Author Topic: Saddam  (Read 8200 times)

Langstraat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1561
Re: Saddam
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2007, 04:18:21 PM »
I understand that you and others may not have seen the justification for intervention. But the majority of us did; a 70% vote for and from all political parties.

Did the countries who agreed to form the coalition and offer support get it wrong too?

Nicaragua;
Spain;
Dominican Republic;
Honduras;
Philippines;
Thailand;
New Zealand;
Tonga,
Portugal;
The Netherlands;
Hungary;
Singapore;
Norway;
Ukraine;
Japan.

Those above have since withdrawn for whatever reason

Albania,
Armenia,
Australia,
Azerbaijan,
Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Bulgaria,
Czech Republic,
Denmark,
El Salvador,
Estonia,
Georgia,
Kazakhstan,
Latvia,
Lithuania,
Macedonia,
Moldova,
Mongolia,
Poland,
Romania,
Slovakia,
South Korea,
and the United Kingdom

It has always been the intention to withdraw when the Iraqi government say they can handle the situation.
We didn't back away from our objectives when WW2 got a little bit tough.
We are of stronger moral fibre than that.
Well 70% of us are.
Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and try to beat you with experience.

John_Lerwill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Saddam
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2007, 07:35:08 PM »
I understand that you and others may not have seen the justification for intervention. But the majority of us did; a 70% vote for and from all political parties.

70% was at the start, sir!

I think most of those thought it was a "home by Christmas" situation. And it wasn't. Now a lot have change their opinion.

The trouble is, though, that many of that 70% did not really understand the Iraq and Middle East situation. And they probably still don't.

You and I have to agree to differ, sir.
We are all ONE - despite appearances!

spyro2000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Saddam
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2007, 07:47:22 PM »
Lets turn the tables here.

Lets say we had the same death penalty in Britain, and Blair was sentenced to hanging and they decided to do this on Christmas day, would you think any differently?
Theres no place like 127.0.0.1

John_Lerwill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Saddam
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2007, 07:59:59 PM »
 :)

Yep, we've changed the topic around a bit, haven't we, Spyro?!

I think you made a reasonable point about Saddam's execution on an eid day. But in Islam, work, festival and holy days are looked upon somewhat differently. On Friday, for example - which is a Muslim's sabbath - it has rarely been a day treated as a holy day for taking time off (except for the prayers), as was our attitude about Sunday until about 20 years ago.

So there is a different mindset involved here.

In a straight answer to your question, I would say that a Christian execution (if there ever was really such a thing) should not take place on a holy day, but on the other hand logic asks me whether there is really any difference. Perhaps the question should be put to the convicted person, as to what he would prefer.
We are all ONE - despite appearances!

spyro2000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Saddam
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2007, 08:03:43 PM »
You make a good point about whether it really should make a difference.

No it perhaps shouldnt, but morally and ethically maybe it does. Im not too sure inall fairness.
Theres no place like 127.0.0.1

John_Lerwill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Saddam
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2007, 08:10:21 PM »
You make a good point about whether it really should make a difference.

No it perhaps shouldnt, but morally and ethically maybe it does. Im not too sure inall fairness.

It's probably a question of opinion or conscience, Spyro, rather than any aboslute correctness.

I wouldn't like to be categorical on the matter.

Perhaps more thought should have been given to the faithful, that they should be given complete peace to contemplate the holy day rather than it being disturbed by such an event. But some say that every day is a holy day, in reality.
We are all ONE - despite appearances!

Langstraat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1561
Re: Saddam
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2007, 09:02:15 PM »
I refer back to the statement the Iraqi prime Minister made when asked when the execution was going to take place. He said by the end of the year. For him to have cancelled it a day would have resulted in many seeing him as a man who could not keep his word for the sake of religious abeyance. The fact that it was conducted on that day sent out a message to all factions that irrespective of religious doctrine the word of law overruled that of the nation of mixed religions.
If we were to observe holy days then all hostilities would stop on such days; but the sad fact is that whilst there are those who have the freedom to follow which ever faith they choose there would always be those who took advantage.
Most of the civilian bombing have been perpetrated on Holy days because they are a better target and higher casualties can be ensured.

Religion has been the cause of many wars over the centuries I can't remember any of them which stopped for prayers. 
Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and try to beat you with experience.

roy one

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28322
Re: Saddam
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2007, 09:40:34 PM »
im told that muslims look upon each other as brothers all one Faith and they should love each other or words like that and im told that to be a Muslim is to believe in the true Faith well thats ok by me but what i fail to understand why they kill each other cut heads off and things like that and set off car bombs out side their place of worship im lost on this one or to kill there brothers i can understand them trying to kill yanks and brits but to blow each other up im lost on that one sorry
each day is a blessing and I bless each day when it comes

John_Lerwill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Saddam
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2007, 09:52:42 PM »
I'm totally in agreement, Roy, but the fact is that the Shia and Sunni faiths are seen as distinct faiths - different forms of Islam - by their leaders. One sees the other as being the non-faithful. That's amongst the leaders and extremists, mind you; ordinary Sunnis and Shia often see themsleves as brothers, but young people in particular get led into extremism.

And then you have the real extremist Sunnis (the jihadists) who don't care for other Sunnis or Shia.

But there are those who understand their religion properly (as a living spirituality), and they are more numerous than we are led to believe.
We are all ONE - despite appearances!

roy one

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28322
Re: Saddam
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2007, 10:27:37 PM »
you've made that clear to me now i think i understand so you've got diffrend kinds of Muslims do they not have the same god and I'm a bit lost on this one to  when saddam was at war with Iran was they a diffrent kind of Muslims and when saddam moved into Kuwait and did what he did to the folk of Kuwait are they a diffrend kind of Muslims to i did not know that there was diffrent kind of Muslims sorry jl but you must understand not being in to the god thing i do not understand may be you can tell me about all the diffrent kinds it would help a lot
each day is a blessing and I bless each day when it comes

John_Lerwill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Saddam
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2007, 11:47:42 PM »
Yes, it all sounds a bit crazy, Roy, when there is supposed to be one God. But Muslim theologians look at the matter also from the perspective of what they perceive to be the examples of living according to their Prophet, Muhammed.

I did (partly) cover this matter on page 1 of this topic, and this is what I said:-

A lot of Sunnis and Shia like to dismiss the theological and historical differences between their sects, but, as in Christianity, there are some hard-nosed leaders who like to perpetuate the differences.

And what is crucial in this debacle in Iraq - and one completely missed by Bush and Blair - is that apart from the fact that the three major divisions in Iraq (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) virtually all live in distinct areas and therefore do not logically constitute one country, the historical differences between Shia and Sunni really emanated in the country we now call Iraq some 1300 years ago, and is why Kerbala is of such religious significance to the Shia.

The main difference between the two sects is that the Shia believe that the leadership and spiritual understanding was given by Prophet Muhammed to his son-in-law 'Ali and his progeny, but the Sunni tried to obliterate that familial authority by anihilating 'Ali's progeny at Kerbala.

The area has seen a huge amount of violence ever since.

Some say that the present day Aga Khan [an alleged descendant of Muhammed] is the true leader of the Shia, but there is considerable difference between his party (the Isma'ilis) and the rest of the Shia (and, indeed, the Sunnis). The Isma'ilis are very progressive.


There are plenty of sub-sects of both Sunnis and Shia, and it is the highly puritanical Wahhabi Sunni influence of Saudi Arabia that influences the thinking of al-Qaida. The Druze of Lebanon (who - over the last 2 or 3 decades - have been publicised about their militant activities) are in fact descendants of a Shia break-away sect in the middle ages (at the time of the Crusades).

The word 'jihad' crops up a lot, as I'm sure you know, Roy, and it is the lesser form of jihad (which is fighting physically for Islam) that al-Qaida have adopted. Those that understand Islam more fully know that the greater jihad is fighting one's self - the base instincts of the self; making one's self more spiritual - not fighting other people.

There is a strain of deep spiritual thinking in Islam that is known as Sufism. Some of the greatest Sufi teachers have been so-called poets such as Omar Khayyam (whom you may have heard of) and (particularly) Rumi. But, again, the more extreme hatred-oriented members of Islam often deny that Sufis are Muslims.

I could go on and on, Roy, as I am blessed with a lot of knowledge about Islam, religions in general and other psychological systems. I say that as humbly as possible. Islam is a wonderful religion in its purest teachings, but it has been made to look warlike and unattractive by extremists. In some ways the existence of sects in Islam is unimportant, but to understand the politics of the Middle East, a broad knowledge of the differences between the Sunnis and Shia is quite useful.

As far as Saddam is concerned, his recent devotion to al-Qur'an mocks his previous attitude towards his fellow Muslims. Any Muslim (and anyone else) who stood in his way was to be disposed of come what may, and he regarded the Kuwaitis as 'fat cats' that were the beneficiaries of western influence. Don't forget that Kuwait was once part of Iraq. Iran is predominantly Shia, and so they were ripe for annihilation by that fact alone. Saddam was nominally a Sunni supported by the minority Sunnis in Iraq.

I hope all that helps, Roy.
We are all ONE - despite appearances!


 

Terms of Use     Privacy Policy