Does the United States really have more than 1,000 military bases across the globe?
PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Empire of bases 2.0
(62 posts)-
ibnebashir
MemberPosted 1 year ago on 11 Jan 2011 18:45 # -
aftab arif
MemberPresident Obama may claim he's got to go slow in drawing down U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan but what's his excuse for keeping open 268 U.S. bases in Germany? Is he expecting an attack by the Red Army? There are folks living well on those 268 bases at public expense as well as the military contractors supplying them.
No other nation begins to operate even a tiny fraction of the 865-plus bases the Pentagon runs overseas to, depending on your viewpoint, (a) protect America from dangerous potential enemies who are lurking everywhere, or (b) to dominate the rest of the world. And since 95% of all overseas bases located in somebody else's country are operated by the USA, millions of people suspect (b) is the answer; indeed, foreigners fear Uncle Sam might subjugate them.
Should Americans care? Only if they don't mind spending $140 billion a year. That's what it's costing them. The U.S. Conference of Mayors the other day voted to shift Pentagon spending of $126-billion a year from Middle East wars to our struggling cities. But we'd get an even bigger savings by removing the ring of steel with which the Pentagon has girdled the planet.
Global public opinion polls have revealed foreigners fear the United States more than they do “terrorists.” In some polls, even the much-reviled Osama bin Laden finished a poor second to former President George W. Bush as the world's No. 1 devil.
In testimony before Congress on March 6, 2007, Steven Kull, head of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, said the opinions of the U.S. held by people around the world had plummeted to abysmal record lows. What's more, the U.S. State Department's own polls about that time confirmed this---saying that favorable views of the U.S. since 1999 plunged from 83% to 56% in the UK; from 78% to 37% in Germany; and from 75% to 30% in Indonesia---in good part due to America's war on Iraq.
Kull told the Congress, “The U.S. military presence in the Middle East is exceedingly unpopular in virtually all countries. On average 69% believe the US military presence there 'provokes more conflict than it prevents' while just 16% see it as a stabilizing force.” Kull went on to testify, “In many countries around the world people express strong fears that the U.S. will use military force against them.”
As activist author David Swanson writes in “Daybreak,”(Seven Stories Press), “If we were to close our bases in other countries, we would still have 6,000 bases in the United States and its 'territories.' We could save perhaps $140 billion per year...” Swanson goes on to write many Americans are aware of “the anger generated by American military bases in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan” but fewer Americans are aware “of the fury with which ordinary people resent our bases in places like Korea and Europe.”
He cites the Pacific island of Guam, “which we have treated as a colony since World War II, turning the majority of the nation's land into a U.S. military base and denying its people independence or full citizenship rights.” He might have mentioned Okinawa as well, where the local populace overwhelmingly would love to kiss Uncle Sam goodbye. Swanson might also have cited the disgusting example of Diego Garcia, the Indian Ocean island where the U.S. forcibly deported all of its 2,000 residents and gassed their dogs rather than transport them. Once converted into a military base, the island made a dandy runway for warplanes headed to Iraq.
And by banning journalists, the U.S. Navy could perpetrate this crime with virtually no press coverage, said David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press)." Vine said in a TV interview, "The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves." He added:
"They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor.”
Now for our quiz: do the gangster methods employed by the U.S. Navy on Diego Garcia sound as if (a) they were taken to protect Americans from attack by dangerous potential enemies? or (b) that the U.S. doesn't give a damn who gets hurt when it's out to attack a country in a war based on lies?
According to Swanson, the U.S. has 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan; 87 in South Korea; 83 in Italy; 45 in Britain; 21 in Portugal and 19 in Turkey. He'd like to see the U.S. bring home the half million troops and 100,000 civilian contractors employed to maintain them and convert them into useful facilities such as “green energy producers and schools.”
Now that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has voted to defund U.S. action in the Middle East maybe it will ask its members to urge President Obama to do as much to liberate the subjugated citizens of our occupied territories, Guam and Okinawa included, and bring our troops home from those military bases, saving U.S. taxpayers another bundle.
http://antemedius.com/content/obama-talks-afghan-drawdown-what-about-rest-world
Posted 11 months ago on 23 Jun 2011 19:22 # -
The US should carry on keeping up their bases and setting up new ones. The more money they waste in this manner, the quicker their downfall. That goes for their covert and overt wars, too. Though today is the day we salute the first clear and public recognition of the fact of their defeat, present and forthcoming, in Afghanistan.
Posted 11 months ago on 23 Jun 2011 22:04 # -
2011pakistan
Memberthis foolish day dream that more the bases more the chances of American downfall.
American defence expenditures are part and parcel of her mighty economy and industrial growth. It has shifted most lethel weapon system linked with satellites.Arab kingdoms are there due to American support, almost all the Muslim states are functioning to support American economy and influence.
american presence in Afghanistan or gradual exit, all is preplanned not due to afghan resistance. I think American presence in different parts of world is in the interst of peace.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 0:42 # -
Good man, 2011pakistan, the more people like you around holding a belief in US as a source of world peace, the quicker the final outcome. Much can be fooled about with, but the hard fact of money degradation is beyond the means of propaganda. Even with the best propaganda in the world, night cannot be turned into day.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 9:13 # -
Not Possible
BlockedMG
2011pakistan is right, our Saudi Gods and Gulf affiliates sometime back agreed for 1.3 trillion dollars to be given to US to seek protection of US from Iran
thats 1.3 TRILLION Dollars!!!
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 10:12 # -
2011pakistan
Memberlook, we are on the cross roads, either to select American approach or to select jehadis/taliban style Islam.
No other option seems easy to go for.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 10:56 # -
Not Possible
Blockedalthough I am not in favor of any American Imposed solution
It is not an american approach we need, its a Pakistani one
a purely Pakistani one
and our intrests lie in getting rid of this menace of extremist salafi culture imported from Saudis
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 11:04 # -
2011pakistan
Member100% correct NP.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 11:12 # -
I am not denying any of what you put forward NP, nor am I making fun of 2011pakistan. My point is simply an economic one. That the west is toast. Their economy done for. And that includes any Muslim nation which has been giving them support so far. Now it but remains for the rest of the world to raise their head and take back their autonomy, economic and otherwise.
As for the Afghan Resistance, they are great, and that fact had been acknowledged by world history. Future historians will find no reason to disagree.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 11:16 # -
Not Possible
BlockedMG respectfuly I disagree with your last assesment
as an honest review of American casulties and Muslim countries casulties tell a diffrent tale
besides the financial ruin is our current state of affairs and their so far allegedly prospetive
what you are right about is it is the finacial drain on the west and cost of the war that is forcing them to reduce
(Note they are not leaving yet nor will they leave in 2014 when their war based operarions come to an end, they are setting up a permenant base in Afghanistan)
but even then it is not merly the financial drain as our Saudi Lords and Gulf croonies are funding the US through oil and weapons payments
but the drain in a relative sense, beacuse China has been silently forging ahead, not getting embroiled in any conflict
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 11:22 # -
NP, are difference are only superficial, if we agree on the main point that the financial drain on the west of going on with the Afghan war is tremendous.
I have heard what the invaders' plans are regarding their future on Afghan soil. I can only say: Man proposes and God disposes. Or, in other words, pipedreams and no more.
NP, But I do wish to point out once again that KSA and the Gulf States, whatever power may be theirs at the moment, are not going to be the ones to be leading the world tomorrow.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 20:39 # -
Agreed Brother, Mirza Ghalib but right now we are not prepared. Our nationalistic spirit is torn to teeters mostly from our own forces (anti Pakistani as secularists-and still they have a nerve to call or claim themselves as our brothers in faith).
Is it possible?Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 21:13 # -
Mirza Sahib, Just as its army is the sixth biggest among world armies, Pakistan is the sixth most populated country in the world. Those of us who who know only how to play the card of secularism - a vague term which means all things to all men - have a streak of opportunism running through them and little critical sense regarding the true face of the secularist west from which they derive all their "thinking" and attitudes. The rest of us - and I believe it's the vast majority of Pakistanis - are nationalistic to the core and it is this majority which will dictate the policies of Pakistan in days to come. As Pakistan regains its balance and marches down to the road to prosperity, we'll find today's "secularists" changing their tune fast enough. And since they are in spite of everything still our brothers and sisters in faith, we'll welcome them back to the fold.
Till that day comes, I suppose we'll continue to treat them with our habitual patience, if tinged with the occasional element of irony.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 22:56 # -
Abdul Rahman
Member"I believe it's the vast majority of Pakistanis - are nationalistic to the core"
MG, After witnessing the disastrous consequenses of mainstream nationalism in Muslim world- Arabs, Turks, Iranian, Kurdish etc and then sublet into petty nationalism of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc and to microscopic nationalism of Gulf States, Pakhtonkhwa, Jiye Sindh, Baloch and MQM etc, it is about time to place the nationalism where it belongs in the context of the Ummah- dust bin of history.
Let me again reiterate and point out the originator of nationalism in the Muslim world- Turkish nationalism. It has been proven to be FAKE. There is no such thing as Turkish race at all. Language OK but the Turkish nation is again a melting pot. 10,000,000 Turks owe their ancestry to Caucausus mountains. Most Turks consider Central Asia as the prime source of Turkish tribes that spread all over MidEast, Eastern Europe and Russia. The semi autonomous Muslim republic of Tatarstan in Russia is Turkish in ethnicity as well as language. And now we have Azeri Turks in Iran and Azerbaijaan, Uzbek Turks in Afghanistan and etc etc. The other nationalisms including Arab, Iranian and Pakistani, Bengali etc came as a reaction to that fake Turkish nationalism. So where do you draw the line?
These nation states built on European/Western concept of nationalism are still struggling to survive as interim states after their "independance" from colonialists as you can see in the so called Arab spring but the eventual goal should be to have a commonwealth or call it Khilafa. I believe that the rapid pace of information technology and globalization trends today can propel us towards that cherished goal sooner or later.
Posted 11 months ago on 26 Jun 2011 23:19 # -
Off topic posts intended to divert a thread topic are/will be removed without any warning.
Members have been repeatedly informed not to post off topic or attempt to divert an on topic discussion.Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 7:09 # -
I just want to reply to one point made by AR, if I may. Nationalism is a recent phenomenon in history, both in west and Muslim history.
I agree that the Ummah in its perfected form will bury nationalism under the rubble of history. But I can't think that anyone can run before they have learnt to walk. What the Muslim world, against the combined power of the west and its allies, is undertaking at the moment is learning how to walk once again. In this phase, nationalism is still a factor to be reckoned with. When our step is assured and firm, we shall suddenly discover what it means like to run and become the Ummah AR rightly points out is our final goal. Does anyone seriously disagree with this assessment of how our future might well unfold?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 11:54 # -
2011pakistan
Memberpowerful nations always spread their wings to maximum regions/continent. History is full of such incidents.
When Muslims were powerful they conquered half the world, when west became powerful they did the same.
Now, USA is super power so its natural to spread its influence the world over, weak and povert obsessed illiterate nations and countries are vulnerable .
Afghanistan, pakistan, somalia, sodan etc.are failed states and dangour to world civilization (global village), USA and West have natural responsibility to save world peace.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 12:14 # -
gv
Member@MG
ever the academic.
pray tell.... if nationalism is a mere speck in annals of history why oh why did we have the following:
Mughals in India coexisting with the Safavids in Iran and the Ottomans in Turkey?
Yes nationalism as we know it today is a 19th/20th century phenomenon but tribalism is as old as the hills and nationalism is merely a modernised tarted up version of the latter.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 12:24 # -
2011pakistan
Memberafghanistan, pakistan, sodan and somalia (failed states) are tribal societies not a nation of 19/20 centuries.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 12:37 # -
aftab arif
MemberI don't know why it is an issue if the muslim countries were united as one nation, Our deen is based around justice, equality and fraternity so why can't we be one nation based on those principles.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 12:50 # -
scandinavian
Member@Aftab
We can and that's also what MG has said, but things take time. I think MG is right. We need to get our countries on track first and then gradually move towards a unity among Muslim countries - Maybe the first step should be like NATO and EU.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 13:21 # -
Abdul Rahman
Membergv "Mughals in India coexisting with the Safavids in Iran and the Ottomans in Turkey?"
This is not true. The sectarian trends among Ummah were patronized by the Safavids who reignited the extreme shia isolation. The strenght of Ottoman Khilafa was sapped by numerous wars they have to fight with Safavids . The Europeans took advantage of this and eventually culminated in dismemberment of Khilafa. The Safavids threw a monkeys wrench in between 2 giants-Mughals and Ottomans and prevented the unification of Ummah. Added factors that prevented that was communication and Mughals preoccupation with grandoise munuments and heriditary struggles. In contrast to the Ottomans, Mughals also lacked the navy that also contributed to their own demise against the British.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 15:45 # -
gv
Member@AR
i am well aware of the conflicts during that era which frankly underlines my point as opposed to undermining it.
but lets for a minute put down the failure of the ummah to reunify to that of those evil scheming turncoat safavis
How about the ummayads vs abbasids ? the khwarzem shah vs the abbasi khalifa, the seljuks, the Ghoris, the Delhi sultans, Abdali, Nadir Shah etc etc
all these people were adventurers after wealth and glory. Islamic unification was only important as long as it served their political/power aims.
The islamic ummah frankly fell into strife and rivalries almost immediately after the prophet died. Yes the Rashidun were able to stem the fragmentation of the ummah for a while but eventually it broke down along tribal lines.
Future kings and adventurers conquering in the name of islam also ruled along those same tribo-ethnic lines. that is what has defined mankind for millennia.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:13 # -
gv hello. You too, ever the academic and, of course, absolutely right to point out that nationalism was just the natural offshoot of the tribalism prevalent in an earlier phase. I was simply addressing the problem of present-day nationalism without going into its origins and my sense of how it might evolve as regards the Muslim Ummah.
Scandinavian understood perfectly what I was trying to say. But now let's address some of the other comments. Why can't we rush straight into a one Ummah construct? Because the nationalistic reflex is too strong in us for the time being. Failed states are we? We have to wash ourselves of this stigma before we can hope to make a move towards the reunification of the Muslim peoples. Then AR, the way you present the history of the Ottomans is too schematic to my mind. Placing all the blame on the Safavids is really letting the Ottoman Caliphs and their unending flirtation with the west and the Jews too easily off the hook.
Last but not least, if anyone believes that the unity of the Muslim Ummah can be achieved by demonising the Shias or any other sect, they've got it wrong. Either we all go into it together or no one will. So there's a lot of work ahead of us Muslims before we can achieve the governing system closest to our heart.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:19 # -
gv
Member@mg
i understand your point and am trying to refute it.
i dont believe it is possible to unify such a diverse group of people as would belong to the proposed muslim ummah due to the intrinsic tribal/nationalistic nature of of human kind
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:43 # -
NNL
memberI dont really get the concept of unity based on character, justice, equality and what not.
I dont see how is that possible ?
I dont think the early muslims rallied behind the Messenger based on his character.
There was something else that is missing today.
And the people who believe that Shias are part of Muslim Ummah concept and there can be no unity without them or the Ahmedis and Ismaili well you can insult Allaah Azza wa Jal as long as you want but Allaah Azza wa Jal is Patient. But when you insult His Most Beloved Messenger and/or Messenger's Companions it gets a little tad personal from Allaah Azza wa Jal.
So everyone can dream big and believe oh this Ummah needs to unite on justice and character and whatever other adjective you can find here but it will never ever happen.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:45 # -
Not Possible
BlockedSE Sahib
where are you now
why the discrimination?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:46 # -
NNL
memberGv i agree with you.
But what about the same diverse group of people stood united in form of 313 against a very formidable force.
what did they have that the muslim of today doesnt
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:48 # -
Not Possible
BlockedThe salafis openly disclose their fitna and devilish designs and people are asleep??
whats wrong with you people?
------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think the early muslims rallied behind the Messenger based on his character.
------------------------------------------------------------
What farce NNLThey rallied behind Rasool Allah (SAW) because of his chracter, always, I repeat always, there was no compulsion in religion, they saw his character as he led by his principles and character. Every one used to call him Sadiq and Amin, they knew he was honest always
------------------------------------------------------------
And the people who believe that Shias are part of Muslim Ummah concept and there can be no unity without them or the Ahmedis and Ismaili well you can insult Allaah Azza wa Jal as long as you want but Allaah Azza wa Jal is Patient. But when you insult His Most Beloved Messenger and/or Messenger's Companions it gets a little tad personal from Allaah Azza wa Jal.
-----------------------------------------------------------Superlatives galore of the salafi but no substance, your efforts to divide the Ummah are all too apparent, truly your the fitna from Najd as Rasool Allah (SAW) pointed out and for this you wish to discredit Rasool Allah (SAW).
It is you who abuse the Ahkams of Allah (SWT) and insult his ordinance and try to degrade him.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:52 # -
NNL, again you are speaking as though God had made you his personal messenger to all of us benighted Pakistanis. So be it. I'll let gv answer your questions for you.
Here, let me just say to gv that what has been happening for millenia is no criterion for what is yet to come. And what is yet to come, as far as I can make out, is no less than a struggle for survival. Not sectarianism but simply survival tactics will determine that Muslims come together and live as one community of thought and aspirations.
P.S. What NP says is also worthy of due thought, unless, of course, we think we already know it all.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 16:58 # -
NNL
memberMG
i dont have delusions of grandeur of being Allaah's Azza wa Jal personal messenger. Neither i have dreams in which Allaah Azza wa Jal talks to me regarding Sharia nor do i know of any 'hidden' chosen people.I m just simply trying to get to know your point as you are the most ardent supporter of Muslim unity and you consider it to be a very essential and integral for the survival of Muslims in the current geo-political scene.
I agree with you on one point the Muslims should be united but on what and for what ?
I know you will quote me a lot of adjectives but none of them work as the key focus.
No sects but our prophet Sallaho Alayhi wa Alaa Alayhi wa Sallam foretold that we will have sects and only one will be successful
So how does that tie into the unity of Muslims. Cos you believe all the sects should be united right ?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:11 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberHistory has proven that the Ummah really did unite in repelling the scrouge of the Crusaders by liberating Bait Al Maqdis and the scrouge of the Mongols in liberating Baghdad and scrouge of the godless communists in liberating Afghanistan. Unfortunately all are again occupied by capitalists based on treachery and wrong pretexts. Insha'allah it will unite again, no doubt. Those who do not want to unite are welcome to sit on the fence and be spectators.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:22 # -
NNL
memberYa Abd Al Rahman.
That is my question.
Unity on what and for what ?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:26 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberYa akhi NNL,
"Unity on what"
Tawheed
"and for what"
Word of Allah SBT to be supreme
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:28 # -
NNL
memberYa akhi NNL,
"Unity on what"
Tawheed
"and for what"
Word of Allah SBT to be supreme
Agreed but only the Word of Allah Azza wa Jal ?
What about the Sunnah of His Messenger His Chosen one ?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:29 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberQuran says Ati ullahu Wa ati ur Rasool. That is included Bro. It is obligatory.
No doubt
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:35 # -
NNL
memberLets see how many people who are on this forum agree to the concept of Tawheed.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:37 # -
Not Possible
BlockedFor the love of God NNL
even your Zionist promoters speak of Tawheed
are you even going to stab your Zionist protectors in the back
are you now even more powerful than your Zionist masters?
All muslims can unite not only on Tawheed but also Risalat.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:42 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberYa Akhi this Ya Akhi that
NP. After all we are all descendents of Adam AS and Aakhis. You have a long way to go for understanding that brotherhood. May be you will never fathom that in your mortal existence.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:45 # -
Not Possible
BlockedAR
words words and more words
just words
no substance
and since when have you become immortal?
Isnt that Shirk?
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 17:50 # -
gv
Member@NNL
Dont' be silly
The muslim army at Badr were almost all Hejazi Arabs. that is not diverse at all
diverse today would mean , north africans, egyptians, Sub Saharan Africans, Eastern Europeans, Turks, Arabs, Iranis, central Asians, South Asians, South East Asians i think you would have a slightly harder time unifying these groups.
Also history and tradition teaches us that the Prophet united the fractious tribes of the Hejaz by being an exemplar model of justice/righteousness and fairplay following the very path he prescribed - intellectual theory in itself is never enough to get people to follow.
It was the force of his personality that made him and his message so succesful.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 18:06 # -
Coming back to empire of bases.. I am going to remove all off topic posts as intended diversions to divert ongoing discussion away from the thread topic.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 18:10 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberSEM,
no intention of diverting but a reply to gv.
gv,
Bilal Habshee, Salman farsi , Suhaib Roomi RA were proof of diversity and were from three different continents.
Salman Farsi RA, son of rich Zoroiastrian priest trekked his way to Arabia searching for truth and found himself surrounded by hejazi Arabs. Imagine if you were in his place in a entirely new environment.
Prophet SAS understood his condition and took him to the Masjid and declared in front of companions:
Salman minna Ahl el Bait. Salman RA is from the house of the Prophet SAS. This was a revolutionary Hadith that put an end to tribalism and nationalism.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 18:37 # -
NNL
memberGv
It was the biggest war of the within a tribe father against son, son against father, different tribes of Hejaz fighting each other.It was not that the people united behind Prophet cos he had asked them too or they were too deeply impressed by his character otherwise the entire united faction would have dissipated right after his death.
If it was for one man alone then they had already split up once in Uhud. No it wasnt cos his personality alone that caused them to stay united.
If Muhammad ibn Abdullah hadnt received Revelation then would you be even discussing about him ?
As far as empires go an Islamic Empire needs a set criteria to set and focused on the original point which it was primarily built upon. Other than that we have seen what has led to any other that arose within the Muslim world not on the original parameters.
Same goes for US they arent yet on the footsteps of Romans but their downfall would be in a sense of a combined world power. i.e Merging of the entire US-EU and not under NATO but something larger than that.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 18:56 # -
Mirza Sahib, with your kind permission, I'll allow myself a short reply here to NNL who addressed me directly. Sorry if I misunderstood your stand towards us Pakistanis in general.
But your two questions do deserve an answer. On what should the Muslims unite? Allah, the Prophet (PBUH) and the Holy Quran. For what? Survival pure and simple. Yes, I do believe all the sects should be united. Not one Muslim should be left out of the fold. And, finally, unity in divergence is how I have come to see our immediate salvation.
Posted 11 months ago on 27 Jun 2011 21:19 # -
Not Possible
BlockedSome extracts of what NNL said
------------------------------------------------------------
It was not that the people united behind Prophet cos he had asked them too or they were too deeply impressed by his characterNo it wasnt cos his personality alone that caused them to stay united.
If Muhammad ibn Abdullah hadnt received Revelation then would you be even discussing about him ?
------------------------------------------------------------These are the words of Salafi forefathers Abu Saufiyan,
There was No Wahi, No Prophet, for if they could discredit the Prophet they would discredit the message and then if the message is discredited what is the link to Allah?
Can you not see the designs of the Zionist sponsored Salafi, they are not even hiding their views and yet you are asleep in slumber to the fitna.
Wake up people, wake up Muslims wake up to Fitna of the Salafi
have they not read the Quran? Have you not read the Quran? of What Allah says is the character of Rasool Allah (SAW) and of how he impressed upon others with his character to convert them
Wake up Muslims atleast read your Quran. It is not a sin to read the Quran. See the lies the Salafi make regarding your Prophet(SAW), see how they try to degrade him in direct contravention of what is in the Quran.
Posted 11 months ago on 28 Jun 2011 4:34 # -
Not Possible
BlockedSE Sahib
thank you for all your consideration in allowing these posts
Posted 11 months ago on 28 Jun 2011 4:55 # -
Let me go back to the original topic of this thread, the innumerable US bases round the world. In each country, the purpose of maintaining these is slightly different. Their recent profusion in Muslim countries is a more recent pheonomenon. So why? Well, what we seem to have missed out on, the west has caught on to: the inevitable reunification in some form or shape of the Muslim world. That is one of the reasons the bases become so important to the west. The others are known to all. It is not really required to mention them here again.
Posted 11 months ago on 28 Jun 2011 8:25 # -
shafiq12
memberMirza Ghalib
NNL, again you are speaking as though God had made you his personal messenger to all of us benighted Pakistanis.
There is some thing called ego/pride/arrogance. When a person is faced with truth/reality, these are only things which come up in the way of a person to accept truth.
“It's only arrogance if you're wrong”Posted 11 months ago on 28 Jun 2011 8:35 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.