tonyhp32

Well at least we agree on one thing that there was no huge conspiracy to invade Iraq for the oil. Unfortunately some Sikhs on this forum are infected with this conspiracy nonsense. What are Shia? 10% of Muslims and isn't your sect a miniscule percentage of that? So apologies for being blunt but the views of your sect in the Muslim-non Muslim issue are of no consequence since the vast majority of Muslims are Sunnis and they for the most part support Bin Laden although the recent shoe thrower may have overtaken Bin Laden of late given that Bin Laden hasn't been able to organise a major attack on the west in the last few years. Iran hasn't attack another country because they don't have the conventional capacity hence the need for nuclear weapons. Although they did do some sabre rattling a few years before 9/11 when the Taliban killed some Iranians in Afghanistan. If the people have been incapable of getting rid of their dictators then sometimes the US has to intervene. This is not to say that the US hasn't historically made enormous mistakes mainly due to the cold war such as supporting the Shah or deposing that reformer in Iran in the 1950s. I forget his name but I'm sure you know who I mean. Forget your conversion induced humiliation for the Muslims having to help from infidels to dispose of a dictator and look at the situation now. For the all the conspiracy nuts beliefs about the US in Iraq, the Americans just want to cut and run as soon as they can. They know that whatever they do the liberal nuts in alliance with the Islamic nuts will always blame the US for everything. There is little doubt that when the US leave Iraq will implode. Shias ill kill Sunnis and Kurds will kill Arabs and Turkmens thereby ensuring intervention by Iran and the Arab states. Some federal system or more likely a partition would be the answer. Iraq and for the most parts most Muslim states cannot last as democracies because the Islamic mentality is not conducive to the freedom which comes with living in a democratic state. Come on Morghe, you miss Southall really! You seem to go on about it in every post. Thank you for amateur attempt at a psychiatrist assessment. Way off the mark of course but when have you ever cared for the truth? Is there no end to your talents? I suppose you can also sing for your dinner (no doubt in ancient Avestani) in Iran? We all know that Iran isn't the utopia you like to portray here. I must say that I am surprised by your insistence on the mutiny of 1857 as 'India's first Hindu-Muslim independence war'. You must read a lot of desh bhagat Indian nationalistic garbage to still believe that old chestnut! Sikhs as well as many Hindus and Muslims fought for the British against the mutineers as well as that hotch potch of Hindustani Nawabs and Rajas and Ranis. What prophecy did the non-Sikhs believe in as their reason for fighting for the British? There was a number of reasons for the Sikhs to fight on the British side such as the Sikhs states threw their lot in with the British, without the Lahore state, Patiala had become de-facto leaders of the Sikhs and the fear of the return of the Mughal empire under that poetry sprouting Hijra ironically named Bahadur Shah Zafar. You wouldn't expect the Jews to support the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, would you?

Iraqis have voted for Islamic parties and the US haven't banned these parties or prevented their MPs from taking office. As for your foolish example of the Palestinians voting for Hamas, you need to read up on unbiased commentary and not rely on conspiracy sites. Hamas refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist. It's charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Their leaders are on record as saying that the only solution to the Palestinian problem is Jihad! This policy was clearly part of their election bid and the Palestinians who voted for that party knew what they were voting for. Hamas was also declared a terrorist organisation due to it's attack of Israeli civilians in suicide bombs. When Hamas won, the West wanted them to recogise the right of Israel's right to exist as a prelude to direct talks which they would not. How can you have two sides negotiate when one party does not recognise the other party's right to exist. This is why the West does not deal directly with Hamas and any aid is dispatched directly through NGOs and the Hamas govt.

Shaheediyan, You know the problem with people of the conspiracist mindset is that for them there is never any reason to formulate a strategy or even answer a simple question. Do you really believe the conspiracy theorists that Bush went in for the oil, if so why have American consumers and consumers around the world had to recently pay record prices for their petrol? Or is the latest theory that Bush went in for his friends in the oil business? Ok let me ask you a question, we are where we are now so do you-; 1. Want the US to leave immediately? 2. Stay as the latest security pact says until 2011 and leave a stable country behind? If it's the first option even Obama and his advisors know there will be a bloodbath. No doubt if the US leave and there is a bloodbath the conspiracy mongers will say that it was the Americans fault in the first place for going in. Apart from the Michael Moore fan club most people are starting to understand that no matter if all the grieviences of Muslims are dealt with they will still come up with something else as a reason for bombing the hell out of non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Al Qaeda's agenda is that they want all lands formerly ruled by Islam to be returned to Muslims. That means Spain, the Balkans as well as India. I suppose you are ok with that? At what stage do people of you ilk say enough is enough? Like it or not, the US is giving these Iraqis a chance to vote for their own future. All it takes in for Al Qaeda to stop their suicide bombings and for the Iraqi government to grow some balls and take on Al Qaeda as well as the Shias like the Mahdi army. Or wait is it the US that are doing these bombings in order to stay in control of Iraq? With conspiracy theorists every inconvenient question has a further conspiracy attached to it. The terrorists don't need a reason for the bloodbath, if America is out then Al qaeda will want the Shia majority to revert back to their 2nd class citizenship. Kurds won't take attempt to deprive them of their autonomy and similarly the Shia emboldened by the Iranians won't want to be back to the Saddam days of Sunni rule. Morghe, I must be so easy to have such a simplistic view of life. If someone doesn't get taken in by the ISSLAAAM IS A RELIGION OF PEEASEEE bukwas, then automatically he is a BNP supporter. If he not white then he is a BNP lap dog. You really need to get out of your Iranian slum.

Wow, Morghe now has a new incarnation! Another miraculous conversion! Hallelujah! Eh Banda tan Mahatma Gandhi ban gaya!

Morghe, The Americans would have taken out Saddam in 1991 but for your Arab co-religionists who didn't want to 'humiliate' a fellow Arab. Of course the UN didn't help with their half a*sed resolutions. I see you've brought the Islamists' propaganda hook line and sinker! Of course we all know the Americans are going around raping every Iraqi woman, strip searching all the young girls and a host of other crimes. Sodomised by dogs are you sure that actually happened or are you confusing fact with some kind of personal sick fantasy? The fact that Abu Ghraib is the only one of a few documented crimes which incidentally have been dealt with by the authorities is neither here nor there. Did I mention the Islamic mentality? Well there you have an example of it! All you can do is regurgitate propaganda no doubt from Islamist sites as well as adding that usual 'i have friends who.blah blah bal'. Yes of course you have a great reputation for honesty on this forum therefore we should all take your propaganda regurgitation as fact! Perhaps you would be more amenable if the Americans followed the Islamic ruling on how to deal with prisoners of war? Shouldn't they have killed, sold or ransomed the captured Iraqi soldiers. Of course the final decision would have been down to Dubya, him being the Kalif of the Kafiroun. How about the wives and daughters of these Iraqis? shouldn't they have kept them as slaves and concubines? Wouldn't all Iraqis technically be the 'possessions of the right hand' of the Americans? If I support the Americans it's because I believe that what they are doing in Iraq is trying to give the Iraqi people freedom. They should not have invaded Iraq in the first place but they did so because Saddam wanted to maintain his Arab machismo and did not tell the UN inspectors the full facts. If he had proved beyond a doubt that he had destroyed his WMDs then there is no way the USA would have invaded. Then you could have had your Iraqi utopia and Saddam could deal his people as he saw fit. It's surprising how some people fail to mention Al Qaeda and it's contribution to the chaos in Iraq. Apparently it's all America's fault. You call me a neo-con lag dog! lol..I could say a lot of things about you who has left his own culture and religion and is sitting in another country living off the generosity of his benefactors. But I won't as you should know personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. Shaheediyan, Thank you for your kind words. It's funny how the liberals and the ultra PC people are the ones who say the nastiest of things. I have never wished ill on you even to show you what Islam really is and to take you and others on this forum out of their 'kumbaya' mentality. I have only given my views as I see it.

It's about the Islamic mentality, my friend. Well let's see. You have a tyrant rule over you for decades who kills with impunity. Every part of your routine in life is regulated even to the point of how many stones you should use to wipe your a*se. What prayer to say when you use the loo. Then the Americans invade your country and start their experiment in democracy. For this Iraqi guy, suddenly he has to make choices such as who to vote for and he can basically live his life as he chooses. But the inverse of this is that he also has to see other people live their lives as they choose. For people of his mentality cannot handle that women might not want to walk around in a tent, that they might want to wear a bit of make up etc. For people like him such things are a corruption of his islamic utopia. Even though in this utopia Saddam could murder people with impunity. He also has to see infidels in his country even through they are the people who have liberated him. He might even have to see Jews in the American armed forces and that will really set him off seething, that he an Arab with all their machismo culture lived like slaves to a madman like Saddam and Infidels had to liberate him. This is the Arab mentality and as most non-Arab Muslims, even our friend Morghe have to take on the Arab mentality wholesale then this can now be called the Islamic mentality. This is why when billions of dollars are dispatched as aid for Muslim countries like Indonesia after the Tsunami, there is very little gratitude from them. Even though the billionaire Arab sent less than 10% of the aid yet they will always be grateful to the Arabs more than they will to the west. Here's an example from closer home. In 1971 Bangladesh was liberated by the Indian army. Lakhs of Bengalis were murdered by their fellow Muslim Pakistanis. India invaded to liberate them and had no territorial ambitions to take over any part of Bangladesh and spent millions of dollars to liberate them. Do you think that any of these Bangladeshis are grateful? Nope, in 1985 they had the nerve to ban the entry of Sikhs into that country, the same Sikhs who had sacrificed to save them from the Pakistani army. Now Bangladesh is a Jihadi haven and probably more dangerous than Pakistan.

Well he had WMDs that he used against the Kurds. the decommissioned these and the fact is that he could easily have avoided the war had he put all his cards on the table. The west supported Saddam because he was seen as a lesser threat than your mad ayatollahs in Iran. Even your Arab brothers-in-faith supported Saddam against Iran. When Saddam attacked Kuwait then he became a bigger threat and that was why he was dealt with. Unfortunately the Islamic mentality is best suited to be governed by tyrants and despots hence the reason why people like this shoe thrower cannot handle the freedom that America has given him.

..and his country was a utopia before the americans invaded?

I wonder if the soorma would have done the same to Saddam Hussein.

Morge Considering that some of the hadiths mention that the character of the mahdi will be the same as that of Mohammed, is it any wonder that the Khalsa will oppose such a tyrant?

Why should he have to move? His people had been living in Egypt, Morocco and Spain many centuries before the Arabs decided to invade and take over. It was his country before it became the Arabs' so rather than him being a hypocrite, he and his people were a victim of circumstances. Going by your advice for him to have moved, I assume you support the right of Israel to exist? That was a case of millions of Jews voting with their feet and leaving the Arab countries as well as Europe where they were not wanted.

Morghe, Earlier you wrote-; Maimonide considered the Arab treatment of the Jews to have the worst that the Jews have ever suffered up until then. I would class that as 3rd class citizenship! Btw Maimonides considered the 'prophet' to have been a madman and a fraud.

These may be Sunni sources but the fact is that these Jews are protesting the existence of the state of Israel with Sunni Muslims. The same Sunni Muslims who believe these Hadiths, so your comment is irrelevant here. Maimonides in his letter to the Jews of Yemen wrote the following-; Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, "Our enemies themselves shall judge us" (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they Maimonides found refuge only in Cairo then under the control of the elightened Saladin. I am sure that would have been heartening to the Jews that they weren't the only ones being killed! Hitler also killed millions of Gypsies as well as the disabled and homosexuals, does this mean that Hitler was not anti-semitic?

I read somewhere that one of the Ayatollahs of Iran had cast doubt on the marriage of Hassan and the Persian princess Shahr Bano. Looks like Imam or no Imam the Iranians still do want to accept that a royal princess of their ancestors was taken to Arabia as a slave and married off to one of Ali's sons.

Maimonides left Spain to escape Islamic oppression by the Almohids! I doubt he would be laughing because some of his life was spent advising Jewish communities around the Islamic world on how to deal with Islamic oppression. Your so-called Golden Age of Spain was not such a golden age for most Jews and Christians. While we are at it, the Dhimmi Jews appear to have been oppressed the most in Shia Iran! In 1830 all 2,500 Jews of Shiraz were forcibly converted to Islam..then followed the massacre at Mashhad and the forcible conversion of the survivors. As for the Hadith, it's not just Abu Huraira but also Ibn Umar, Ubaidullah etc as well report the same Hadith.

Amardeep, The translations that you have put up of the Uggardanti are from a Kuka site which unlike the Kukas of old who were not adverse to killing a few Muslim butchers for cow slaughter now seem to have become more PC than Sikhs today. The words in brackets ie people are an attempt to be ultra PC but in doing so they have totally subverted the meaning of the passages. The Uggardanti places the Muslims in general and the Mughals in particular in a long line of demons and evildoers that were destroyed by Bhavani. It calls on Bhavani to also destroy these new demons. It also calls for the destruction of the call to prayer, the mosques, circumcision as well as the Vedas and Purans etc. The same theme is also taken up in Vaar 41 of Bhai Gurdas.

These Jews are at a Muslim protest against Israel. They are amongst people who believe that on Judgement Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and even the stones behind where the Jews are hiding will tell the Muslims where the Jews are in order for the Muslims to kill them! No wonder the non-religious Jew is so peeved off with them. He rightly says the Muslims have a right to protest because they are against Israel but for Jews to be protesting against the existence of a state created for the safety of the Jewish people after 2000 years of exile is outrageous. I hope when Khalistan comes about we don't have idiotic Sikhs out in the streets protesting that it should not exist! Amongst Jews there is a particular class of Jews called the self hating Jews. These guys are prime examples. They will attend the conference in Iran which denies the holocaust, see how one of these guys actually calls it the 'so-called holocaust' and make common cause with the enemies of the Jews. These are the types of Jews envisaged as dhimmis in Islam. The type who are tolerated as long as they pay the jizya tax and 'feel themselves humiliated' and are content to live as third class citizens in an Islamic state. Nothing has irked the Muslims more than the sight of Jews who should be subservient not knowing their place and defeating four Arab Muslim armies.

The person she's following is the 'prophet'

Here's a clip of an Egyptian lawyer who actually suggests that Arab men outside Israel should sexually harrass Jewish women as part of the 'resistence' to Zionism! Apparently the nutcase is the head of some human rights organisation as well!! http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1903.htm

We will see. The 'evil' Zionists bombed Syria sometime back and there is no way that both the 'little Satan' and the 'big Satan' will allow the mad clerics of Iran to get the bomb. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqkgxwa1Hk

Morghe, Do they do so because they can cite a reason other than that they believe Hajj slaughter is barbaric or that it is not relevant in the modern age and a requirement only during Mohammed's time? No thanks, I'm not interested in coming to Iran especially since it looks like the 'evil' Zionists will soon be bombing Iran into the stone age. I suggest you start improving your stone working skills!

It seems to have been written by some Sufi rather than a believing Muslim. Not many Muslims would claim that something that Mohammed did or instructed his followers to do is limited to a time and place. The authors seems to want to say that Hajj slaughter is barbaric which I agree with but he's probably afraid that if he said what his conscience is telling then there will probably be a fatwa winging it's way to him from some middle eastern hellhole!

There is nothing wrong in a scholar revising his opinions but the problem then arises what if the scholar at the time that he set forth his old (in his view incorrect) opinion what if he was adamant that his opinion at that time could never be wrong! In his previous incarnations he was as equally adamant that he was correct as he is adamant now with his new opinions! It does call into question his credibility because tomorrow he might cast this opinion which he so stringently fights for as wrong and come up with opinion 1040!

Morghe, You seem to have proved all by yoruself that conspiracy theories and Islam go side by side. Bringing up that ridiculous report about British special forces doing the bombings and yet you have the nerve to ridicule the conspiracy theories of Dalits and Sikhs! I see that you've gone back on accusing Bachittar Natak as being proof that Sikhism also started as a conspiracy theory. Nice to see that you can change your opinion sometimes. Now to your assertion that a God who is compassionate would never leave humanity without a guide. I am sure I could come up enough quotes from the Quran and Hadiths to show that Allah according to Islam is not so compassionate as you would have us believe but we'll leave that to another thread. Your assertion would make sense in the semitic religions because they all claim to be the original religions of God. Adam is supposed to be the original human in the OT and a Muslim in the Quran. Since semitic religions take their origin from the Adam and Eve myth then there is no need for them to provide an exhaustive list of prophets. Since to the people of Jesus's or Mohammed's time believed that Adam and Eve lived just a few thousand years before them. The Quran claims that each and every people throughout time had a prophet to bring them to Islam. This raises the question then where are these proto-Islams amongst all the peoples of the world? There are none. Few belief systems outside the Middle East before Mohammed shared perhaps 10-20% of what Islam teaches and some even had less than 5% of Islam's teachings. So the question arises then that Allah is clearly not telling the truth to Mohammed in the Quran. Quite apart from the fact that before the semitic religions started about 6,000 years ago there is over 200,000 years of Homo Sapien existence as well as over 3 million of Humanoid existence, where there is no trace of a prophet preaching this proto-Islam. Neither does there seem to any evidence of a 90 foot Adam wandering the Earth! Your argument also fails as before this century billions of humans have lived and yet had no access to Islam. Therefore in your line of reasoning Allah is an uncompassionate God as he has left billions without access to Islam and as such likely to suffer hellfire! As for Sikhism, each and every soul is given the chance to move through various life forms until they finally achieve liberation through Manas Janam. Although some will miss this chance yet they will have other opportunities. the Gurus clearly state in Gurbani that many before their earthly life others have achieved liberation. In your belief system only one life is lived and as such if you had no access to Islam then you will have lived your life in vain and are for the hellfire!

Morghe, In your rush to counter what you believed to be my argument you actually misunderstood what I wrote. Islam teaches that the Jews corrupted the message of the Jewish prophets, not the Prophets themselves. Whereas much to your chagrin in the Bachittar Natak it is Mohammed himself who subverts and corrupts the message that he has been given. Even the layman would be able to understand the difference. As for Shia Militias. Here are your great soormey fighting in defence of er..er.. makeup and uncovered hair! http://observers.france24.com/en/content/f...lamic_tradition Unfortunately the British army which seems to be PC rampant was not serious about tackling these murderers but since the British disengaged from Basra the not so PC Americans have pretty much forced Muqtada to disband the Mahdi army. Feel free to do a google search for more hair raising stories but then do you really want to remove the blinkers from over your eyes or remove the cobwebs of ignorance from your brain? Beware you may gain your humanity but lose your flavour of the months status on Shiachat! Neo-con porn site like Jihadwatch! Wow talk about a low blow. Most would say that Shiachat is an Islamofascist porn site. I can understand why you have such a hatred for such sites and as well as hatred for our mutual friend Pat Condell. These sites and Pat Condell tell it like it is and don't try and explain away evil under various academic terms and theories.