Muslim Scholars Issue Fatwa Against Terrorism

[gordontravels]

The gun manufacturer? Nope, the gang leader who shoves a fistfull of bullets in the hands of a member of his gang, telling him "kill someone". Wouldn't you want him jailed too, or would you be willing to wait your wife is killed after your daughter?



I suppose you're talking 'bout Nam. When you fought that war, the people of the US said what they thought. Do you think that shouldn't be allowed? As far as "supporting the troops" is discussed, do you mean that noone could say anything against this war because troops are dying? Or do you mean that supporting the troops is making sure they are not put in harm's way for stupid and illegal reasons?



Well, if someone as intelligent as you says that the war is legal, it must be true. The whole world community should shut up if YOU say the war is legal. Just a hint: Afghanistan: UNSC agreement, legal war. Iraq: UNSC veto if the question was raised, illegal war. Difficult to understand?
As for stupid people, YOU put that in my mouth not me. I think a whole people cannot be stupid, neither intelligent. Maybe you think differently.
As for John Kerry (a.k.a Dubya lite), please allow me to leave for a while while I vomit.



YOUR view of the world allows tens of thousands to be killed for a useless, illegal and stupid war. As far as minority is concerned, did you see the last polls concerning the Iraq war? YOU are the minority, and a criminal one at that.

Y

I served another year and a half in the military after my war service and it was done in the states so I know what was going on with the protests. If you have read anything about what my position is on the military responsibility to this country and anyone that protests the war then your comment quoted here is uninformed at best.

Seems you base your arguements on "illegal and stupid". The war was put before the U.N. and Congress and both entities gave overwhelming support. Those such as John Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to the same intelligence as the President. There is nothing illegal about this war considering what Democrats, Republicans and Foreign Governments knew and voted on. To think otherwise is partisan only and could be considered "stupid" if you ignore the facts. :duel

 

[epr64]

I served another year and a half in the military after my war service and it was done in the states so I know what was going on with the protests. If you have read anything about what my position is on the military responsibility to this country and anyone that protests the war then your comment quoted here is uninformed at best.

Seems you base your arguements on "illegal and stupid". The war was put before the U.N. and Congress and both entities gave overwhelming support. Those such as John Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to the same intelligence as the President. There is nothing illegal about this war considering what Democrats, Republicans and Foreign Governments knew and voted on. To think otherwise is partisan only and could be considered "stupid" if you ignore the facts. :duel

Are you REALLY telling me that this war was supported by the UNSC? You know perfectly well that most countries at the UN were against this war, and that any attempt to get a resolution authorising the attack would have been vetoed. As such, it's an illegal war. Don't try to spin and wriggle, you know it's true. You decided to do it anyway, out of any legal framework, but that doesn't make it legal. And as far as Kerry (a.k.a dubya lite) is concerned, I don't care.

Y

 

[cnredd]

Are you REALLY telling me that this war was supported by the UNSC? You know perfectly well that most countries at the UN were against this war, and that any attempt to get a resolution authorising the attack would have been vetoed. As such, it's an illegal war. Don't try to spin and wriggle, you know it's true. You decided to do it anyway, out of any legal framework, but that doesn't make it legal. And as far as Kerry (a.k.a dubya lite) is concerned, I don't care.

Y

France had stated before any vote on a resolution that they would veto one; That's why there was no vote, so your reasoning for this being an "illegal war" is "because France said so"...and now we all know WHY they would've used their veto powers, don't we?

And I don't remember "most countries at the UN were against this war"...could you point that out to me?

 

[epr64]

France had stated before any vote on a resolution that they would veto one; That's why there was no vote, so your reasoning for this being an "illegal war" is "because France said so"...and now we all know WHY they would've used their veto powers, don't we?

France and Russia said they would veto, Germany followed (although they don't have veto right at the UNSC), and China, although they didn't explicitly talked 'bout veto, were clearly hostile to the invasion of Iraq. So, what were the reasons of France, Russia and China for being against the invasion? Pray tell me.

Now, if you are member of the UNSC, you're supposed to respect the rules. If you want the veto right stripped off from any country that has it now... I would be glad to agree with you. But that WON'T happen. Of course, what you mean is that the veto right used by the US is legitimate (all resolutions asking for an observation force or a peace-keeping force at the Israelo-Palestinian border were vetoed by YOU), but the veto used by 2 (and probably 3) of the 5 members of the UNSC is not. Can you say double standard?

CU
Y

 

[cnredd]

France and Russia said they would veto, Germany followed (although they don't have veto right at the UNSC), and China, although they didn't explicitly talked 'bout veto, were clearly hostile to the invasion of Iraq. So, what were the reasons of France, Russia and China for being against the invasion? Pray tell me.

Now, if you are member of the UNSC, you're supposed to respect the rules. If you want the veto right stripped off from any country that has it now... I would be glad to agree with you. But that WON'T happen. Of course, what you mean is that the veto right used by the US is legitimate (all resolutions asking for an observation force or a peace-keeping force at the Israelo-Palestinian border were vetoed by YOU), but the veto used by 2 (and probably 3) of the 5 members of the UNSC is not. Can you say double standard?

CU
Y

OK...China is down for a "possible"...

Two biggest contracts with Iraq due to oil? France & Russia
Two biggest contracts with Iraq due to military equipment? France & Russia
Two biggest countries with the most to lose economically? France & Russia
Two biggest countries keeping a dictator propped up?(The same accusation the US gets all of the time)...France & Russia
Two Security Council members threatening to use their veto? France & Russia
Draw your own conclusions...

And your answer to my question referring to "most countries" is still blowin' in the wind....

 

[gordontravels]

Are you REALLY telling me that this war was supported by the UNSC? You know perfectly well that most countries at the UN were against this war, and that any attempt to get a resolution authorising the attack would have been vetoed. As such, it's an illegal war. Don't try to spin and wriggle, you know it's true. You decided to do it anyway, out of any legal framework, but that doesn't make it legal. And as far as Kerry (a.k.a dubya lite) is concerned, I don't care.

Y

I'll just make a suggestion but you may not like it. Go to the U.N. here on the web and read Resolution 17. It is "implicit" that either Saddam adheres to that and all previous resolutions or suffer military action. Then the United States Congress gave the President the vote to make war on Iraq based on that resolution. President Clinton said Saddam would have to suffer war sooner or later. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt all voted in the affirmative to give the President the go ahead to make war.

Yes, the entire Security Council let Resolution 17 pass without a single veto. Yes some countries in the U.N. were against war with Iraq. Not one on the Security Council was against Resolution 17 or they would have used their veto power; at least the five that hold that veto power - France, Germany, Britain, Russia and the U.S. It was legal and the democratically elected government in Iraq is a place where the terroists could put forward their agenda with everyone else. They won't win any other way but then that's the difference between democracy and totalitarian.

Otherwise, that you "don't care" what Kerry or anyone else (I assume) did or thought or thinks - doesn't surprise me. :duel

 

[epr64]

I'll just make a suggestion but you may not like it. Go to the U.N. here on the web and read Resolution 17. It is "implicit" that either Saddam adheres to that and all previous resolutions or suffer military action. Then the United States Congress gave the President the vote to make war on Iraq based on that resolution. President Clinton said Saddam would have to suffer war sooner or later. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt all voted in the affirmative to give the President the go ahead to make war.

Yes, the entire Security Council let Resolution 17 pass without a single veto. Yes some countries in the U.N. were against war with Iraq. Not one on the Security Council was against Resolution 17 or they would have used their veto power; at least the five that hold that veto power - France, Germany, Britain, Russia and the U.S. It was legal and the democratically elected government in Iraq is a place where the terroists could put forward their agenda with everyone else. They won't win any other way but then that's the difference between democracy and totalitarian.

Otherwise, that you "don't care" what Kerry or anyone else (I assume) did or thought or thinks - doesn't surprise me. :duel

Well, resolution 17 of the UNSC concerns " The Greek Question (10 Feb)" and is dated 1947.
Link is here.
Maybe you would like to provide a link to the resolution you want to talk about. Or maybe you don't want people to be able to see that it DOESN'T allow military force.. but just warns of sanctions.. that your pretzeldent interpreted as he liked.

As far as the US congress gave anything to Bush, I don't care. I'm sure that the Burmese congress would give their leaders all authorisations to attack the US, or the AQ congress, for that matter. BS.

Difference between democracy and totalitarian? You must be joking. WHO are you to make the difference? Based on what? YOUR lifestyle? Nobody gives a f**k.

NOW

Would you dare to say that the UNSC would have adopted a resolution to attack Iraq (as happened for Afghanistan and other countries), or will you recognize that it DIDN'T happen. If it didn't happen, the war is illegal.

DOT DASH. The rest is spinning, twisting and trying to justify.

And YOU know it.

Y

 

[epr64]

OK...China is down for a "possible"...

Two biggest contracts with Iraq due to oil? France & Russia
Two biggest contracts with Iraq due to military equipment? France & Russia
Two biggest countries with the most to lose economically? France & Russia
Two biggest countries keeping a dictator propped up?(The same accusation the US gets all of the time)...France & Russia
Two Security Council members threatening to use their veto? France & Russia
Draw your own conclusions...

And your answer to my question referring to "most countries" is still blowin' in the wind....

Hmmm. Who did I see selling antrax and other WMDs to Saddam? Who did I see selling helicopters (the ones that used the chemical weapons on the kurds) to Saddam? Didn't i see a "Rumsfeld" shaking hands with Saddam?

Better look at the whole forest in your eye before looking at the straw in Chirac's eye (not that I wouldn't want to see the sucker in jail, for that matter. He's an extreme-rightist, as you obviously DIDN't see.. otherwise, you'd love him. Your racism is showing, dear..)

Your comments are stupid, but you knew that.

Y

 

[gordontravels]

Well, resolution 17 of the UNSC concerns " The Greek Question (10 Feb)" and is dated 1947.
Link is here.
Maybe you would like to provide a link to the resolution you want to talk about. Or maybe you don't want people to be able to see that it DOESN'T allow military force.. but just warns of sanctions.. that your pretzeldent interpreted as he liked.

As far as the US congress gave anything to Bush, I don't care. I'm sure that the Burmese congress would give their leaders all authorisations to attack the US, or the AQ congress, for that matter. BS.

Difference between democracy and totalitarian? You must be joking. WHO are you to make the difference? Based on what? YOUR lifestyle? Nobody gives a f**k.

NOW

Would you dare to say that the UNSC would have adopted a resolution to attack Iraq (as happened for Afghanistan and other countries), or will you recognize that it DIDN'T happen. If it didn't happen, the war is illegal.

DOT DASH. The rest is spinning, twisting and trying to justify.

And YOU know it.

Y

When debate drops to this level and you resort to profanity I am gone. I leave this thread to you and I will unsubscribe. I believe the Resolution is the 17th in the series since the first Gulf War. I am sure you are intelligent enough and informed enough to know that. Please accept my apology for not remembering the resolution's number exactly but like I said, you know where to find it and since it was the last one before the invasion, it should be easy for you to find. Thanks for the debate on this thread as far as it went.

 

[cnredd]

Hmmm. Who did I see selling antrax and other WMDs to Saddam? Who did I see selling helicopters (the ones that used the chemical weapons on the kurds) to Saddam? Didn't i see a "Rumsfeld" shaking hands with Saddam?

Better look at the whole forest in your eye before looking at the straw in Chirac's eye (not that I wouldn't want to see the sucker in jail, for that matter. He's an extreme-rightist, as you obviously DIDN't see.. otherwise, you'd love him. Your racism is showing, dear..)

Your comments are stupid, but you knew that.

Y

Your looking at things that happened 10+ years ago as justification for an opposite opinion now....Nice logic...I guess we should expect Japan at our doors any minute for 1945?....And just when will India retaliate toward England for their colonial ways?...And here's a good one...Why did they find Iranian ammunition in Iraq recently when they were at war the same time Rumfeld was shaking Saddam's hand? Are you not accusatory to all nations that have had previous friendships and are now at odds...or vice versa?..."Whoops" on your part.:doh