TIGblogs - Honourable fasho

Honourable fasho's blog

America should stop killing innocent citizens in it quest to stop terrorism. Related to country: United States
l shook with tremor on hearing on CNN, that American troops were killed{slaughter}last weekend in Iraq.My advise is that Pres Bush should please, bring back this American troops before the whole troop in Iraq is brought back dead. l watched with pity to see those American Veterans, & that young dead soldier's mother making their peaceful protest in front of Pres Bush's private residence in Texas, asking for the return of American troops out there in Iraq. l hope that he makes the best decision during this trying time, cos' opinion polls are not in his favour for making Americans' engage in this war.

August 9, 2005 | 11:48 AM

Tags: You must be logged in to add tags.

Comments

	King TUT JR. August 9, 2005 \| 5:00 PM

SEE FOR YOUR SELF WHATIS TERRORISM ?? YOUR GOOD WORK WHAT IS TERRORISM IN M0RAL CLARITY :- AND WHAT,WHY THEY ARE DOING IT FOR ?? WHAT THEY WANT FOR THERE ACTIONS ?? Annan calls for universal definition of "terrorism" <> A New UN Proposal calls for universal definition of "terrorism" ANY TERRORISM YES .. OR IN MORAL CLARITY :- <> WHAT IS TERRORISM : - (1) Act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act. (2) For "Resisting occupation is a different issue altogether" (3) The protective of issues of political freedom and political participation (4) That people who take up arms against a state to protect their freedoms as resistance fighters. (5) The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, A simple, clear statement bringing in moral clarity that maiming and killing of civilians is unacceptable regardless of one's cause. (6) I DO NOT GO FOR THAT EVIL IN THE NAME OF ISLAM : "Nothing in Islam can Justify the evil actions of the terrorism bombers , barbaric terrorist attacks"were an "assault on the civilised world". Our battle with terrorism will continue with all the strength, resolve and will that we have They must be out of there Mind, incean evil ,desgressed, shamless and outregaures. and do not tell me you do this in the name of Islam and you say Allah Ahkaber / for Jahad , they are Evil they are going to HELL ,' HELL for sure they will hunt down for ever, for there barbaric terrorist attacks which is assault on the Civilized world , Nothing in Islam can Justify the evil actions of the bombers and where is the person who had the expertise to organize it all ??? What is the reason for there action my be to destroy.. slay.. the holy cross believe by destroyer (the one who destroy) des.tructive to be destroyed by a built -in device To Force a war on certain faith on to other, Islamic extremists , a way of Compulsion of Beleif in Religion on other JIHAD, yes Jihad to call for "holy war" "crusade" (7) Certainly any religion can be twisted to call for "holy war" "crusade" "jihad" etc. All I can say that Jihad is not a war to force a certain faith on to others, as many people perceive. It should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others, since there is an explicit verse in the Qur'an which states:"There is no compulsion in religion" Al-Qur'an: Al-Baqarah (2:256). Jihad comes from an Arabic root word 'Jahada' which means to strive for a better way of life. Jihad should not be confused with Holy War. Jihad is not a defensive war only, but a war against any unjust regime. If such a regime exists, a war is to be waged against the leaders, but not against the people of that country. (8) People should be freed from the unjust regimes and influences so that they can freely choose to believe and follow what life they choose as long as there is no harm against another. (9) Not only in peace but also in war Islam prohibits terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking, when carried against civilians. Whoever commits such violations is considered a murderer and terrorist in Islam. During wars, Islam prohibits Muslim soldiers from harming civilians, women, children, elderly, and the religious men like priests and rabies. It also prohibits cutting down trees and destroying civilian constructions. This is the true meaning of Jihad according to Islam. People can/will take anything out of context to suit their own desires. But that does not mean that the meaning is changed. At this particular moment it seems to be infecting the Muslim community more then others - I think this stems from a fundamental lack of secular education - Colonial Splits (10)- It reminds me of the American South with the KKK - buch of ignorant, uneducated racists basically - I think with the Islamic extremists you have much the same thing - racism certainly seems the order of the day. <><> ( REPEATS THIS ) Not only in peace but also in war Islam prohibits terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking, when carried against civilians. Whoever commits such violations is considered a murderer and terrorist in Islam. During wars, Islam prohibits Muslim soldiers from harming civilians, women, children, elderly, and the religious men like priests and rabies. It also prohibits cutting down trees and destroying civilian constructions. This is the true meaning of Jihad according to Islam. People can/will take anything out of context to suit their own desires. But that does not mean that the meaning is changed., SO WHO, WHY, WHOM DOING TERRORISM IN THE NAME OF ISLAM IN NO MORAIL CLARITY I give Complement towahooe, Ayman el hake and Sara Nasser for the name of islam :- On the Other First Hand :- <><> (11) - America wants to put an end to Iraq’s attempts to threaten its neighbors (a.k.a. Israel) with weapons of mass destruction. The US is acting as the champion of good against evil. But America forgets that the reality is that no other nation used weapons of mass destruction against CIVILIAN populations as the US did to Japan. Is this not terrorism? America politicians should set an example by attempting to repent for America’s past wrongs Mistake to end a war. <><> (12) - They should attempt to deter weapons proliferation EVERYWHERE in the Middle East. The US should also ask Israel to rid itself of its 200 or so estimated stock of nuclear warheads. Already one of the right wing politicians who recently resigned from the Sharon government suggested using them against the High Dam in Aswan, Egypt. That would kill many in the CIVILIAN population of Egypt. Terrorism, do you think? And on the other 2nd Hand:_ O <><> The Pope's omission of this incident cries out to the heavens the Vatican has always condemned violence and all forms of terrorism. In condemning recent terror strikes on Sunday, the newly-elected Pope, Benedict XVI, did not mention Israel in a list of countries touched by terror Israel's angered and said the pontiff's speech could be interpreted as "granting legitimacy to... terrorist attacks against Jews".If the Catholic world becomes antagonistic to Israel, this becomes something that is a problem for the Jewish faith and something Israeli diplomats would be very loath to see happen," The Pope has yet to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in public, THE Vatican has always condemned violence and all forms of terrorism "When they did condemn attacks against Israel they would also point to Palestinians as a dispossessed people, explaining the terror without condoning it." We have the right to expect Pope Benedict XVI, who called for 'a dialogue among the three religions that recognise Abraham as their father', to condemn the vicious terrorist attack directed at Jews, just as he condemned other terrorist attacks as they arguing that not mentioning the Netanya bombing implied a "moral stain" on the country and Israel's legitimacy as a state fighting terror," ""The Pope's omission of this incident cries out to the heavens," But far from damaging relations, the disagreement may actually promote them. but When there is an impasse both sides are called to speak - nothing can be swept under the carpet, there is a desire to find solutions." and Israel's legitimacy as a state fighting terror," . Annan calls for universal definition of "terrorism":- <><> The international body’s Secretary General Kofi Annan calls for universal definition of "terrorism" believes there is a dire need for a definition with “moral clarity” and for a UN convention against terrorism following the devastating bomb attacks in Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh and London, the proposed UN terrorism convention will be agreed on by world leaders in time for a UN world summit in September. <><> UN chief Kofi Annan is seeking a globally defined and '"'" <> accepted definition of terrorism. and is urging world leaders to come to an agreement on a universal definition for 'terrorism'. <><> A UN treaty has been held up for 10 years over the definition of a terrorist. <><> The proposed convention on terrorism has been stuck in a committee since 1996 with the debate focusing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where some countries see groups as “terrorist”, others view them as as freedom or resistance fighters. <><> “I don’t think it will be understood by their own citizens and by the world if the UN is unable to act on that. I think the president’s definition is acceptable. I thought mine was a little stronger but we can live with that,” said Annan. <><> Reacting to the terrorism chapter in a revised draft blueprint on sweeping UN reform released Friday the current president of the General Assembly, Annan said: “All the key elements are in there, and I hope the definition of terrorism will be agreed to by the member states.” <><> The latest draft by would commit member states “to conclude a comprehensive convention on à international terrorism, including a legal definition of terrorism” during the upcoming General Assembly session. <><> The Secretary General of the Arab League, has also backed Annan's latest definition, telling a news agency that it could serve as the "basis for consensus". <><> The UN is mindful of objections to the definition on the basis that people who take up arms against a state to protect their freedoms do not have equal rights to strike back. <><> However, the behaviour of states was already heavily circumscribed by conventions governing the use of force, such as the Geneva conventions. <><> The argument now is that individuals who use violence for political purposes must similarly be constrained by similarly unambiguous definitions, and that there must be clear straightforwardness in condemning them,"<><>.><>

Latest Posts

Monthly Archive

Change Language

Filter By Type

2136 views

Important Disclaimer