American Dare

[Salahuddin]

1924 till today man. Forget Khilafat for a second and see we've only moved further apart. We are more divided today than we were yesterday. Each day brings new divisions.

You keep hoping for Khilafat but won't even work for its pre-requisites which include all those things I was mentioning above. You have to put first things first and not the last thing first.

The main thing is to bring something good for all out nations. But instead you are just desiring for title. For someone to come up and declare "Ok we are following Khilafat now".

There are three stages you go through in life.

Period of Chaos
Period of Transition
Period of Stability

You need to get onto the period of transition to get to stability. Stop chasing an ideal and start planning things for the present.

We are in such a state is due to absence of Khilafah in the first place . To rule by Islam is obligation by Allah swt and not a chioce for us to choose. Islam is comming back wiether people like it or not , its only matter of time.

 

[Awesome]

As they say in Punjabi... "Aapay hi?"

"On its own?"

 

[Salahuddin]

As they say in Punjabi... "Aapay hi?"

"On its own?"

What do you mean by that?

 

[Awesome]

I mean Islam won't get anywhere till we don't take those steps towards its peaceful progress

 

[Salahuddin]

I mean Islam won't get anywhere till we don't take those steps towards its peaceful progress

We can carry on for ages, go to stop here till I come back from Pakistan. I am going Pakistan next week I am very excited cant wait , will be there for a month maybe I can share some pictures when I come back.

I am sorry if I have offended someone.

Allah hafiz

 

[Thunder]

Asim Aquil

I doubt if we are moving away each day, we are likely coming togahter each day. Here i see indian muslims, pakistanis, afghanis, arabs etc etc talking to each other, increasing friendship etc. Same goes for other countries. After 9/11, the way the western media showed islam, one would think that islam would decline, but instead it is on the raise, even the turkish people are becoming religous. You see, the people want the ummah togahter, but our leaders don't since it'll threathen their seats and power.

 

[Thunder]

="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/"]

="http://www.jurisdictionary.com/essays/Islam.pdf#search="islam and the western world""]

A few articles about islam in the west. I will post more soon

 

[Thunder]

THE COMING TRANSFORMATION OF THE MUSLIM WORLD

 

[Thunder]

="http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-7.htm"]

 

[Salahuddin]

US fears 'hell' of a response

PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang.

The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test.
But military contingencies are considered as a matter of course and analysts paint a horrific picture for even the most targeted of US strikes.

A report this week by US-based security and military analyst Stratfor predicts North Korea could return fire on Seoul with "several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour" -- with up to 25 per cent of shells filled with nerve gas.

Other estimates say the US would need at least 500,000 ground troops to secure against a North invasion of the South.

"When US military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea," the Stratfor analysis says.

Despite the risks, Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations expert Michael Levi, along with several Australian analysts, believe a North Korean nuclear test would increase the likelihood of a US military response.

Pentagon strategists continue to work on military contingencies but all scenarios forecast massive casualties and a high likelihood of escalating war.

When confronted with Pentagon drafts in 2004, US President George W. Bush was reported to have been horrified at the human cost. Updated Pentagon plans outlining bombing of North Korean nuclear sites, border artillery and troop emplacements call for:

ROUND-the-clock strikes using Stealth and Lancer aircraft and naval-launch cruise missiles to destroy nuclear and missile capability and set the research program back years.

AIR bombing, possibly including US tactical nuclear weapons, to penetrate metres-thick concrete protecting the North's nuclear research complex at Yonben.

But Stratfor's assessment said even if limited strikes were ordered against only nuclear research facilities, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's unpredictability meant a high potential for huge retaliation.

Stratfor argued the US had two advantages -- the time it would take Pyongyang to develop a miniaturised nuclear weapon for carriage on a missile; and America's distance from North Korea.

"The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups," Stratfor said.

It concluded by urging US military restraint. "The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating."





IF THIS IS WHAT THEY EXPECT FROM NORTH KOREA, THEN IMAGINE WHAT IS PAKISTAN CAPABLE OF . LUCKY FOR NORTH KOREA THEY ARE LEAD BY A MAN AND WE ARE LEAD BY COWARD.

 

[zpak]

This man you are talking about Sallahudin is considered a lunatic throughout the world. He lets millions of his population die of hunger and is considered to be one of the most ruthless dictators on the planet. You're comparing him to Musharraf?

 

[Awesome]

Tu larwa ke hi choray ga

"Aa bail mujhe maar"

The US is nicely minding its own business you're waving your pom poms to say "no wait lets draw up fighting scenarios with us too". What man? He's a stupid man.

He faces military threat after one failed nuclear test while we have tested 6 and not facing a threat.

I always see the pagal-jungli-jang-joo as a weak man than a calm and composed one. You're giving me example of Kim but why not take the example of the Prophet who also signed the peace treaty of hudaibiyah since peace was the call of the hour.

 

[TopHatter]

I find it weird how some Muslims find solace in being fighters no matter what..I think they've bought into the western media's crap that Islam was spread by the sword and not the peaceful sunnah of the Prophet, mainly tolerance.

Speaking of naive, I think you might want to consider that Muslims finding solace in being fighters no matter what; greatly precedes the Western Media. It's be around LONG before then.

You're also ignoring historical fact:

In the century immediately following the death of Muhammad (632), Muslim forces conquered lands stretching from the borders of China and India to Spain’s Atlantic coast.

For almost a thousand years ... Europe was under constant threat. In the early centuries it was a double threat—not only of invasion and conquest, but also of conversion and assimilation. All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers, and the vast majority of the first Muslims west of Iran and Arabia were converts from Christianity. North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe

I'll note again that this was WELL before the "Western Media" came onto the scene.

The Quran states clearly that "Let there be no compulsion in religion".
The historical behavior of it's adherents tells a different tale.

As for the Prophet spreading Islam through tolerance, rather than by military conquest...

No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

Did the Prophet Mohammed conquer Mecca through love and tolerance or through warfare?

 

[TopHatter]

4. Huge reserves lying in the ground. Iraq's Oil exports havent even reached pre-war levels.

p.s. The U.S. has directly spent over $200 billion on the war in addition the reduction in Iraq's Oil exports have increased world price which itself would represent another $100 bilion for the U.S. economy. Also the 200b figure doesnt include the cost wear and tear on equipment fully and the U.S. is reducing capital expenditure on acquisitions to pay for the war. All this happening against a backdrop of strong growth by China, Russia, Iran and so forth.

Thank you. I'm glad that somebody finally pointed that out.

Guys, I hate to rain on your parade but the United States didn't invade Iraq to grab oil. The invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11, a warning to other "rogue" states/state-sponsors of terrorism like Libya, Iran, North Korea etc.
Basically the whole point was to pick a country such as those listed above, sweep into it like a scythe, oust the existing government, quickly put a new (pro-U.S. obviously) government in place and LEAVE. Of all the countries that were on the target list, it was assumed that Iraq would fit the bill perfectly. They were militarily weak, smaller than others in population and land area, and had huge oil reserves that could be used to rebuild the country after the U.S. invasion. The oil was never meant for the U.S. except through normal trade, but for the benefit of Iraq. In other words, the U.S. didn't want to have to finance the reconstruction itself.

That is what the message the Bush Administration wanted to portray to anti-American countries: "Don't even THINK about pulling a 9/11 style attack or ANY other kind of attack on the United States or we will BURY you just like we did with Iraq."

Of course, in their arrogance, people like Bush and Rumsfeld just assumed it would be a relatively easy thing to take on Iraq after the near-instant success in Afghanistan. (though as somebody pointed out, the Taliban hasn't quite quit the fight)

Obviously that's not what happened.

They can afford to take even more losses because they have a self-sustainable and strong economy and an abundance of man-power.
It does not matters that how many dollars are being spent in this war because they can afford it.
And most of the expenses are due to expensive equipment in use. And they are not going to stay in Iraq forever.
Things move on with passage of time!

Don't believe it LeGenD. The U.S. does have a strong economy, unquestionably. But it's not limitless. Neither is the patience of it's taxpayers, nor the patience of the families of it's soldiers.

And the expenses involved are hardly due 'mostly to expensive equipment use'. That's part of it, no doubt about it. But a huge part is trying to repair the damage and neglect to the Iraqi infrastruction. It doesn't help that there is an ongoing insurgency either.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Guys, I hate to rain on your parade but the United States didn't invade Iraq to grab oil. The invasion of Iraq was a reaction to 9/11, a warning to other "rogue" states/state-sponsors of terrorism like Libya, Iran, North Korea etc.

2. The oil was never meant for the U.S. except through normal trade, but for the benefit of Iraq. In other words, the U.S. didn't want to have to finance the reconstruction itself.

3. That is what the message the Bush Administration wanted to portray to anti-American countries: "Don't even THINK about pulling a 9/11 style attack or ANY other kind of attack on the United States or we will BURY you just like we did with Iraq."

4. the near-instant success in Afghanistan. (though as somebody pointed out, the Taliban hasn't quite quit the fight)

1. In fact my quote was implying the exact opposite, the U.S. invaded Iraq because it did have oil. They didnt have to ship off oil for free to take advantage of the oil, Iraq's oil exports would have been used to pay American companies inflated prices for reconstruction projects (the American had even said theyd prevent companies from nations that hadnt contributed to the war), they would have sold Iraq billions of dollars of military equipment at inflated prices (as it has done to Saudi in the past) and the increase in Iraq oil production would depress world prices and benefit U.S. enormously since it is largest oil producer. The "stealing" of oil would have been quite subtle and sophisticated, not the simple shipping off scenario to the U.S. for free.

2. "Normal Trade"? lol. The U.S. would have made a killing had Iraq been peaceful (and so would have Britian) and Iraq's oil was central to this.

3. The Bush administration knew that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11 or anti-american terrorism, if you believe that it is because of an insidious campaign by Bush adminstration to mislead the american population. Al-Qaeda didnt ask any nation for permission to strike in the heart of America, why would the invasion of Iraq have dissuaded them from doing it again? No nation has ever attacked the U.S. mainland in history, and no nation ever would. The Bush adminstration knew this fact, yet its invasion of Iraq had very little to do with the war on Al-Qaeda (and therefore war on terror).

4. By never committing enough U.S. troops to prevent power vacuum or enough reconstruction to actually improve the economic situation of the population the U.S. even in Afghanistan had sown the seeds of its defeat. It always was going to be easy to topple the Taliban government, it was always going to be much more difficult in destroying them as an armed group/militia.

The Taliban havent quit the fight, there are British commanders who say that the fighting in Afghanistan is more intense than even in Iraq.