Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A moment of silence for all the dead Jihadists

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by oozyism
 


So you are saying the Iraqis are savages who can't control themselves? Do they need a brutal dictator to keep from killing each other? We gave them freedom, and they killed each other. This is our fault?

Freedom? What is freedom? I would love to know that... The civil war didn't start because they are savages, it started when someone bombed the al-Askari Mosque. The only one who gains from the bombing is the occupiers who occupied Iraq for no justifiable reasons.

Sunnis and Shias lived in Iraq for a long time without any violence, under the British and under the Ottoman empire.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I didn't say anything about Al-Qaeda. The US doesn't have to perpetrate a civil war. The Sunnis and Shiites are fighting a 1400 year old religious dispute, that will never end unless one side is wiped out.
Since we went there to steal all of Iraq's oil and other riches, wouldn't a peaceful Iraq be far more beneficial, than one in civil war?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by oozyism
 


I didn't say anything about Al-Qaeda. The US doesn't have to perpetrate a civil war. The Sunnis and Shiites are fighting a 1400 year old religious dispute, that will never end unless one side is wiped out.
Since we went there to steal all of Iraq's oil and other riches, wouldn't a peaceful Iraq be far more beneficial, than one in civil war?


Nope you want to have a presence in Iraq just like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why would they spend trillions of dollars to invade Iraq and then just leave? That is an absurd belief, and it is even more absurd that someone actually swallowed it.

Nope, as I said before they were living peacefully under the British and Ottoman without any violence. America wants to stay in Iraq, if there is peace then they have to leave. The oil production in Iraq is doing fine, the violence won't effect it.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


If you have never known freedom, you wouldn't understand the concept.
No, they started fighting again because there was no brutal dictator to keep them in line.
What, are you kidding? Iraq was a war-zone during the Ottoman Empire, with factional clans fighting each other non stop. The British colonialists ruled with an iron fist, often burying Iraqis in pig skins so they wouldn't go to Allah.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by oozyism
 


If you have never known freedom, you wouldn't understand the concept.
No, they started fighting again because there was no brutal dictator to keep them in line.
What, are you kidding? Iraq was a war-zone during the Ottoman Empire, with factional clans fighting each other non stop. The British colonialists ruled with an iron fist, often burying Iraqis in pig skins so they wouldn't go to Allah.

Freedom, you have to explain that to me. I live in New Zealand, do you believe New Zealand is free?

Am I kidding, no I'm not...

We were talking about Shia and Sunnis which both lived amongst each other during both British and Ottoman empire, peacefully.

So once again who is to gain most from all of this? Who is to gain from the violence?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


حتي كساني كه با انتحار مي‌‏آيند و مي‌‏زنند عده‌‏اي را مي‌‏كشند، آن هم به عنوان عمليات انتحاري، اينها در قعر جهنم هستند


Saddam Hussein used mustard gas on Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish villageof Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including mustard gas and sarin killed 5,000 people and left 65,000 others with severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam launched about 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds.

www.cfr.org...#

The next quote pertains to the Kurdish peoples in Iraq. And there main religious preference.

Islam
Today, the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim, belonging to the Shafi school. Mystical practices and participation in Sufi orders are also widespread among Kurds.[81] There is also a minority of Kurds who are Shia Muslims, primarily living in the Ilam and Kermanshah provinces of Iran, Central and south eastern Iraq (Fayli Kurds).



and I beleve this might be the cause of the internal strife in iraq between the two people.

Saddam Hussein's popularity in the Muslim and Arab world varied greatly, depending upon whom one asked and what the political situation at the time was. Because of his repression of the religious Shi'ite minority in Iraq and his long war with Shi'ite Iran, it was difficult for Shi'ite Muslims to find anything good to say about Hussein. In addition, because of his staunch secularism and his secularization of Iraq, it was been difficult for devout and conservative Muslims of any type to think well of him.

link

So you must agree that the chemical attack on the Kurds was one of the reasons for the fighting.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ashnomadonte]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The great thing about this is that let's say your "fellow humans" end up spreading radical Islam and establish the global caliphate. When they cut your head off I will be laughing



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ashnomadonte
 


Are you saying the civil war was because of Saddam? ZZZ still confused. Don't hesitate to be more specific..



[edit on 6-10-2009 by oozyism]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastalgik
The great thing about this is that let's say your "fellow humans" end up spreading radical Islam and establish the global caliphate. When they cut your head off I will be laughing

And who made you believe that garbage? And did you surround that garbage with protection so nothing can penetrate through it? Because I don't want to waste my time...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Really? I figured you to be Jordanian or Saudi. You clearly need to read some history, if you think all was peaceful during the Ottoman Empire in Iraq. I recommend A History of Iraq by C. Tripp.

No one benefits from the fighting. It is hard to steal their oil and riches in the throws of a civil war.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by oozyism
 


Really? I figured you to be Jordanian or Saudi. You clearly need to read some history, if you think all was peaceful during the Ottoman Empire in Iraq. I recommend A History of Iraq by C. Tripp.

No one benefits from the fighting. It is hard to steal their oil and riches in the throws of a civil war.

ZZZ Once again, Sunni and Shia... Stick to one point than jump the hurdle.

And who is controlling Iraq's resources right now?

America had way too much to gain from the civil war to ignore:

- They managed to demonize the enemy, blamed everything on them.
- They managed to postpone every withdrawal promise they made.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashnomadonte
reply to post by oozyism
 


So you must agree that the chemical attack on the Kurds was one of the reasons for the fighting.


They were supplied those weapons by the west and it was not a matter of concern even after the event . The british at least had no qualms about it until the americans pointed out to them it would be politically useful to adopt such reservations in the attempt to bring a case for war aginst Iraq . Issues such as this do not concern the British or the Americans . Do you think they care if saddam killed 10 or 10,000 kurds . They do not . It is just viable cause. If farts were internationally illegal they would have used that too . We live in a world where the nation that has the most military might makes all the rules, International law is irrelevant . They will use anything they can to impose sanctons . To weaken the economy to make it ripe for invasion or towards debt to US financial institutions like the IMF .



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Well now, this has to be the most original, if a bit elaborate, way to troll....
Someone is clearly starved of attention...

IMHO it's a good thing Jihadist madman blow themselves up..by all means, indulge yourselves, it gets a bit less good when they insist on taking innocent civillians with them.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Give me a freakin' break! Insurgents pack a charge that kills a bunch of women and children, and it's the fault of the US?

Pretty lame. And a complete fail on your part. Try again.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
ZZZ Once again, Sunni and Shia... Stick to one point than jump the hurdle.



See?

That's your problem Ooz you ignore real history and instead you go with that stuff in your head.



Iraq Sunni and Shi

Iraq

Shī‘ī-Sunni discord in Iraq starts with disagreement over the relative population of the two groups. According to most sources, including The CIA World Factbook, the majority of Iraqis are Shī‘ī Arab Muslims (around 65%), and Sunnis represent about 32% of the population.[40] However, Sunni are split ethnically between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. Many Sunnis hotly dispute their minority status, including ex-Iraqi Ambassador Faruq Ziada,[41] and many believe Shia majority is "a myth spread by America".[42] One Sunni belief shared by Jordan's King Abdullah as well as his then Defense Minister Shaalan is that Shia numbers in Iraq were inflated by Iranian Shias crossing the border.[43] Shia scholar Vali Nasr believes the election turnout in summer and December 2005 confirmed a strong Shia majority in Iraq.[44]

The governing regimes of Iraq were made mainly of Sunnis for nearly a century until the 2003 Iraq War. The British, having put down a Shia rebellion against their rule in the 1920s, "confirmed their reliance on a corps of Sunni ex-officers of the collapsed Ottoman empire". The British colonial rule ended after the Sunni and Shia united against it.[45]

The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, especially that of Saddam Hussein. Under Saddam public Shia festivals such as Ashoura were banned. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount.[46] In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979-1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq.[47] They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989.[48] Shia opposition to the government following the first Gulf War was reportedly suppressed.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

See?

That's your problem Ooz you ignore real history and instead you go with that stuff in your head.



Iraq Sunni and Shi

Iraq

Shī‘ī-Sunni discord in Iraq starts with disagreement over the relative population of the two groups. According to most sources, including The CIA World Factbook, the majority of Iraqis are Shī‘ī Arab Muslims (around 65%), and Sunnis represent about 32% of the population.[40] However, Sunni are split ethnically between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. Many Sunnis hotly dispute their minority status, including ex-Iraqi Ambassador Faruq Ziada,[41] and many believe Shia majority is "a myth spread by America".[42] One Sunni belief shared by Jordan's King Abdullah as well as his then Defense Minister Shaalan is that Shia numbers in Iraq were inflated by Iranian Shias crossing the border.[43] Shia scholar Vali Nasr believes the election turnout in summer and December 2005 confirmed a strong Shia majority in Iraq.[44]

The governing regimes of Iraq were made mainly of Sunnis for nearly a century until the 2003 Iraq War. The British, having put down a Shia rebellion against their rule in the 1920s, "confirmed their reliance on a corps of Sunni ex-officers of the collapsed Ottoman empire". The British colonial rule ended after the Sunni and Shia united against it.[45]

The Shia suffered indirect and direct persecution under post-colonial Iraqi governments since 1932, especially that of Saddam Hussein. Under Saddam public Shia festivals such as Ashoura were banned. It is said that every Shia clerical family of note in Iraq had tales of torture and murder to recount.[46] In 1969 the son of Iraq's highest Shia Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim was arrested and allegedly tortured. From 1979-1983 Saddam's regime executed 48 major Shia clerics in Iraq.[47] They included Shia leader Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister. Tens of thousands of Iranians and Arabs of Iranian origin were expelled in 1979 and 1980 and a further 75,000 in 1989.[48] Shia opposition to the government following the first Gulf War was reportedly suppressed.


Don't you understand, Slayer? With their unlimited access to Time Travel the CIA managed to go back in time and stir up trouble in Iraq. They also managed to "plant" documented evidence that Muslims have been murdering other Muslims in the ME for decades. Oh wait that doesn't sound very promising...umm, they gave financial aid to a ME country that was not Israel and thus justified all the terrorism committed against them. That works better. They could not have done it for any other reason except political gain. Unlike other Powerful countries that only give money to others out of the goodness of their hearts. What about those numerous radical Islamic militias?

Oh wait, radical Islam was actually fabricated out of thin air by the West following 9/11, how silly of me. All those terrorist acts committed against the West in the Middle East area are just CIA agents (with the help of their Mossad counterparts) to get America to hate Muslims and support Israel. Those brave freedom fighters who just want to be left alone and not receive financial or military aid from the USA. They only want money so that they can kill USA soldiers and spread hate of the West. Is that so terrible!

(P.S. The tone of this post is highly sarcastic.)



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


You forgot the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is in accordance with publication policy of www.stratfor.com, which allows the following piece to be posted. The article deals with recent attack on an aid agency (distributing food to poor Pakistanis) by a jihadist group:


The increase in attacks has often led to the drawdown of Western aid employees in a given country, and this has forced these organizations to rely heavily on local, mainly Muslim, employees to conduct most of the relief work in the most dangerous places. However, the track record over the past few years has demonstrated that local employees are every bit as likely to be targeted as their Western colleagues. This is in part due to the fact that jihadists declare that all Muslims who work with infidels are apostates and therefore no better than infidels themselves. (This is called the doctrine of Takfir, or apostasy, and the fact that the jihadists claim to have the ability to declare another Muslim an apostate is very controversial within Islam, as is the killing of non-combatants such as humanitarian workers.)

In Pakistan, local aid workers are dedicated to reaching the hungry, sick and dispossessed people they serve, and this makes them extremely vulnerable to attack because they operate in some very remote and dangerous places. They are far more likely to be working outside of the larger, more secure organizational offices and in smaller, more vulnerable clinics and food distribution points. Because of this, there is a high likelihood that if the organizational offices present too hard a target, these lower-level aid workers and smaller aid distribution points could be targeted in lower-level TTP attacks. This would be part of the TTP effort to derail what it perceives as the U.S. agenda to stabilize (or, in the TTP’s eyes, influence and control) Pakistan by providing aid to the people displaced by the fighting between the government of Pakistan and the TTP and its foreign allies.


Look, these loonies are KILLING LOCAL MUSLIMS for the sake of their own insanity, and anybody who proposes to observe a moment of silence to honor these murderous nuts is a fruitcake.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Hey oozyism why don't you take a real stand for the poor opressed jihadists and join them, and when the US Soldiers and Marines get done with you some other bleeding heart can have a moment of silence for you. If you feel so badly for these poor jihadists live with them and see if you can express your opinions to them as you do in the USA. You know that's a good suggestion for you get the hell out of this country. We have too many like you no backbone always ready to criticize the USA never willing to back it. Thank God you were not part of the generation that fought WWII we would probably part of Germany now. oh sorry is it OK for me to reference God I'm sure you object get out of my country!!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by RankRancid
Reply to post by oozyism
 




Any man that has the balls to arm up and walk into battle for people he is protecting deserves respect.

Ohh what about the Jihadists, what do you suppose they are doing?

What they're doing is walking into a crowded area, it doesn't even have to have Americans around, and blowing themselves up while taking innocent women and children with them.


Cowards that kill themselves and innocent people deserve nothing except 17 crazy moaning chicks.

And who is more coward? The individual who kills by pressing a button far away from the fight> or the individual who is willing to give up his life to protect his people and land?

Getting ambushed or car bombed or raiding houses with weapons caches, that's really far from the fight... oh, and most Mujahideen aren't even Iraqi. They're not protecting their own people. They' don't care who they kill.


I'd swap all the virgins for one dirty skank as long as she leaves me to myself.


A former US soldier has been sentenced to life in prison for raping a teen and murdering her and her family while on active duty in Iraq. The jury failed to reach the unanimous verdict required for the death penalty sought by the prosecution.

Link

Yeah sure Americans get their virgins when ever they want, this is turning in to ranting. Can you say anything that is productive to the discussion?

The Army is a cross section of society. You're going to get bad people like this everywhere. It's obviously inexcusable.





[edit on 8-10-2009 by Freqzer0]






top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join