fayz
Out of curiousity was it? I don't see it anymore and if so why?
kanelli
Guess it was deemed too hot even for Fight Club.
fayz
and I noticed Concord's thread on this thread has been deleted as well?
I guess the thread got a little jucier while i was not on the forums, because at the point I left nothing seemed wrong with it.
bushra21
still doesnt mean it should have been deleted....it was moved to fight club so there is really no reasonit should have been deleted afterwards...
sage & onion
Sadam Thread was deleted by Jamal, his explanation is given in Fight Club
Concord
- fayz wrote:
and I noticed Concord's thread on this thread has been deleted as well?
I guess the thread got a little jucier while i was not on the forums, because at the point I left nothing seemed wrong with it.
Dude, most of my posts get deleted nowadays :roll: Not "in" with the Dictator :wink:
freza
I think that Fayz's thread should have been left here on general - even with the bad language and flaming - it deserved an exception to the rules.
xibit
it was deleted coz the mods here cant handle the thruth.
Concord
- freza wrote:
I think that Fayz's thread should have been left here on general - even with the bad language and flaming - it deserved an exception to the rules.
I think someone either works in or should get a job in the "moving" business. And why the hell does every post that gets moved has to have an explanation "moved due to "inappropriate" language" :roll: :roll: :roll:
errtime
yes , so i think all arab leaders should be hanged.
1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
fayz
- sage & onion wrote:
Sadam Thread was deleted by Jamal, his explanation is given in Fight Club
I looked in fight club and do not see an explanation, was the explanation deleted as well? Can someone please tell me what it said?
xibit
^^ whats with all the anti arab hate ??
errtime
all the raghead leaders should be hanged just like saddam
freza
- xibit wrote:
it was deleted coz the mods here cant handle the thruth.
This time Arnie wasn't involved. :P
- Concord wrote:
I think someone either works in or should get a job in the "moving" business. And why the hell does every post that gets moved has to have an explanation "moved due to "inappropriate" language" :roll: :roll: :roll:
Well I do think it's nice that Sage lets us know why he moves threads by adding the explanation. I'm just wondering why the particular offending posts aren't edited instead of moving the entire thread.
xibit
- kanelli wrote:
Guess it was deemed too hot even for Fight Club.
didnt i advice u to stand out side some hotel and earn a living.
and instead u got the thread deleted in which i told some thruth about you.
learn to take some criticism.
honkiee trash
Concord
- freza wrote:
Well I do think it's nice that Sage lets us know why he moves threads by adding the explanation. I'm just wondering why the particular offending posts aren't edited instead of moving the entire thread.
I think it might require, what's that called, wait, I got it: thinking!
errtime
who died and made sage the fuzz ? this place is gonna be run by retards and wannabes
mema
- Concord wrote:
- freza wrote:
Well I do think it's nice that Sage lets us know why he moves threads by adding the explanation. I'm just wondering why the particular offending posts aren't edited instead of moving the entire thread.
I think it might require, what's that called, wait, I got it: thinking!
:lol: :lol:
freza
- xibit wrote:
- kanelli wrote:
Guess it was deemed too hot even for Fight Club.
didnt i advice u to stand out side some hotel and earn a living.
and instead u got the thread deleted in which i told some thruth about you.
learn to take some criticism.
honkiee trash
oh-oh. xibit, I should warn you that now Kanelli is going to say that you must have the hots for her (yup, that's her logical conclusion.)
sage & onion
- fayz wrote:
- sage & onion wrote:
Sadam Thread was deleted by Jamal, his explanation is given in Fight Club
I looked in fight club and do not see an explanation, was the explanation deleted as well? Can someone please tell me what it said?
It was something about his support for SH, anyways you know Jamal :wink:
sage & onion
- fayz wrote:
Out of curiousity was it? I don't see it anymore and if so why?
This seems to be Jamals quote;
Quote:
i dont apperciate dis-respect towards the dead ... thats why i deleted it .. why didnt ppl talk all this talk while the man was still in power... now he dead an gone .. let him be ..
R I P to the LION of the arabs.
fayz
Thank you for the follow up S&O, although I disagree with the outcome, I'm guessing there may have been many posts on the thread i did not see. I'll try to find out what was said.
sage & onion
- fayz wrote:
Thank you for the follow up S&O, although I disagree with the outcome, I'm guessing there may have been many posts on the thread i did not see. I'll try to find out what was said.
I think in retrospect the thread should have been moved to Politics
kanelli
xibit, you are the only trash I see around here, Saddam-lover!
kanelli
Fayz, the thread was deleted because Jamal says it was disrespecting the dead. He says that because he is a Saddam-lover. If the thread were about Bush or Blair's death it would have stayed in Politics or Fight Club.
The Slobodan Milosevic thread has remained... there is fairness for you.
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
xibit, you are the only trash I see around here, Saddam-lover !
why is that such a bad thing? maybe to you, it is, but for myself and others it isnt...for myself and others he is a real man and the only one that could have saved the middle east....i dont expect you to understand kanelli - but just becuase you hate saddam (allah yirhama) doesnt mean that we do as well.
kanelli
You think that Saddam could have saved the Middle East? He slaughters his own people and you admire him? Some of you are seriously screwed in the head. :shock:
gtmash
- kanelli wrote:
You think that Saddam could have saved the Middle East? He slaughters his own people and you admire him? Some of you are seriously screwed in the head. :shock:
I was wondering that too. We should've all moved to pre-invasion Iraq to be saved. The Kurds were lucky to be there.
PARANOID
I watched the full video of the execution.I wont go as far as saying I LOVE him and I wont call him the "lion of the arabs" (Lol jamal, what were you thinking?) and he certainly wasnt gonna save the middle east (However I believe he was the only leader able to preserve stability in Iraq with a currency higher than the US buck), saying all that , he did die dignified in the end. Did anyone else watch the video? The neck cracked and he ended up facing upwards.
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
You think that Saddam could have saved the Middle East? He slaughters his own people and you admire him? Some of you are seriously screwed in the head. :shock:
obviously you dont know much about the iraqi people and what is written about them in our history....
and yes, saddam could have saved the middle east. he was the only man that wouldn't bow down to the west like a slave -- and that is why he was killed. you think that your lovely officials had him killed because of what he had done to the kurds? ha! you have got to be kidding me. thats just like saying you believed the whole war started over weapons of mass destruction.
honestly kanelli, i thought you were smarter than this. but i guess we all see things how we want to; and dont feel insulted, im speaking about everyone know. we all have our own biases that causes us to interpret things and see things differently.
kanelli
- gtmash wrote:
- kanelli wrote:
You think that Saddam could have saved the Middle East? He slaughters his own people and you admire him? Some of you are seriously screwed in the head. :shock:
I was wondering that too. We should've all moved to pre-invasion Iraq to be saved. The Kurds were lucky to be there.
So because the invasion of Iraq was unlawful and unethical, no tyrant in the world should ever be brought to justice for their crimes? Please explain that logic.
kanelli
Actually Bushra, I don't care what you think of my intelligence. I would like you to sit in a room with all the families of the people Saddam killed, and you tell them that they are also unintelligent and foolish for not supporing and admiring Saddam. Once again, you are playing the "evil West" card and not paying any attention to what Saddam did of his own accord! How is that logical?
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
Concord
- kanelli wrote:
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
Not priceless. Worth a laugh or two.
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
Actually Bushra, I don't care what you think of my intelligence. I would like you to sit in a room with all the families of the people Saddam killed, and you tell them that they are also unintelligent and foolish for not supporing and admiring Saddam. Once again, you are playing the "evil West" card and not paying any attention to what Saddam did of his own accord! How is that logical?
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
i spent six years in the states on and off, and i never said i knew how the iraqis felt. :roll:
oh and by the way kanelli, it wasnt only the iraqis....
in my first post on this topic in the other thread that was deleted i said that i acknowledged all the wrong things he had done to the kurds and iranians and others, and said i did not agree with them if you can remember. i said i didnt support him in those decisions. so i dont see how that is not paying attention.
you know as much as i hate yasser arafat "alla yir7ama", if he had come to the same end as saddam i would be upset as well. and arafat was a weak individiual, i dont even want to call him a man and am ashamed of him --
but what angers me is how the entire situation was handled .
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
so do you think you understand how they feel more than i do? i mean of course you would, you're a westerner so i guess you should since yall are just the most compassionate, understanding, and smartest individuals....
really? do you think you can relate to them more than i can?
kanelli
We all know the trial wasn't handled well, but how well can you expect a trial like Saddam's to go? Look at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, it takes years and years to try people, the judges are changed, lawyers changed etc. It is a mess at the best of times, and leaders of countries and armies are very hard to prosecute. It was the Iraqis who were trying Saddam. It was not American judges and American lawyers, and it wasn't American soldiers who hung Saddam. Yes, the US was an influence in setting up the court and capturing and handing over Saddam, but Iraqis were the ones procecuting Saddam! I don't think Saddam got as fair a trial as he would have gotten at the Hague, or elsewhere, but in the end I don't lose sleep over it because he was blatantly guilty of murdering thousands! Do we need to spend years hashing out all the details of the decades of criminal activity to come to the exact same guilty verdict in the end? Some people are definitely in doubt of being innocent or guilty, but Saddam's case was pretty clear cut. Murdering one person is enough to make someone spend the rest of their life in prison, let alone thousands.
Legendkiller
Kanelli morons like u r causing all the misery on this planet. hmmm...u lost me?...let me speak in ur kinda of language..if u can forgive humans..instead of taking revenge.....negotiate..instead of taking ur weapons..the world would be a much safer place..daily hundreds of pple die in iraq cause of Bush and his dog Blair...y in hell r pple supporting this
assholes..and joining this stupid war of them (is it cause some pple got brainwashed..or r 2 stupid 2 think for themself..don't be shy Kanelli..which one r u.........both?!..great!)...ok back 2 our story..It's crazy 2 see that only power and revenge r driving such pple..which leads 2 more death pple..
some dumb pple (Kanelli ) ... keep repeating that the iraqi pple wanted Saddam death..u mean the little group of population..and who knows..may-b they r even sponsored by usa?
It's clear 2 see
a) the americans attacked iraq under false pretenses
b) iraq has plenty of oil...something that the americans really can use..
c) bush & his administration..hate Saddam
d) that the living conditions in iraq... become worse
and the list goes on...
ofcourse Saddam killed thousands of pple...but the usa killed more than 500,000 already!!..and the number of victims is increasing daily..
think abt it...was it worth it to kill some many innocent pple(much more than saddam ever could kill)..just 2 bring saddam down...
let's not forget the innocent iraqi children who died at the hands of those who ''supposed to protect them''..
what does all these deaths mean actually...were all these pple somehow less human..was saddam's life worth more ?!
i :pukeright: on pple like u..who only think abt revenge..i'm well aware
that saddam has killed&tortured..but who gives us the right 2 hang him up..it's an illusion 2 believe that justice has been done by serving the death penalty...Saddam's death was the wish of Bush and his puppets..
if they really wanted to serve justice..they would have put him on trail in the international court of justice in Den Haag...but noooooooo
that would be against the wish of the iraqi pple..or should i say against the wish of usa...cause that way it would show..that all the things saddam was being accused of...that usa always played important role in each of them..
It's obvious 2 see..that the whole trial was a big joke..when they were hanging saddam..they should have put bush and his dog blair beside of him...but heeeeeey...their time will come :twisted:
pple who say that i'm a saddamlover...anti-west..blah blah... they r clearly not understanding any SH*T..so go ahead dream on...who knows..may-b u might wake up in the real world some day..
kanelli
legendkiller, there is nothing dumb about anything I have written. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me dumb. Perhaps you are a teenager who is still maturing? Most definitely you need to learn to write clearly and use proper English. Your posts are rambling and messy!
DID SADDAM KILL THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE AND SHOULD HE HAVE FACED JUSTICE? I'm assuming you think not, because you think that the US was moving his arms on puppet strings to do all the evil things he did. Your logic is that the US is evil, so Saddam should be let off the hook.
Fabulous :lol:
Legendkiller
- kanelli wrote:
Most definitely you need to learn to write clearly and use proper English. Your posts are rambling and messy!
excuse me...for my englishhhhhhhhh... i speak 6 different languages...so u get confused sometimes..and make mistakes...tell me dear..how many languages can u communicate in?!
- kanelli wrote:
DID SADDAM KILL THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE AND SHOULD HE HAVE FACED JUSTICE? I'm assuming you think not, because you think that the US was moving his arms on puppet strings to do all the evil things he did. Your logic is that the US is evil, so Saddam should be let off the hook.
i never said any of that...so stop talking bs will ya?
there is nothing wrong with putting saddam on trail..but let it be a fair trial..
not one for the show...and which the outcome favours...u know who...
scot1870
- Legendkiller wrote:
It's clear 2 see
a) the americans attacked iraq under false pretenses
b) iraq has plenty of oil...something that the americans really can use..
c) bush & his administration..hate Saddam
d) that the living conditions in iraq... become worse
and the list goes on...
e) Various Islamic sects and rogue states use the mess created by the West in Iraq to undertake the real atrocity of killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims
I make no excuses that we created the mess. But at the same time, it astounds me how few people blame the Shias and Sunnis for bombing the crap out of each other each day. That's nothing to do with Bush and Blair, that's decades of hatred built up by having a minority Sunni group unjustly rule the Shia. Wait a minute, anyone see a theme in my argument? Nah, best ignore it, blame it on the West instead.
Iraq would not be like this at this precise moment had Blair and Bush not invaded, but the mess would have come when Saddam died or an uprising had occurred. That the other Muslim states stand by and do nothing but watch is also an atrocity, the power and influence exists to reduce the bloodshed but the silence remains.
Go on, someone post that it's really the CIA behind the killings, that's what the populist people want to hear, not the truth.
freza
LK :notworthy: Wow, well said!
(notice how your critics won't address what you said point-by-point, but instead, give you a generalized, unsubstantiated reply)
bushra21
nice point legend.....
and kanelli, you're right just because you dont agree with legend doesn't make you dumb -- but just because we dont agree with you doesnt make us dumb or any of the other things that have been said about us as well...
scot1870
- freza wrote:
LK :notworthy: Wow, well said!
(notice how your critics won't address what you said point-by-point, but instead, give you a generalized, unsubstantiated reply)
:shock: All his post was made up (has the US really killed 1/2m people????), yet our replies are "unsubstantiated". Any more nuggets of wisdom hidden away?
kanelli
- scot1870 wrote:
- Legendkiller wrote:
It's clear 2 see
a) the americans attacked iraq under false pretenses
b) iraq has plenty of oil...something that the americans really can use..
c) bush & his administration..hate Saddam
d) that the living conditions in iraq... become worse
and the list goes on...
e) Various Islamic sects and rogue states use the mess created by the West in Iraq to undertake the real atrocity of killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims
I make no excuses that we created the mess. But at the same time, it astounds me how few people blame the Shias and Sunnis for bombing the crap out of each other each day. That's nothing to do with Bush and Blair, that's decades of hatred built up by having a minority Sunni group unjustly rule the Shia. Wait a minute, anyone see a theme in my argument? Nah, best ignore it, blame it on the West instead.
Iraq would not be like this at this precise moment had Blair and Bush not invaded, but the mess would have come when Saddam died or an uprising had occurred. That the other Muslim states stand by and do nothing but watch is also an atrocity, the power and influence exists to reduce the bloodshed but the silence remains.
Go on, someone post that it's really the CIA behind the killings, that's what the populist people want to hear, not the truth.
Very well said. So many Westerners on this forum admit to, make no excuses for, and condemn the fact that the West is guilty of meddling. That fact seems to go unnoticed by the highly biased posters here. But we all know, it is easier to blame the West for everything and not admit to, or criticise, the rot existing in one's own backyard.
bushra21
- scot1870 wrote:
:shock: All his post was made up (has the US really killed 1/2m people????), yet our replies are "unsubstantiated". Any more nuggets of wisdom hidden away?
655,000 total excess deaths up to July 2006—from the second Lancet survey of mortality (October 2006).
for more details
scot1870
- bushra21 wrote:
- scot1870 wrote:
:shock: All his post was made up (has the US really killed 1/2m people????), yet our replies are "unsubstantiated". Any more nuggets of wisdom hidden away?
655,000 total excess deaths up to July 2006—from the second Lancet survey of mortality (October 2006).
for more details
I don't argue the death toll. Who killed them though? Areas can't be reconstructed because Muslims are bombing Muslims, not Muslims bombing Americans, Americans bombing Muslims or anything else.
kanelli
We've already discussed the death tolls in at least one other thread, and that same point was brought out. According to he posters, it doesn't matter if Muslims are killing Muslims, it is the US/West's fault for creating the conditions that make the Muslims kill each other. Even if you debate that that actually is not true, that is what the argument comes back as. The West is to blame for everything - that is the default answer. :roll:
Legendkiller
- kanelli wrote:
The West is to blame for everything - that is the default answer. :roll:
Let me guess..the west is innocent..and r :angel13:
right kanelli :lol:
kanelli
Learn to read!
Legendkiller
y don't u follow ur own advice...
sage & onion
I have been requested to move this thread to; Politics, Philosophy and Religion Forums, please let me have your comments.
kanelli
Sure, go ahead and move it there.
alexandra
i think that PPR is a more suitable place for this thread
Legendkiller
y move?...it's a general discussion..so it's place should be in general topic...
Concord
- sage & onion wrote:
I have been requested to move this thread to; Politics, Philosophy and Religion Forums, please let me have your comments.
move it to "games forum" its like ping pong (a game ain't it).
bushra21
- Legendkiller wrote:
y move?...it's a general discussion..so it's place should be in general topic...
the topics being discussed are more suited for the PPR forum though
kanelli
- Legendkiller wrote:
y don't u follow ur own advice...
y don u lrn to reed n & rite 2 wile u r @ it :lol:
Legendkiller
- kanelli wrote:
- Legendkiller wrote:
y don't u follow ur own advice...
y don u lrn to reed n & rite 2 wile u r @ it :lol:
lol..u think tht i don't kno how 2 write...i'm writing like this...cause that's the way i want it..
like i said before i speak 6 languages(7 if we include body language if u kno what i mean :twisted: )..how many languages can u communicate in..let me take a wild guess..one?...may-b 2..they do speak french in canada don't they..may-b we can continue in french :lol:
sage & onion
As the general consensus was to move the thread, consider it done.
uae75
- kanelli wrote:
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
So you are saying only 40+ westerners are the only ones who should know how Iraqies feel? :lol:
I wonder how you would know how Iraqies r ACTUALLY feeling? I just hope its not from the news or what Bush & Blair are saying in their statements. :wink:
uae75
- scot1870 wrote:
- bushra21 wrote:
- scot1870 wrote:
:shock: All his post was made up (has the US really killed 1/2m people????), yet our replies are "unsubstantiated". Any more nuggets of wisdom hidden away?
655,000 total excess deaths up to July 2006—from the second Lancet survey of mortality (October 2006).
for more details
I don't argue the death toll. Who killed them though? Areas can't be reconstructed because Muslims are bombing Muslims, not Muslims bombing Americans, Americans bombing Muslims or anything else.
You dont agree with the death toll, but when they mention Saddam killed thousands of his own people, you will immediately believe it!!! That makes lots of sense. :?
kanelli
Read again. He says he doesn't argue with the death toll.
uae75
- uae75 wrote:
- scot1870 wrote:
- bushra21 wrote:
- scot1870 wrote:
:shock: All his post was made up (has the US really killed 1/2m people????), yet our replies are "unsubstantiated". Any more nuggets of wisdom hidden away?
655,000 total excess deaths up to July 2006—from the second Lancet survey of mortality (October 2006).
for more details
I don't [color=red]argue[/color] the death toll. Who killed them though? Areas can't be reconstructed because Muslims are bombing Muslims, not Muslims bombing Americans, Americans bombing Muslims or anything else.
You dont [color=red]agree [/color]with the death toll, but when they mention Saddam killed thousands of his own people, you will immediately believe it!!! That makes lots of sense. :?
Ignore my previous post, thought you mentioned "dont agree", but I checked, it was "dont argue". A man has to admit when he misread a comment :)
Mr & Mrs Inquirer
A boy who tried to copy hanging scenes from the execution video of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein died in central Pakistan, said PacKi police.
Mubashar Ali,hanged himself, while re-enacting Husse in's hanging with the help of elder sister, after tying a rope to a ceiling fan and his neck in his home in Rahim Yar Khan district on Sunday, said a local police official.
rvp_legend
**please delete***
rvp_legend
Folks,
Have been catching up now on this thread. was too busy looking for the last one.
- kanelli wrote:
Fayz, the thread was deleted because Jamal says it was disrespecting the dead. He says that because he is a Saddam-lover. If the thread were about Bush or Blair's death it would have stayed in Politics or Fight Club.
The Slobodan Milosevic thread has remained... there is fairness for you.
I agree, should be one rule for all- therefore should have remained. If someone chooses to disrespect the dead that is to their discredit.
- bushra21 wrote:
but for myself and others it isnt...for myself and others he is a real man and the only one that could have saved the middle east...
- kanelli wrote:
You think that Saddam could have saved the Middle East? He slaughters his own people and you admire him?
Two people. Two very different opinions. Both have your own reasons.
- bushra21 wrote:
obviously you dont know much about the iraqi people and what is written about them in our history...
- kanelli wrote:
Really, a 21 year old Emirati girl who grows up mostly in the States thinks she knows more about how Iraqis feel than anyone else. That is priceless.
I think we should all stop saying we know what the Iraqis feel or want as it is likely very few of us are Iraqi ourselves. Our opinions are from media, sometimes word of mouth therefore we are not qualified.
Secondly what is an Iraqi? a Kurd is an Iraqi, Shias, Sunni, Turkomens, Jews even the marsh arabs! all Iraqis all had different experiences under Saddam. Some may have liked him, some disliked but it is difficult to state which was more obvious. Some suffered, some had success. So no one really knows what the Iraqis wanted. We just think we do given the sources of information.
- kanelli wrote:
We all know the trial wasn't handled well, but how well can you expect a trial like Saddam's to go? Look at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, it takes years and years to try people, the judges are changed, lawyers changed etc. It is a mess at the best of times, and leaders of countries and armies are very hard to prosecute. It was the Iraqis who were trying Saddam. It was not American judges and American lawyers, and it wasn't American soldiers who hung Saddam
i differ on this one. Iraqi flesh carrying out the execution doesnt mean that it was the Iraqis doing it. In WW2, many jews took part in the killing during the Holocaust but ultimately it was the Germans who instructed it - they were just executioners.
once again, what is an Iraqi? how do you know these guys were genuine Iraqis who lived and suffered under saddam? How do you know that these were not political dissidents, completely unrepresentative, who's parents were exhiled and only got back to the country with their own political agendas after 30 + years?example : Ahmed Chalabi, US Nominee to "Lead Iraq"
So it is difficult to verdict that this was the Iraqis who did it.
My opinion is that it was a flaw of a trial. and Killing him was just a hope to hopefully tone down the insurgency. He was a dictator, did what other dictators did around the world (and some elected Presidents/Prime ministers may i add) which is to kill many people. Life sentence was a better punishment, but that is my opinion. i already discussed a while back why i am against death penalty as i did say it often becomes a tool for revenge and some argued that this had taken place here, esp with the taunts just before the execution.
- kanelli wrote:
but in the end I don't lose sleep over it because he was blatantly guilty of murdering thousands! Do we need to spend years hashing out all the details of the decades of criminal activity to come to the exact same guilty verdict in the end? Some people are definitely in doubt of being innocent or guilty, but Saddam's case was pretty clear cut. Murdering one person is enough to make someone spend the rest of their life in prison, let alone thousands.
My issue here is that why were we "The West" still his friends, when he was commiting these crimes? EVERYONE knew he was doing it. In fact the US Congress authorised the sales of gas to him even after Halabja! it was kept quiet as it served a political purpose - which was to defeat Iran at the time.
Another thing is, yes its clear he did kill people. But Pinochet killed more way before saddam did. Why was Pinochet given a luxury life?
Additionally, Muammar Gadhafi was a more hated figure than Saddam. He was the guy everyone in the west hated. He is a dictator, He harboured terrorists, tortured and killed his own people for a lot longer than Saddam, had WMD. So many attempts to kill him. He then Opens the OIL market to the the killed passengers' imemdiate families and he is now forgiven. ??? Why is he now "OK"? What about "People of Libya" who only, what seemed like yesterday, were dyeing at the hands of this wretched man/dictator?
And oh, China flattens whoever it wants it seems... any G.I. Joes gonna help out?
The greatest Irony is the inconsistency.
- scot1870 wrote:
I make no excuses that we created the mess. But at the same time, it astounds me how few people blame the Shias and Sunnis for bombing the crap out of each other each day. That's nothing to do with Bush and Blair, that's decades of hatred built up by having a minority Sunni group unjustly rule the Shia. Wait a minute, anyone see a theme in my argument? Nah, best ignore it, blame it on the West instead.
Why does it astound you? Bring down the authoirty in any country with freedom to roam with weapons and what ensues is a scramble for power and ultimately civil war.
Happened in Somalia, and Afghanistan.Happened all through history. Both times the US was also to blame. the Sunnis , Shias killing each other is the aftermath of a big screwup - the Invasion itself. It has ignited old wounds. Now people with power are carrying out revenge attacks on something which happened years ago. Then someone retaliates. then the other side does the same. It is the domino effect of a major screwup. And falls back to the fact that the UK and US did not have an immediate plan after flattening a countries infrastructure!
- scot1870 wrote:
but the mess would have come when Saddam died or an uprising had occurred. That the other Muslim states stand by and do nothing but watch is also an atrocity, the power and influence exists to reduce the bloodshed but the silence remains.
Now you are just talking hypothetically. You cannot guess what would have happened. He had sons who could have taken over. and if anyone was overthrown, the people of the country would have done it, not an invading force with political agendas. How do you know the other states would watch? the neighbours have already staetd they may contribute if the US leaves. Your statement appears as one of justification...even if you didnt mean it
rvp_legend
What we all need to do is chillout a bit. And stop cursing each other on this forum.
I think the nature of the execution was something which has offended many people. I personally didnt like the fact he was killed on a Holy Day, after the pilgrimage and im European!
You have to respect the sensitivities. regardless of who he was. We westerners would all be disgusted if an Iraqi beheaded a Western mercenary(who may have killed many innocents) on Christmas. Natural reaction would be , why not just shoot him?
Many who hated him previously now could see him as a hero. he died defiant, and showed more courage than any other Arab leader would have.
Im not quite sure that he could have saved the middle east, but if what Bushra meant was that he had shown that you dont have to obey to every order from the americans, then he could have been an inspiration. But for that every Arab will need to want to do that... i've said many a time, the Middle East has lacked balls since the Turks left. But then, thats just my opinion.
I think those who were affected emotionally by the execution should not take out the verbal lashes on the Western contributors on this forum as that is unfair. Others have their own opinions based on what information they deem to be correct. At the same time we westerners need to be less defensive and realise the finger will keep getting pointed at the West for its role in the Invasion.
End of the day it doesnt make me happy or sad as he was no longer making the decisions. It is the ordinary Iraqi who will either suffer or benefit from it as a result.
My few cents.
RVP
Chocoholic
I for one don't believe in the 'eye for an eye' punishments. Plus the way the media televised and published footage of the hanging is disgusting.
satan-the-redeema
Quote:
- I for one don't believe in the 'eye for an eye' punishments. Plus the way the media televised and published footage of the hanging is disgusting.
Yes it was disgusting the way they taunted a condemned hero
Chocoholic
The point is, did the world really need to see it? On Greek tv, they showed the entire thing, it was horrific.
bushra21
- Chocoholic wrote:
The point is, did the world really need to see it? On Greek tv, they showed the entire thing, it was horrific.
The same was shown here as well...
rudeboy
- benwj wrote:
I'll have a go.
Although largely correct, rudboy's opinion is sadly one sided.
He obviously hates American's and white people in general.
Otherwsie he would have also mentioned the fact that it is muslims who are doing most of the killing in Iraq, namely Sunnis targeting Shites and westerners.
However, he was incorrect on one point.
WMD... yer right!
Sounds like the americans have you fooled too rudeboy.
They went in for control of the oil of course. Didn't you know that?
But they are not all bad and their sub-intentions are well meaning.
They want to establish a democracy.
Democracy is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than an unfair dictator.
Whatever your feelings are the alternative is far worse:
America leaves Iraq.
Iraq self-implodes.
So, the best thing that you can do is stop hating America, forgive them for their mistakes and try to work with them.
That is unless of course you also refuse to embrace western ideals, in which case you should move back out the desert with your camel.
ok now its my turn :D lol i hate white ppl n america hahah where did i say i hate white ppl. for ur information i really dig white chicks :D does that mean i hate them ;) eerrrrr nooooooo. yeh i do hate da AMERICAN GOVt i hate Bush i hate clinton but him getting sucked by his gf under the table lol that was funny :D but that whole incident showed the whole world that american leaders are arrogant . he said hey i m da worlds strongest guy on earth so i ll get it sucked in my office in front of my wife n my 2 daughters lol as for Bush he sleeps with animal theres a rumour going around that his 2nd wife is a sheep that lives with him on his family barn in da state of Texas :D. mate some of my mates are white so can u tell me how can i hate white ppl lol.
n oh yeh u need to read my posts again cos i clearly say it that shias n sunnis are killing each other.
u wanna tell me y Bush went to UN for UNS permission to attack Iraq n the reason for Bush choosing to attack Iraq was WMD. yeh we all know they want the protection of the oil wells in Iraq that will continue to fuel da tanks jet fighters n aircraft carriers in da middle east so they continue launching attacks.
lol establish a democracy. WHO DA FUK IS AMERICA to establish a DEMOCRACY in another country. lol y doesnt AMERICA establish democracy in KSA or UAE????? when da paki general took over Pakistan they did nothing cos da same general which came into power became their puppet n sold his soul to Bush n his bitch. LOL dont give me this bull about establishing democracy. Iranian president was elected FAIR n SQUARE n yet they want to attack iran to establish democracy LOL. USA will only interfere in another countries affair where its interests are at a threath. It could have attacked Pakistan n restored democracy there but no USA didnt cos they needed Pakistan to help them fite tailaban. USA can attack KSA n put a democracy there but USA doesnt have da balls to attack KSA n it will only attack KSA when its interests are at a threath. that involves da bases in KSA da oil supply to USA.
America left Vietenaam wot happened. did it self implode?? see america shouldnt come n invade a country in da first PLACE. it invaded Afghanistan n thats a mess ppl are dying every day. America invaded Iraq n ppl are dying in dozen every day. lol America shouldnt be attacking a country in da FIRST place. it should stay there across da atlantic n mind its own business. but the bitch it is it has to go sniffing into other ppls business.
by da way da desert is much better the the city itself. :D u can do wotever u like there u have da freedom to do wotever u like n no1 stops u.:D
n no i aint got american accent lol n hey if u dont like da customs of UAE i.e da desert n camels y dont u get drunk book a flite n head home. but then again u wont be safe in america either ;) peace
rudeboy
- scot1870 wrote:
- rudeboy wrote:
In Northern IRELAND they wanted their own country away from the rule of the British Monarchy, wot did Margret Thacher do guess wot she killed them with the help of the British Royal Army.
Erm, Northern Ireland is a country with its own parliament! You're talking about terrorists (the IRA and others) who wanted NI to rejoin the Irish Republic. Their political wing, Sinn Fein, continues to fight their cause but won't ask for the one thing which would have ended all this decades ago - a referendum.
See, the fact that the international community doesn't seem to grasp about NI is that their people want to be part of the UK! So we should concede to terrorists a country that doesn't want to be conceded?
You should also note that almost all the killing in NI was done by paramilitary groups for each side.
I won't comment on the Saddam thing, I've made my point and I reiterate to people, if you hate America then why speak in an American accent?
yeh IRA thats wot i mean. anyways wot the government did to put down da IRA is clear they fought back. n this is happening everywhere around da world. in pakistan da government is putting down a Baloochi rebellion which wants a country of its own. you tell me which leader is ready to do that. let someone make a country out of a country already made
Da USSR was a big mite n could have kicked americas ass :D but everyone wanted their own countries. da czechs da slovaks etc n look at it now. its economy is suffering. lets 4get IRA n Ireland cos hey they are in the West n we cant blame them can we now :D.
rudeboy
sadam in my opinion was a great guy. ok u guys wont admit with me cos he killed his own ppl i.e the kurds. who doesnt kill his own ppl to keep the country united. the kurds wanted a state of their own a country of their n split from IRAQ you tell me which leader will allow that. in India when there was a Sikh rebellion they wanted their own country wot did INDIAN leader do he killed them with the help of the army.
In pakistan when the baloochis living in balochistan want their own country wot did Musharaafe do with the help of the army, he killed them all.
In Northern IRELAND they wanted their own country away from the rule of the British Monarchy, wot did Margret Thacher do guess wot she killed them with the help of the British Royal Army.
Where was USA when England did this. n y didnt the whole world say it was a bad thing to do. y didnt the world say the same about Baloochistan in Pakistan or the Sikh Rebellion in India. lol no1 said anything to these countries and many more cos hey they all suck USAs balls. n since USA love getting suked, USA didnt say anything to these countries or condemn them.
During the IRAN n IRAQ war USA n the west Supported Sadam cos they wanted to get rid of IRAN so they happily backed Sadam then with supplies n miliarty help. only did they turn their back on sadam when sadam was out of the control. they knew Sadam couldnt be controlled so they will have to get rid of him. and thats exactly wot they did for no reason except for killing the kurds. lol da main reason y they went to IRAQ in the first place was to find weapons of mass destruction. they didnt find that instead they started looking for new excuses to get rid of Sadam i.e a Kurdish uprising which Sadam put an end to because he knew it would destroy IRAQ cos hey if da kurds got their own state the shias would want their own state, n that would mean 3 mini iraqs separate from each other. tell me which leader is ready to do that.
Yeh we should ask the Iraqis if Sadam was a good leader or not. But Iraq is made up of kurds in the north n shias n sunnis. am sure u ll get a mix response. but then again who doesnt. go to USA in Texas they will luve BUSHY baby if u go to some other state they probably hate him. But i m sure the IRAQIS would rather have the good old days when Sadam was there cos during his rule there was no violence no bombs no suicide bombings.
As for the movie of the hanging. is good it came out it showed the whole world the truth about the whole affair how da shias were behind it how they taunted him n it shows how Sadam was calm n normal n his eyes didnt pop out like USA wanted to. instead he didnt want his face to be covered n he died like a martyr. n he did wot no other Muslim leader would ever think of doing cos they are scared pussys :D that is stand up against AMERICA. too stand up against America u have to be brave n strong n thats wot sadam was. da movie is a warning to all da Muslim leaders that if u stand up against America u ll be caught n hanged on EID. hmm shows how civilized da west is for hanging someone on Eid. for hell if someone hanged Bush on Christmas day they will make a Santa Claus out of him. lol
This is a white mans world if u do wot a white man tell u to do u ll survive in this world and if u dont u ll be hanged n thats wot happened to Sadam.
RIP Sadam Hussain
freza
rvp legend as usual has some excellent posts. It would be interesting to see what type of direct reply his statements would get from some folks.
benwj
The fact the the video was shown speaks volumes for the problem that the arab world faces.
Everyone, including Sadam, is equal in death.
Showing videos of someone dying/dead is disrespectful, and something that I cannot begin to understand.
I have seen several dead people, but never once have I seeked and/or gained an ounce of enjoyment from it.
But it is something that I see nearly every day in the Dubai.
Why do you think people stop at the side of Sheik Zayed road to look at a car crash? To see if there are any dead people.
These people lack the most basic respect towards other people and until this changes, there is no hope.
uae75
rudeboy....ur post is logical and makes sense....wondering if anyone would really understand it!!!
scot1870
- rudeboy wrote:
In Northern IRELAND they wanted their own country away from the rule of the British Monarchy, wot did Margret Thacher do guess wot she killed them with the help of the British Royal Army.
Erm, Northern Ireland is a country with its own parliament! You're talking about terrorists (the IRA and others) who wanted NI to rejoin the Irish Republic. Their political wing, Sinn Fein, continues to fight their cause but won't ask for the one thing which would have ended all this decades ago - a referendum.
See, the fact that the international community doesn't seem to grasp about NI is that their people want to be part of the UK! So we should concede to terrorists a country that doesn't want to be conceded?
You should also note that almost all the killing in NI was done by paramilitary groups for each side.
I won't comment on the Saddam thing, I've made my point and I reiterate to people, if you hate America then why speak in an American accent?
rudeboy
there are ppl who will agree with me n some who wont. but da western MEDIA has hyped da reason for killing sadam i.e he killed the kurds gased them or wotever. they couldnt find weapons of mass destruction ANYwhere in IRAQ so they wanted to look for another excuse to get rid of Sadam.
I wonder if any of the british prime ministers will be arrested for killing their own ppl in Northern Ireland :D i wonder if Bush will be hanged or tried if Alaska tommorow said hey we want our own country. you think Bushy baby wont bring da uprising down with a mighty force even it involves gasing ur own ppl or shooting his own ppl.
If u ask me Sadam was da greatest Arab leader of his time, he went to war with Iran n Kuwait but we all know da Americans were behind that. He was da only leader to stand up against America n he did this for a DECADE which NO other leader has done before. n he helped da palestine cause n da whole world knew he supported financially da suicide bombers family. I dont think any other leader from the Muslim world support them n tell da world publicy. maybe there are some who do help but they dont want anyone to find out cos they are scared of being hanged. they more like cowards if you ask me.
benwj
I'll have a go.
Although largely correct, rudboy's opinion is sadly one sided.
He obviously hates American's and white people in general.
Otherwsie he would have also mentioned the fact that it is muslims who are doing most of the killing in Iraq, namely Sunnis targeting Shites and westerners.
However, he was incorrect on one point.
WMD... yer right!
Sounds like the americans have you fooled too rudeboy.
They went in for control of the oil of course. Didn't you know that?
But they are not all bad and their sub-intentions are well meaning.
They want to establish a democracy.
Democracy is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than an unfair dictator.
Whatever your feelings are the alternative is far worse:
America leaves Iraq.
Iraq self-implodes.
So, the best thing that you can do is stop hating America, forgive them for their mistakes and try to work with them.
That is unless of course you also refuse to embrace western ideals, in which case you should move back out the desert with your camel.
fayz
I just got around to reading this, RVP special thanks for your inputs, very well written.
bushra21
- benwj wrote:
The fact the the video was shown speaks volumes for the problem that the arab world faces.
Everyone, including Sadam, is equal in death.
Showing videos of someone dying/dead is disrespectful, and something that I cannot begin to understand.
I have seen several dead people, but never once have I seeked and/or gained an ounce of enjoyment from it.
But it is something that I see nearly every day in the Dubai.
Why do you think people stop at the side of Sheik Zayed road to look at a car crash? To see if there are any dead people.
These people lack the most basic respect towards other people and until this changes, there is no hope.
Wait, im confused....these people?
Which people are you talking about?
uae75
- benwj wrote:
namely Sunnis targeting Shites and westerners.
Hmmmm.....You don't really know what the hell is going out there, right? Otherwise you would have mentioned the whole fact.....Everyone is killing everyone!!!......Shiitas are doing worse incase you were too blind to see!!!...Even the americans admit to it!!!
- benwj wrote:
They want to establish a democracy.
I think its you who is really fooled if you actually believed the americans went to establish democracy!!!....So democracy in your point of view only comes after you invade another country, steal its oil and increase tensions between its different religion groups in iraq!!!!!!!!!!!
- benwj wrote:
Whatever your feelings are the alternative is far worse:
America leaves Iraq.
Iraq self-implodes.
Very true....it will get worse, but let them fight it between themselves till the stronger rise!!! If you knew the histroy of this region, you will know this is the only way this country will ever live in peace, and every IRAQI knows that!!!!
- benwj wrote:
That is unless of course you also refuse to embrace western ideals, in which case you should move back out the desert with your camel.
Look who is showing his true identity, and hates the arabs now?!!! Look who is the one who thinks western views are the only right views!!!....I think you better go back to ur mama and learn some manners before writing a post over here!
rvp_legend
Thanks to Freza and Fayz for the positive feedback.
- scot1870 wrote:
if you hate America then why speak in an American accent?
There is a massive difference between hating America and hating American Foreign policy. The latter is what is evident here on DF. People here DO NOT hate Americans regardless of what it seems.
- benwj wrote:
He obviously hates American's and white people in general.
Otherwsie he would have also mentioned the fact that it is muslims who are doing most of the killing in Iraq, namely Sunnis targeting Shites and westerners.
Actually Rudeboy doesnt hate whites at all. He has opinions and has his own way of expressing it.
I must say Rudeboy however, although i like reading your posts - i feel really tired at the end! ;-) Sunni, Shia violence is a result of the Invasion - no one can argue against that.
- benwj wrote:
But they are not all bad and their sub-intentions are well meaning.
They want to establish a democracy.
Democracy is not perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than an unfair dictator.
.,....So, the best thing that you can do is stop hating America, forgive them for their mistakes and try to work with them.
If Democracy arrives in the form of B52's then its a failed political ideology. Fact is the US and UK has done more damage to Democracy than promote it. Additionally the US has made it absolutely clear that for as long as it is in Iraq it will not allow a religious group to take full power, Iran-like...even if the people vote for it. So much for erm...democracy?
15 years ago a group of men in Beijing, China confronted a Tank, on Live TV waving banners demanding democracy. They were shot to pieces and a Chinese campaign went underway to kill off these movements in China and they almost wiped all the people involved, out.
I still havent seen the US invade China yet...to help the Chinese who obviously want democracy. Have you?
If they cannot make their allies in Saudi, UAE etc adopt it....how can they enforce it on another?
So the shout for democracy doesnt wash.
Regarding things being better than the unfair dictator.... well Three years ago, 12 year old Abdullah could sell his fruits in the market without the risk of being blown to bits. Crime is at an all time high. Kidnapping is a sport. Without sounding like a fan of saddam, None of this existed before the invasion. So its another failure. Iraq is in same situation as Afghanistan.
And how do people stop hating American foreign policy? two countries invaded in a row... no WMD's in sight... Oil looted, Abu Ghraib scandal, rape of Iraqi Children, and a continuing occupation with unaccountable mercenaries.
How do you forgive a nation who is already using the same rhetoric to repeat the same actions with Syria and Iran? ...where do you draw the line?
I wont even bother with your camel comment. It is a discredit to the western contributors.
- rudeboy wrote:
pakistan da government is putting down a Baloochi rebellion which wants a country of its own. you tell me which leader is ready to do that. let someone make a country out of a country already made
Pakistan previously battled Bangladeshis and failed miserably, so is now more defiant not to let go of Baluchistan, as it has the most natural gas left in Pakistan. Fact is no country takes it lightly when a breakaway is attempted.
If the Kurds did that in Iraq now, the Turks would get involved and really clamp down on them as it would also threaten their eastern border.
rudeboy
rvp good summary of wot i said :D
bushra21
rvp always has good things to say....even if i dont agree with it some times, i still like the way he says it. it doesnt make me feel as though he trying to force me to believe his idea, which makes it easier for me to actually want to discuss things
uae75
Excellent & Unbias post from rvp_legend
kanelli
Actually, I started out posting in a way that gives my opinion without personally insulting anyone. However, since so many of you are Saddam-lovers and West-haters and didn't like my opinion, I was subjected to name calling and insults. It went downhill from there.
So, I see now that if someone posts something you pretty much agree with then they are considered fair, unbiased and respectful. If someone posts something you don't agree with, they deserve any kind of disrespect they get. Nice :lol:
uae75
- kanelli wrote:
Actually, I started out posting in a way that gives my opinion without personally insulting anyone. However, since so many of you are Saddam-lovers and West-haters and didn't like my opinion, I was subjected to name calling and insults. It went downhill from there.
So, I see now that if someone posts something you pretty much agree with then they are considered fair, unbiased and respectful. If someone posts something you don't agree with, they deserve any kind of disrespect they get. Nice :lol:
You assume many who disagree with ur views are Saddam-Lover and West-Haters, and then you wonder why I agree with an unbiased and respectful post. Is it too difficult to guess? :lol:
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
Actually, I started out posting in a way that gives my opinion without personally insulting anyone. However, since so many of you are Saddam-lovers and West-haters and didn't like my opinion, I was subjected to name calling and insults. It went downhill from there.
So, I see now that if someone posts something you pretty much agree with then they are considered fair, unbiased and respectful. If someone posts something you don't agree with, they deserve any kind of disrespect they get. Nice :lol:
no kanelli thats not it. i even said that i dont agree with rvp at times, but the way he posts his opinions is not offensive. he doesnt make you feel like your either with him or against him....
and that is not how you post.
kanelli
But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"? :lol:
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"? :lol:
so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?
wait, ive never heard you call anyone a bush-lover before, or an arab hater....
nostradamus
so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?
Lets start with "NORMAL" :)
kanelli
Well, I am yet to hear anyone on here praise Bush for his actions. Can you find me a thread where people are glorifying George Bush? As to the Arab-haters, yes, they are here - but I consider them trolls and don't comment on them. We all know who they are with their comments and avatars. All of us have learned to ignore them because they only post once in a blue moon in the hot political and religious threads. Why give them the attention they crave?
The problem is, if someone even says anything that tries to show some balance other than "George Bush, Israel and the West are to blame for all our problems." he/she is thought of as an Arab and Muslim-hater, or considered ignorant.
kanelli
- nostradamus wrote:
so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?
Lets start with "NORMAL" :)
Bushra, here is a prime example of such a troll. :roll:
asc_26
Most people are hesitant to participate in this kind of debate even if they have much to say, simply because most of the debates if you've noticed are going off topic and some posts are getting too personal. Some couldn't distinguish which topic be treated in jest, and which are not.
Over all, it is good for pastime as well. :P
nostradamus
:)
kanelli
- bushra21 wrote:
- kanelli wrote:
Actually, I started out posting in a way that gives my opinion without personally insulting anyone. However, since so many of you are Saddam-lovers and West-haters and didn't like my opinion, I was subjected to name calling and insults. It went downhill from there.
So, I see now that if someone posts something you pretty much agree with then they are considered fair, unbiased and respectful. If someone posts something you don't agree with, they deserve any kind of disrespect they get. Nice :lol:
no kanelli thats not it. i even said that i dont agree with rvp at times, but the way he posts his opinions is not offensive. he doesnt make you feel like your either with him or against him....
and that is not how you post.
And what was so offensive about my initial posts in the Saddam thread? Since it has been deleted I cannot prove it with quotations. I will tell you that I posted a simple opinion that did not slam anyone else. It is other people who felt "against" me and posted insulting and rude things to me. I admit that I let my emotions get in the way after my initial posts and after people started insulting me personally. I am human afterall...
I guess that people want to teach us Westerners that we shouldn't give an opinion here unless it is pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, anti-Bush/Blair, and anti-West. The majority of threads posted in the politics section certainly reflect this, from the topics started in the forum, or the way people get treated if they try to debate.
I'm a fool to keep discussing these issues here. I belong to another online community where we discuss all kinds of political topics and the discussions rarely degenerate like they do here. And no, people most certainly do not share the same opinions - it is that they focus on debating the issues, not insulting each other personally.
uae75
- kanelli wrote:
But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"? :lol:
I have one question for you, why would you assume that if people dont agree with your views, then they have to be WEST-HATERS or SADDAM-LOVERS, why do you like to label people!!!!....Have you ever thought that they might actually like westerners as human beings, but they just hate the WESTERN Government policies and we r entitled to our opinions . Dont take these issues so personally, cuz dear we might not agree on many things, but it doesnt mean we hate westerners!!!! :)
bushra21
- uae75 wrote:
- kanelli wrote:
But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"? :lol:
I have one question for you, why would you assume that if people dont agree with your views, then they have to be WEST-HATERS or SADDAM-LOVERS, why do you like to label people!!!!....Have you ever thought that they might actually like westerners as human beings, but they just hate the WESTERN Government policies and we r entitled to our opinions . Dont take these issues so personally, cuz dear we might not agree on many things, but it doesnt mean we hate westerners!!!! :)
no dont say that. we are arab terrorists, of course we hate the westerners.... :roll:
for stupid people -- its called sarcasim
benwj
- rvp_legend wrote:
15 years ago a group of men in Beijing, China confronted a Tank, on Live TV waving banners demanding democracy. They were shot to pieces and a Chinese campaign went underway to kill off these movements in China and they almost wiped all the people involved, out.
I still havent seen the US invade China yet...to help the Chinese who obviously want democracy. Have you?
If they cannot make their allies in Saudi, UAE etc adopt it....how can they enforce it on another?
So the shout for democracy doesnt wash.
You missed the point. I did not shout for democracy. But in this situation I feel that it is the only alternative... apart from UAE75s idea of marshal law.
If you can think of a better idea, then please share it, instead of continually justifying why America should not have invaded Iraq. That doesn't solve anything.
- rvp_legend wrote:
Regarding things being better than the unfair dictator.... well Three years ago, 12 year old Abdullah could sell his fruits in the market without the risk of being blown to bits. Crime is at an all time high. Kidnapping is a sport. Without sounding like a fan of saddam, None of this existed before the invasion. So its another failure. Iraq is in same situation as Afghanistan.
It was always going to get worse before it got better. And it isn't going to get any better unless they can break the cycle of violence.
- rvp_legend wrote:
And how do people stop hating American foreign policy? two countries invaded in a row... no WMD's in sight... Oil looted, Abu Ghraib scandal, rape of Iraqi Children, and a continuing occupation with unaccountable mercenaries.
You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.
- rvp_legend wrote:
How do you forgive a nation who is already using the same rhetoric to repeat the same actions with Syria and Iran? ...where do you draw the line?
Re Iran: Telling the world that you are going to destroy Israel is not a good move. Best you keep that to yourself. :D
It is extremly difficult, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Right now Iran/Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine have the opportunity to take the moral higher ground.
American has screwed up.
Punishing them by violence will NOT work... and justifying it is just as bad.
kanelli
The difference guys is that I am only calling those people in the thread Saddam-lovers because they are defending him as a hero and someone who could save the Middle East - it is written in black and white! And West-haters are those people who are always posting about how bad the West is and how rotten the culture and civilisation are - all that is also in black and white all over this forum. If the shoe fits, they should wear it.
You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries and try to show their part in the mess, or if we criticise Hezbollah etc. Then if we talk about women covering themselves we are considered Muslim-haters, because if we don't agree that women need to cover it makes us highly biased people who have no respect for Islam. :roll: That's the way the thinking goes around here.
Bushra, nice try with the terrorism comment. No one besides the trolls have said anything about Arabs or Muslims being terrorists. It is really disappointing you can say such things. When have I ever treated any of my Arab and Muslim friends from this forum (or outside this forum) like terrorists?
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
The difference guys is that I am only calling those people in the thread Saddam-lovers because they are defending him as a hero and someone who could save the Middle East - it is written in black and white! And West-haters are those people who are always posting about how bad the West is and how rotten the culture and civilisation are - all that is also in black and white all over this forum. If the shoe fits, they should wear it.
You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries and try to show their part in the mess, or if we criticise Hezbollah etc. Then if we talk about women covering themselves we are considered Muslim-haters, because if we don't agree that women need to cover it makes us highly biased people who have no respect for Islam. :roll: That's the way the thinking goes around here.
Bushra, nice try with the terrorism comment. No one besides the trolls have said anything about Arabs or Muslims being terrorists. It is really disappointing you can say such things. When have I ever treated any of my Arab and Muslim friends from this forum (or outside this forum) like terrorists?
Yes, that part was not about you. I know you dont have a problem with that, sorry if you took offence.
just because you may not have a problem with the middle east or the people there doesn't mean no one else does. The same can be said for me; sure, I may not like the U.S govt, most of the people there --- but I still have friends who are from there. The point is Kanelli, you can say whatever you want -- but once you start labelling people thats when all the problems happen. At least, in my opinion.
kanelli
But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?
Still Kanelli, you're older than I am so you should know more than me -- right?
Or at least, thats what everyone expects.
kanelli
:?:
What has that got to do with the sentence quoted?
bushra21
meaning you should know better
kanelli
Should know what better?
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
Should know what better?
are you serious?!?
kanelli
Let me guess, I should know better than to try to discuss anything about the Middle East or Islam on this forum. That I would agree with.
I like how you pull the age card out when it suits you Bushra :lol:
bushra21
- kanelli wrote:
Let me guess, I should know better than to try to discuss anything about the Middle East or Islam on this forum. That I would agree with.
I like how you pull the age card out when it suits you Bushra :lol:
lol, no you are the one who said that used my age to say that i wouldn't know how the iraqi's felt -- so why cant i use your age to show you that you should know better than to label people and not expect any repercussions
uae75
- kanelli wrote:
You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries
Correct me if I am wrong, but in most of your posts, you love to label people, either saddam-lovers or west-haters or arab-haters or whatever!!! why the obsession with the labeling of people!!! lol
- kanelli wrote:
But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?
I will answer this question....YES you were off the mark! Let me give examples:
I might disagree with lots of the western policies, does it make me a West-Hater? NO
I might comment about Saddam, and how he stood for himself during this Trial, but does it make me Pro-Saddam? NO
An american might agree with some of Bush policies, does it mean he is Pro-Bush, most probably not, they might disagree with him on many other issues.
The point I am trying to convey here, we shouldn't imitate Bush's way of Foreign policy "If you are not with us, then you are against us"...and labeling people is usually the way of the weak to win arguments. :)
Anyhow, is it me, or didn't this thread take more of its share, and its time we close it, cuz its pointless, and will go on and on and on :lol:
rvp_legend
- benwj wrote:
You missed the point. I did not shout for democracy. But in this situation I feel that it is the only alternative... apart from UAE75s idea of marshal law.
If you can think of a better idea, then please share it, instead of continually justifying why America should not have invaded Iraq. That doesn't solve anything.
Actually i have not missed the point, as UAE75 pointed, you clearly used democracy as a reason as to why they went to Iraq. Perhaps if you meant and highlighted that it was the only alternative, this debate would have been different ;-) And i agree with UAE75(i think it was-forgive me if im wrong), to run Iraq you need a strongman within. But not a strongman appointed.
And i can think of a better idea. Some time back i stated that US should accept that it has screwed up. Inform all Iraq's neighbours it was pulling out and ask for the neighbours to help. I said that a while back in another thread. and funnily enough since then the neighbours have stated they are willing to help IF the US leaves.
This way, the Saudi's of the world can at least attempt to control the Sunni groups and Iran can influence Shia groups. For that the US needs to swallow its pride, ADMIT it has messed up and ask IRAN for some help who are clearly in the driving seat in my opinion.
- benwj wrote:
It was always going to get worse before it got better. And it isn't going to get any better unless they can break the cycle of violence.
Erm no. The assumption at the time of invasion was that soldiers were to be greeted with flowers. terrible miscalculation!
Breaking this cycle of violence may curb the sectarian violence. But the initial Violence against the Occupiers would still continue. Why? because no country wants to be occupied. And to stop violence against the aggressors is to accept defeat, im not sure the nationalists(who i beleive are the real people fighting the US, not a supposed handfull of terrorsists) will warm to that.
- benwj wrote:
You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.
If you look back, all these people lived in quite a peacefull co existence for 100+ years in comparative terms other than their battles against the Ottomans. That means Sunni's and Shias, side by side. What went wrong? why has it all blown up full scale in the last 2 years?
The assumption you make here is that it is the parents who are teaching the kids to hate. If that was the case, Iraq would have been wiped out of any population a long long time ago.
Additionally, No one needs to teach a kid to Hate American Soldiers. Kids watch TV and see pictures of humiliation in Abu Ghraib. Hear stories from other members of tribes. Watch before their very eyes, their family memebers being shot dead by US soldiers... it doesnt take a parent to tell him to hate. And you cannot expect a parent to tell the kid "Your daddy was shot to pieces for a good reason" even though he was innocent.
And as far as i understand Iraq is a tribal type nation. So from my understanding if one person dies from one tribe, the whole tribe wants revenge. So thats a lot of angry people vowing revenge from one death, regardless what the parents say to the kids.
- benwj wrote:
Re Iran: Telling the world that you are going to destroy Israel is not a good move. Best you keep that to yourself. :D
Maybe you are not aware, but Iran was part of the "AXIS OF EVIL" way before Ahmedenijad came to power. and the threatening Rhetoric againt iran started back in 2001 way before the comments about Israel and the Holocaust.
- benwj wrote:
It is extremly difficult, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Right now Iran/Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine have the opportunity to take the moral higher ground.
American has screwed up.
Punishing them by violence will NOT work... and justifying it is just as bad.
At least you admit Americans have screwed up.
Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine are in the midst of civil war or internal struggles. They have no chance at the moment in my opinion. Re: Iran, what does it have to do? Nothing it does seems to be enough.
But what i dont believe is that they are being "Punished". It is making it seem like they are being unfairly targeted while they are occupying a land illegally. Nobody wants violence, but how else do you overthrow an occupier? Nelson Mandela is a hero... but he didnt fight his case in a classroom. All insurgencies are violent.
The whole situation is very sad, and how diferent things may have been without these unneccessary wars.
Chocoholic
Sadly you're always going to have people being labelled, until people stop seeing each other as Arab, Western, Muslim, Christian etc etc, and just look at each other as human beings ans nothing more.
THe whole Saddam thing was a disaster. The American militaqry has said they would have done it differently, opposed how the execution was carried out by the Iraqi government. I'm wondering what they would have done different.
Also the person who's been arrested for filming and distributing the execution has a lot to answer for, I'm amazed that no-one here has even bothered to look at that issue.
benwj
- rvp_legend wrote:
Actually i have not missed the point, as UAE75 pointed, you clearly used democracy as a reason as to why they went to Iraq.
No, I clearly stated that America went into Iraq for control of the Oil, rather than WMD as they claimed. I did not say that they went into Iraq for the sole purpose of establishing a democracy.
Democracy, was what they chose to establish inplace of the dictatorship they removed.
This was only the option that would attract the least amount of critisism.
And before you start harping on about it not being a democracy, I will agree. It won't be a democracy until America leave.
- rvp_legend wrote:
And i agree with UAE75(i think it was-forgive me if im wrong), to run Iraq you need a strongman within. But not a strongman appointed.
This would never be accepted by the rest of the world. The leader needs to elected by the people, otherwise opposors to him will have grounds to cry foul and justify the use of violence.
- rvp_legend wrote:
And i can think of a better idea. Some time back i stated that US should accept that it has screwed up. Inform all Iraq's neighbours it was pulling out and ask for the neighbours to help. I said that a while back in another thread. and funnily enough since then the neighbours have stated they are willing to help IF the US leaves.
This way, the Saudi's of the world can at least attempt to control the Sunni groups and Iran can influence Shia groups. For that the US needs to swallow its pride, ADMIT it has messed up and ask IRAN for some help who are clearly in the driving seat in my opinion.
You will need to wait until the next US election to have any hope of an appology.
But what is stopping the neighbours offering help to America?
I don't believe that Iran and Saudi can work together in Iraq without a middle man. America is there now, but no one else is offerring to do the job. All they are doing is sitting back and saying what a terrible job America is doing. Does this sound like they actually care about what is happening, or are they just happy to see America failing?
Can you look at what is happening now and tell me that if the American's leave and are replaced by Saudi and Iran, the violence will stop? I beleive that it will get a lot worse and at best your strongman will rise to become another Saddam.
- rvp_legend wrote:
Breaking this cycle of violence may curb the sectarian violence. But the initial Violence against the Occupiers would still continue.
If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.
- rvp_legend wrote:
Why? because no country wants to be occupied. And to stop violence against the aggressors is to accept defeat, im not sure the nationalists(who i beleive are the real people fighting the US, not a supposed handfull of terrorsists) will warm to that.
You are not sure. I am quite sure that they will not accept defeat. All I am saying is that in this case the use of violence is not the answer. They cannot win against the might of America. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but this is the fact they need to realise first.
- benwj wrote:
You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.
- rvp_legend wrote:
If you look back, all these people lived in quite a peacefull co existence for 100+ years in comparative terms other than their battles against the Ottomans. That means Sunni's and Shias, side by side. What went wrong? why has it all blown up full scale in the last 2 years?
Not exactly side by side. How about 2 separate countries with Iraq stuck in the middle. It was bound to blow up eventually.
- rvp_legend wrote:
The assumption you make here is that it is the parents who are teaching the kids to hate.
That's because if I said that people should teach their kids that Americans are nice, I would have been flamed big time. So rather than do that, how about just trying to stop them from hating.
- rvp_legend wrote:
Additionally, No one needs to teach a kid to Hate American Soldiers. Kids watch TV and see pictures of humiliation in Abu Ghraib. Hear stories from other members of tribes. Watch before their very eyes, their family memebers being shot dead by US soldiers... it doesnt take a parent to tell him to hate. And you cannot expect a parent to tell the kid "Your daddy was shot to pieces for a good reason" even though he was innocent.
You are focusing on the bad points. What I am saying is to focus on the good things that America has done. I am sure that you can think of some.
- rvp_legend wrote:
And as far as i understand Iraq is a tribal type nation. So from my understanding if one person dies from one tribe, the whole tribe wants revenge. So thats a lot of angry people vowing revenge from one death, regardless what the parents say to the kids.
Exactly why I am careful not to piss any locals off for fear that I would have an entire family after me... not just one guy who I can usually deal with 8).
- rvp_legend wrote:
Maybe you are not aware, but Iran was part of the "AXIS OF EVIL" way before Ahmedenijad came to power. and the threatening Rhetoric againt iran started back in 2001 way before the comments about Israel and the Holocaust.
I was aware, but Iran seem to enjoy playing the part that America has cast them in.
- rvp_legend wrote:
At least you admit Americans have screwed up.
I have always said that America made a mistake, but I do not hate them for it. I realise that the majority of Americans are nice people, just like the majority of Iraqis are nice people.
- rvp_legend wrote:
Nobody wants violence, but how else do you overthrow an occupier?
If you are powerful enough violence is an option, but America will not leave until the violence stops. Does this make them bad?
Wait until a democracy is formed and violence has stopped. Then you can vote for your islamist state or whatever you want and have the constitution changed.
Hammas would be in power in Israel by now if the Palestinians had of realised this and opted non-violently integrate themselves.
rvp_legend
- benwj wrote:
This was only the option that would attract the least amount of critisism.
And before you start harping on about it not being a democracy, I will agree. It won't be a democracy until America leave.
Argument closed.
- benwj wrote:
This would never be accepted by the rest of the world. The leader needs to elected by the people, otherwise opposors to him will have grounds to cry foul and justify the use of violence.
Being a European myself i am an advocate of democracy as it is by far the best political system.
However a people must want it themselves. So if the people decide on a strongman within their borders, the rest of the world should respect it.
- benwj wrote:
You will need to wait until the next US election to have any hope of an appology.
But what is stopping the neighbours offering help to America?
I don't believe that Iran and Saudi can work together in Iraq without a middle man. America is there now, but no one else is offerring to do the job. All they are doing is sitting back and saying what a terrible job America is doing. Does this sound like they actually care about what is happening, or are they just happy to see America failing?
Can you look at what is happening now and tell me that if the American's leave and are replaced by Saudi and Iran, the violence will stop? I beleive that it will get a lot worse and at best your strongman will rise to become another Saddam.
Well, the US dug itself a big hole by going Unilateral. I wont be surprised if the others are taking pleasure out of its dificulties.
Saudi and Iran could get along. If at best the UN could mediate. No way can the US be the middle man until it tones down the aggressive rhetoric against Iran.
And yes i agree, that strong man could be another Saddam or even worse. But when you look at the turbulant history it would be just another chapter!
- benwj wrote:
If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.
I an ideal world, yes. But many including myself believe the US is attempting to build a permanent base in Iraq. Food for thought i guess.
- benwj wrote:
You are not sure. I am quite sure that they will not accept defeat. All I am saying is that in this case the use of violence is not the answer. They cannot win against the might of America. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but this is the fact they need to realise first.
A guerrilla movement is not to conventionally defeat an army but to distract it enough so they do not meet their objecttives. I believe this is what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Things are not going so well hence the arrival of more troops.
- benwj wrote:
Not exactly side by side. How about 2 separate countries with Iraq stuck in the middle. It was bound to blow up eventually.
a larger war in the region would ensue. Turkey will crush the kirds and claim Kirkuk. way too much oil there to be left alone... thats why it was best to leave it alone and hope Saddams sons were overthrown from within.
- benwj wrote:
That's because if I said that people should teach their kids that Americans are nice, I would have been flamed big time. So rather than do that, how about just trying to stop them from hating.
As i mentioned a few posts back. There is a massive different between hating americans and hating american foreign policy.
Most Iraqis will never meet a nice normal American. They will only meet American soldiers. The Hate is for the soldiers stationed illegally in their nation.... not the average hillbilly who is a pleasant individual
- benwj wrote:
You are focusing on the bad points. What I am saying is to focus on the good things that America has done. I am sure that you can think of some.
Way more negative than positive has come out of this war so the positives are small consolations. History will judge the overall positives.
- benwj wrote:
Exactly why I am careful not to piss any locals off for fear that I would have an entire family after me... not just one guy who I can usually deal with 8).
Haha! very true!
- benwj wrote:
I was aware, but Iran seem to enjoy playing the part that America has cast them in.
Iran is just trying to be defiant in the face of threats. It obviously is gaining some strength from watching the US struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan knowing that more damage in those areas will mean an unlikely invasion. other surrounding countries are also seeing this as a possibility.
- benwj wrote:
I have always said that America made a mistake, but I do not hate them for it. I realise that the majority of Americans are nice people, just like the majority of Iraqis are nice people.
Again, most Iraqis hate the soldiers who represent foreign policy. They do not hate normal americans as they are not in their country. Same as the Forum contributors. People dislike the policy not the people. That distinction is always overlooked.
- benwj wrote:
If you are powerful enough violence is an option, but America will not leave until the violence stops. Does this make them bad?
Wait until a democracy is formed and violence has stopped. Then you can vote for your islamist state or whatever you want and have the constitution changed.
Hammas would be in power in Israel by now if the Palestinians had of realised this and opted non-violently integrate themselves.
its a paradox. The violence will not stop until the US leaves. so we can both agree that it will keep continuing.
and i do not believe that an islamic state can be formed in Iraq democratically as the US as already warned that it will not let it happen for as long as it holds influence.
Your Hamas/Israel argument is one for another day and another topic.
scot1870
- rvp_legend wrote:
Saudi and Iran could get along. If at best the UN could mediate. No way can the US be the middle man until it tones down the aggressive rhetoric against Iran.
On the UN point, although it is supposed to be an effective international force, UN troops are often very ineffectual, not least because they have so many different interests to uphold it means they very rarely act. Some would say they need a force that's not involved but violence would only escalate as the police lost control.
One other point of general note to people here, the US went in to Iraq to secure oil supplies in general, not just to "loot" Iraqi oil as is said here. It's an important distinction - what they didn't want (though they won't admit it) is for Iraq to stop supply of oil to the rest of the world, thereby pushing up global oil prices. The oil itself goes all over the globe and people should remember Iraq is being paid for it, it's hardly looting.
- benwj wrote:
If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.
I an ideal world, yes. But many including myself believe the US is attempting to build a permanent base in Iraq. Food for thought i guess.
Why would the US want to build a permanent base in Iraq? It's got bases in much safer places already (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc.). People will say "for the oil" but they know they need to get out for the country to stabilise, they're not that stupid.
I still think too many people gloss over this Shia/ Sunni thing as if it's all America's fault. The invasion was the catalyst, the raw material was already there long before Bush got trigger-happy.
rvp_legend
- scot1870 wrote:
On the UN point, although it is supposed to be an effective international force, UN troops are often very ineffectual, not least because they have so many different interests to uphold it means they very rarely act. Some would say they need a force that's not involved but violence would only escalate as the police lost control.
Although i agree about the UN not having the strongest and best functioning of armed forces, the point i was trying to make was that the UN would be the better mediator over the US in bringing all of Iraq's neighbours to the table.
- scot1870 wrote:
One other point of general note to people here, the US went in to Iraq to secure oil supplies in general, not just to "loot" Iraqi oil as is said here. It's an important distinction - what they didn't want (though they won't admit it) is for Iraq to stop supply of oil to the rest of the world, thereby pushing up global oil prices. The oil itself goes all over the globe and people should remember Iraq is being paid for it, it's hardly looting.
I mentioned Oil "Looted" i dont think anyone else did. But i didnt say the americans went to loot the country. If you look back you will find i said that the Iraqi people cannot stop hating american policy and forgive them so easily and this was one of the few reasons i provided. Millions of $$ worth of Oil revenue is unaccounted for during the first 2 years of the invasion.
- scot1870 wrote:
Why would the US want to build a permanent base in Iraq? It's got bases in much safer places already (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc.). People will say "for the oil" but they know they need to get out for the country to stabilise, they're not that stupid.
Turkish Base is not safe as it was. Any split of Iraq and all hell breaks loose, in south Eastern Turkey, where the Kurdish populations are.
The Saudi base is trimming all the time and only recentl;y the Saudi govt asked the US forces to reduce numbers.
They know "Now" that they need to get out. It wasnt in their original plan i dont believe. But thats my opinion and i have my reasons for taking this position.
- scot1870 wrote:
I still think too many people gloss over this Shia/ Sunni thing as if it's all America's fault. The invasion was the catalyst, the raw material was already there long before Bush got trigger-happy.
And i will repeat once again... look back 100+ years of Iraq's history and you will find that apart from the skirmishes with the Ottomans it was never this bad. So even if all the ingredients were there, it took something very irresponsible to trigger it off.
Its a bit like Palestine and Israel. Jews lived happily with the Arabs for centuries...did it ever implode? the ingredients were certainly there. It was only when the State of Israel was created, mass migration started, and unfair distribution of land was arrangedd did the whole thing kick off and became a Jewish / Arab issue.
There are potential melting points all over the world. We cannot assume things would have happened anyway.