Thread: Muslim Experience in America

  1. #181
    S.A.M:
    Its not my theory, its that of the Iraqis. They consider it a part of their country.
    So? Kuwait was an autonomous nation-state at the time of invasion. Hence the Iraqis have invaded a country, contrary to what you were claiming. You were wrong. But then again, what's new?

    Because under occupation, only the occupiers decide what the "news" will be?
    What the fuck are you on about, S.A.M? Just answer the question I put forward, instead of evading it. Why is it OK for suicide bombers to kill the civilians of the country under occupation?

  2. #182
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by lepustimidus View Post
    S.A.M:


    So? Kuwait was an autonomous nation-state at the time of invasion. Hence the Iraqis have invaded a country, contrary to what you were claiming. You were wrong. But then again, what's new?
    Not if they still consider it a part of their country.Westerners partitioning countries at whim and imposing their boundaries and puppet regimes on people is not incumbent on the people of any country.


    What the fuck are you on about, S.A.M? Just answer the question I put forward, instead of evading it. Why is it OK for suicide bombers to kill the civilians of the country under occupation?
    You're assuming that suicide bombers are actually doing it. Because the western media says so? Ever wonder why ONLY American invasions lead to suicide bombings?

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    What difference does that make?


    Ah geez Sam, what difference do you think it makes?

    Lets see... Kuwait is a sovereign nation with clear borders. Something even Iraq recognised. And what? Saddam just changed his mind?... I guess you can't repay yourself your debts..

    Look at Israel. 2000 years was not long enough.
    Which has what to do with this argument?

    Does not mean Israel's actions are in any way valid. Nor was Saddam's when he decided to rebuild the motherland.

  4. #184
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post


    Ah geez Sam, what difference do you think it makes?

    Lets see... Kuwait is a sovereign nation with clear borders. Something even Iraq recognised. And what? Saddam just changed his mind?... I guess you can't repay yourself your debts..


    Which has what to do with this argument?

    Does not mean Israel's actions are in any way valid. Nor was Saddam's when he decided to rebuild the motherland.
    And yet Israeli actions, even with innumerable UN resolutions do not warrant an invasion, while Iraqi do? Especially considering that Israelis are not even natives. Why?

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Not if they still consider it a part of their country.
    They didn't consider it a part of their country since 1963 Sam. Again, as much as the Iraqis might have considered it as part of Iraq, it was no longer the case.

    Kuwait is an independent sovereign nation.


    Westerners partitioning countries at whim and imposing their boundaries and puppet regimes on people is not incumbent on the people of any country.
    I'm sorry, were the Kuwaiti's rejoicing when Saddam decided they had to rejoin the fold? After all, if it is as you say that the independence of Kuwait was against the wishes of the people of the region, they'd have been rejoicing when Saddam decided to invade, wouldn't they? But they did not. Why is that, do you think? On the contrary, instead of welcoming the Iraqi soldiers who had come to liberate them from the supposed Western puppet, they either attempted to flee or hide.

    On a side note, how much influence did the West have in the election of Sabah I bin Jaber as the first Emir of Kuwait? As I understand it, all leaders of Kuwait follow down the same family line as the first Emir.. So how exactly did the West impose their own puppet regime in Kuwait when the regime family line never changed from the first Emir?

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    And yet Israeli actions, even with innumerable UN resolutions do not warrant an invasion, while Iraqi do? Especially considering that Israelis are not even natives. Why?
    I take it you missed the last sentence from that quote?

    Israel, like Kuwait, are sovereign nations, whether you agree with it or not. Does not mean Israel should have an open ticket to invade its neighbours and should the repurcussions of said actions be the same as what Saddam faced when he decided to invade his neighbour? Yes.

    Whether the world's reaction to either being hypocritical or downright one sided, it still does not detract from the fact that Kuwait is an independent and sovereign nation.

  7. #187
    This article is so american, they try so hard to make them middle class at first and then make everything seem so emotional and dramatic. I have full respect for muslims but i dont like this article, the way they have to say thing s implying they were not proper muslims therefore they are good. I realise its to gain sympathy but its milked.

  8. #188
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Don't be silly. There are no insurgents. Only people who are being bombed by the US and its puppet government and getting very tired of it.
    Riiiight. Only them. That's what it is.

  9. #189
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondHearts View Post
    Some people think that the conflicts in the Middle East are religious in nature. Nothing is farther from the truth.
    Ah. That must be why Hamas' website encourages Palestinians to drink the blood of the Jews, and why Christians and other religious minorities are being ordered to convert or move by Sam's "people who are tired of being bombed by the evil US". Or why Iran just rounded up all those Bahais and Christians and athiests. Of course! Nothing religious in all that.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by lepustimidus View Post
    S.A.M:


    Sure there are, S.A.M. Unless those suicide bombers aren't actually insurgents, but agents of Emmanuel Goldstein.



    What about the people who are being bombed by the insurgents? Oh wait, I forgot, the insurgents don't exist, and neither do the suicide bombings. Nor do the radical Islamic terrorists who raid villages and harass and murder the locals.
    The Christian terrorists went to Afghanistan and Iraq and are killing the poor who can not defend themselves . When Russia attacked Georgia the Christians terrorists shut their mouths . An invasion of a nation is a terrorism act . It does not matter who he is the invader . A murderer is a murderer regardless to religion or nationality . Those who kill innocent people in Iraq , Afghanistan , Palestine .....etc are TERRORISTS and everyone knows that .

  11. #191
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    So its official then. You do not need to be considered with legalities of kidnapping people from foreign countries, imprisoning or torturing them for several years and holding kangaroo courts convicting them of crimes on foreign soil, based on random, retroactive reinterpretation of events.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bells
    Whether the world's reaction to either being hypocritical or downright one sided, it still does not detract from the fact that Kuwait is an independent and sovereign nation.
    Only if you accept it. Countries like Australia have been formed on the basis that other people's rights to self determination do not apply if you do not recognise them. An invader can make up new rules of what defines recognition.
    Last edited by S.A.M.; 08-10-08 at 04:22 PM.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Only if you accept it.
    And Iraq did accept it in 1963 when they recognised it as an independent and sovereign State, as well as recognising its borders. Are you saying they are allowed to change their minds?...

    Countries like Australia have been formed on the basis that other people's rights to self determination do not apply if you do not recognise them. An invader can make up new rules of what defines recognition.
    Australia and other countries were formed in that fashion. Yes.

    But was this the same with Kuwait? No. As I said before, Saddam probably figured he would not have to repay himself a huge debt if he forcefully absorbed Kuwait back into the fold.

  13. #193
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    And Iraq did accept it in 1963 when they recognised it as an independent and sovereign State, as well as recognising its borders. Are you saying they are allowed to change their minds?...


    Australia and other countries were formed in that fashion. Yes.

    But was this the same with Kuwait? No. As I said before, Saddam probably figured he would not have to repay himself a huge debt if he forcefully absorbed Kuwait back into the fold.
    So? Who said Saddam has to follow the Australian way? Why? Did anyone invade Australia for making up their own rules of what constitutes their nation?

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    So? Who said Saddam has to follow the Australian way? Why?
    'Cos we say so.

    Jokes aside, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was not because he wanted to rebuild the motherland. And his having recognised and accepted Kuwait as a sovereign nation in all that time before the war is telling, is it not?

    Surely you aren't advocating the forced re-integration of countries that were once one, where only one country is willing?

    Oh, and you still didn't answer my previous question about your comments about Kuwait's puppet Government... "How much influence did the West have in the election of Sabah I bin Jaber as the first Emir of Kuwait?"

    Did anyone invade Australia for making up their own rules of what constitutes their nation?
    Aside from the massive influx from NZ? No.

    But again, Australia's inception is vastly different to that of Kuwait's. After all, wasn't it a de facto independent State even when it was under Ottoman rule and only came under British Protection by its own request when Turkey attempted to invade it?

  15. #195
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    'Cos we say so.

    Jokes aside, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was not because he wanted to rebuild the motherland. And his having recognised and accepted Kuwait as a sovereign nation in all that time before the war is telling, is it not?

    Surely you aren't advocating the forced re-integration of countries that were once one, where only one country is willing?

    Oh, and you still didn't answer my previous question about your comments about Kuwait's puppet Government... "How much influence did the West have in the election of Sabah I bin Jaber as the first Emir of Kuwait?"


    Aside from the massive influx from NZ? No.

    But again, Australia's inception is vastly different to that of Kuwait's. After all, wasn't it a de facto independent State even when it was under Ottoman rule and only came under British Protection by its own request when Turkey attempted to invade it?

    Kuwait was a province of Iraq under the Ottomans. The question is, that Australia apparently does not recognise the sovereignty of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to have their own laws, forget about the land grab from residents of Australia [from natives with a minimum of 40,000 years claim] as evinced by the presence of their troops in these countries. So its rather hypocritical to apply any such standards to Saddam Hussein.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Kuwait was a province of Iraq under the Ottomans.
    As was Iraq, wasn't it? Does that mean Turkey can invade both countries and reclaim?

    The question is, that Australia apparently does not recognise the sovereignty of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to have their own laws, forget about the land grab from residents of Australia [from natives with a minimum of 40,000 years claim] as evinced by the presence of their troops in these countries.
    I don't think Australia or the US consider either Iraq or Afghanistan as being part of our respective countries. I certainly do not recall seeing represented in our previous elections as having seats in our Parliament.

    Both are still independent and sovereign countries. We have not implemented our own laws in their countries.

    So its rather hypocritical to apply any such standards to Saddam Hussein.
    Saddam was spesh.

  17. #197
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    As was Iraq, wasn't it? Does that mean Turkey can invade both countries and reclaim?


    I don't think Australia or the US consider either Iraq or Afghanistan as being part of our respective countries. I certainly do not recall seeing represented in our previous elections as having seats in our Parliament.

    Both are still independent and sovereign countries. We have not implemented our own laws in their countries.


    Saddam was spesh.
    Both have or had Australian troops in their countries. Why?

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Both have or had Australian troops in their countries. Why?
    War...

    Happens when you go to war with another country. Australia supported the US in their decision to go to war with both countries.

    But again, could you please enlighten me about your claims of a puppet Government in Kuwait, apparently put in place by the West?

  19. #199
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    War...

    Happens when you go to war with another country. Australia supported the US in their decision to go to war with both countries.
    So you would have accepted, for example, a Russian bombing of your city in return for an Australian tresspass on Iraqi/Afghani sovereignty?

    But again, could you please enlighten me about your claims of a puppet Government in Kuwait, apparently put in place by the West?
    Sure.


    After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was financially crippled and the invading British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikdom under British protectorate". On June 19, 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the then emir of Kuwait, Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    So you would have accepted, for example, a Russian bombing of your city in return for an Australian tresspass on Iraqi/Afghani sovereignty?
    Of course not. Just as I disagree with the wars my own country happens to be waging in both those countries.

    Sure.
    Still doesn't answer the question of just how the West installed the Emir into power. Even your own quote does not say that it was the British (the dreaded West) who put him in power..

    Kuwait was founded in the early eighteenth century by the Bani Utbah in the year 1705. Kuwait was then known as Guraine, the Bani Utbah established the town and port of guraine and called it Kuwait ("little fort," from kut, "fort", ultimately derived from Persian kud, meaning "city") In the first half of the eighteenth century, the great grandfather's of the Al-Khalifa, Al-Sabah, Al-Jalahma arrived at Kuwait.[1] They were desendants of the Anazia tribe who gradually migrated in the early eighteenth century from Nejd to the shores of the Persian Gulf. According to one local tradition, the Sabahs migrated south to flee drought in Najd in 1710, but found conditions bleaker. Finding conditions no better there, they finally migrated north to Kuwait where they found water and consequently settled. On the last leg of the journey they moved to the north and arrived at Kuwait in 1716. When they arrived at Kuwait, the great grandfather's of the Al-Khalifa, Al-Sabah, Al-Jalahma found a settlement by the Bani Utbah . Possibly the Bani Utbah had built a fortress from which the name Kuwait, a diminutive of kut or fortress, derives. Al Khalifa , Al-Sabah ,and Al Jalahma then entered under the umbrella of the Bani Utbah. They also raised the Al Sulaimi flag which belongs to the Bani Utbah .This flag was mentioned by lorimer in his gazetteer as being a stripped flag with four red stripes and 3 white stripes [2] The Bani Utbah migrated from Kuwait in 1732 to Zubarah and Furaiha in Qatar passing the torch to the Al Khalifa ,Al-Sabah,and Al Jalahma.
    Linked from the site you quoted above
    So how did the West influence this process at that time, since the family line in leadership continues to this day?

Similar Threads

  1. By darini in forum Linguistics
    Last Post: 05-14-08, 06:22 PM
    Replies: 19
  2. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 10-25-07, 11:36 PM
    Replies: 62
  3. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 05-25-07, 10:13 PM
    Replies: 42
  4. By Buffalo Roam in forum World Events
    Last Post: 10-23-06, 06:59 AM
    Replies: 87

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •