I do hope we've been reading our newspapers this morning? The hard news, not the editorial distortions? That was a monumental speech in the UN yesterday and it deserves respect. I said after last September's that the words not only needed saying but that it was so much better said than I could have managed, and so's this one.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
Way to go, man. Call it like it is.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Every nation has the right to govern themselves. But what right do some have to blow up trains, planes and automobiles and countless innocent lives to change anothers foreign policy? Liberalism has gotten out of hand. All they spout is human rights of murderers. What about the rest of us? Will you still be shouting 'right on man' when britain is under sharia law?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: Every nation has the right to govern themselves. But what right do some have to blow up trains, planes and automobiles and countless innocent lives to change anothers foreign policy? Liberalism has gotten out of hand. All they spout is human rights of murderers. What about the rest of us? Will you still be shouting 'right on man' when britain is under sharia law?Iran's legal system is based on Sharia law and from what I understand they don't "blow up trains, planes and automobiles and countless innocent lives to change anothers foreign policy". Iraq, on the other hand, never adopted Sharia law and they do seem to be losing a lot of citizens as a result of internal interference in their right to self-government.
I never want to see a western government walk out of a conflict overseas claiming military success again, it's as bad for them as it is for their victims.
I never want to see a western government walk out of a conflict overseas claiming military success again, it's as bad for them as it is for their victims.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: I do hope we've been reading our newspapers this morning? The hard news, not the editorial distortions? That was a monumental speech in the UN yesterday and it deserves respect. I said after last September's that the words not only needed saying but that it was so much better said than I could have managed, and so's this one.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
Way to go, man. Call it like it is.
That's a great speech Spot! I saw George Bush shaking hands with Kofi Annan on the news, but the reporting covered the initiation of Martial Law in Thailand, rather than speeches from the UN. Who made this speech and were any solutions suggested?
I like the idea of global justice but even if a global reform group could be initiated, what powers would it have and how would it ensure obeyance from other countries?
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
Way to go, man. Call it like it is.
That's a great speech Spot! I saw George Bush shaking hands with Kofi Annan on the news, but the reporting covered the initiation of Martial Law in Thailand, rather than speeches from the UN. Who made this speech and were any solutions suggested?
I like the idea of global justice but even if a global reform group could be initiated, what powers would it have and how would it ensure obeyance from other countries?
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: Iran's legal system is based on Sharia law and from what I understand they don't "blow up trains, planes and automobiles and countless innocent lives to change anothers foreign policy". Iraq, on the other hand, never adopted Sharia law and they do seem to be losing a lot of citizens as a result of internal interference in their right to self-government.
I never want to see a western government walk out of a conflict overseas claiming military success again, it's as bad for them as it is for their victims.
No. They do that in Britain.
And I wouldnt say Iraq' problem isnt exactly internal. You have other middle east countries vying for control of that state.
I never want to see a western government walk out of a conflict overseas claiming military success again, it's as bad for them as it is for their victims.
No. They do that in Britain.
And I wouldnt say Iraq' problem isnt exactly internal. You have other middle east countries vying for control of that state.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Rapunzel wrote: That's a great speech Spot! I saw George Bush shaking hands with Kofi Annan on the news, but the reporting covered the initiation of Martial Law in Thailand, rather than speeches from the UN. Who made this speech and were any solutions suggested?That was President Ahmadinejad's speech at General Assembly yesterday. Here's another section I particularly admire:
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God`s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God`s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: And I wouldnt say Iraq' problem isnt exactly internal. You have other middle east countries vying for control of that state.This gets better and better - which are the "other middle east countries vying for control" of Iraq? I can see a stack of Americans there causing mayhem, and a stack of Brits there causing mayhem, I don't see many middle east countries deploying their troops to stand alongside them. Nor even, for that matter, against them. The large majority of insurgents in Iraq are just that - insurging from beneath, not coming in from outside. "Foreign elements" chew gum, smoke big fat ceeegars and ride behind a lot of armour cladding, often managing to do all three at the same time. Only the wealthiest insurgent can afford even the first option.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
And just what spirituality does that mean Spot? That doesnt seem to be just a bit sinister to you?
And just what spirituality does that mean Spot? That doesnt seem to be just a bit sinister to you?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: This gets better and better - which are the "other middle east countries vying for control" of Iraq? I can see a stack of Americans there causing mayhem, and a stack of Brits there causing mayhem, I don't see many middle east countries deploying their troops to stand alongside them. Nor even, for that matter, against them. The large majority of insurgents in Iraq are just that - insurging from beneath, not coming in from outside. "Foreign elements" chew gum, smoke big fat ceeegars and ride behind a lot of armour cladding, often managing to do all three at the same time. Only the wealthiest insurgent can afford even the first option.
You dont see Syria in there? I do. Americans arent sunni or shia. Do you know the difference between sunni and shia? I do. Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet. Shia are foaming at the mouth dead set against this. And since the kurds are the last remnant of the ancient assyrians, I am sure you can see the problem there.
You dont see Syria in there? I do. Americans arent sunni or shia. Do you know the difference between sunni and shia? I do. Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet. Shia are foaming at the mouth dead set against this. And since the kurds are the last remnant of the ancient assyrians, I am sure you can see the problem there.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: [QUOTE=spot]It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.And just what spirituality does that mean Spot? That doesnt seem to be just a bit sinister to you?
His earlier address to the General Assembly went into that too. I'm all for a bit of ethical rationale when discussing government, even if it does have a basis in religious teaching:The human being is blessed with dignity, most importantly manifested in being the viceroy of the Almighty on earth. The Almighty placed humans on earth to develop it, institutionalize justice, overcome their egoistic tendencies and praise no lord but the Almighty.
Faith and good deeds can bring deliverance and the good life even in this world. Attaining this depends on human will, that is the will of each and every one of us. We must heed the call of our common primordial nature and achieve the realization of this good life.
On the other hand, the prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism, specially state terrorism, existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations constitute some of the challenges and threats.
Although these challenges are very real, we believe we are not predestined to experience them. Our common will not only can change this course but in fact can lead us to a life filled with hope and prosperity. Divine revelation teaches us that "The Almighty changes the fate of no people unless they themselves show a will for change"
How can we influence the future of the world? When and how will peace, tranquility and well-being for all come about? These are the fundamental questions before us.
We believe that a sustainable order, nurturing and flourishing peace and tranquility, can only be realized on the two pillars of justice and spirituality. The more human society departs from justice and spirituality, the greater insecurity it will face, so much so that a relatively small crisis, such as a natural disaster, leads to various abnormalities and inhuman behavior.
Unfortunately, the world is rife with discrimination and poverty.
Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism. They all share the common root of lack of spirituality coupled with injustice. Justice is about equal rights, the correct distribution of resources in the territories of different states, the equality of all before the law and respect for international agreements.
His earlier address to the General Assembly went into that too. I'm all for a bit of ethical rationale when discussing government, even if it does have a basis in religious teaching:The human being is blessed with dignity, most importantly manifested in being the viceroy of the Almighty on earth. The Almighty placed humans on earth to develop it, institutionalize justice, overcome their egoistic tendencies and praise no lord but the Almighty.
Faith and good deeds can bring deliverance and the good life even in this world. Attaining this depends on human will, that is the will of each and every one of us. We must heed the call of our common primordial nature and achieve the realization of this good life.
On the other hand, the prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism, specially state terrorism, existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations constitute some of the challenges and threats.
Although these challenges are very real, we believe we are not predestined to experience them. Our common will not only can change this course but in fact can lead us to a life filled with hope and prosperity. Divine revelation teaches us that "The Almighty changes the fate of no people unless they themselves show a will for change"
How can we influence the future of the world? When and how will peace, tranquility and well-being for all come about? These are the fundamental questions before us.
We believe that a sustainable order, nurturing and flourishing peace and tranquility, can only be realized on the two pillars of justice and spirituality. The more human society departs from justice and spirituality, the greater insecurity it will face, so much so that a relatively small crisis, such as a natural disaster, leads to various abnormalities and inhuman behavior.
Unfortunately, the world is rife with discrimination and poverty.
Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism. They all share the common root of lack of spirituality coupled with injustice. Justice is about equal rights, the correct distribution of resources in the territories of different states, the equality of all before the law and respect for international agreements.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: You dont see Syria in there? I do. Americans arent sunni or shia. Do you know the difference between sunni and shia? I do. Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet. Shia are foaming at the mouth dead set against this. And since the kurds are the last remnant of the ancient assyrians, I am sure you can see the problem there.I do watch the TV news footage from Iraq and no, I've not seen any Syrian divisions manoevering around Baghdad recently, nor watched any Syrian air patrols over the city, nor seen the results of "precision" bombing from any Syrian overflight.
As for controlling the mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq, a lot fewer people died there under Saddam's unpleasant regime than have died since he was forcibly evicted. Maybe accepting the best of all possible worlds is a good precept. Iraq was a secular republic once, with no religious conflict and a notable education system which eliminated discrimination against women. It's all disappeared in much the way the treasures of the Baghdad Museum did, under the tank barrels of the watching occupiers.
As for controlling the mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq, a lot fewer people died there under Saddam's unpleasant regime than have died since he was forcibly evicted. Maybe accepting the best of all possible worlds is a good precept. Iraq was a secular republic once, with no religious conflict and a notable education system which eliminated discrimination against women. It's all disappeared in much the way the treasures of the Baghdad Museum did, under the tank barrels of the watching occupiers.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
And the founding fathers of America insisted on a seperation of church and state. You must remember, that Iran is ruled by an Ayatollah. They are a theocracy. The president is a puppet.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: I do watch the TV news footage from Iraq and no, I've not seen any Syrian divisions manoevering around Baghdad recently, nor watched any Syrian air patrols over the city, nor seen the results of "precision" bombing from any Syrian overflight.
As for controlling the mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq, a lot fewer people died there under Saddam's unpleasant regime than have died since he was forcibly evicted. Maybe accepting the best of all possible worlds is a good precept. Iraq was a secular republic once, with no religious conflict and a notable education system which eliminated discrimination against women. It's all disappeared in much the way the treasures of the Baghdad Museum did, under the tank barrels of the watching occupiers.
This is true. I'm no proponent of the Iraq war. I dont understand the need for being there.
As for Syria, you arent that silly to expect seeing their military? Syria and Iran have shia interests at heart. They both hate the west and Israel, and will do anything to undermine whatever progress we might make there. As well as al-queida being there as well now.
As for controlling the mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq, a lot fewer people died there under Saddam's unpleasant regime than have died since he was forcibly evicted. Maybe accepting the best of all possible worlds is a good precept. Iraq was a secular republic once, with no religious conflict and a notable education system which eliminated discrimination against women. It's all disappeared in much the way the treasures of the Baghdad Museum did, under the tank barrels of the watching occupiers.
This is true. I'm no proponent of the Iraq war. I dont understand the need for being there.
As for Syria, you arent that silly to expect seeing their military? Syria and Iran have shia interests at heart. They both hate the west and Israel, and will do anything to undermine whatever progress we might make there. As well as al-queida being there as well now.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: That was President Ahmadinejad's speech at General Assembly yesterday. Here's another section I particularly admire:
[... blah blah blah ...]
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.and nuclear weapons. :yh_eyebro
[... blah blah blah ...]
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.and nuclear weapons. :yh_eyebro
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: This is true. I'm no proponent of the Iraq war. I dont understand the need for being there.
As for Syria, you arent that silly to expect seeing their military? Syria and Iran have shia interests at heart. They both hate the west and Israel, and will do anything to undermine whatever progress we might make there. As well as al-queida being there as well now.
I was commenting on your "You dont see Syria in there? I do". Syria has a regional influence but it's not on the ground in Iraq, unlike several nations from other continents entirely. For them to "undermine whatever progress we might make there" is quite reasonable of them, I'm doing just the same thing myself in a very small way. I never want to see the UK win another war, it's shockingly bad for us. We need to leave with our tail dragging behind us as a lesson not to do it again.
Al-Qaida, whoever they are and whoever they work on behalf of, is definitely in Iraq. They were equally definitely not there before Gulf 2 was inflicted on the country.
As for Syria, you arent that silly to expect seeing their military? Syria and Iran have shia interests at heart. They both hate the west and Israel, and will do anything to undermine whatever progress we might make there. As well as al-queida being there as well now.
I was commenting on your "You dont see Syria in there? I do". Syria has a regional influence but it's not on the ground in Iraq, unlike several nations from other continents entirely. For them to "undermine whatever progress we might make there" is quite reasonable of them, I'm doing just the same thing myself in a very small way. I never want to see the UK win another war, it's shockingly bad for us. We need to leave with our tail dragging behind us as a lesson not to do it again.
Al-Qaida, whoever they are and whoever they work on behalf of, is definitely in Iraq. They were equally definitely not there before Gulf 2 was inflicted on the country.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: You must remember, that Iran is ruled by an Ayatollah. They are a theocracy. The president is a puppet.Some puppet! Some speech!
Or indeed, without even paraphrasing the great man, "Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.''
Or indeed, without even paraphrasing the great man, "Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.''
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
You respect that speech? It's well rehearsed propoganda to throw the un into confusion while they carry on with their nuke plans. Like I said before, if it were truly a peaceful plan, why be so defiant?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: I was commenting on your "You dont see Syria in there? I do". Syria has a regional influence but it's not on the ground in Iraq, unlike several nations from other continents entirely. For them to "undermine whatever progress we might make there" is quite reasonable of them, I'm doing just the same thing myself in a very small way. I never want to see the UK win another war, it's shockingly bad for us. We need to leave with our tail dragging behind us as a lesson not to do it again.
Al-Qaida, whoever they are and whoever they work on behalf of, is definitely in Iraq. They were equally definitely not there before Gulf 2 was inflicted on the country.
How was the Falklands bad? How was Gulf 1 bad? How was wwII bad? Brits are fighters. They have been fighting since people were on this island! You have fought EVERYBODY on the planet at least once! And you HAVE lost before. Many times. But still you carry on.
And I agree. They were not there before we invaded.
Al-Qaida, whoever they are and whoever they work on behalf of, is definitely in Iraq. They were equally definitely not there before Gulf 2 was inflicted on the country.
How was the Falklands bad? How was Gulf 1 bad? How was wwII bad? Brits are fighters. They have been fighting since people were on this island! You have fought EVERYBODY on the planet at least once! And you HAVE lost before. Many times. But still you carry on.
And I agree. They were not there before we invaded.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: How was the Falklands bad? How was Gulf 1 bad? How was wwII bad? Brits are fighters. They have been fighting since people were on this island! You have fought EVERYBODY on the planet at least once! And you HAVE lost before. Many times. But still you carry on. I think I divide the international arena into the world pre-PNAC and the world after it. We live in dangerous times.
edit add: We haven't fought Portugal yet, actually.
edit add: We haven't fought Portugal yet, actually.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: You respect that speech? It's well rehearsed propoganda to throw the un into confusion while they carry on with their nuke plans. Like I said before, if it were truly a peaceful plan, why be so defiant?"Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying?"
I think you've an inbuilt bias.
I think you've an inbuilt bias.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: "Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying?"
I think you've an inbuilt bias.I do have. Against him and the UN in general. Why are the UN showing Iran more respect than Iran shows the UN?
I think you've an inbuilt bias.I do have. Against him and the UN in general. Why are the UN showing Iran more respect than Iran shows the UN?
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Accountable wrote: I do have. Against him and the UN in general. Why are the UN showing Iran more respect than Iran shows the UN?
To quote again from the same speech - which I admire unreservedly - The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
To quote again from the same speech - which I admire unreservedly - The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: "Why is it noone actually HEARS what he is saying?"
I think you've an inbuilt bias.
Maybe. But I can tell you one thing, I am a woman of the west. My culture lets me state my opinion without cutting out my tongue for it. I wonder how many christian churches are in Iran?
I think you've an inbuilt bias.
Maybe. But I can tell you one thing, I am a woman of the west. My culture lets me state my opinion without cutting out my tongue for it. I wonder how many christian churches are in Iran?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: To quote again from the same speech - which I admire unreservedly -The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?I'm sure the Iran speech writers will be happy their propaganda hit the mark. Here's hoping Bush's propaganda had the same effect there, to balance it out.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: To quote again from the same speech - which I admire unreservedly -
BTW, that doesn't address my question. Why do you think the UN is showing Iran more respect than Iran is showing them? Why does the UN issue warnings and such if they have no intention of acting?
BTW, that doesn't address my question. Why do you think the UN is showing Iran more respect than Iran is showing them? Why does the UN issue warnings and such if they have no intention of acting?
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: Maybe. But I can tell you one thing, I am a woman of the west. My culture lets me state my opinion without cutting out my tongue for it. I wonder how many christian churches are in Iran?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_in_Iran gives the figure for adherents as "Christians formed 0.2% of total Iranian population in 2000".
Cutting out tongues is a purely Christian tradition, nobody in Iran (unless you know of an instance I haven't heard of) has suffered in such a fashion. You need to go back to the Emperor Diocletian in Imperial Rome for that sort of persecution of Christians.
Cutting out tongues is a purely Christian tradition, nobody in Iran (unless you know of an instance I haven't heard of) has suffered in such a fashion. You need to go back to the Emperor Diocletian in Imperial Rome for that sort of persecution of Christians.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Accountable wrote: BTW, that doesn't address my question. Why do you think the UN is showing Iran more respect than Iran is showing them? Why does the UN issue warnings and such if they have no intention of acting?I've seen no occasion where "the UN is showing Iran more respect than Iran is showing them". Perhaps you could go into enough detail for me to recognise the occasion? The speech we're discussing is extraordinarily respectful.
You may be confusing the Iranians with President Bush, who said while addressing the General Assembly "The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful". I bet he does, too.
You may be confusing the Iranians with President Bush, who said while addressing the General Assembly "The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful". I bet he does, too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
And just what is the islamic population of the west? UK and US in particular? Pretty lopsided I would say. They insist on invading our culture. What is wrong with a little equal opportunity?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
You may be confusing the Iranians with President Bush, who said while addressing the General Assembly "The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful". I bet he does, too.
I think you might be a bit biased in your opinion of the current president.
I think you might be a bit biased in your opinion of the current president.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: I've seen no occasion where "the UN is showing Iran more respect than Iran is showing them". Perhaps you could go into enough detail for me to recognise the occasion? The speech we're discussing is extraordinarily respectful.In the tradition of Iraq, Iran completely ignores UN demands to stop working on their nukes "or else". The UN response: Well okay then, why not come take center stage instead?
The UN is a useless organization never meant to be more than a debate forum. It needs to go.
The UN is a useless organization never meant to be more than a debate forum. It needs to go.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: I think you might be a bit biased in your opinion of the current president.I agree - maybe just a tad. 
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: And just what is the islamic population of the west? UK and US in particular? Pretty lopsided I would say. They insist on invading our culture. What is wrong with a little equal opportunity?I had thought that religious affiliation was a matter of personal conscience, myself. I can well understand people in the West adopting Islam as their response to God's call, it has many attractions in terms of regularity of personal devotion and unmediated communion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: I think you might be a bit biased in your opinion of the current president.I misquoted him? I'd be mortified!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Accountable wrote: In the tradition of Iraq, Iran completely ignores UN demands to stop working on their nukes "or else".They said that? I think not. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Ia ... ndex.shtml is the relevant source for current activity within Iran as regards the alleged development of a nuclear weapons capability. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... tel18.html discusses the background to "The UN’s nuclear supervisory body - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - last week issued a stinging rebuttal of the 'erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information' contained in a US congressional report entitled 'Recognising Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States' released on August 23."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: I misquoted him? I'd be mortified!
LOL! Stop it!
As you are well aware, the current president doesnt enjoy much popularity abroad. Especially in Britain. but with such a large muslim population here, it's no wonder. The streets tell where Britains sympathies lay. It's a mite confusing for the average american. We actually think England is ENGLISH. But perhaps we were mistaken.
LOL! Stop it!
As you are well aware, the current president doesnt enjoy much popularity abroad. Especially in Britain. but with such a large muslim population here, it's no wonder. The streets tell where Britains sympathies lay. It's a mite confusing for the average american. We actually think England is ENGLISH. But perhaps we were mistaken.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: As you are well aware, the current president doesnt enjoy much popularity abroad. Especially in Britain. but with such a large muslim population here, it's no wonder. The streets tell where Britains sympathies lay. It's a mite confusing for the average american. We actually think England is ENGLISH. But perhaps we were mistaken.To mistake Muslims in England as un-English would be as heinous as to mistake African-Americans in America as slaves. We assimilate, develop and grow just as you do.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Exactly. Thats the theory anyway. It would be a lovely idea if it actually worked though. The african americans have assimilated very reluctantly, and only because they were forced into forgetting their own family names.
The muslim population is another story. Noone forced them to come.
Now before you call me a racist, I am NOT. But what I have big problems with are the radicals of either of our societies trying to force THEIR views by violence.
Noone invited them. Why are they here? To live and enjoy a certain standard of living? Well and good.
But to force their views on the native population by murder?
The muslim population is another story. Noone forced them to come.
Now before you call me a racist, I am NOT. But what I have big problems with are the radicals of either of our societies trying to force THEIR views by violence.
Noone invited them. Why are they here? To live and enjoy a certain standard of living? Well and good.
But to force their views on the native population by murder?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: But to force their views on the native population by murder?There's the grieving relatives of a hundred thousand Iraqis who'd like the answer to that question too, I expect. Imperial force has always been dismissive of local sensibilities. Sometimes they even refuse to do body-counts.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
The death toll in Iraq would be alot less if they would stop killing each other.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: The death toll in Iraq would be alot less if they would stop killing each other.It's widely recognised that the Sunni insurgents are directed by US backing, to allow the US troops to stay out of harm's way, and that they're responsible for initiating the outrages on civilians. It's a way of deflecting the fighting away from the occupation forces. The US domestic reaction to the occupation of Iraq is dependent solely on US death totals (since nobody looks at any numbers for US wounded), so an increase in civilian casualties is irrelevant to the administration.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
And why do you assume that?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: And why do you assume that?
It's called "The Salvador Option"
It's called "The Salvador Option"
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
spot wrote: It's widely recognised that the Sunni insurgents are directed by US backing, to allow the US troops to stay out of harm's way, and that they're responsible for initiating the outrages on civilians. It's a way of deflecting the fighting away from the occupation forces. The US domestic reaction to the occupation of Iraq is dependent solely on US death totals (since nobody looks at any numbers for US wounded), so an increase in civilian casualties is irrelevant to the administration.
Come on Spot, widely accepted by who, except for yourself?
We are loosing Marines every day in Al Anbar province figthing Sunnis insurgents.
The Shia kill as many civilians as the Sunnis, Iraq is equal opportunity in that regard.
We look at what the media gives us.
Come on Spot, widely accepted by who, except for yourself?
We are loosing Marines every day in Al Anbar province figthing Sunnis insurgents.
The Shia kill as many civilians as the Sunnis, Iraq is equal opportunity in that regard.
We look at what the media gives us.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Meantime, back to the incredible speech given by President Ahmadinejad. He presents some issues in a very organised format. I would like to see his points addressed individually.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
The side discussion is very interesting, I'm not trying to discourage it.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
The side discussion is very interesting, I'm not trying to discourage it.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
zinkyusa wrote: Come on Spot, widely accepted by who, except for yourself?
We are loosing Marines every day in Al Anbar province figthing Sunnis insurgents.
The Shia kill as many civilians as the Sunnis, Iraq is equal opportunity in that regard.
We look at what the media gives us.
It is quite amazing what the media gives us that is then forgotten or buried in the back pages. Look up The Salvador Option.
We are loosing Marines every day in Al Anbar province figthing Sunnis insurgents.
The Shia kill as many civilians as the Sunnis, Iraq is equal opportunity in that regard.
We look at what the media gives us.
It is quite amazing what the media gives us that is then forgotten or buried in the back pages. Look up The Salvador Option.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: You dont see Syria in there? I do. Americans arent sunni or shia. Do you know the difference between sunni and shia? I do. Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet. Shia are foaming at the mouth dead set against this. And since the kurds are the last remnant of the ancient assyrians, I am sure you can see the problem there.
Um. Actually, you don't know. The details are important. Ali is not a prophet he is a caliph. From Britannica
Caliph:
Title given to those who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as real or nominal ruler of the Muslim world, ostensibly with all his powers except that of prophecy. Controversy over the selection of the fourth caliph, 'Ali, eventually split Islam into the Sunnite and Shi'ite branches. 'Ali's rival, Mu'awiyah I, established the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, which produced 14 caliphs (661–750). The 'Abbasid dynasty (750–1258), the most widely observed caliphate, associated with 38 caliphs, moved the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. The Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258 effectively ended the dynasty. Other Muslim leaders created caliphates with limited success. The Fatimid dynasty proclaimed a new caliphate in 920; 'Abd al-Rahman III announced one in opposition to both the 'Abbasids and the Fatimids in 928. A scion of the 'Abbasid line was set up by the Mamluk dynasty as a sort of puppet caliph after 1258. This caliphate exercised no power whatsoever, and, from 1517 until it was abolished by the Republic of Turkey in 1924, it resided in Istanbul under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Modern Muslim militants consider the abolition of the caliphate a catastrophic event, and its return has been a central pillar of their political program.
eta: to insinuate that any kind of Muslim would think Mohammad was not the true prophet is absurd and quite insulting.
Um. Actually, you don't know. The details are important. Ali is not a prophet he is a caliph. From Britannica
Caliph:
Title given to those who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as real or nominal ruler of the Muslim world, ostensibly with all his powers except that of prophecy. Controversy over the selection of the fourth caliph, 'Ali, eventually split Islam into the Sunnite and Shi'ite branches. 'Ali's rival, Mu'awiyah I, established the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, which produced 14 caliphs (661–750). The 'Abbasid dynasty (750–1258), the most widely observed caliphate, associated with 38 caliphs, moved the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. The Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258 effectively ended the dynasty. Other Muslim leaders created caliphates with limited success. The Fatimid dynasty proclaimed a new caliphate in 920; 'Abd al-Rahman III announced one in opposition to both the 'Abbasids and the Fatimids in 928. A scion of the 'Abbasid line was set up by the Mamluk dynasty as a sort of puppet caliph after 1258. This caliphate exercised no power whatsoever, and, from 1517 until it was abolished by the Republic of Turkey in 1924, it resided in Istanbul under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Modern Muslim militants consider the abolition of the caliphate a catastrophic event, and its return has been a central pillar of their political program.
eta: to insinuate that any kind of Muslim would think Mohammad was not the true prophet is absurd and quite insulting.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
I didnt say he WAS a prophet. I said the sunni thought he should be. All I said was he was mohammeds mate. And my source is actually Muslim. So before you call me absurd, make sure you quote me right.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Raven wrote: I didnt say he WAS a prophet. I said the sunni thought he should be. All I said was he was mohammeds mate. And my source is actually Muslim. So before you call me absurd, make sure you quote me right.
Your wording is wrong.
Raven wrote: Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet.
This directly places Ali in competition with Mohammad. Whether intended or not. The point is that no inference should be made that Ali was on the level of Mohammad at all. He is a caliph. The dispute is who represents Mohammad since his death.
Your wording is wrong.
Raven wrote: Sunni think mohammeds mate ali should have been prophet.
This directly places Ali in competition with Mohammad. Whether intended or not. The point is that no inference should be made that Ali was on the level of Mohammad at all. He is a caliph. The dispute is who represents Mohammad since his death.
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
According to my source who is a practicing muslim from sudan, He says Ali was mohammeds best friend. He said the sunni think the angels got it wrong in giving the prohecies to mohammed. This is in answer to my question of what the difference was between sunni's and shia. He was gracious enough to explain it to me.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
General Assembly addresses of September 2006
Here is a nice review of the difs ladies:
http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm
A. Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation.
The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).
From this initial question of political leadership, some aspects of spiritual life have been affected and now differ between the two groups of Muslims.
Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.
Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.
Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.
It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."
For more detailed information about the historical context of the Shia/Sunni split, and modern-day interpretations and repercussions, please visit the links to the right.
http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm
A. Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation.
The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).
From this initial question of political leadership, some aspects of spiritual life have been affected and now differ between the two groups of Muslims.
Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.
Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.
Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.
It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."
For more detailed information about the historical context of the Shia/Sunni split, and modern-day interpretations and repercussions, please visit the links to the right.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.