Fallujah - Page 2

Apologies, it didn't convey yhe meaning I intended, probably bad idea - actually I posted it in the wrong thread (meant the Theocracy) but it wouldn't let me edit -- database problems. Seems to happen a fair bit.

Anyway, let me make one thing clear. My argument is not that the troops are fundies but that they are being targetted by the fundies. And if you're in a situation where you might die any minute - well, who can blame you taking a bit of religion.

BUT the same religious nutters that are blighting the landscape back home are at it in Iraq. THE GOVERNMENT are turning this into a religious crusade/war, not anyone else.

It is also a deliberate policy imo.

Reports are coming in that 35 US soldiers have been captured by the Iraqi resistance fighters.

It's starting to stink real bad.

The US have targetted the main hospital and arrested Doctors and staff - preventing them from attending to any casualties that will undoubtedly occur.

Boston Globe


My bold. This is a new low. Taking out the hospital so it cannot report casualty figures.



More on this outrage at Under the Same Sun.

Actually theologically it IS ok.

The issue here is a hypocrisy I am objecting to rather than a religious teaching.

Islam teaches that if someone attacks you you can fight back, This is the literal translation of the Arabic word 'jihad' - ie 'struggle' not 'war'. It is used in the sense of 'overcoming an obstacle'. The word for war is 'harb' which is from a quite different root.

So the point is the Imams seem to be acting in accordance with their scriptures.

Now let's look at Christianity, where the teaching of Jesus on what you should do if attacked is also clearly outlined:


So even if you like to throw around the 'evil' canard (as so many do - it's the new black) then to be a Christian then you must not resist an evil person

So the issue is one of hypocrisy.

It is also one of unprovoked aggression.

Actually it doesn't. The NT is quite clear that JC brought a New Covenant that replaces the old:

This is plainly incorrect.

Arabic, as you may know, is a root language with no vowels. The vowels are inferred by context.

Accordingly, the roots generally relate to similar matters. That is to say, Jihad is spelled JHD and the vowels inferred. words in this family mean things along the lines of the following: struggle, labour, fatigue etc.

They are all spelled JHD and none of them mean war - war is not related to struggle, labour etc.

The Arabic for war is 'harb' - the HRB root. Words with this root (which interestingly does not occur in the Qur'an) are along the lines of fighting.

The word for holy war is harb-e-maqadas.

Looks like we've got a live one in iPoster.

You can always tell where they got their quotes and what they believe. This is a cut and paste from:

Deception in the Church (that title is probably the only true statement on the site).

It's quite a classic actually - starting off like this:


The ignorance and intolerance of this poisonous little number - which is unfortunately representative of a widespread and increasing attitude - is aptly demonstrated by the 'quotes' (none of which relate to terrorism as claimed) and some of which are manifestly incorrect - both theologically (in interpretation) and in translation.

Another laughable apology for information is the story below the 'terrorist quotes' at that link where the author displays an complete incomprehension of basic Arabic and his own religious tradition that is hysterical to anyone remotely familiar with the region and its cultures - Christian or Muslim.

The word 'Allah' is the Arabic word for God - it is not a proper name as (say) Jehovah. Even the Arab speaking Christians use it for God. Understandably since it is the Arabic word for God

How can people so intolerant and ignorant as the 'thinkers' who churn out this hate-literature not be totally discredited ? It's unbelievable - medieval even.

They don't.

Well, firstly I should apologise for my earlier prejudging of you and assuming you had some agenda. So...apologies.

Re the first point: Islam can be portrayed as the negative things you say - and guess what, it's right-wing fundamentalist Christians who are doing it.
That is to say: they have an active campaign to spread negative (and false) propaganda.

Why should this be ? Why are they so intolerant ? Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism. You won't find such propaganda from the Islamic side - not against the religion itself.

So, no - Islam is not 'broken'. It is portrayed as that by people who have a mission to do so. That's not to say there aren't some 'nutters' in Islam or equivalents of the fundies but we are talking about the religious doctrine when we say Islam - otherwise we must say Muslims, and 'some' Muslims at that.

This second site is a bit better - still biased though but we can work with it

Firstly - we can discount Khomenei. Shi'i Islam is a schismatic sect that represents less than 5% (possibly a bit more) of Islam. It is heterodox and even within it Khomenei is more or less acknowledged as a deranged maniac - which he was.

Using him as 'evidence' for their argument is not only lame it shows a lack of other avenues of attack and little knowledge of what Islam actually is.

The quotes -let's take a few:


This one blows their whole argument out of the water ! The first one !


What's the problem with this ?

The 'kill them where you find them' lines following are out of context - they were addressed in a full-on war situation.

As to the quotes at the bottom from people claiming the Qur'an is a rehash of Hagarene texts - this is really a joke. It misses the point entirely - it is not a question of whether the Qur'an is from God or Muhammad, it is a work of art. It is never viewed in this way for 2 reasons:

1) the west cannot evaluate it as such because they do not use Arabic
2) the Muslims in general have played this down because of the legalistic aspects of the Qur'an which are (to them) more important.

But it revolves just the same - literary scholars are unanimous taht it is an epic poem and one of the world's masterpieces of poetic expression (content aside). Whoever wrote it was a literary genius and as such it is hardly likely to be a compendium of past pre-Islamic juridical texts.

This site is biased unfortunately, in fact, most of the people who create sites such as this are really non-thinkers rather than those who have an agenda (though they exist too unfortunately) - if they were scholars or wanted the truth of the matter they would have found all this out for themselves. But they don't care.

One more thing: 'unbelievers' in Arabic (and 'infidels' if you must) refer very specifically to people who do not believe in God. You would be classed as one for example.

The term does not, cannot and never has applied to people who hold a religious belief. The Qur'an is quite explicit that Jews and Christians (some of them - just like only some Muslims) will go to 'heaven'. Jews and Christians are believers. Unbelievers are atheists.

Similarly, idolaters are idol-worshippers of a specific kind - basically the Meccan cult of Muhammad's time.

I find it strange that it is the rabid fundie Xians who hate Islam so much (just like they hate gays and God knows what else) - Islam has always been accepting of Judaism and Christianity (in the sense it accepts them as TRUE), I need to say that again actually: Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as true religions.

Muhammad learned all his religious teaching from Christians before his foundation of Islam at age 40. That's 20 years of hanging out and talking to Christian monks before he himself taught a thing.

Of course they were real Christians in that instance and unfortunately they would also be labeled as heretics or 'evil sinners' by the current crop, bit like Jesus himself really.

Back on topic - looks ike the US are using cluster-bombs and nail-bombs again.

Oh and guess what ? Zarqawi isn't in Fallujah.

Sick

Raed

Riverbend

It's pretty much right-on.

The only issue I'd have personally is with the 'thugs' angle. While undoubtedly there ARE a large number of thugs - Wahabis, Kuwaitis and Osama wannabees roaming around, I am wondering if the line that 'they are all thugs' is not a tad too Bushian.

Put it this way: in addition to the 'thugs' and foreign Jihadis - there MUST at some point also be a resistance by the ordinary Iraqis. To suggest otherwise is to believe they support the occupation or are too lame to attempt to do anything about it - neither are true.

Perhaps that resistance hasn't started - but personally I find that difficult to believe. I think it is there but does not distinguish otself from the 'thugs'. And it is not in the Bush admin's interest to make this distinction either.

I don't know much about her other than what she occasionally says - basically that she used to be a computer programmer, lives in Baghdad and is about 25 etc....

Sorry, I'm not much help there.

Not according to this article.


So only seriously injured troops ever get taken to Landstuhl and the hospital normally (ie since operations began NOT since the escalation of the past few months) sees 30 casualties per day.

That's 800 plus per month SERIOUS (ie not the 'patch-em up and send -em back out' type) injuries before the current escalation which is evidently far worse because the spokeswoman claims they are 'very, very busy' as opposed to previously - that is: much, much busier than 800 very serious injuries that necessitate removal from the theatre per month.