Recent content by UKObserver

The British media agreed to a news blackout on it. Shame that someone felt the need to break it.

I believe he has issued a fatwa forbidding the production of nuclear weapons. Anyway, if the only reason for the US to get involved is to protect Israel, why not let Israel do that? They have their own nukes, so I'm sure they're in a more powerful position than Iran if you honestly think Iran...

One of us is confused...this thread is about Saudi Arabia...

Iran wouldn't do it. In that situation it would almost certainly be a terrorist group rather than a state, however 'rogue' it is considered.

I'm glad you don't think I would deserve to be cooked! The way you originally worded it seemed to suggest that, so my apologies for misunderstanding you. You're right and it is a concern that Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't really apply when you have non-state actors, as terrorists are not...

You said you would cheer if the whole Muslim world gets cooked well-done. Where does the collective guilt come in to it? Why would Muslims worldwide deserve being punished for something they did not do? And in your final paragraph it seems to me that you're implying I want the US to be nuked...

So because some Muslims are a bit crazy, we all deserve to be cooked well-done, despite often being the victims ourselves? Using that logic, because the US government has killed Iraqis, Iraqis would be justified in wanting the whole US population dead.

What, name a Muslims who oppose US government policy and oppose al-Qaeda and governments of Muslim countries? Well, I could list you dozens that I know, but you wouldn't know them personally I expect. I've come across very few people who will defend Arab governments, let alone support them...

Good thing they do, then.

1 - It may be valid; I've just never come across it before. It just sounds slightly peculiar to me. 2 - I'd have to know more details. This could be taken in to the broader Islamic perspective on captives, where they are generally deemed to be considered to actually have a fair number of rights...

And the Shia who opposed his rule, as well as Sunnis too. He didn't just target the Kurds. I'm sure you weren't defending him but the fact he would discriminate against men and women rather than just women I don't think means we should say this in some way a good thing.

I find with many translations, they are very difficult to read because of the way the Qur'an is in the Arabic. It has a totally unique style that doesn't come over well with translation. Regards Jesus (as): We believe that he was a a Prophet of God and that he will return and destroy a figure...

Salaam, I've not heard that argument for the deaths of the Prophet's (saw) sons, but I'll leave that. I was confused as to what you were saying about Shia (e.g. Khomeini) disagreeing with what David said. Obviously it is Shii belief that it is from the lineage of the Prophet (saw) that should...

Throughout most of Islamic history, nepotism has been a common factor among the ruling elite. It's no different now. Yazid was a drunkard and womaniser, now the Saudi royals are.

What, like the ones he gassed? The ones his security services raped in front of their families? The ones he had bombed? The ones he left with no husbands, fathers, sons and so on?