Muslims On Gawaher Are Definitely Anti-u.s.

[Amna4 68]

I'm FROM the U.S. Why in the world would I be AGAINST the U.S.? I may not agree with certain moral principles upheld in the U.S., but I definitely am not anti-U.S.

[kellygreen 2]

I'm FROM the U.S. Why in the world would I be AGAINST the U.S.? I may not agree with certain moral principles upheld in the U.S., but I definitely am not anti-U.S.

 

 

See Post #25.

[Younes 202]

O.K. Lets make this easy. In ALL of the posts on this site, has there EVER been ONE PRO-U.S. thread started by a muslim ? Surely, in all these years, the U.S. has done SOMETHING worthy of praise. Good luck finding THAT needle in the HAYSTACK. :cry:

 

Do you post pro-Islamic threads? Well if you don't, that might give you some insight on why people don't post pro-US threads that much. Don't also be suprised if people justify killing (US) civilians when you justify killing civilians yourself when it suits you. With that being said, yes, there are good things that the US has done, but don't be particularly suprised if people don't make threads about it in case you don't make pro-Islamic threads.

[kellygreen 2]

Do you post pro-Islamic threads? Well if you don't, that might give you some insight on why people don't post pro-US threads that much. Don't also be suprised if people justify killing (US) civilians when you justify killing civilians yourself when it suits you. With that being said, yes, there are good things that the US has done, but don't be particularly suprised if people don't make threads about it in case you don't make pro-Islamic threads.

 

 

'Pro -islamic threads' ? The U.S. is a COUNTRY, not a religion. I posted that the U.S. was wrong for invading iraq (the 2nd time). And no one 'justified' the killing of civilians. But mistakes DO happen. Al Quada, the taliban and the various mujjie militias GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to target civilians. But you can find tons of support here for the talibs.

[AHMAD_73 86]

Just a little sumptin'- sumptin' to get the 'juices' flowing.

 

Editor's Note: It cannot be stressed enough that the contention that the primary reason for military intervention by the US in Iraq was not -- repeat, was not -- Saddam Hussein's perceived stockpile of WMD. It was the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds per then President George W. Bush in his speech to the United Nations. In fact, Hussein's WMD programs -- which we now have proof existed -- was fourth in the reasons presented for military intervention: genocide, refusal to return prisoners of war, enabling of terrorists and their organizations, and then refusal to cease WMD development programs and refusal to allow verification of said cessation.

 

 

Vindication?: The latest released cache of intelligence documents

by Wikileaks presents proof that bio-chemical weapons of

mass destruction did in fact exist in Iraq upon the US military

intervention in that nation, with personnel finding bio-chemical

weaponry as late as 2008.

 

 

I KNOW. THANK YOU AND YOU'RE WELCOME !! :D

 

either Powell is a liar (before and after) or your sourses,

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 

 

i'm tring to find his speach in the UN, the cartoon photos he was demonistrating in front of the whole world, i like to know his feelings about himself when watching it again in front of his 6 years old grandchildrens!!!!

Edited March 25, 2012 by AHMAD_73

[kellygreen 2]

Editor's Note: It cannot be stressed enough that the contention that the primary reason for military intervention by the US in Iraq was not -- repeat, was not -- Saddam Hussein's perceived stockpile of WMD. It was the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds per then President George W. Bush in his speech to the United Nations. In fact, Hussein's WMD programs -- which we now have proof existed -- was fourth in the reasons presented for military intervention: genocide, refusal to return prisoners of war, enabling of terrorists and their organizations, and then refusal to cease WMD development programs and refusal to allow verification of said cessation.

 

I wasn't for the 2nd iraq invasion, but the above paragraph does a pretty good job of explaining that WMD's WEREN'T the reason for the invasion. Actually, the 2nd reason, refusal to return P.O.W.s is enough reason for me to kick someones .

[Younes 202]

'Pro -islamic threads' ? The U.S. is a COUNTRY, not a religion. I posted that the U.S. was wrong for invading iraq (the 2nd time). And no one 'justified' the killing of civilians.

 

So what if Islam is a religion and the US is a country ? Do you start pro-Islamic or pro-Muslim threads? You justified the nuclear bombing of Japan during WW2.

[Ron Shirt 2]

So what if Islam is a religion and the US is a country ? Do you start pro-Islamic or pro-Muslim threads? You justified the nuclear bombing of Japan during WW2.

 

I don't think you are old enought to understand what the second world war was about and the world scenario then.

The Nuclear bombs ended the war - end of story. Otherwise it could have gone on for years.

Almost everyone understands this nowadays, apart from youngsters who have this new agenda for observing the past from an idealistic point of view. especially those who have some Islamic type agenda.

 

Regards,

 

ron

[kellygreen 2]

So what if Islam is a religion and the US is a country ? Do you start pro-Islamic or pro-Muslim threads? You justified the nuclear bombing of Japan during WW2.

 

 

Genius, we're talking about countries (i.e. The U.S.) NOT RELIGIONS. I said gawaher was anti-American, NOT anti-Christian. I just told you I posted my opposition to the 2nd iraq invasion. Take that as 'pro' whatever you like.

Edited March 25, 2012 by kellygreen

[Younes 202]

I don't think you are old enought to understand what the second world war was about and the world scenario then.

The Nuclear bombs ended the war - end of story. Otherwise it could have gone on for years.

Almost everyone understands this nowadays, apart from youngsters who have this new agenda for observing the past from an idealistic point of view. especially those who have some Islamic type agenda.

 

I understand the situation back then very well. The bombing of those cities was not justified. If you think it was, then don't be suprised in the least when others justify the killings of civilians.

[Younes 202]

Genius, we're talking about countries (i.e. The U.S.) NOT RELIGIONS. I said gawaher was anti-American, NOT anti-Christian. I just told you I posted my opposition to the 2nd iraq invasion. Take that as 'pro' whatever you like.

 

So, do you make positive threads about Muslim countries? My point is, you don't make pro-Islamic, pro-Muslim, pro-Muslim-country threads. Don't be suprised if others don't make pro-US threads.

[AHMAD_73 86]

I don't think you are old enought to understand what the second world war was about and the world scenario then.

The Nuclear bombs ended the war - end of story. Otherwise it could have gone on for years.

Almost everyone understands this nowadays, apart from youngsters who have this new agenda for observing the past from an idealistic point of view. especially those who have some Islamic type agenda.

 

Regards,

 

ron

 

i feel like, it would be better if:

1- they dropped that first bomb, some where may be near and observable to the Japanese, better in the sea, not at the middle of the civilian cites.

 

2- 6 and 9 August 1945, just some more separation days, may be a weak or two to give the japanese a chance to realize the massive distruction and the looooong time rediation effects on the earth and people, so that they the right decesion.

 

3- the Japanese lost almost all of their Navy and so, supply and communication as well as most of the lands, as i know just small part of china and Japan only they had, which means 90% of the way has been done.

 

4- at the time the war was ended in Europe, and the states and the allies could transfer and tribble their navies and forces in the pacific that could end the war so fast.

 

finally, is that may justify, whenever he USA sees it gooood to use the nulear wepon they will use it, in the future?!?!

 

as i see, it was a mistake, and should been less agrissive. and i wounder why keeping 9000/7000/5000 of these weapons (100s-1000s of times stronger than the old ones) with those guys, specially only 100s of it is enough to end life on earth

[kellygreen 2]

... My point is, you don't make... pro-Muslim-country threads. ...

 

 

 

I posted my thoughts that the 2nd invasion of iraq was wrong. The same with the iraqi invasion of kuwait. So I guess I DO post pro-muslim country posts. :yes:

[Scotia 1]

i feel like, it would be better if:

1- they dropped that first bomb, some where may be near and observable to the Japanese, better in the sea, not at the middle of the civilian cites.

 

2- 6 and 9 August 1945, just some more separation days, may be a weak or two to give the japanese a chance to realize the massive distruction and the looooong time rediation effects on the earth and people, so that they the right decesion.

 

3- the Japanese lost almost all of their Navy and so, supply and communication as well as most of the lands, as i know just small part of china and Japan only they had, which means 90% of the way has been done.

 

4- at the time the war was ended in Europe, and the states and the allies could transfer and tribble their navies and forces in the pacific that could end the war so fast.

 

finally, is that may justify, whenever he USA sees it gooood to use the nulear wepon they will use it, in the future?!?!

 

as i see, it was a mistake, and should been less agrissive. and i wounder why keeping 9000/7000/5000 of these weapons (100s-1000s of times stronger than the old ones) with those guys, specially only 100s of it is enough to end life on earth

 

What is it with muslims and there distorted view of WW2?

[Younes 202]

I posted my thoughts that the 2nd invasion of iraq was wrong. The same with the iraqi invasion of kuwait. So I guess I DO post pro-muslim country posts. :yes:

 

Those aren't pro-Muslim country posts. It's like me saying that 9/11 was wrong. It is not a pro-US comment. I think that the US has done good things though, but saying that 9/11 is wrong is not a pro-US post.

[kellygreen 2]

i feel like, it would be better if:

1- they dropped that first bomb, some where may be near and observable to the Japanese, better in the sea, not at the middle of the civilian cites.

 

The Japanese WITHHELD the news of the nuking of Hiroshima from their own people. NOT a sign of someone who's considering surrender.

 

2- 6 and 9 August 1945, just some more separation days, may be a weak or two to give the japanese a chance to realize the massive distruction and the looooong time rediation effects on the earth and people, so that they the right decesion.

 

You DON'T understand a thing about that war, do you ? Give them a week or two ? HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! I'd HATE to have you as my general. The 'right' decision was to NOT attack Pearl Harbor.

 

3- the Japanese lost almost all of their Navy and so, supply and communication as well as most of the lands, as i know just small part of china and Japan only they had, which means 90% of the way has been done.

 

Invading the mainland of Japan would have killed MILLIONS of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Allied troops. We saw on islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima that 'surrender' was NOT in the Japanese vocabulary. They were finding guys years later still 'fighting the war'.

 

finally, is that may justify, whenever he USA sees it gooood to use the nulear wepon they will use it, in the future?!?!

 

Weak argument. It's been 70 years and we haven't used them since.

 

[kellygreen 2]

Those aren't pro-Muslim country posts. It's like me saying that 9/11 was wrong. It is not a pro-US comment. I think that the US has done good things though, but saying that 9/11 is wrong is not a pro-US post.

 

I think they are.

[AHMAD_73 86]

i feel like, it would be better if:

1- they dropped that first bomb, some where may be near and observable to the Japanese, better in the sea, not at the middle of the civilian cites.

 

2- 6 and 9 August 1945, just some more separation days, may be a weak or two to give the japanese a chance to realize the massive distruction and the looooong time rediation effects on the earth and people, so that they the right decesion.

 

3- the Japanese lost almost all of their Navy and so, supply and communication as well as most of the lands, as i know just small part of china and Japan only they had, which means 90% of the way has been done.

 

4- at the time the war was ended in Europe, and the states and the allies could transfer and tribble their navies and forces in the pacific that could end the war so fast.

 

finally, is that may justify, whenever he USA sees it gooood to use the nulear wepon they will use it, in the future?!?!

 

as i see, it was a mistake, and should been less agrissive. and i wounder why keeping 9000/7000/5000 of these weapons (100s-1000s of times stronger than the old ones) with those guys, specially only 100s of it is enough to end life on earth

 

What is it with muslims and there distorted view of WW2?

 

hope to see your opinion if you happened to be Japaneese, to see who hsve the distorted view!!!!

[kellygreen 2]

What is it with muslims and there distorted view of WW2?

 

 

Well, they DID support the Axis powers. Check out the mufti of Jerusalem. The S.S. even had a muslim division. And unlike the European S.S. divisions, the muslims joined WILLINGLY. Must have been something about all that Jew killing.

[kellygreen 2]

hope to see your opinion if you happened to be Japaneese, to see who hsve the distorted view!!!!

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Now THAT was a stupid post !! :wacko:

[Younes 202]

What is it with muslims and there distorted view of WW2?

 

You know, it isn't just Muslims who disapprove of the atomic bombings. There are also other people who think it is wrong.

 

Admiral William Leahy, Truman's wartime

chief of staff wrote, “It is my opinion that the use of this

barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no

material assistance in our war against Japan. The

Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender

because of the effective blockade and the successful

bombing with conventional weapons; in being the first to

use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the

barbarians of the Dark Ages. It was not taught to make war

in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying

women and children.”

[Younes 202]

Well, they DID support the Axis powers. Check out the mufti of Jerusalem. The S.S. even had a muslim division. And unlike the European S.S. divisions, the muslims joined WILLINGLY. Must have been something about all that Jew killing.

 

Muslims also fought on the side of the allies against the Axis powers, willingly also. Muslims are not a homogenous group.

[kellygreen 2]

You know, it isn't just Muslims who disapprove of the atomic bombings. There are also other people who think it is wrong.

 

Admiral William Leahy, Truman's wartime

chief of staff wrote, “It is my opinion that the use of this

barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no

material assistance in our war against Japan. The

Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender

because of the effective blockade and the successful

bombing with conventional weapons; in being the first to

use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the

barbarians of the Dark Ages. It was not taught to make war

in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying

women and children.”

 

 

There are 'other' people who think aliens inhabit the Earth core, too. Obviously others disagreed with the good Admiral.

[Ron Shirt 2]

i feel like, it would be better if:

1- they dropped that first bomb, some where may be near and observable to the Japanese, better in the sea, not at the middle of the civilian cites.

 

2- 6 and 9 August 1945, just some more separation days, may be a weak or two to give the japanese a chance to realize the massive distruction and the looooong time rediation effects on the earth and people, so that they the right decesion.

 

3- the Japanese lost almost all of their Navy and so, supply and communication as well as most of the lands, as i know just small part of china and Japan only they had, which means 90% of the way has been done.

 

4- at the time the war was ended in Europe, and the states and the allies could transfer and tribble their navies and forces in the pacific that could end the war so fast.

 

finally, is that may justify, whenever he USA sees it gooood to use the nulear wepon they will use it, in the future?!?!

 

as i see, it was a mistake, and should been less agrissive. and i wounder why keeping 9000/7000/5000 of these weapons (100s-1000s of times stronger than the old ones) with those guys, specially only 100s of it is enough to end life on earth

 

There is a saying: "It's easy to be wise in hindsight"

 

A textbook analysis and subsequent correction of a world war which took place 70 years ago is not very realistic.

The whole of the free world was threatened, by Germany, and her allies plus the Japanese, who directly attacked America. Also there were unknown factors such as Russia, China and others who may have moved against America.

Note the bombs were not dropped on Tokyo.

Mass bombings of cities were commonplace in those days. Civilians would be killed. War is a disgusting thing. Now we have laser guided bombs. Don't you think thats a litlle bit better?

 

I tend to think that Muslims tend to support Hitler, even today purely because he hated the jews.

 

ron

[Ron Shirt 2]

I understand the situation back then very well. The bombing of those cities was not justified. If you think it was, then don't be suprised in the least when others justify the killings of civilians.

 

I certainly wouldn't use any example of the killing of civilians to justify that same thing.

I wonder sometimes though, just what sort of an academic classroom we are living in, here on this forum?

 

ron