I never heard of it however i'm sure it must exhist and no doubt it's on some 'ooo Muslims' website out there and on the other hand there will be an excellent credible refutation from a Muslim. Hence no need for me to Google this one.

 

Ok, good lad.

 

So Taylor do you think that Army guys should be able to kill anyone they like in war?

 

In a nutshell it's about this:

http://publicintelligence.net/us-afg...y-fields-2012/

Yes those are american soldiers patrolling and protecting poppy fields - it's about the massive amount of drugs there.

One aspect to this whole war (and it's a multifaceted war) is the drug trade worth billions.

The Taliban were very much against the drugs trade (as a result of their hard lined religious views) while the Northern Alliance were very much for it as they are made up of drug lords, criminals etc.

So the Taliban were disposed and a more friendly and sympathetic (to the west) power was put in place.

I don't know about oil, it's about resources, including drugs (which are a resource of wealth).

 

The US are fighting a war to protect the availability of world heroin supplies, have i just read that correctly?

 

Post 86, Shaid. I support the practice of rules of engagement in line with the Geneva Convention.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

 

Can't say fairer than that!

Les

 

To a point, remember it is possible to go too far and start to go against the very rules of law that you are upholding and presenting (when in a theatre of war away from your homeland).

 

Sorry have to correct you here (and I will get someone who is much more learned than me).

Naskh only exists within the context of Islamic Jurisprudence and when it is used outside of that, e.g. within the Islamic Sciences such as scholarly work it must be taken into context.

90% of modern Muslims will not be away of this term and will not really care much to it - it's something used by scholars, philosophers, theologians etc to determine facts or the basis for some information (balancing out an equation so to speak).

When these scholars use such terms they do so (most of the time) with clear sound knowledge and years and years of experience on various subjects - so when the average person reads such a term and then finds a Wiki entry for it via Google, that person will not fully understand it realise the context it is in.

Now as far as Sunni and Shia's go, the large majority of Muslims are Sunni's, made up of various groups (different intellectual studies, ideologies, schools of thought etc) made up of a range of different races and cultures (quite common now is to find Caucasian [white] Muslims).

Shia's are considered deviants due to their estoric beliefs and bent on the whole religion of Islam (in contrast to the Sunni Muslims) hence the conflict...but don't forget there is a whole string of off-shoot beliefs based on Islam, like you have Mormons in Christianity, you have Shias, Ishmaeli's etc in Islam.

Now as far as conflict between the different groups is concerned, it never really existed to the scale it does now but no one can disagree (after joining the dots) that where western forces and political interests have settled, civil war has broken out...seems odd but is a noticeable pattern.

Apologies for the rant, wanted to clear up some facts.

 

You lot don't half concern yourselves with a load of drivel, i sometimes wonder if you have lives outside of your various belief systems.

I also wonder if your able to realise that your all brainwashed by your various factions, obviously not!

War is war and the enemy is to be killed by hook or by crook, all this rules of engagement is bolax when your in a life or death situation i won't be letting them live to fight another day, if at a later date the powers that be want to call it murder then so be it, but i doubt very much that they would act any differently if they were in the same situation, war is is frighting and makes people into animals so as to be able to survive.

As for the reasons for the various wars, anyone that can't see it's all about money is truly living in cloud cuckoo land.

I feel for the poor misguided individuals that get drawn into it and end up paying the highest price under the misshaprehention that they are some how defending our country, when all of this was bought about by the multinational powers that be, which is in no way a slant on them, but those that are in command should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Yep at the last count this war had cost America $600Bn

 

 

Martin I will not waste my time with you and this thread any more. Your comment above conveys the lack of do-diligence applied to any response.
You've repeated the same comment twice smugly,but have failed to do a simple basic calculation with the information available.

So lets do the basic maths in order for the USA to recoup $600,000,000,000
They would only need 600,000,000 barrels of oil with the current price of oil being $100 a barrel.

Which leaves 1,200,000,000 barrels of oil I am hoping you can do the basic maths here and tell me how much that is in $$$$$$$

Add the untapped minerals and a multi billion $$ drug trade as Finalzero has said makes sense.

And do some research the british economy was built on drugs in the late 1800 to early 1900!

 

It's due-diligence you illiterate dingbat, and it's you who obviously hasn't bothered doing any. If you had, you'd know the only countries so far to sign oil or mineral exploration deals with Afghanistan have been China and India, with Russia showing a keen interest in the next round of bids:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-...n-t-the-US-bid
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...633783544.html
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news...contracts.html

 

Absolute and complete twaddle. They were perfectly happy raking in the taxes from poppy growing (not to mention the foreign currency reserves from opium exportation) until they were nakedly bribed by the UN to stop production. As soon as the bribe money ran out, things went back to exactly the way they were before.

 

I think you are missing a zero somewhere buddy.
And in this instance, that zero equals a lot.

 

that sort of says ultimately, when you strip away all the bollox, on both sides

cash is king

 

Great maths Juggers - you've made my point for me, indeed if the US took every last drop of oil without paying for it, they'd recoup about 20% of what the war cost

Tell me you're not an accountant

Now let's have your thoughts on why this is all about oil

 

wouldn't it be just awfull if we suddenly realised the George Osborne nickname at Oxford was Juggers

 

You have no idea how much I just laughed. I think some wee actually came out


I think that's the last we'll hear from Juggers on this thread

 

My calculation maybe wrong, but your theory that they will not recoup there moneys is nonsense. They have already covered the cost of war with a third of their minerals. You keep failing to read the article Martin all be it like I failed with that maths calculation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...67E0AA20100815

You can have a read to Markjmd can't wait to hear your response to this one

$3 trillion of minerals that dewarfs the current $1trillion cost

And it also says that the Americans will be making the most of these minerals

 

Where did you magic up $3tn from - by the looks of the article you posted up you are now trying to convince me that the US waged a war in order to get their hands on Afghanistan's IRON ORE reserves!!!!! SERIOUSLY?

So nothing to do with, Bin Laden, Nothing to do with 9-11, instead it was all about iron ore!
You are an utterly tragic individual, rather than contrition you come back with a completely different and unsubstantiated piece of nonsense.

Be a man, apologise

 

Where exactly?

 

Who cares about the Taliban. I'm sure not all are 'that' bad however as we all know cash is king it always has been and always will be. The Americans are on the rob plain and simple. The British are their lapdogs. Muslims couldn't care less about other Muslims otherwise Israel would not be able to get away with what they do and the Arabs are sold out puppets. Soldiers are the ones doing the dirty work. Anyone who can't see the above for themselves need to do some serious thinking.

 

Told you JTaylor didn't I? Now once again you've had a new bum ripped open for you and I'm pointing and laughing at your new anus hahahahaha

 

I presume that you've not read the thread then?

If America is 'on the rob', then WHERE'S THE MONEY?

You've got to stop making statements that have no basis in fact, and then telling everyone else that they 'need to do some serious thinking'

 

Martin did you see the video I posted a link to?

 

Well ok then, finalzero, let's see how you do.

Nope, no correction here. You state that "naskh only exists within the context of Islamic Jurisprudence", well allow me to shine a light on that. First, you use the word "only" in relation to Jurisprudence. For the uninitiated, I should point out that fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) builds on Sharia and incorporates the Sunnah; in other words it is the knowledge of the rules of Allah himself. All a jurist does is interpret the words of the creator of the Universe! Naskh only resides within fiqh. No big deal, clearly.

"When it is used outside of that", what, everything? "e.g. within the Islamic Sciences such as scholarly work", yes "it must be taken into context." Oh, I see!

This is obfuscation and nothing more.

How do you know that "90% of modern Muslims will not be away (sic) of this term"? What's the source of this statistic? Anyway, let's assume you're right, are you saying that nine out of ten Muslims are ignorant of the fact that the Qur'an is peppered with contradictions and that there's an entire practise dedicated to deciding which contradiction has primacy. Nine out of ten Muslims? That statistic does of course leave 150 million Muslims who know to cherry-pick contradictory 'truths' at will. Still no correction.

So only Jurists (scholars) can understand the concept of abrogation and how it is applied within fiqh? I contest this point. I understand it. No correction.

Reasonably accurate, although restricting Caucasian to people with white skin is erroneous. Still no correction.

So the religion of peace is engaging in sectarian conflict because the Sunnis consider the Shia "deviants" and the Shia disagree. Ok, got that.

I can disagree, finalzero, it's been going on since the seventh century and it's been going on because...wait for it..."Shia's (sic) are considered deviants due to their estoric (sic) beliefs and bent on the whole religion of Islam."

Never mind.

 

My response to a link that doesn't contain a single mention of any US company being involved in extracting Afghan oil, and in fact confirms what I already said earlier about the Chinese having enormous mining contracts there?

You're telling me that actually needs a response?