There are great differences between the concept of invasion, occupation and conquest, differences that go back to the side that has to take a position on this matter, from the point of view of religious Arabism there is pride and welcome of any invasion or Arab occupation of the country of others, and there is resentment, condemnation and rejection of the occupation of others to the Arab countries, the colonization of the Arabs to others a civilizational blessing, as if the Arabs of the island civilization can save the world or can benefit from it, and they are previously and later the tail of the world, to know a reason for this comfort and Bedouin dedication in the service of the world !!!, They are more entitled to help than the finest and richest and advanced by hundreds of years 

In general, the invasion of the countries of others must be considered an aggressive matter, and the occupation of the countries of others by means of invasion is more aggressive and degenerate, as for the conquest, which differs from the occupation by the fact that it includes ownership, it is one of the lowest degeneration, the occupation comes and goes, while the conqueror comes and does not go, because the conquest has, and the conquest has complications that are supernatural to the previous and subsequent international norms and provisions, for example, for example, the opener to himself to change the properties of peoples in open areas, such as language or religious affiliation, it is a change in the mood of the conqueror on the land and the peoples of the new property, and the new Bedouin owner is not equal between the Bedouin conquerors and the inhabitants of the open countries, as stipulated by the age of that, unlike the Roman occupation of Syria, where the rule of the Tsar of Syria, and the Roman law is equal to the forms of colonialism, the worst of which is that the world is a failure 

Considering the invasion and conquest and the possession of the country of others a natural right of the conquerors as spoils of war is very dangerous, even on the conqueror himself, whose morals were permanently destroyed, because of his habit of looting as a source of livelihood and because of the elimination of the culture of work, and this is explained, even partially, the current Arab situation, which is characterized by the degeneration of morals and corruption, as a continuation of what is rooted in the souls for 1450 years, and then in the danger of double standards, as there are no rights for those who do not recognize the rights of others, so the rights of the Arabs who are bemoaning so far on Spain, and seek to gossip the restoration of Spain from the Spanish, in the liberation of their occupied areas, The other danger is to qualify the promoter to open himself to practice the invasion again when he has the opportunity, and this led to many disasters devastating to the invader in the first place 

The Iraqi historian Ali al-Wardi was exposed to the subject of conquest and occupation in his book preachers of the Sultans, where he rebuked the pink on the page of his book (204) the conquering conqueror occupied by saying “

“Some of these fools boast the memory of the conquest made by their ancestors, and if they were to be fair to clip their heads shamefully”, that is, the pink does not see in the conquests only shame and shame and this is logical, moral and dangerous at the same time for the reasons that were mentioned folded, but on the page (207) the pink “It is strange that we deplore the invasion of Tamerlan to our country and prepare it about the creation of God, but we glorify those who invaded the illiteracy of the world and enslaved the peoples and violated the sanctities” Here the pink double standards, which leads to the damage of the conqueror in another occasion, as he followed the Arabs who lamented the loss of Spain by the liberation of their country, so it can be said that the behavior of the Arabs in this regard was easy and the sanctification of the same 

 The basis of justice and morality, is the ability to put the self in the place of the other, will your position change if you are in my place??, Pink said page (208) “We describe the Umayyad conquest fairly because we benefited from it, and the people of Samarkand say about the conquest of Tamerlan what we say about the conquest of the unity, each looks at things in the perspective of his interest and forgets the interest of others, and if we look at the matter a humane moral view we will find all the conquest unjust in the eyes of those who fall on me, does Mohammedi accept the payment of tribute to those who occupy his country 

Despite the delay of the Arabs, we see them refusing even pollution in Europe, France wants to consider Algeria as part of it and then France!! In order to prevent this, it is okay to sacrifice a million Algerians, we all found the position rejecting the French is true, but some in these years regret the million victims and the separation from France, rationally and without emotions and morale would have been better for Algeria if it remained part of France, and Syria becomes part of Germany or Sweden or America, slogans and anti-Antarisms turned over time to gossip, that is, returned to its original nature 

Al-Wardi said on the page (2009) “Historians say that the Umayyad army when it entered the city after the free incident allowed it three days” So the people of the city reviewed by the sword islands as the slaughter of the canyons sheep until the feet were dirty in the blood and killed the sons of the immigrants and the supporters” They claim this lie and hatred on the true religion !!!, and the proof when Le Bon, and on the mention of Lou Bon, and on the mention of Lou Bon did not raise any doubt or doubt in their minds and the Arabs, who consider every European infidel and a liar, except for Lou Bon, as if his words are a verse of the thief, and even the vulgarity of the Prophet (not)

On the page (203) wrote the pink historian “It is said that Moses the son of Nasir sheep from his conquests in Africa three hundred thousand prisoners sent a fifth of these prisoners to the Caliph pursuant to the rule of five etc.” Then he wrote on the same page “They mentioned that Moses the son of Nasir returned from Andalusia and with him from the Sabbaya thirty thousand virgins and they went of course to the palaces of the Commander of the Believers etc.” This is the conquest of the merciful Le Bon! ,,Can I think that those virgins went in captivity voluntarily and voluntarily!, Or that the conquering mujahideen kidnapped them from the houses after they killed the men and looted what is in them , It is not reasonable for the mujahideen to go to the houses of the open cities and knock on the door and say: “Give us a virgin for the sake of God”, Behind the captivity of every girl is a long story of looting and bloodshed and killing and violation of the sanctities, from the large number of prisoners when the most wotter of the conquerors was “bankruptcy” marketing them any sale, Al-Wardi said “The Mujahideen in one of the battles of Andalusia captured a large number of prisoners, so that they began to get rid of them at the cheapest prices, so the sale of the prisoner in one day and the sale of camel with five dirhams ”

The importance of the past and its conquests lies primarily in the reflection of the shame of the conquests and the mentality of the conquests on the present, we have distinguished in the first article between an anti-invasion and a rejection of it, and between a supporter and a proud of it, the importance of this distinction is not important by past events, but by the psychological readiness of the supporter to try to repeat what happened previously in this era, here the disaster will inevitably fall on the supporter, now the West and the East are waiting for any lapse by the Arabs to spin the whip of the coloss and drop the bombs on them while they are small surrender