• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

ludahai said:
You have decided that I am a religious, Evangelical extremist based on simply related the facts of history. What do you mean you "have not decided (you are) going to believe anything?"
Click to expand...

Inaccurate. I didn't decide but I did believe it was a possibility. I did believe you were a literalist. It would appear in that I was mistaken. It would appear it is more the crusades that motivates you. As I said yesterday I do not as yet know much about extreme US religion.

I believe that your opinion of Muslims is based on your Religious focus. This I see by your need to harp on about the crusades as an excuse for not engaging in peace talks with the Palestinians and further your belief that Israel is Christian land
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
This is simply NOT true. Militant Islam has been around for a VERY long time. Heck, in Aceh (present-day Indonesia), it has been around since about the year 1300 or so.
Click to expand...

You know perfectly well I said in my lifetime. Arguably you could say it began in the 1920, was taken up more in the 1960's for much the same concerns as the neo cons had, became radicalised and really took off after your country promoted it during the Afghan war.

But this is not what this is about.

Peace in the middle East is what it is about. Your believe that the crusades mean that Muslims should not have peace shows a worrying religious concern.


ludahai said:
Actually, I did not bring up the Crusades. Someone else did in response to my point that the Islamic world has been engaged in jihad against the Christian world for more than thirteen centuries. Sad that you blind yourself to this history.
Click to expand...

You have already said that. Nonetheless it fitted in with your argument why there should not be peace in the middle east so whether you brought it up or not, it is your argument.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
And what was the religious character of the region, pre-Christianity? Jewish and neo-platonic paganism. Forced conversion? Do I need to mention Theodosius' edict De Fide Catolica? Colonization? Should I remind you of the colonization of Roman Britain and Ireland? The colonizations of the Anglo-Saxons and the Germanic Franks?

Like I said, others call it liberation. The persecution of other religions was much worse under Christianity than it was under Islam.

Stating historical facts does not negate your assertion that these are 'Christian' lands.
Click to expand...

Liberation? Catholic Spain invaded by Muslims was liberation? The invasion of France? The invasion of Southeastern Europe? Aksum? North Africa? You are doing NOTHING to disprove the point that Islam has been on a war of aggression against Christianity since the 7th century.
 
alexa said:
Inaccurate. I didn't decide but I did believe it was a possibility. I did believe you were a literalist. It would appear in that I was mistaken. It would appear it is more the crusades that motivates you. As I said yesterday I do not as yet know much about extreme US religion.

I believe that your opinion of Muslims is based on your Religious focus. This I see by your need to harp on about the crusades as an excuse for not engaging in peace talks with the Palestinians and further your belief that Israel is Christian land
Click to expand...

Actually, once again I am not the one who brought up the Crusades. I am also merely pointing out that Islam has been on the offensive against Christianity for more than 1300 years. Again, nothing you and others have said disproves any of this.

As for my opinion of Muslims, they are as diverse a population as any other. Some are great people and open minded. Others are closed minded and violent. I have many friends of the former variety. I have little patience for the later.
 
ludahai said:
Liberation? Catholic Spain invaded by Muslims was liberation? The invasion of France? The invasion of Southeastern Europe? Aksum? North Africa? You are doing NOTHING to disprove the point that Islam has been on a war of aggression against Christianity since the 7th century.
Click to expand...

Sure Muslims attempted to spread Islam through Europe by force but I see no reason why Christians need to be so whiny about it.
Christianity did not spread through "love" or fly around the world on its own. It was imported by people with the aim to convert.

But that was centuries ago. Islam has been spread, E Africa (and many other parts of Africa) is Muslim. ME is Muslim. Large parts of Asia is Muslim. Islam is the second largest religion and growing even now.
What does Christians have that Muslims would need? Nothing.

Both Christianity and Islam spread through war and invasions. The only religion out of the three that has a leg to stand on is Judaism and that is only because they do not seek to convert otherwise I doubt its history would have been different.

As for continued aggression. Muslims have nothing to fear from Christians. Islam has nothing to fear from Christianity.
Christianity is facing its own crisis from lack of believers and the hold of Atheism and secularism in the Western world. Islam has none of these issues nor do we need to go on any form of missionary work like Christians to actively recruit members into our religion.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Sure Muslims attempted to spread Islam through Europe by force but I see no reason why Christians need to be so whiny about it.
Christianity did not spread through "love" or fly around the world on its own. It was imported by people with the aim to convert.
Click to expand...

Difference is that the initial spread of Christianity in the Middle East, North Africa and Mediterranean Europe was almost entirely peaceful in empires (Roman and Parthia) that were hostile to the faith. The violence was conducted against those who converted. By the 5th century, the western half of the Middle East, North Africa, and Aksum were solidly Christian. Yes, in the sixth century, the Roman empire was less than tolerant toward non-Christians, it doesn't change the fact that the region was predominantly Christian and it was spread peacefully.

This is in stark contrast with the initial spread of Islam. Even the Arabian peninsula was converted to Islam largely through violence. Then, the Arabs came out of the desert and destroyed the Sassanid Empire (largely wiping out the Zorastorian religion along with it), brought the Roman Empire to its knees (including beseiging Constantinople and taking large parts of the Empire -- including much of its Levant holdings and North Africa -- converting it to Islam), conquered Spain, invaded France, set up an emirate on Sicily, attacked Aksum and took its most important commercial regions (ironic because it was Aksum that shelted Muhammad's wife). Later, Muslims took the heart of Orthodox Christianity (finally) and took nearly all of southeastern Europe... this was ALL by violence. Yes, later spread (West Africa and Southeast Asia) was peaceful, but to say that the spread of Christianity was as violent as the spread of Islam is simply not accurate.

But that was centuries ago. Islam has been spread, E Africa (and many other parts of Africa) is Muslim. ME is Muslim. Large parts of Asia is Muslim. Islam is the second largest religion and growing even now.
What does Christians have that Muslims would need? Nothing.
Click to expand...

If we have nothing you need, why do Muslims keep attacking Christian nations?

Both Christianity and Islam spread through war and invasions. The only religion out of the three that has a leg to stand on is Judaism and that is only because they do not seek to convert otherwise I doubt its history would have been different.
Click to expand...

See above. The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful. The initial spread of Islam was VERY bloody.

As for continued aggression. Muslims have nothing to fear from Christians. Islam has nothing to fear from Christianity.
Click to expand...

Because Christians accept the right of Muslims to choose their own believe. We have more to fear from you because many Muslims do NOT extend the same tolerance to Christians. Too bad people like Suleiman (although he was a conquerer, he WAS tolerant), Shah Abbas and Akbar aren't the voice of Islam like they once were.

Christianity is facing its own crisis from lack of believers and the hold of Atheism and secularism in the Western world. Islam has none of these issues nor do we need to go on any form of missionary work like Christians to actively recruit members into our religion.
Click to expand...

No Islamic missionaries? Really? Sure about that?
 
ludahai said:
Difference is that the initial spread of Christianity in the Middle East, North Africa and Mediterranean Europe was almost entirely peaceful in empires (Roman and Parthia) that were hostile to the faith. The violence was conducted against those who converted. By the 5th century, the western half of the Middle East, North Africa, and Aksum were solidly Christian. Yes, in the sixth century, the Roman empire was less than tolerant toward non-Christians, it doesn't change the fact that the region was predominantly Christian and it was spread peacefully.

This is in stark contrast with the initial spread of Islam. Even the Arabian peninsula was converted to Islam largely through violence. Then, the Arabs came out of the desert and destroyed the Sassanid Empire (largely wiping out the Zorastorian religion along with it), brought the Roman Empire to its knees (including beseiging Constantinople and taking large parts of the Empire -- including much of its Levant holdings and North Africa -- converting it to Islam), conquered Spain, invaded France, set up an emirate on Sicily, attacked Aksum and took its most important commercial regions (ironic because it was Aksum that shelted Muhammad's wife). Later, Muslims took the heart of Orthodox Christianity (finally) and took nearly all of southeastern Europe... this was ALL by violence. Yes, later spread (West Africa and Southeast Asia) was peaceful, but to say that the spread of Christianity was as violent as the spread of Islam is simply not accurate.
Click to expand...

Christianity is as suspectible to violence as Islam is. Christianity spread through conversion and conquering of countries. The same with Islam.
The difference is that I acknowledge my religion spread through invasions, you seem to be deluding yourself and rewriting history.
I see nothing bad about it either considering the era all this occurred in where conquering's was common as was Empires and wars.

If we have nothing you need, why do Muslims keep attacking Christian nations?
Click to expand...

If we are discussing terrorism, I would suggest we not even go there.
Western Christian countries have been attacking and after Muslim countries for decades now.
ME is their own little playground.
I do not see Arab soldiers in Europe yet I do see American and British soldiers on Muslim soil.

Hell it did not take Christians long to start pouring into Iraq to convert Muslims into "salvation". :roll:

See above. The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful. The initial spread of Islam was VERY bloody.
Click to expand...

Yet Christianity still has an equally bloody history.

We have more to fear from you because many Muslims do NOT extend the same tolerance to Christians. Too bad people like Suleiman (although he was a conquerer, he WAS tolerant), Shah Abbas and Akbar aren't the voice of Islam like they once were.
Click to expand...

Christians in Iraq had more freedom under a dictator than they now do after Christian nations came in to liberate them.
Orthodox communities are fine in many Muslim countries, they are tolerated.
What is not tolerated is any Christian attempting to convert which is another issue.

No Islamic missionaries? Really? Sure about that?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Muslims very very rarely go out into missionary work.
For Christians, attempting to convert others and spread the Bible seems to come hand in hand with the religion.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Christianity is as suspectible to violence as Islam is. Christianity spread through conversion and conquering of countries. The same with Islam.
The difference is that I acknowledge my religion spread through invasions, you seem to be deluding yourself and rewriting history.
I see nothing bad about it either considering the era all this occurred in where conquering's was common as was Empires and wars.
Click to expand...

What history have I re-written. I did not say that there was no spread of Christianity without violence, I was merely commenting on the initial spread of the faiths. Still, there was FAR MORE violence in the spread of Islam than of Christianity on the whole.

If we are discussing terrorism, I would suggest we not even go there.
Western Christian countries have been attacking and after Muslim countries for decades now.
ME is their own little playground.
I do not see Arab soldiers in Europe yet I do see American and British soldiers on Muslim soil.
Click to expand...

Because Christians kicked them out... TWICE!!!

Hell it did not take Christians long to start pouring into Iraq to convert Muslims into "salvation". :roll:
Click to expand...

Islamic mosques in Rome. How about Christian churches in Mecca?

What is not tolerated is any Christian attempting to convert which is another issue.
Click to expand...

So, it is ok for people to convert TO Islam, but not FROM Islam?


Absolutely.
Muslims very very rarely go out into missionary work.
For Christians, attempting to convert others and spread the Bible seems to come hand in hand with the religion.
Click to expand...

Due to the Great Commission. For a non-missionary religion, there seems to be a lot of missionizing going on. Note, I don't have a problem with it, but that it needs to work both ways. People can convert to Islam in Italy, but in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and other Islamic countries, converting from Islam to Christianity is outlawed and can even result in a death sentence.
 
ludahai said:
Liberation? Catholic Spain invaded by Muslims was liberation? The invasion of France? The invasion of Southeastern Europe? Aksum? North Africa? You are doing NOTHING to disprove the point that Islam has been on a war of aggression against Christianity since the 7th century.
Click to expand...
That's OK, Christians were doing it 600 years before that. :2wave:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
That's OK, Christians were doing it 600 years before that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Aggression against whom? As I have already noted, most of the initial expansion of Christianity was PEACEFUL. In fact, it was done in the face of great PERSECUTION from the Roman and Parthian empires.
 
ludahai said:
Aggression against whom? As I have already noted, most of the initial expansion of Christianity was PEACEFUL. In fact, it was done in the face of great PERSECUTION from the Roman and Parthian empires.
Click to expand...


Now I am getting interested. I thought it was the Roman's who did the persecution of early Christians who were a very peaceful lot.

Unable to cope with their growing popularity as people believed they must have something really good to put up with being fed to the lions and so on, I understood that the Roman's somehow or other managed to entice them into becoming a sort of part of the State - and that, I understood was the end of Christianity as a peaceful religion and the birth of the one which went off on the Crusades.

You can blame the BBC for this impression.
 
ludahai said:
Liberation? Catholic Spain invaded by Muslims was liberation? The invasion of France? The invasion of Southeastern Europe? Aksum? North Africa? You are doing NOTHING to disprove the point that Islam has been on a war of aggression against Christianity since the 7th century.
Click to expand...

Again displaying ignorance of history? Do you know who participated in the Ummayad conquest of Spain? Does the name Count Julian of Ceuta mean anything to you? He provided all the ships that carried the Muslims into Europe. He helped the 7,000 man Muslim army defeat Roderic's 25,000 man army. He was the one who got most of Roderic's men to switch sides or desert. And while you gawk at why I say 'liberation', you still remain ignorant to the persecution of the Jews in the relevant regions. In 612, the Visigoths issued a royal decree enjoining all Jews to be baptized under penalty of banishment and confiscation of property. Under the Muslims, Jews experienced their golden age of Jewish culture in Al-Andalus.
 
texmaster said:
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner' - Times Online

What a bumbling fool. Insulting one of our closest allies with such idiocy is really unbelievable.

But considering the moronic capitulation to Russia and turning our back on Poland with absolutely no diplomatic gain this kind of adolescent diplomacy really isn't surprising anymore.

Thank you President Obama for once again showing that experience actually does matter. :roll:
Click to expand...

If this is what Republicans criticize Obama for he can't be doing much wrong, but there is something we can all agree on... at least Bush isn't still the President.
 
Degreez said:
Again displaying ignorance of history? Do you know who participated in the Ummayad conquest of Spain? Does the name Count Julian of Ceuta mean anything to you? He provided all the ships that carried the Muslims into Europe. He helped the 7,000 man Muslim army defeat Roderic's 25,000 man army. He was the one who got most of Roderic's men to switch sides or desert. And while you gawk at why I say 'liberation', you still remain ignorant to the persecution of the Jews in the relevant regions. In 612, the Visigoths issued a royal decree enjoining all Jews to be baptized under penalty of banishment and confiscation of property. Under the Muslims, Jews experienced their golden age of Jewish culture in Al-Andalus.
Click to expand...

So, majority Christian populations conquest by Muslims to you is liberation? You have a strange notion of liberation. It still doesn't change the fact that there was centuries of Islamic AGGRESSION against Christiandom.
 
ludahai said:
Still, there was FAR MORE violence in the spread of Islam than of Christianity on the whole.
Click to expand...

And once again despite this beginning of violence in Islam. Christianity did catch up and now has an equally violent past.
A Christian has no moral ground to stand on criticising Islam's violent past when its own is as bloody.

Because Christians kicked them out... TWICE!!!
Click to expand...

:rofl

Despite this "kicking us out", isn't it amusing to see that many Christian historical sites which has religious significance lies in Muslim countries.

Islamic mosques in Rome. How about Christian churches in Mecca?
Click to expand...

There are Muslims in Rome which drives the need for Mosques.
Very little to no noticeable Christian population in Saudi Arabia.
Why should a Church be built just to satisfy political correctness when there is no real need for them?

So, it is ok for people to convert TO Islam, but not FROM Islam?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Muslim converting out of Islam if that is what you are asking me.

Due to the Great Commission. For a non-missionary religion, there seems to be a lot of missionizing going on. Note, I don't have a problem with it, but that it needs to work both ways. People can convert to Islam in Italy, but in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and other Islamic countries, converting from Islam to Christianity is outlawed and can even result in a death sentence.
Click to expand...

What missionizing?
I have never seen a Imam attempting to convert in London nor knock on peoples door, advertise Islam on billboards. I see all that and more for Christianity, not that I have a issue with it but Muslim as a majority do not actively seek to convert.

It should but it doesn't.
The law forbids missionaries from the west from coming in with the intention to convert. I don't agree with it but I do understand why they may forbid it.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
And once again despite this beginning of violence in Islam. Christianity did catch up and now has an equally violent past.
A Christian has no moral ground to stand on criticising Islam's violent past when its own is as bloody.
Click to expand...

Caught up? hardly. Islam has had 13 centuries to build up an insurmountable lead on the violence front.


Despite this "kicking us out", isn't it amusing to see that many Christian historical sites which has religious significance lies in Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

I said kicked out of Europe. Yes, they are in Muslim countries due to Muslim aggression.

There are Muslims in Rome which drives the need for Mosques.
Very little to no noticeable Christian population in Saudi Arabia.
Why should a Church be built just to satisfy political correctness when there is no real need for them?
Click to expand...

Because it is ILLEGAL to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia!

I have no problem with Muslim converting out of Islam if that is what you are asking me.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with people choosing to be a Muslim. What I DO have a problem with is Muslim governments insisting on rights for Muslims in the West when rights are NOT granted to Christians in their own countries.

What missionizing?
I have never seen a Imam attempting to convert in London nor knock on peoples door, advertise Islam on billboards. I see all that and more for Christianity, not that I have a issue with it but Muslim as a majority do not actively seek to convert.
Click to expand...

So, Imams don't talk to non-Muslims about the Islamic faith? It may not be as overt as that done by some Christian groups, but it is there. BTW, I don't have a problem with missionizing by any religious group as long as they respect the rights of those they are missionizing to.

It should but it doesn't.
The law forbids missionaries from the west from coming in with the intention to convert. I don't agree with it but I do understand why they may forbid it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Western countries should forbid Islamic imams in response!
 
ludahai said:
So, majority Christian populations conquest by Muslims to you is liberation? You have a strange notion of liberation. It still doesn't change the fact that there was centuries of Islamic AGGRESSION against Christiandom.
Click to expand...

And you have a strange notion of aggression. There wasn't exactly freedom in the Holy Lands during Christian rule. Muslims liberated the Levant of the oppressive rule of the Christian papacy.

And again, you remain ignorant of history. You call it centuries of Islamic aggression, as if the Muslims conquests were never responded to. It's disingenuous and misleading. And while calling it aggression, you choose to ignore important aspects that helped the Muslims liberate these lands from Christians. These are important things like Count Julian (who I mentioned earlier) or people like Thomas the Slav and Bardas Skleros.
 
Degreez said:
And you have a strange notion of aggression. There wasn't exactly freedom in the Holy Lands during Christian rule. Muslims liberated the Levant of the oppressive rule of the Christian papacy.

And again, you remain ignorant of history. You call it centuries of Islamic aggression, as if the Muslims conquests were never responded to. It's disingenuous and misleading. And while calling it aggression, you choose to ignore important aspects that helped the Muslims liberate these lands from Christians. These are important things like Count Julian (who I mentioned earlier) or people like Thomas the Slav and Bardas Skleros.
Click to expand...

By most people's definition of aggression, invading another state or empire is generally considered aggression. No matter how you spin it, you can't deny that the spread of Islam was due to aggression.

aggression: the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like

You like to quote "semi-historical" figures like Count Julian? It isn't even known if this person ever existed, or if he did, what his true name was or his role in history.

Thomas the Slav was more interested in revolt because he was overlooked more than any desire to "liberate" anyone. He had no desire to aid in the spread of Islam as best as we know from the sketchy sources we have of his motives.

Bardas Skleros formented rebellion due to his claims to the throne of the empire, not because he wanted to "liberate" anyone.

Interesting that you call it "liberate" when Muslims took lands that were majority Christian and imposed Islamic law on them. That is liberation? Sounds like the definition of liberation the Chinese have in mind for the country I live in. Did the Muslims "liberate" Spain? Did they "liberate" the Aksum coast? Did they "liberate" Christian lands in Europe?

Nothing you say negates the fact that the lands in question were majority Christian. Was there persecution? Sadly, yes. Does that negate the fact that the spread of Islam was a result of aggression? Of course not.
 
ludahai said:
By most people's definition of aggression, invading another state or empire is generally considered aggression. No matter how you spin it, you can't deny that the spread of Islam was due to aggression.

aggression: the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like
Click to expand...
So when American forces invaded Iraq, that was aggression? Not liberation?
ludahai said:
You like to quote "semi-historical" figures like Count Julian? It isn't even known if this person ever existed, or if he did, what his true name was or his role in history.
Click to expand...
It's not known if that was his real name or if he was a real Count, but you cannot deny he didn't exist. He is in Christian, Spanish, and Muslim sources by that name and title and was a ruler in some region around the Strait of Gibraltar.
ludahai said:
Thomas the Slav was more interested in revolt because he was overlooked more than any desire to "liberate" anyone. He had no desire to aid in the spread of Islam as best as we know from the sketchy sources we have of his motives.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? His entire army was filled with minority groups from Asia Minor who were banned from entering Constantinople for religious reasons.
ludahai said:
Interesting that you call it "liberate" when Muslims took lands that were majority Christian and imposed Islamic law on them. That is liberation? Sounds like the definition of liberation the Chinese have in mind for the country I live in. Did the Muslims "liberate" Spain? Did they "liberate" the Aksum coast? Did they "liberate" Christian lands in Europe?
Click to expand...
And were these lands previously a Christian majority? You had a problem with Islamic colonization, but not Christianity's? Hypocrisy at its worst.
ludahai said:
Nothing you say negates the fact that the lands in question were majority Christian. Was there persecution? Sadly, yes. Does that negate the fact that the spread of Islam was a result of aggression? Of course not.
Click to expand...
And does that negate that it wasn't liberation? You like to bring definitions in:

Liberate | Define Liberate at Dictionary.com
to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government.
Click to expand...
 
Degreez said:
So when American forces invaded Iraq, that was aggression? Not liberation?
Click to expand...

There were numerous UN resolutions that provided support for that invasion. You compare apples and oranges much?

It's not known if that was his real name or if he was a real Count, but you cannot deny he didn't exist. He is in Christian, Spanish, and Muslim sources by that name and title and was a ruler in some region around the Strait of Gibraltar.
Click to expand...

Relevance being?

Are you kidding? His entire army was filled with minority groups from Asia Minor who were banned from entering Constantinople for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

Relevance being?

And were these lands previously a Christian majority? You had a problem with Islamic colonization, but not Christianity's? Hypocrisy at its worst.
Click to expand...

Not hypocrisy. The Levant became Christian now due to invasion, but to mostly to voluntary conversion in an empire that was once very hostile to the religion. It was only later that the Roman Empire became Christian and it was the then-Christian Roman Empire that the Arabs attacked.

I guess by your definition, the invasion of the Aztec Empire by the Spaniards wasn't aggression either.

And does that negate that it wasn't liberation? You like to bring definitions in:[/QUOTE]
 
ludahai said:
There were numerous UN resolutions that provided support for that invasion.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. Tony Blair wanted and tried to get UN approval but was unsuccessful?


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan


Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

Wilmshurst, who was the only civil servant to quit over the Iraq war, is the first witness to reveal that Goldsmith's view as late as January 2003 was that a second UN resolution may be required for the invasion to be legal. She said she thought it was unprecedented for a prime minister to be consulted in this way.

She told the inquiry panel, which is looking into the legality of the war, that she was shown this advice unofficially at the time. "His draft advice, his provisional view, was that a second resolution was needed, as I recall," she said.

The lawyer, who told her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a "crime of aggression" when she quit a few days before the invasion, said today that the way ministers handled the legal arguments over the war was "lamentable".

Declassified documents released by the inquiry also show that Wood warned ministers three months before the invasion that it was not certain if military action would be legal.

David Brummell, then a senior aide to the attorney general, also revealed that Lord Goldsmith warned both No 10 and Straw in November 2002 he was "pessimistic" that UN security council resolution 1441 could be used to justify military action without a second resolution.
Click to expand...

Lord Goldsmith changed legal view of Iraq war in two months, says adviser | UK news | guardian.co.uk


The two lawyers also submitted written statements to the inquiry, in which they made their resevations about the invasion absolutely clear.

"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," Sir Michael wrote.

"In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the Security Council, and had no legal basis in international law."

In her statement, Ms Wilmshurst added: "I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post. I would have been required to support and maintain the Government’s position in international fora.

She added: "Acting contrary to the [United Nations] Charter, as I perceived the Government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the Untied Kingdom’s reputation as a State committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations."
Click to expand...

Foreign Office lawyer says Iraq war was illegal - Times Online
 
ludahai said:
Caught up? hardly. Islam has had 13 centuries to build up an insurmountable lead on the violence front.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Christianity has caught up.
The endless wars, crusades, civil wars that had religion as a factor. Heck we can even go modern if you want with the Catholic church and its erm ... "indiscretions"

Stop deluding yourself about your religion.
It is as violent as mine however much spin you wish to put on it.
The basis of your religion is on a man apparently "crucified" to his death. Lovely and that is supposed to represent forgiveness.

I said kicked out of Europe. Yes, they are in Muslim countries due to Muslim aggression.
Click to expand...

That hardly matters anymore.
It's in Muslim countries and it is going to stay there unless Christians wish to become aggressive and attempt to reclaim it.

Because it is ILLEGAL to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia!
Click to expand...

It's illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity.
But those already Christians (businessmen who travel there or immigrants who move there for work) can be Christian. They just aren't allowed anywhere near the holy cities.

And I have no problem with people choosing to be a Muslim. What I DO have a problem with is Muslim governments insisting on rights for Muslims in the West when rights are NOT granted to Christians in their own countries.
Click to expand...

What Muslim Government is insisting rights for Muslims in the West?

So, Imams don't talk to non-Muslims about the Islamic faith? It may not be as overt as that done by some Christian groups, but it is there. BTW, I don't have a problem with missionizing by any religious group as long as they respect the rights of those they are missionizing to.
Click to expand...

No.
Not unless the Non Muslim has come into the Mosque seeking information.
It is not there, you cannot accept that.
Christianity constantly needs to pull out the propaganda sheet about how Jesus is so loving and Christianity is all about forgiveness and whatever other lines are usually added because it is losing believers and people are leaving Churches.
Islam does not and never will have that problem.

Perhaps Western countries should forbid Islamic imams in response!
Click to expand...

Aw, because Christianity can't compete with Islam? Figured but sure, it's not going to stop it.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Read UN Security Council Resolution 667 and 678.
Click to expand...

No, I have other things to do.

The UN says it was unlawful. The UN is the final speaker on UN Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom