Up you go once more..

^^^ You silly, silly girl

Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: Will he ever take the blinkers off for a second? Could he not see the hypocrisy of accepting the support of anti-war western left-wingers on the one hand and legalising the blood of all non-Muslim on the other? Most 'Anti-war Western left-wingers' seem to be accepting Blair and Bush's part in all this. You've expressed opinions of some people I've worked with in this topic. People who don't remember the first target in the Gulf War II was a restaurant and almost all ministries in Iraq were bombed. Are you saying bombing a train station is wrong but the ministry of transport is fair game? Where do you draw the line? As for giving 48 hour warning to Saddam, the people who claimed the responsibility for the recent outrages have been giving warning after warning of what they intend to do. The American security forces have been involved in Afghanistan for more than a decade before 911 and can't plea innocent even over there as far as i'm concerned. AYOUB, war is never right, saaxib. However, war has rules and regulations that most countries at war would follow. The bombardment of ministries is fair game. After all, they are the symbols of your enemy. As for the restaurant and the fish market (it was a market of sorts at any rate), could you really say that these were intentional? You see Ayoub, the fact that I’m even willing to argue this two-faced point with you is wrong. But, I really want to see where your argument is leading us. Did the Americans do their best to avoid civilian casualties or did they not? Did they set out to completely destroy Iraq? Could they have brought about more chaos and havoc on the place or could they not? Why didn’t they? Why did the people of Iraq (the majority that is) come out waving flowers and welcoming the invader? Why did eight million take part in the January American sponsored vote? Like you saaxib, I totally disagree with the occupation of Iraq. However, unlike you, I don’t allow my opposition to the occupation cloud my judgment and attempt to compare that with the intentional blowing up of ordinary civilians in London (and Iraq). That man kills man is nothing new. That man uses sophisticated weapons to kill his fellow man is not out of the ordinary. But when man deliberately sets out to murder unarmed people thus disregarding all known laws, is the height of injustice. There is no comparison between the two “sides†because one made it clear that it was not setting out to kill civilians (and the eyes of the whole world can testify to that end), while the other “side†does not care for civilians or show any remorse for their death. I’m clear on where I stand on this. I’m calling a spade, a spade. Where do YOU stand? Do you support those that murder innocent people (just because you hate America and the UK’s policies) or do you not? Don’t get into distractions, comparisons that don’t exist and excuses saaxib. Deal with facts. Does western policy set out to kill innocent civilians? If you agree that it does not (which, by the way, you have no other choice but to do), you will also agree (and you have no choice here either) that they indeed hold the moral high ground in this issue. Saaxib, try and be true to your own convictions here. Forget about this thread all together and decide to either support these people (in the name of jihad) while accepting no pleas, questions or arguments. Or, denounce such acts without the get out of jail card of “you reap what you sow†and the like! Have you the intellectual and moral integrity to choose a direction here?

^^ Heh! Nin ama gabadh, dear. It's still a nice name. If I told the wife that I’ve flirted with Taqwa, I’m sure she’ll approve. Might even encourage me to try and ensnare Taqwa and make Taqwa a permanent part of my life.

Heh. Now you’re being paranoid, dear. At the risk of sounding as if I’m flirting with you (which I probably am but don’t realise it), I like your name and don’t think I could refer to it without feeling obligated to add dear at the end, dear. Change it to something else and I’ll be more than happy to poke fun at you bombard you with sarcastic comments, dear. (You really have to trust me here).

^^^ That was supposed to be a compliment, dear. Albeit done in a round about and verbose sort of way. A compliment was, nevertheless, my intention.

Taqwa, Taqwa don't be too hasty, dear Taqwa. Skinny is a metaphor; he's not a real person. Had I said these things about Taqwa then yes I would need to provide proof that Taqwa is all these things and more. But, I did not accuse Taqwa or any other specific person for that matter. If my words make Taqwa feel awkward, then that, in the eyes of some people, might mean that Taqwa has something to feel guilty about, or does indeed fit the stereotype depicted above! In my eyes though, Taqwa should always feel uncomfortable by my words, Taqwa should always protest and question, Taqwa should be afraid that some of this might apply to her/him. Or else, Taqwa will not be worthy of the name. I’m very aware of my failings and shortcomings. I don’t recoil from displaying them daily on this site and elsewhere. But, it’s not I that’s on trial here (for I’m simply irrelevant). Skinny is the one on trail. The evidence against his rashness, schizophrenia and aggressiveness is overwhelming.

Originally posted by Abdi2005: quote:Originally posted by Viking: Nur, Do you think that the head scholar of Al-Azhar erred when a fatwa was announced in 1959 (which is unchanged till today) saying that it is allowed for a Muslim to be a follower of the Ja'fari madhab (Ithna Cashariyyah/Shi'a al-Cimaamiyah) ? Do you think that Sheikh Maxmud Shaltoot and all those who came after him are in the wrong? This fatwa is not of any value. This was made in time of arab nationalism and it was politically motivated fatwa. Al-azhar is not longer as it was before, we remember the words of al-tantawi the head of al-azhar about hijab ban in France. If al-azhar consider shiism it be legitimate madhab why don't they teach jafari madhab in al-azhar? its hypocrisy. Its really weird that after 1000year this is the best recognition shia hav to clime they are fifth madhab. What happened to our great scholars of islam? did any one of them recognized jafari madhab? NO All the debate about shiism among our scholar have not been whether to consider them fifth madhab or not but whether they are muslims or not and thats the plane fact if you study the works of our classical scholars. And the conclusion, in spite of all the waffle, is that they ARE Muslim. Or else, why would our ardent Sunni scholars and brothers allow these non-Muslims to set feet in Mecca? Some discussions are nauseatingly redundant and cause nothing but division and fetna. This is one of those discussions. It’s one and only aim is to prove that the Shia are deviants! Well, maybe they are. Maybe the Saudi government (and all the Muftis there) only allow the Shia to do the pilgrimage out of political pressure...

^^^ Exactly. Because your skinny Somali claims to follow the right faith; he bangs on about how his religion is his way of life; he never misses an opportunity in claiming he’s pious and whiter than white. Yet, he and many of his fellow skinny Somalis would defend terrorism one minute (calling it freedom fighting) and denounce it the next. They’ll praise Bin Laden one minute and reject any arguments linking him to terrorism. You see, by and large, this skinny Somali is a hypocrite that wants to impose his ideas, rigid interpretations and opinions on everyone else. When it comes to specific issues, such as the London bombings, our skinny hero would denounce terrorism and express his sadness and condemnation of such events. Yet, in the same breath, this pious skinny would have no qualms about the killing of Dutch filmmakers, or blasphemous non-Muslims. Your Skinny Somali would rise in anger at the transgressions of others and question the justifications, whilst killing and maiming his own in the name of resistance (or whatever). Many of these Skinny Somalis are dogmatic bigots, easily excitable simpletons, and hypocrites hiding behind big beards or, maybe they’re the type that avoids trouble by not airing views that might upset the majority of pretentious half-wits. Your skinny Somali likes his slogans and wise words. He ORDERS good deeds and Forbids bad deeds, yet the classification of deeds as good or bad is left to his very own discretion with no hint of the matter being thought over and the reasons behind such classifications pondered! He’ll talk about “Islam†being the religion of peace, yet advice followers not to mix with “kuffar†and imply (if not outright assert) that they’re all the enemies of Islam that should be fought! He’ll repeat Allah’s commandment regarding judgment of individuals and the gaining of “xasanat†or the falling into “sinâ€, he’ll reiterate that each individual is judged on his own actions and deeds! He’ll then go on trying to coerce the individual into following Skinny’s own interpretation! Islam is a way of life, Skinny’s way of life is the hidden message. He’ll protest, demonstrate and weep for the Muslim dead and threaten all sorts of wars and vengeance. At the same time, he’ll belittle the non-Muslim dead and invent excuses as to the way they died! When the non-Muslims weep about their own, Skinny would get offended and loudly wonder if Western dead are regarded as worthier than Muslim dead! What about Iraq? What about Palestine? What about Bosnia? He would shout. Skinny would lecture, preach and moralise about the superiority of the Muslim nation but whenever someone points out some obvious shortcoming of the Muslims, he would get on the defensive and try to excuse it with sweet words or a list of provocations. When skinny condemns a terrorist act carried out against non-Muslims, Skinny is never ever unequivocal with his condemnations; there are always caveats and qualifications. While Skinny’s comrades are killing their own in Afghanistan and Iraq, while they’re shooting school children in Russia and while they’re assassinating holidaymakers in Bali, Skinny is busy concocting conspiracy theories about Israel and the crusaders. Will he ever take the blinkers off for a second? Could he not see the hypocrisy of accepting the support of anti-war western left-wingers on the one hand and legalising the blood of all non-Muslim on the other? Skinny is a twofaced busybody, saaxib.

According to a covert investigation by secret clandestine organisations, four thousand individuals of the Jewish persuasion (probably all Mosad agents) did not take the tube or any London buses on the day of the attack.

^^^ And this is why I agree with, JB. The original question has not been answered.

Papamaine513, It’s not worth starting a new thread over, dear. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT of putting it here! Please try to conduct an adult-like discussion and spare me the ofleh technique of “I lack the desire to respondâ€, which he keeps posting every five minutes. Still, these little irritations are neither here nor there. The real fat is in your next paragraph. Your piece of advice, which by the way, I’m sincerely thankful for - because I believe you were being genuine when you made it. However, you were also very presumptuous and I, with thanks of course, totally reject that advice of yours. You see, I don’t believe I need to show any caution at all. In fact, I believe you, and all the big bearded mullahs here, should loosen up and spare us the holier-than-thou attitude. If one was a phoney and one wanted to impostor a knowledgeable Mullah on this site, one could achieve that deed very easily. All that one need do is google safe articles on various Islamic subjects, rephrase them (if not outright plagiarise) and finally, pepper them with a hadeeth here and a verse there. One will also have to avoid getting into direct confrontations with the nomads and would need to stay aloof in his religious tower. If I wanted to do that (and I’m easily capable of such a feat) I would have had you eating out of my hands by now. But, such a game would serve no purpose and would answer no real and serious questions. Therefore I shall not attempt it and would prefer not to discourse with anyone that does. I usually, despise slogans, adages and the deployment of sayings in and out of context. They’re lazy, simplistic and mind-numbingly wearisome. I also find people that believe substituting an English word with a French word would give their argument any meaning, terrifically irksome. Likewise, Arabic and English: saying and hadeeth... But what I really abhor are cyber heroes! “If this were real life I’d do this to you“, “you wouldn’t dare say this to my faceâ€, “retractions, compliance, apologyâ€, etc... One gets the feeling that if one did not comply, you would huff, puff and blow my house in! Well dear, let me descend to your rank and quote you a famous pig (the third one) as my reply: “not by the hair of my chiny chin chin“. PS One day, when you’re fully developed and are ready to read and understand debates, maybe you would like to come back and see how silly you’ve made yourself look. Still, I wouldn’t kick myself too much about that. Lets just hope it never happens again.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Today I have browsed and read most of what’s written here. NGONGE, I must report, is a soul of our kin who lay, as it were, gasping on the agonies of death. His shallow writings are in dire need for some realistic gloss. The London incident, or so it seems, has waken him from his snoring sleep and stirred his emotions. And I must wonder if he lost the majority of his captive audiences in this land of SOL! With all the things he wrote this I could not swallow as a thought of his: At this moment in time, sadly, Bush and Blair comfortably hold the moral high ground. Yes they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. There were civilian casualties during the invasion (surprisingly kept to a minimum though). They used the most sophisticated of weapons in their “shock and awe†attacks. But, they fought a standing army and they won that fight. Sadly, in NGONGE's post, signifies reality! How a man who seems intelligent and bright could miss the basic cause and effect of things?Or because the fact that Britain has bigger guns that could spare them from the dirty method of resorting to blow trains gives them the higher moral ground he speaks of? Does he understand war? Aggression? Injustice? Is this method unique? Are the Muslims expected to issue apologies and condemnation any time bomb goes off? I personally did not rejoice the death of innocent people. But it did not surprise me a bit! Indeed the leaders whom NGONGE seems to embrace and justify their war warned and expected such retribution from their adversaries. Simply put, IT IS A WAR and the old man needs to get used to it. Stop arguing about it. Looks like the word “shallow†has stuck with me now. How could I shake it off, I wonder! Still, Xiin, I had more faith in you, saaxib. I hoped you would deal with the points I’ve raised (shallow or not) instead of waffling on about my character and motives! When I first joined this discussion, I had a feeling (as I always do in here) that I’ll have to repeat myself countless times! Well, I believe I’ve written enough on WAR and how it’s usually conducted. I also believe that I’ve made the connection between conventional war and the events in London very clear. Should any of you feel the need to challenge the totality of the point I’m making, I’ll be more than happy to continue the discussion. Having said that, and since I’m already here typing this reply, I might as well pose a few questions to brother, Xiin. Now saaxib, don’t hurry with your reading (or reply). Take your time, stroke your beard and THINK before you respond. You say “it is WAR†and that I should stop arguing about it. But, my question is who is the other side in this war? We already know about the British government, who is fighting it? Who are these people that are blowing up trains, buildings and civilians? Are they fellow Muslims? Or, are you too one of those that prefer conspiracy theories and would blame everything that ever goes wrong in the world on the Jews? I could go on and on but I’d really prefer it if you reread my earlier words instead. PS Ofleh: if you were able to respond to points of view with counterarguments of your own, it would be really swell. This Haddad-like habit of wading in with a line here and a line there marks you out as a very dull and tedious simpleton. Now I’m sure that you’re not a dull and tedious simpleton, saaxib, so why are you teasing me so?

Originally posted by Saabir: If a shallow,long post makes one look smart, Ngonge is one. Was that the sum total of your opinion on this topic, saaxib? Papa513, I’ve written three long (some say shallow) posts on this topic already. They cover all that you ask for and more. Read them, ponder them and return with a worthwhile argument. This business of my brethren in Iraq or Afghanistan is nothing but a tasteless distraction, which I will not stoop into addressing. FARIID, Don’t you see the ghastly humour in this situation and the resulting arguments, saaxib? When it comes to acts of terror that were carried out by Muslims, we angrily reject any calls for an apology! “We are not responsible for the actions of the few crazy Muslims†is our loudly shouted defence! When war is waged on Muslims or acts of terror are carried out against them, we all, also angrily denounce such acts and talk about how all Muslims are like one body (you know the rest of the saying)... Worth pondering, wouldn’t you say? I don’t know about your sensibilities, but, any minute now, I’m expecting a bright soul to wade into this discussion with yet another of those dim-witted conspiracy theories and blame the whole thing on Israel or even Mozambique! Zeph, One can’t look for a solution to a problem that once refuses to acknowledge, dear. Those that commit such acts are only a minority (they might not even be real). We can’t possibly let the actions of a minority force us into looking for a solution.

Originally posted by contraflow: NOOO!!! I'm a Jew :eek: Haddad is not here to take your call, saaxib. But if he were, he would tell you that being a Jew is not a nationality. The word you are looking for here is Israeli.

^^^Though I see and almost agree with your argument, Johnny (pending Xiin’s reply), I find your style vulgar and infuriating, saaxib. It’s as if you revel in your coarseness.

Originally posted by Rahima: There is a difference between understanding the plight of Muslims around the world oppressed by the likes of the UK and actually condoning what occurred. The two do not have to necessarily contradict. I can condone, yet I don’t have to transgress the limits and accept what happens in the Muslim countries from the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, because first and foremost the poor and innocent Muslims suffer before the likes of Saddam Hussein. As hard as some may try, we can never justify this whilst condoning this current attack on London-both wrong, both should be frowned upon. One the same note, whilst I say I understand the feeling of Muslims to attack for example London, I also understand for non-Muslim Londoners to backlash against the Muslim Londoners (which is why I can’t understand for the life in me why any Muslim would do this), but both are still wrong. This is called human emotion which can be misdirected and transgressing! I feel for the British people, but certainly not Blair or any of his cronies, because everyday their cowardice is killing Muslims all over the globe-weather militarily or otherwise. Just because they do it under the guise of recognized government and proper military weaponry it does not become right or justified- I think most know this and there really is no point getting into an argument about it. I prefer to think outside of Dubya and wife (Blair) speech box. At this moment we should all be glad everyone seems to be safe and let’s hope and pray the backlash will not be as bad as it was in the US. At this moment in time, sadly, Bush and Blair comfortably hold the moral high ground. Yes they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. There were civilian casualties during the invasion (surprisingly kept to a minimum though). They used the most sophisticated of weapons in their “shock and awe†attacks. But, they fought a standing army and they won that fight. Ever since then, the majority of the civilians killed in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were victims of fellow Muslims. Those bombing streets, shops and police stations ARE Muslims. Those arbitrarily deciding who is a “collaborator†and who is not, claim to be Muslim. All the ills, bad news and disasters befalling us are the work of fellow Muslims. How long are we to be on the defensive? How long will we try to condone all sorts of WRONG acts by referring to some Muslim plight and blaming Bush and Blair? How different are we from the people that blow up trains and kill civilians (in Iraq, Afghanistan, London or New York)? There is something disgustingly wrong with the Muslim world today. We can all see it, we know about it and, most of us are uncomfortable with it. But, instead of concentrating on this rotten core, we bang on about Bush and Blair! We collectively defend “Islam†and blame the way it’s being interpreted. But, what Islam are we defending? The Shia Islam? The Salafi Islam? The one practised by the Muslim Brotherhood? Hezb-ut-Tahrir’s version? The followers of each of these “sects†regard the others as “deviantsâ€. In their eyes, what the rest practise is NOT Islam! But, still, none of this matters. Muslims are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re being killed by non-Muslims (or so the argument goes) and it’s not justified. Do you ever find such hypocritical arguments tiring? Do the people of Iraq follow your “version†of Islam? Are they really your brothers and sisters? Or, does the fact that Bush & Blair were behind the invasion of Iraq make them your brothers and sisters? One of these days, some of us will have to make a choice, follow an ideology (or interpretation of Islam) and stick to it. This choice (ideology) has to be CLEAR. It should have no ambiguity or vagueness. It should not change whenever Bush or Blair do something to a “Muslim†country. Until such a time, what the West does for the benefit of its own people is justified and what some self-appointed Mullahs do for their own benefits is NOT justified. It really is simple and plain to anyone who’s not either dim or duplicitous.

^^^ Heh. I think that was the whole point of her attendance (she can‘t argue for African debt when her own government is yet to be recognised, never mind being given debt relief). You’re right, she went off topic on most of her answers. But, I’d wager that she also got what she came for. If there were any people in the audience or those watching the program that didn’t know about Somaliland before, they do now.

It took me only two hours to get home. They got the trains and buses running again, luckily enough. Hope all the rest made it home ok. The underground should be reopened tomorrow (so, no, you can’t phone and say there is no public transport). As for the discussion here. I’m saddened to see the usual predictable replies. Who would have guessed that some of the debaters would use the tedious argument “what about the people of Iraq? What about the people of Palestine?†Or as they say in the Simpson's “won’t somebody think of the children?†There is still an attempt, though weak and floundering now, to compare the Iraq war to this incident! Somebody remarked earlier that I’m simplifying war! War is SIMPLE. The aftermath of it, the results and knock on effects might not be. However, the act of war in itself is very simple. The rules of war are straightforward. I’m not sure if it were the same genius that also spat out a list of “freedom fighters†earlier. In fact, that list confused me somewhat! For I’m sure that most respondents to this thread have already condemned today’s events! Yet, someone uses the idea of “insurgents, resistance or freedom fighting†to explain away bombs in trains! What gives? This promises to be a trying and very wearisome ordeal. But, I shall nonetheless persist in my attempts to bring you screaming and shouting to my side of the fence. Where you’re sitting now is, frankly, unacceptable. I’ll endeavour to draw you a straight line here. I’m hoping that you will see it clearly and argue against it or try to wipe it off completely. I shall not entertain any digression or departure from this line. If the children of Iraq are dying, the mothers lose their sons or the oil is being exploited, I’m afraid you’ll have to lament that on your own (or invite me to join you weeping on another thread). Here, we are talking about war, its rules, conventions, the way it’s carried out and the way it’s resolved. We’re also talking (or rather, I’m talking and you’re learning, about justifications for war). I’m taking time out here to sprinkle some basic wisdom your way. I therefore would appreciate it if you took your time while reading my words and try to respond to the points I shall raise and not those you perceived (or always observe in similar situations). Historically, WAR has always been fought between two sides (sometimes, the two sides consisted of a number of groups and allies - see World War II or even the Spartan Wars). The strength or weakness of either side is irrelevant. The weapons used are mostly also beside the point (unless we‘re talking Nuclear and Chemical weapons). In this type of war, both sides know who the enemy is. The Italians knew Omer Al Mokhtar, the Brits knew The Mad Mullah (as they called the Sayid), and the Americans knew Saddam. Likewise, the weaker sides in the fight knew the enemy and fought a conventional war against him. Even in Palestine, way before Israel was a bosom buddy of Britain's government, the Brits and Arabs knew the Hagganah was the enemy and the Hagganah knew that those two were its enemy! This was (and still is) conventional war. The war in Afghanistan was justified because of the attacks on New York and the fact that the groups that made those attacks was said to be based in that country! The war there followed the conventional route. America threatened the Taliban. It made some demands, which if they were no fulfilled, it said it will invade that country. The Taliban, as we all know (and I’m not rewriting history here) denied everything but bravely indicated its readiness for war. They gave legitimacy for that war by these actions. Afghanistan was invaded. Iraq was played with for over a decade. Sanctions were forced upon it. No fly zones were instated in its territory and periodic warnings and searches were undertaken against it. Finally, America upped the tempo and the drums of war rang louder. As with most conventional wars, conditions were stated and ultimatums given. Saddam and his cronies were offered a way out. They refused and promised to fight until the last. They promised America, the mother of all battles! One can substitute Iraq for Ghana and America for India, yet the process of taking part in a war will still be the same. The rules followed will still be the same. Of course there is the side issue of UN approval and whatnot but I don’t think anyone in the world (not even some of the simpletons amongst us) could argue that this would not have been obtained if America wanted to wait. Still, this is neither here nor there. It’s a secondary issue and it does not interfere with the ‘right’ of one sovereign nation waging war on another! The war was waged. Iraq resisted momentarily and finally was shocked and awed! As Muslims, we were all against this war. Many Iraqis are also still resentful of this invasion. They are, rightfully, fighting back and resisting occupation. Many others are kidnapping women, civilians and foreign diplomats. The first group is waging a ‘fair’ war, while the other is nothing but a bunch of cowards who do not understand the importance of rules and ethics in anything. Now this brings us to our current discussion and the events in London today. If this be called a war, two sides need to be engaged in the fight. The Brits we know, but who are the bombers? It’s claimed that they’re Muslims! Does that mean you and I? If the Brits seek revenge for today’s terrible events, can they be justified in bombing Pakistan with no prior warning and merely for the simple fact that Pakistan is a Muslim country? The war in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Palestine can not in anyway, shape or form be compared to the blowing up of buildings, trains and businesses by self-appointed Mullahs that nobody knows or chose to lead their fight! If one were to speak of justifications and ethics of war, then one will have to concede that America (and Britain) seem to be more justified purely by the ‘ethical’ way they wage their wars. Having said all of this, I’ve got to admit that this is a pointless argument and the only reason that enticed me into participating in it, was the repetitive reference to Iraq, Palestine, the Mongol’s invasion of Baghdad and the Crusades, whenever someone points the finger at some wrongdoing of Muslims! It’s not an adult way in making an argument and is rather akin to a child being told off for some naughtiness; who then resorts to listing all the wrongdoings of his siblings and how they ‘got away with it’ with hardly any rebuke or scolding.

^^^ The disparaging adage makes no sense, saaxib. I’m afraid I also don’t understand the rest of your statement. It’s quite simple really. Wars are fought between armies, countries and people. The rules of war are known, followed and (mostly) respected. Now pay attention: wars take place between two sides. One side threatens another and promises to blow it of the face of it the earth if it does not comply with the first side’s conditions. The second side resists and FIGHTS back. There are rules of combat, international laws (which many here would cite should America decide to invade Syria or Iran tomorrow) and accepted conventions. All sides know where they stand. Soldiers know what they have to do and civilians know what to expect. Practical justifications for such wars are obvious. Moral justifications can be argued either way. Terrorist attacks are not wars. They’re cowardly actions by self-appointed Mullahs. They follow no rules, have no conventions and are understood by no one! They have no justification at all (not even desperation; for desperation implies sudden rash actions and not long planned and cold blooded murder). One can condemn both types. One can support (if one wishes) both parts. Though it’s hard to see how could one justify the second style of “warâ€. There is not reason to compare the two.

Originally posted by Papamaine513: Ngonge, I understand your city has been hit hard by a horrific terrorist attack, I can also understand you have feelings of anger, fear, and terror(kinda of like what people in Palestine go through on a daily basis). If you need to lash out to relive your stress, do so. but not on the account of your fellow Muslims who had nothing to do with either Saddam Hussien or the Taliban. Try writing a letter to your MP. Compare like with like, my children, like with like. Apples with apples...triangles with triangles..get the drift? When simpletons try to equate wars that are fought between armies to reckless acts perpetrated by half-witted Mullahs I enjoy pointing out how simplistic they’re being. Do you actually read what you write? What’s with the lashing out to relieve stress? At the expense of fellow Muslims you say? Had nothing to do with Saddam and the Taliban you say? Oh! I despair, I really do. Ofleh, not content with talking nonsense, you’ve now taken up drinking I see! Tell me again about how angry you are about your fellow Muslims in Iraq, sport. I trust you’ll have the good manners of putting your beer pint down as you speak about your fellow Muslims. Let us try it one more time. I’ve pointed out how nonsensical your argument was and expect you to defend it (should you have the ability to do so). If, however, you prefer to throw girly insults, I’ll be more than happy to tweak your pigtails. Which will it be, my fellow ardent Muslim?

What utter and pure nonsense. The invasion of Afghanistan was wholly justified. The Iraq invasion, whilst imperialistic, opportunistic and resulting in the loss of countless lives, was also justified. In both cases, both Iraq and Afghanistan were given warnings as to the impending attacks. Both governments were giving ample opportunity to comply with the (albeit unfair) demands of the “world†community and even, in the case of Saddam, offered safe passage out of Iraq. Both were conventional wars. In both cases, people knew that the Americans were coming and even knew when the bombing (give or take 48 hours) was going to start. War and the blowing up of commuter trains, buses and taxis cannot be compared in anyway, shape or form. To argue that one understands the “desperation†of the suicide bombers but would rate them as marginally less wicked than an invading army is repugnantly offensive. There is no desperation here. There is nothing but folly and recklessness (I’m being generous to the murdering oafs).

Glad to hear you're both ok.

Heh. There you go, Rain Somali Weddings