even as a moderate british muslim (i.e. beardless) i can get pissed off with some of whats going on in the world.

ok, i don't have a problem with some of our liberties being taken away...if some guys from the same religion as you start blowing people up in the name of that religion you can't blame the govt for becoming a little bit suspicious of muslims. its not too much worse than the treatment Irish guys got over here when the IRA were blowing up sections of the country.

but how can you not get annoyed when the britain govt continues to arse-lick the american president and unquestioningly support their foreign policy? i.e. a foreign policy which talks about spreading freedom and democracy across the world, yet has no problem imprisoning and torturing people without a trial. A foreign policy which based an invasion on another nation on the liklihood of them having weapons of mass destruction.

And for those who think it was worth it just to get rid of a brutal dictator, there are dozens of other countries in the world with leaders as brutal as the Hussain –how about the great american ally, the president of kyrgyzstan, who boils his political opponents alive and holds vast amounts of wealth from his people. I guess the American base there might have something to do with it. I didn’t notice the world rushing to the aid of the Sudanese blacks as they were systematically killed and raped by the Sudanese arabs. No oil there then.

No, I don’t want this country turned into an islamic state. I don’t think the BNP should be prevented from having their say unless they do genuinely insight violence against minorities. Everyone has the right to express their opinion in a democracy….and that includes expressing their anger at our foreign policy.


thats all i can be bothered to type now. more wisdom will be cascaded from my islamic fingers later. :)

Non-Muslims are rightfully astonished to see what's happening in Iraq. It seems that the Islamic world is destined, for the time being, to be easily separated based on Sunni and Shia beliefs. Forget about US foreign policy for a moment, unless you'd like to blame the Sunni/Shia struggles on the "infidels"?

Look to the West Bank today and you'll see Fatah and Hamas fighting/killing for power and the right to assert their beliefs on their own Muslim "Brothers". Look to Lebanon and you'll see the national government leaders (who are Sunni) killed in car bombs by the supporters of the opposition party Hezbollah, who are Shia. Then look at Iraq and you'll see, once the US Army leaves, it will be a power struggle between the Sunni/Shia again, within the existing borders of Iraq, much like the Iraq (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) war. In Iraq, the New Iraqi Army will be regarded (rightly or wrongly) as a puppet-regime for the Western powers, so that Army will simply receive bombs and bullets in the same way the US currently is.

even as a moderate british muslim (i.e. beardless) i can get pissed off with some of whats going on in the world.

ok, i don't have a problem with some of our liberties being taken away...if some guys from the same religion as you start blowing people up in the name of that religion you can't blame the govt for becoming a little bit suspicious of muslims. its not too much worse than the treatment Irish guys got over here when the IRA were blowing up sections of the country.

but how can you not get annoyed when the britain govt continues to arse-lick the american president and unquestioningly support their foreign policy? i.e. a foreign policy which talks about spreading freedom and democracy across the world, yet has no problem imprisoning and torturing people without a trial. A foreign policy which based an invasion on another nation on the liklihood of them having weapons of mass destruction.

And for those who think it was worth it just to get rid of a brutal dictator, there are dozens of other countries in the world with leaders as brutal as the Hussain –how about the great american ally, the president of kyrgyzstan, who boils his political opponents alive and holds vast amounts of wealth from his people. I guess the American base there might have something to do with it. I didn’t notice the world rushing to the aid of the Sudanese blacks as they were systematically killed and raped by the Sudanese arabs. No oil there then.

No, I don’t want this country turned into an islamic state. I don’t think the BNP should be prevented from having their say unless they do genuinely insight violence against minorities. Everyone has the right to express their opinion in a democracy….and that includes expressing their anger at our foreign policy.


thats all i can be bothered to type now. more wisdom will be cascaded from my islamic fingers later. :)


You make some good points. I personally supported the war..

The war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction - Hussain would NOT allow weapons inspection teams inside his country. not once, not twice but dozens and dozens of times. After the 1st Gulf war, he promised to allow these inspections - they were called "sanctions". By saying no... he deservidly got his head hanged.



However - i hear you saying "but it was really about the oil!!"... and maybe i think you are right, or atleast partly right. But lets forget about whats right and whats wrong. Eventually the worlds oil is going to run out, and the countries with the most oil will obviously gain power - sadly these are not us, or America. By taking Iraq, we possibly might have secured our economic future... Christian British and Muslim British. I feel greedy, dishonest and shit about it, but its the truth.

America, like it or not, is our biggest ally, and in past conflicts have always helped us. We kind of owe them.
As for the imprisoning and torturing of prisoners... they are prisoners of war. And war is hell. To pretend it would not happen again, or is not happening or did not occur in the past is ridiculous. Its just the way it is.

As for your argument about "why just take saddam! when there are hundreds of tyrants around the world..!" I think this is a terrible view- i mean, first you say how terrible war is, and how America and Britain should not flex its militairy muscle ... then you say that we should attack ALL totalitarian societies?? One at a time i guess, it'd be wonderful if everyone lived in a great place like England though.

I'm scared lately though. I think eventually conflict will spread like wild fire. I think we are heading for WW3. Conflict in the middle east, conflict in Korea and Conflict in Palestine. East vs West.. and maybe Muslims vs the world.

Actually, if they were "prisoners of war", they would not be allowed to be transported outside Iraq and would be subject to various international combat protocols (like Geneva Conventions). That's partly why the US has created the "enemy compatant" and "illegal enemy combatant" designations, so the US can exercise discretion like never before, when dealing with actual Prisoners Of War.

One objective of the international protocols is to ensure, as best as possible, that POW's are given reciprocal treatment in wartime. The US has made certain that nothing will actual happen that way, by breaching all modern-day wartime protocols for prisoners.

So much for the USA's self-described obligation as the only reamining Super Power to bring stability to the world. It's more like they're simply happy to keep the Muslims so destablized that they'll keep fighting each other in preference to "terrorizing" the US.

You make some good points. I personally supported the war..

The war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction - Hussain would NOT allow weapons inspection teams inside his country. not once, not twice but dozens and dozens of times. After the 1st Gulf war, he promised to allow these inspections - they were called "sanctions". By saying no... he deservidly got his head hanged.

to be honest with you, i was also not completely against the war at the beginning. after all, saddam was a tyrant who had killed many of the Iraqi people and was by all accounts evil. it was only when the searches started to return nothing, and the powers continued to not give further details of the "evidence" of the wmd that I started to see the invasion for what it was. i.e...


However - i hear you saying "but it was really about the oil!!"... and maybe i think you are right, or atleast partly right. But lets forget about whats right and whats wrong. Eventually the worlds oil is going to run out, and the countries with the most oil will obviously gain power - sadly these are not us, or America. By taking Iraq, we possibly might have secured our economic future... Christian British and Muslim British. I feel greedy, dishonest and shit about it, but its the truth.

thats a really good honest point you just made and almost completely spot on. the occupation in iraq and desire of western nations to gain more influence in the middle east is soley about oil. but its also an extremely short-sighted view. how many billions of pounds have been spent on the war and exercise to gain influence in the region by our government alone? maybe enough money to solar-panel every house in this country? or offer bonus's and tax breaks for companies to research and develop green technologies such as hydrogen fuelled cars? and eventually reduce our need for oil?

America, like it or not, is our biggest ally, and in past conflicts have always helped us. We kind of owe them.
As for the imprisoning and torturing of prisoners... they are prisoners of war. And war is hell. To pretend it would not happen again, or is not happening or did not occur in the past is ridiculous. Its just the way it is.

We, like America, are a democractic nation. We are both signed up to the Geneva convention which specifically disallows the torture of prisoners of war. When democratic powers like Britain and the US start to ignore the wishes of the rest of the world, what hope is there for world co-operation and peace? And isn't it hypocrital for the same nations to then tell other countries how to behave?

As for your argument about "why just take saddam! when there are hundreds of tyrants around the world..!" I think this is a terrible view- i mean, first you say how terrible war is, and how America and Britain should not flex its militairy muscle ... then you say that we should attack ALL totalitarian societies?? One at a time i guess, it'd be wonderful if everyone lived in a great place like England though.

i'm not arguing that at all. i'm just disputing this being a reason for invading iraq in the first place. i don't think we should remove every tyrant in the world. but i do think it is hypocritical and dangerous to be supporting them. lets not forget the United States supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war in return for preferential oil trade. and it is also apparently fine to be a tyrant and do cruel things to your own people if you let the americans set up a military base in your country. this is just wrong. so whats more important - your principles or protecting your own citizens right to run a gas-guzzling 4 x x 4 and help destroy the world for our descendents?

I'm scared lately though. I think eventually conflict will spread like wild fire. I think we are heading for WW3. Conflict in the middle east, conflict in Korea and Conflict in Palestine. East vs West.. and maybe Muslims vs the world.

i can't really think of a scenario which will lead to another world war as terrible as what we have already had. None of the major powers will ever fight each other as there is too much to lose. I can see lots of smaller conflicts between 3rd world nations, civil wars and of course the United States invading the odd 3rd world country to satisfy their military blood lust.

apart from that, terrorism will probably be the most destructive force of the century, but only because of the foreign policy of the United States and the inability of Europe to intervene. i understand that there will always be terrorism and radicalism whatever happens, but surely the governments must recognise that doing what they are doing is just making it a million times easier for these groups to gain strength. take away much of the reason for islamic anger and you'll take power away from the extremists.

Islam...Christianity...Sikhism...Judaism


In god we trust baby

Can I just congratulate you guys for an extremely good thread - informative, interesting, measured. Compare it to the other thread on muslim issues on this board and well.....you gte the point.

I'll reply in more depth when I have more time.

Thanks for the reply rooq.

To the point about the prisoners of war - of cause support the geneva convention, and the support that it should be used in EVERY instance. But as a realist, it would be perfectly understandable to believe that in every war, P.O.W's will not be treated correctly.

more specifically:

The mentality of a G.I or a British squaddy will not be entirely focussed upon attaining the human rights of prisoners - whom they will blame for killing or maiming there friends. These prisoners, also in there eyes have proberbly contributed to attack them personally. The Allied soldier will also have been indoctrinated to hate the 'insurgent' and to despise his enemy, and more importantly - de-humanise his battle opponent. To expect these men, not to beat, insult or torture a captive - whilst under the influence of this way of thinking is naive. Although no sane person would say torturing prisoners is a good thing - i think it is just human nature, and proberbly natural. If you were in the desert and caught this insurgent whilst you were in battle, and had to keep him prisoner - can you honestly say that you would treat him respectfully and politefully - even in your most stressed, scared, anxious, shocked and battle scarred state?? Its a tough question, don't you think? Please answer honestly.

Although i obviously don't condone it, i think its a part of war which you can not eradicate - and therefore there is no reason to be shocked by it.


Hmm.. as for my point about attacking all tyrants... i think i was being a little sarcastic. I know what you really meant, it was more of a "why specifically is it saddam?" instead of "why is saddam first on our hitlist!" lol.

hope i havent waffled to much again.

Can I just congratulate you guys for an extremely good thread - informative, interesting, measured. Compare it to the other thread on muslim issues on this board and well.....you gte the point.

I'll reply in more depth when I have more time.

yea do. i'm enjoying the conversation. i don't often get to talk to a muslim to be honest, and if i do, i'd have never attempted to start a political discussion. I'd have been frightened that i'd offend. I'm glad rooq has opened this up.

number 1 they is a rule of foriegn invadsion theory is to divide the people and then control the winner.

for my post in the other thread will explain this.

You make some good points. I personally supported the war..

The war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction - Hussain would NOT allow weapons inspection teams inside his country. not once, not twice but dozens and dozens of times. After the 1st Gulf war, he promised to allow these inspections - they were called "sanctions". By saying no... he deservidly got his head hanged.



However - i hear you saying "but it was really about the oil!!"... and maybe i think you are right, or atleast partly right. But lets forget about whats right and whats wrong. Eventually the worlds oil is going to run out, and the countries with the most oil will obviously gain power - sadly these are not us, or America. By taking Iraq, we possibly might have secured our economic future... Christian British and Muslim British. I feel greedy, dishonest and shit about it, but its the truth.

America, like it or not, is our biggest ally, and in past conflicts have always helped us. We kind of owe them.
As for the imprisoning and torturing of prisoners... they are prisoners of war. And war is hell. To pretend it would not happen again, or is not happening or did not occur in the past is ridiculous. Its just the way it is.

As for your argument about "why just take saddam! when there are hundreds of tyrants around the world..!" I think this is a terrible view- i mean, first you say how terrible war is, and how America and Britain should not flex its militairy muscle ... then you say that we should attack ALL totalitarian societies?? One at a time i guess, it'd be wonderful if everyone lived in a great place like England though.

I'm scared lately though. I think eventually conflict will spread like wild fire. I think we are heading for WW3. Conflict in the middle east, conflict in Korea and Conflict in Palestine. East vs West.. and maybe Muslims vs the world.


the only real reson we went to war is for oil the usa n the uk just used "wepons of mass destruction" as a excusses nort kore pocess weopons of mass destruction one more advanced that iraq and have we invaded them? no cus theres no oil there same with other countrys

the only real reson we went to war is for oil the usa n the uk just used "wepons of mass destruction" as a excusses nort kore pocess weopons of mass destruction one more advanced that iraq and have we invaded them? no cus theres no oil there same with other countrys


it not for oil any way USA get most of it oil from Latin America and not the Middle East but from Japan to Europe it mostly from the middle east.

The thing is the purpose of the invasion of Iraq is just a part for destroying muslim countries and the reason is on Israel flag because before the Iraqi war and the Weapon of Mass destruction there was the Road for Peace thing which some arab countries and Israel where in the meeting on how the maps are going to be and from that Iraq had to go down because Israel believes it land is from the Nile to the Forat and in that meeting all of those countries too part in the meeting but they need time intell Israel could invade them all at once but now like make some chaos intell these countries are weaked by there internal war and then get rid of them

A moderate Muslim......well that aint a stereotype

A moderate Muslim......well that aint a stereotype


thanks for the contribution. what does it mean?

the only real reson we went to war is for oil the usa n the uk just used "wepons of mass destruction" as a excusses nort kore pocess weopons of mass destruction one more advanced that iraq and have we invaded them? no cus theres no oil there same with other countrys



No war with N Korea because there are estimates of up to 4 million people could die within days if it kicked off proper, which of course it would do given the might of their military machine

the only real reson we went to war is for oil the usa n the uk just used "wepons of mass destruction" as a excusses nort kore pocess weopons of mass destruction one more advanced that iraq and have we invaded them? no cus theres no oil there same with other countrys

Yea, i said that we went to war for the oil. I'm not disagreeing with you - but what i said that is different is that... perhaps, as a British man and maybe a little nationalistic - i am glad that we have a hand on middle eastern oil. Having our feet under the table in Iraq might secure our economic future. Imagine this - we haven't invaded Iraq and Saddam is still in power.. 50 years in the future, oil reserves are depleting - we have to now comprimise with Saddam. It would be a horrible situation to be in. This is why the oil is so important.

The Oil is "power" in more ways than one. (one being to fuel your home/car etc).


As for the WMD's... i think we had more than reasonible enough doubt that they were there. I mean he wouldn't let weapons inspectors inspect the country. Peace terms put forward by teh U.N said after the first gulf war said, you must let us in. Did he abide by this? ... no. A bad move. Not only this.. but he had a track record of using chemical weapons, which Hans Blix and co. were sent and later refused to see.

The real lie is the link between the twin towers and Iraq. There is no real link, other than a weak connection between Iraq sympathysing with Al Quieda... but thats a whole different story.

Yea, i said that we went to war for the oil. I'm not disagreeing with you - but what i said that is different is that... perhaps, as a British man and maybe a little nationalistic - i am glad that we have a hand on middle eastern oil. Having our feet under the table in Iraq might secure our economic future. Imagine this - we haven't invaded Iraq and Saddam is still in power.. 50 years in the future, oil reserves are depleting - we have to now comprimise with Saddam. It would be a horrible situation to be in. This is why the oil is so important.

The Oil is "power" in more ways than one. (one being to fuel your home/car etc).


but that still doesn't make sense to me because whether or not britain / america has influence and control over oil fields, it will still dry up sooner or later. so why spend billions trying to secure a diminishing resource when you could be spending that money on developing alternatives. the hydrogen fuel cell is already in the advanced stages of development, and then you have bio fuels as well. so whats the point in wasting tax payers money on a war and occupation for which there is no end in sight? not only is it immoral, but it doesn't make economic sense.

the real reason is that developing alternatives does not fit in with the short-sighted american way of life - we are defending the americans right to get access to subsidised "gasoline" to feed their penis-extension pick-up trucks and 4x4s.

the war and occupation has absolutely no advantage for britain economically, politically or militarily. its cost billions of pounds, has attracted terrorist attacks on our country and has needlessly cost the lives of many soldiers.

Its 2 Civilisations,Religions, Cultures.. whatever you want to call it.. That cant seem to co-exist.. And this is becasue many of their idealogies are polar opposites..

people can get all philosophical about the morals and ethics of things..... But BOTH sides are guilty of wishing the demise of the other.. and both sides are guilty of actions towards their goal....

Only the methods are different...

Its not about OIL or land or anything of the sorts..
It's simple dislike..

There is no right or wrong here.. ONLY human nature...

thanks for the contribution. what does it mean?it means i took a racist shit on this thread like most other religion threads

it means i took a racist shit on this thread like most other religion threads

its more of a political thread really. but hey...feel free to take a racist shit wherever you want. its a free country. ;)

it means i took a racist shit on this thread like most other religion threads

mmm...smells spicy.

its more of a political thread really. but hey...feel free to take a racist shit wherever you want. its a free country. ;)

lmao!!! nice response...........:lol1:

*takes a racist shit on all races*