And that quote proves what?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." - Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office
Proves? Nothing. But since basically it refers to the fact that Churchill wanted (and very nearly managed) to use chemical and biological terrorism against Muslim uprisings in Iraq in the 1920's, it would indicate that he was perhaps making his statements on Islam (Mohammedanism) which Lisik quoted from a quite twisted perspective.... i.e. he believed they were sub-human, and he felt no remorse for any innocents in their society who would suffer from the gas such as children and the elderly...=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
And that quote proves what?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." - Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office
Show me where it says that? All I see is that Churchill was in favor of using gas against uncivilised tribes...you show me where he was talking about Iraqis. Show me where he was talking about killing women and children. Quite a stretch of intpretation...I think...did you know Churchill? Were you his personal friend and could attest to this view of him? Don't think so.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Proves? Nothing. But since basically it refers to the fact that Churchill wanted (and very nearly managed) to use chemical and biological terrorism against Muslim uprisings in Iraq in the 1920's, it would indicate that he was perhaps making his statements on Islam (Mohammedanism) which Lisik quoted from a quite twisted perspective.... i.e. he believed they were sub-human, and he felt no remorse for any innocents in their society who would suffer from the gas such as children and the elderly...=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
And that quote proves what?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." - Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office
That's your stretch of interpretation, not mine. Show me where I said he was talking about killing women and children. He merely didn't consider the suffering of those groups as a hinderance to the poison gas.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Show me where it says that? All I see is that Churchill was in favor of using gas against uncivilised tribes...you show me where he was talking about Iraqis. Show me where he was talking about killing women and children. Quite a stretch of intpretation...I think...did you know Churchill? Were you his personal friend and could attest to this view of him? Don't think so.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Proves? Nothing. But since basically it refers to the fact that Churchill wanted (and very nearly managed) to use chemical and biological terrorism against Muslim uprisings in Iraq in the 1920's, it would indicate that he was perhaps making his statements on Islam (Mohammedanism) which Lisik quoted from a quite twisted perspective.... i.e. he believed they were sub-human, and he felt no remorse for any innocents in their society who would suffer from the gas such as children and the elderly...=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
And that quote proves what?
He was refering to Iraq as it was then in that quote. He did consider the Kurds and Arabs as uncivilised and basically on a lower level than 'normal' humanity (i.e. the Europeans).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_w … rwar_years
Now answer this question: Is there anything wrong with using poison gas against 'uncivilised' 'tribes'?
Would love to leave the ME, and with us goes all finical, medical and food aid. Closing the borders on you psychotic assholes wouldn't hurt my feelings either.Foxhoundmgw wrote:
Then leave the middle east. Close your borders to people of Arab descent. Deport if it helps you feel more secure. I find it's a valid course of action as the most public view of each 'camp' is that the other should drop dead.lowing wrote:
I agree with you 100% I don't give 2 flying fucks about muslims or how many of each other they wanna kill, but when it comes to terrorism against other nations...I all of a sudden care.
I don't want the west into the ME business any more than you do. I say fuck you all. But if we leave the ME what excuse are you going to use to try and justify, reason and support continued terrorism???
I ask since we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan on 911.
I'm glad you actually said it and stop with the spiel. Fuck us all? How much support did you get in the end when going to war?
As to reasons to justify 9/11, embassy bombings, Terry Waite etc. [Oh, wait, who's Terry Waite? British guy, envoy for the Church of England, got taken hostage in 87 while trying to negotiate the release of people like John Mcarthy (journo) and Brian Keenan (teacher not IRA fella).]
I'll turn your question. How many severe run ins did you have prior to the West's continued presence in the Middle East?
As to why I push so hard for complete seperation of the Western and Middle Eastern interests?
Same reason as I wanted everything British out of Ireland.
Because after you leave, if they continue, you render their land Morbid. No more fighting, No young to grow up hating you for the people you killed.
And yes, I advocate genocide. Amusing as some of you call me liberal.
oh, and Saudi Arabia is Islam's holiest place. Containing the 'mosque cities' of Makkah and Madinah it would be safe to say it is the seat of the faith most of you love to hate. But aren't you friends with the Saudi's? No-one involved with a hijacking has ever been a Saudi right? Americans (and westerners in general) go to Saudi Arabia _all the fucking time_!
Ahah!
Are you actually trying to justify terrorist acts?? What the hell the Terry Waite have to do with this?
Let me RE-return the question, how many civilians, women and children did the US target during ANY involvement in the ME??
I agree lets separate, and again, we will take ALL the food, money, and medical with us.
Again YOU kill more of YOURSELVES than any foreign power in the ME.
What a surprise, a Muslim that supports genocide.....What a news scoop.
We are not friends with Saudi Arabia, an alliance with them is a necessary evil. Much like the alliance with the USSR in WW2.
Ok...my fault, you were talking about the "suffering" not killing of children and elderly. Still a stretch because it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact the article you posted talked about Arab uprisings (ie...men, because women were not allowed that type of activity in ME culture). He advocated the use of gas against the people engaged in the uprising.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
That's your stretch of interpretation, not mine. Show me where I said he was talking about killing women and children. He merely didn't consider the suffering of those groups as a hinderance to the poison gas.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Show me where it says that? All I see is that Churchill was in favor of using gas against uncivilised tribes...you show me where he was talking about Iraqis. Show me where he was talking about killing women and children. Quite a stretch of intpretation...I think...did you know Churchill? Were you his personal friend and could attest to this view of him? Don't think so.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Proves? Nothing. But since basically it refers to the fact that Churchill wanted (and very nearly managed) to use chemical and biological terrorism against Muslim uprisings in Iraq in the 1920's, it would indicate that he was perhaps making his statements on Islam (Mohammedanism) which Lisik quoted from a quite twisted perspective.... i.e. he believed they were sub-human, and he felt no remorse for any innocents in their society who would suffer from the gas such as children and the elderly...
He was refering to Iraq as it was then in that quote. He did consider the Kurds and Arabs as uncivilised and basically on a lower level than 'normal' humanity (i.e. the Europeans).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_w … rwar_years
Now answer this question: Is there anything wrong with using poison gas against 'uncivilised' 'tribes'?
In answer to your question...Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
Okay, here's my source on that statement:=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Ok...my fault, you were talking about the "suffering" not killing of children and elderly. Still a stretch because it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact the article you posted talked about Arab uprisings (ie...men, because women were not allowed that type of activity in ME culture). He advocated the use of gas against the people engaged in the uprising.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN. London: St. Martins Press, 1994: wrote:
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause "only discomfort or illness, but not death" to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and "kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes."
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a "scientific expedient," should not be prevented "by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly".
By arguing that moral standards and views from 80-100 years ago should not applied at todays standards when judging character, I hope you also going to join me in arguing that Lisik posting a biased Churchill quote on Muslims from over 100 years ago followed by a "You Deserve Victory" means nothing in todays world, and in fact is an offensive juxtaposition of context. That was the point I intended to raise by bringing up some of Churchill's other 'views' in reply.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
In answer to your question...Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
Your highlighted portion is an assertion not based on fact or anthing else, just the article writers opionion. Churchill belived it would be more like tear gas and mearly slow them down instead of kill them. No one could find out because it was never tested what the effect of dropping it from airplanes owuld be on its potency and effect. So we're arguing what ifs and smearing the reputation of a great man.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Okay, here's my source on that statement:=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Ok...my fault, you were talking about the "suffering" not killing of children and elderly. Still a stretch because it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact the article you posted talked about Arab uprisings (ie...men, because women were not allowed that type of activity in ME culture). He advocated the use of gas against the people engaged in the uprising.Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN. London: St. Martins Press, 1994: wrote:
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause "only discomfort or illness, but not death" to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and "kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes."
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a "scientific expedient," should not be prevented "by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly".By arguing that moral standards and views from 80-100 years ago should not applied at todays standards when judging character, I hope you also going to join me in arguing that Lisik posting a biased Churchill quote on Muslims from over 100 years ago followed by a "You Deserve Victory" means nothing in todays world, and in fact is an offensive juxtaposition of context. That was the point I intended to raise by bringing up some of Churchill's other 'views' in reply.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
In answer to your question...Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
In response to Lisiks post, I actually would submit that Churchill's view of Islam oddly corresponds to what Islam is today as well. Not much as changed. In fact, so you know where I stand...I +1ed Lisik for his post.
I'm glad we all agree that using poison gas on any population is wrong. I vehemently disagree that it was not wrong to use poison gas in such a way when Churchill made that statement.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
It is easy to condemn Churchills statements under any standards. Gasing innocent civilians is wrong, then and now.
I'm surprised Lisik is such a supporter of Churchills. Has he never read Churchills 1920 article Zionism vs Bolshevism? It wasn't just the Kurds Churchill didn't trust.
Churchill was not the saint he is often made out to have been.
Link to full articleChurchill wrote:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
Churchill was not the saint he is often made out to have been.
Ok....easy.....Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that using poison gas on any population is wrong. I vehemently disagree that it was not wrong to use poison gas in such a way when Churchill made that statement.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
It is easy to condemn Churchills statements under any standards. Gasing innocent civilians is wrong, then and now.
I'm not advocating the gassing of innocent people.
Remember:
1) Churchill believed the gas would not kill, mearly act more like tear gas and slow people down rendering them unable to resist the British soldiers. We talking about fighting here, not just randomly dropping gas on innocent villages because they could.
2) My point was that the world came to agreement in 1925 and said "no more gas." Prior to that it was widely used by every nation (WWI) in warfare and population control. If he had advocated it after 1925 I would have totally agreed with you. Different types of weapons of warfare have been used and outlawed by the world. Gas was one of them. The civilized world decided that warfare would be fought without it from 1925 on.
3) I disagree that you can condemn Churchill by any standards including future standards. People make judgements and decisions based on their own moral code and what is considered "permissable" to the world at large. Today the very idea of gassing anyone is considered taboo (except by Sadamm, but we won't go there). We make our decisions on the use of such weapons based on our own moral code and what the world considers "permissable" TODAY. He can only be held to what was considered right at the time. There was alot about many eras that we consider wrong today but was not considered wrong then.
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that using poison gas on any population is wrong. I vehemently disagree that it was not wrong to use poison gas in such a way when Churchill made that statement.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
It is easy to condemn Churchills statements under any standards. Gasing innocent civilians is wrong, then and now.
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.lowing wrote:
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that using poison gas on any population is wrong. I vehemently disagree that it was not wrong to use poison gas in such a way when Churchill made that statement.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Yes, using poinsoned Gas on any population is wrong. We all agree on that. However, it wasn't at the time Churchill said it. In fact it was widely used in WWI and wasn't outlawed until 1925. He made the statement in 1920. Real easy to condem him based on today's world values. Your portrayal of him goes right out the window when you consider the time and world view.
It is easy to condemn Churchills statements under any standards. Gasing innocent civilians is wrong, then and now.
Can't really recall a terrorist group ever flying planes into buildings either, until it happened.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.lowing wrote:
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that using poison gas on any population is wrong. I vehemently disagree that it was not wrong to use poison gas in such a way when Churchill made that statement.
It is easy to condemn Churchills statements under any standards. Gasing innocent civilians is wrong, then and now.
You mean except Sadamm? oh wait, that was an Islamic dictator....not and Islamic group.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.
Simillar stuff though. It was just a natural progression from blowing them up over towns, like Lockerbie.lowing wrote:
Can't really recall a terrorist group ever flying planes into buildings either, until it happened.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.lowing wrote:
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.
I suppose we may well see gas attacks used by Islamic terrorists. Like the Sarin attacks on the Tokyo tubes.
Saddam wasn't Islamic.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You mean except Sadamm? oh wait, that was an Islamic dictator....not and Islamic group.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.
You're kidding right? I know he ran a secular government...but he was Islamic man...not radical like the Shia, but Islamic. I remember seeing video of him on CNN going to prayer.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam wasn't Islamic.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You mean except Sadamm? oh wait, that was an Islamic dictator....not and Islamic group.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.
Not by any sense politically associated or influenced in his actions by the opinions or directives of any Islamic church. In this sense, while he may have been a muslim, he can be considered a dictator independent of any islamic or religious title.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam wasn't Islamic.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You mean except Sadamm? oh wait, that was an Islamic dictator....not and Islamic group.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.
Just pre-empting the people who will yell "but he was a muslim therefore hes an islamic dictator".
Saddam is not an Islamic radical. Whether he is actually Islamic or not is a matter of some contention. He did attend prayers when it suited him (he did not pray regularly) and would be photographed and filmed praying towards mecca in full Islamic dress sometimes. This is usually attributed as propaganda to boost his popularity with the Iraqi people.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You're kidding right? I know he ran a secular government...but he was Islamic man...not radical like the Shia, but Islamic. I remember seeing video of him on CNN going to prayer.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam wasn't Islamic.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You mean except Sadamm? oh wait, that was an Islamic dictator....not and Islamic group.
Saddams actions do not fit with those of an Islamic extremist. They do fit with those of an evil dictator who saw himself as a god. Saddam abolished Sharia law and implemented a Western legal system, unique in the region. Hardly the actions of a devout muslim. Saddam started a war against Islamic radicals.
Grouping Saddam in with Islamic radicals is just plain stupid.
Hence my statement that he was not a radical (re-read my post). I got it! But he did gas the Kurds and my original post was to you who said that Muslim groups never gassed anyone.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam is not an Islamic radical. Whether he is actually Islamic or not is a matter of some contention. He did attend prayers when it suited him (he did not pray regularly) and would be photographed and filmed praying towards mecca in full Islamic dress sometimes. This is usually attributed as propaganda to boost his popularity with the Iraqi people.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You're kidding right? I know he ran a secular government...but he was Islamic man...not radical like the Shia, but Islamic. I remember seeing video of him on CNN going to prayer.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam wasn't Islamic.
Saddams actions do not fit with those of an Islamic extremist. They do fit with those of an evil dictator who saw himself as a god. Saddam abolished Sharia law and implemented a Western legal system, unique in the region. Hardly the actions of a devout muslim. Saddam started a war against Islamic radicals.
Grouping Saddam in with Islamic radicals is just plain stupid.
Last edited by =CA=lamcrmbem (2006-09-25 18:01:26)
You've taken this whole issue out of context. The context was of Islamic radical extremists, whereas there is some question as to whether Saddam was Islamic at all.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Hence my statement that he was not a radical (re-read my post). I got it! But he did gas the Kurds and my original post was to you who said that Muslim groups never gassed anyone.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam is not an Islamic radical. Whether he is actually Islamic or not is a matter of some contention. He did attend prayers when it suited him (he did not pray regularly) and would be photographed and filmed praying towards mecca in full Islamic dress sometimes. This is usually attributed as propaganda to boost his popularity with the Iraqi people.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
You're kidding right? I know he ran a secular government...but he was Islamic man...not radical like the Shia, but Islamic. I remember seeing video of him on CNN going to prayer.
Saddams actions do not fit with those of an Islamic extremist. They do fit with those of an evil dictator who saw himself as a god. Saddam abolished Sharia law and implemented a Western legal system, unique in the region. Hardly the actions of a devout muslim. Saddam started a war against Islamic radicals.
Grouping Saddam in with Islamic radicals is just plain stupid.
There is no way he can be grouped in with any of the extremists who were under discussion in the context of the post.
All about communication...you did not say "extremist" groups...you said islamic groups. Sure I may have taken it out of context but only because you were un-clear and gave me an open door to. Clarity is key in discussion! ;-)Bertster7 wrote:
You've taken this whole issue out of context. The context was of Islamic radical extremists, whereas there is some question as to whether Saddam was Islamic at all.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Hence my statement that he was not a radical (re-read my post). I got it! But he did gas the Kurds and my original post was to you who said that Muslim groups never gassed anyone.Bertster7 wrote:
Saddam is not an Islamic radical. Whether he is actually Islamic or not is a matter of some contention. He did attend prayers when it suited him (he did not pray regularly) and would be photographed and filmed praying towards mecca in full Islamic dress sometimes. This is usually attributed as propaganda to boost his popularity with the Iraqi people.
Saddams actions do not fit with those of an Islamic extremist. They do fit with those of an evil dictator who saw himself as a god. Saddam abolished Sharia law and implemented a Western legal system, unique in the region. Hardly the actions of a devout muslim. Saddam started a war against Islamic radicals.
Grouping Saddam in with Islamic radicals is just plain stupid.
There is no way he can be grouped in with any of the extremists who were under discussion in the context of the post.
Last edited by =CA=lamcrmbem (2006-09-26 09:32:08)
Actually this is what I said, in response to lowings post.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
All about communication...you did not say "extremist" groups...you said islamic groups. Sure I may have taken it out of context but only because you were un-clear and gave me an open door to. Clarity is key in discussion! ;-)Bertster7 wrote:
You've taken this whole issue out of context. The context was of Islamic radical extremists, whereas there is some question as to whether Saddam was Islamic at all.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
Hence my statement that he was not a radical (re-read my post). I got it! But he did gas the Kurds and my original post was to you who said that Muslim groups never gassed anyone.
There is no way he can be grouped in with any of the extremists who were under discussion in the context of the post.
Saddam isn't an Islamic group. He wasn't even really an Islamic dictator, he was a secular dictator who embraced modernisation and many Western ideologies.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.lowing wrote:
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.
He did gas Kurds, but you can't really class him as Islamic. Certainly not as an Islamic group, as an individual he may have been slightly Islamic (personally I doubt it, but I have no way to prove that) but he was certainly not part of an Islamic group, his regime was entirely secular and many of his high ranking officials were not Islamic.
I am extremely dubious that he was in any way Islamic. He was certainly a very, very long way from being a fundamentalist.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-26 10:05:56)
AgreedBertster7 wrote:
Actually this is what I said, in response to lowings post.=CA=lamcrmbem wrote:
All about communication...you did not say "extremist" groups...you said islamic groups. Sure I may have taken it out of context but only because you were un-clear and gave me an open door to. Clarity is key in discussion! ;-)Bertster7 wrote:
You've taken this whole issue out of context. The context was of Islamic radical extremists, whereas there is some question as to whether Saddam was Islamic at all.
There is no way he can be grouped in with any of the extremists who were under discussion in the context of the post.Saddam isn't an Islamic group. He wasn't even really an Islamic dictator, he was a secular dictator who embraced modernisation and many Western ideologies.Bertster7 wrote:
Granted. But I doubt most people here are Islamic radicals. Although I can't actually recall any Islamic groups gasing anyone, ever.lowing wrote:
Unless you are a Islamic radical, then you can come on this forum and read how it was our fault we got gassed, by the peace at any price croud and all of their various rationalities for terrorism.
He did gas Kurds, but you can't really class him as Islamic. Certainly not as an Islamic group, as an individual he may have been slightly Islamic (personally I doubt it, but I have no way to prove that) but he was certainly not part of an Islamic group, his regime was entirely secular and many of his high ranking officials were not Islamic.
I am extremely dubious that he was in any way Islamic. He was certainly a very, very long way from being a fundamentalist.