, etc.) There has been scientific progress, much of it long ago, in the Muslim lands, and now the Ummah (community) is in a state of limbo, with little developments (in science or humanities) for a long time, but there is some signs of small (and also bigger) movements to “environmental protection” as you asked, and other areas of development, social welfare, women’s rights, health and education, which is an ongoing concern, since schools opened in most GCC countries in the 1920’s or so. Christian communities also spread to the GCC from neighboring countries (their homes) and have grown and have their own community and activities. I mention also the support of community groups, such as the Indian groups or the Irish expatriates for their support of the King’s handling of the crisis during the “Arab spring” and protests which turned violent in Bahrain due to the extremism of some of the local people.

The rights of others are an ongoing question, which unlike slavery is always in some state of flux, while slavery has diminished in numbers for centuries. Human rights continues to be an area of concern or interest in general; most countries have some laws which some of the people are in contest with e.g. they want changes to them. It is natural to have conflicts within society as well as with other nations. The important thing to keep in mind is to respect others right to self-determination, that some societies will develop more slowly, and the world has a restricted right to intervene, especially considering that there is a lot of power in the hands of a few. Good should be clear from evil, if nations overstep the clear limits, as defined by modern laws in respect to human rights, then something has to be done; what is done depends on factors (all of which I’m not completely familiar with as a non-expert); the ability for the nation to comply, the situation on the ground, and any number of other considerations. Is it right to immediately invade a country because there is a suspicion that it has nuclear weapons? Is it okay to bomb civilian populations to root out terrorists in another country, considering that the terrorists are far away and no immediate danger? If there are signs or suspicious movements, when and where do you attack the enemy? Etc.

Besides international terrorism, what other significant problems are there, and why does terrorism get the most attention? There is child labor, can we tackle that question as nations and how do we get nations or companies which break the law, to comply with the modern and acceptable ideas of what is permissible, as far as children and work? What about the minimum wage? Do we dictate to other countries what the minimum wage should be, or is that a completely internal matter? How can nations do better to eradicate drugs trafficking and human trafficking? Why did the USA’s “war on drugs” fail? These are just a few of the very important issues nations need to think harder about and come up with solutions. If in an age when slavery was common, yet people began to see it as an evil, especially if racism or sexism was involved, why blame Muhammad, pbuh, for the timing? It is the way the world is; some people, merely due to the environment and their geographical position, e.g. the Sahara or Antarctica might have different ideas of what is right and wrong - maybe it is too hot and dry or too cold and wet to think about anything but how one will find food for the day or mend his house? Modern nations have a much greater responsibility to the rest of the world than did the earlier peoples and nations.(This is the answer to why God left in place a system which later on (much later, in America, they adopted slavery when there wasn't any on the entire continent; there was war and massacres, but no slavery)would be "irrelevant"; slavery hardly exists today, in practise and numbers; of seven billion ppl how many are slaves?  It is amazing that modern men or women who sit for hours in front of their entertainment centers can lob twenty questions about why a man 14 centuries ago didn’t eradicate slavery or amend marriage laws (actually, in some respects, he did both) and completely forbid it forever (because he was doing what God told him to) and yet, they have no qualms about buying coffee from Starbucks and equipment from Caterpillar. You’ve had since world war II to do something about Israel’s’ racism in the Middle East, but what have you done and how long will it take before you realize something has to be done? You want a deity who wants a relationship with you, will come down? God dictates the relationship; He sent a book, which you refuse to examine open-mindedly despite the proofs it contains, then you also reject God even though you once believed, merely because people changed the contents of the book you had e.g. the Bible, or because people are not living up to the dictates of their religion? You are like a child who doesn’t know how to think for himself and ask why about everything; try to formulate some theories of your own that can explain why slavery was or wasn’t abolished forever, 1400 years ago, or something logical (not emotional) about why men are or are not permitted to marry more than one wife. If people have anything new or original to bring to the table, I’ll gladly examine it, as for old prejudices and racist rants, I’m not going to entertain such questions. People can see my videos, comments and read the blog. If you have a question, be considerate of the wording and tone of your question/message or I will ignore it. – I admit sometimes I’m tempted not to ignore such questions, but it is better if I do.

I realize quite well and often vividly (my imagination is good) how people react to Islam’s set of laws, Quranic statement, historical events, and present day Muslims, including the extremism, but I don’t think people who believe differently from Muslims have to change. They have the right and free will, which Allah gave them, to do as they like and believe as they believe. But that doesn’t change my belief that everyone on this earth has the ability to know God/Allah, and that they just have to use their minds and listen to their hearts. That can be qualified; if their minds are closed and their hearts are full of enmity towards Muslims, so that they don’t want to listen, and refuse knowledge, then it is their own fault. I don’t call that Allah’s will - that is their own determination to reject Islam and the Quran. They “will themselves” to reject God, He is always open to their belief in Him. If they just pray for guidance He will definitely guide them, but they shouldn’t pray asking Him to guide them to something which they will only agree with for a little while, because in the future, they will likely figure out (if that isn’t what Allah sent - the guidance He expects all people to follow, not something that claims to be from Him, but is falsehood), and then they won’t find what Allah has destined for them not to find (because they asked for something and prayed for something which He didn’t send). Pray only to be guided to the truth, not a specific religion (other than Islam, which is the truth; though you don’t have to call it by name, you can if you want to) People often are certain that what they believe is the truth, but “there is only one truth” – for certain, one is truly astray when one believes in a falsehood, only a claim to truth.







Nonmuslims complain about immigration today, but there was a time, we vividly imagine it in books like Roots, when the west with Europe and the Arabs earned wealth by transporting and selling black people as slaves to the Americas; literally forcing them to go there, out of complete disregard for their wishes, or even families. They were, before that, free and made slaves. This is one of the practices of old which Islam prohibited – Muhammad, pbuh, said, “………………[editing] ….”


(I must apologize here for not providing a proper quote, it is just that I have many books, but don't know where the hadith/saying I am looking for can be found, if any Muslims (or even non-Muslim) reader can help I would really appreciate it, until I find it I am searching. [I had previously asked for help from an Islamic website, but they turned me down, becasue they only help people (non-Muslims) with dawa; I thought, I'm kind of qualified for their help, but they denied me, oh well...] I will take a break after the next Post, then I will have time to fix some of the missing references or indirect quotes, which need to be direct quotes, etc.(despite the previous setback, I have now found a female scholar willing to help me with islamic knowledge, and references, etc.)   Unfortunately too, I can't do much better as far as the look of the blog, no expertise there!)

DD





Thursday, July 21, 2011

Summer Reading - Remembering Dubya

What a Commander- in -Chief does, acting naturally, during simultaneous reports of terrorist attacks
1.       Bush acted naturally on 9-11; if you follow the strategy that is being employed. If you don’t follow the strategy, then you are confused.
2.       He doesn’t follow the military strategy, in this case (morning of 9-11)
3.       He does follow ‘a strategy’, but what is it? Does it have a name?
4.       Maybe, he is following “subversive tactics” strategy to fool the general society.
5.       Ignorance is bliss as Gov’t policy: Most of the society, the normal people, (who) don’t have to know anything, most of the government, even (‘don’t have to know’), America’s allies (‘don’t have to know’), the Arabs, maybe the Al Saud family is excepted, (don’t have to know’), Canada, Britain, too, (‘don’t have to know’), or anyone who doesn’t have to know.
6.       Probably some Jewish people are informed about the (real) nature of the attacks beforehand.
7.       Some other Jews, Christians, etc. (or, connected closely with the first group, no6) are told to remain home from work, or try to fake death during 9-11 of a family member, so they can collect from the government and move to the Bahamas, or some other exotic location.
8.       What Bush does leading up to, during and after the attacks is strangely odd for a President, and commander- in- chief. But he knows what he is doing.
9.       The Al Saud quickly takes off less than one week after the attacks by terrorists. (Michael Moore)
10.   Condoleezza Rice lied, according to Time magazine in August, 2002. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within)
                    WAR Was Off the Shelf: About 9-11
           Bush government was ready for the Gulf War. Plans were on the shelf, says article.
          Brzezinski, America believes, they not just someone has to “control[s] … [the] oil [and] gas”.

11.   Other higher ups are involved, and know what is going on.
12.   America threatens Al-Qaeda in July, 2001, two months before a “pre-emptive” attack by OBL (it appears he [was] an “Islamic zealot”. (Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within)
13.   Some FBI agents hire David P. Shippers as their lawyer, to fight allegations that they are guilty of “whistle blowing” under the National Security Act.
14.   Strategy: Al-Qaida was a good target because Clinton has already planned to go after Bin Laden for his attack, on the Cole in Yemen, in Dec., 2000.(Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within)
15.   Eurasia’s resources  is the likely target of America’s foreign policy in the region; an attempt to get the upper hand on Russia, China in its hegemony and control of  Central Asian former Soviet republics,(or Muslims) according to President Carter’s former National Security Advisor, Brzezinski. (Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within)
16.   The start of a ‘militarization campaign’, says Ahmed (Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, executive director of Institute for Policy Research and Development, author of The War On Freedom), quoting Brzezinski. (Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within)
17.   Once a Unocal employee is sent to take care of business in Afghanistan, along with former employee of Unocal (“according to Le Monde”) Hamid Karzai, the newly elected President of Afghanistan, Bush makes up an axis of Evil with Saddam as the Iraqi target. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within).
18.   Then OBL is believed to be in Iraq, to prove the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida “as foretold by Brzezinski”. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within)
19.   No weapons of mass destruction are ever found in Iraq.
20.   Saddam is caught, and hanged after a quickie trial.
21.   OBL leaves Sudan, in 1996, with 3,000 others. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within)
22.   Bin Laden issues a Fatwa, 1996. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within)
23.   OBL is finally caught in Afghanistan, early 2011.
24.   American troops will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely in a “militarization campaign”, Ahmed quotes Brzezinski. (Gore Vidal, the Enemy Within).
Thanks to the people or organizations mentioned above for the hard work of researching and writing the facts.