Category: News and Views
A lot of people are suggesting that the terrorists, who targeted London on July 7, did so because of the UK being involved in the war on Iraq. A lot of Muslims wouldn’t give a shit about us and other developed democracies going into places like Iraq and Afghanistan if most of the people living in those places weren’t Muslims. In fact, they wouldn’t even care about the conflict between Israel and Palestine if there weren’t any Muslims in Palestine. Muslims, who only care about what’s happening in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan because most of the people who are affected in those areas are Muslims, are surely guilty of religious discrimination. Not only should they therefore be punished for discriminating against none-Muslims, but since they share the views of terrorist organisations, they should be treated as potential terrorists. Supporters of the BNP, IRA and similar organisations should also be punished for offences relating to discrimination. People like the type of Muslim I’ve described above are ignorant, narrow-minded and potentially dangerous. Along with supporters of the BNP, IRA and other organisations, which discriminate against people, they should be forced to reform themselves into people who won’t discriminate against people because of their religion or race. If they refuse to comply they should be indefinitely prevented from ever entering society again!
Wo .. if e.g. the UK was invaded by Iraq and Germany or the U.S. supported UK's defense that should be interpreted as those countries being Christian and discriminating against Muslims and therefore every member of those nations should be considered religious terrorists and jailed by the Iraqi supere court. Just read over that message and try to tell me it's not fanatic and absolutely ridiculous. We soetimes agree but what you just wrote in this message board is as extreme and nonsensical post as I have ever seen man. I am rather shocked and what you say makes absolutely anc eompletely no sense whatsoever. Iraq was in independent country that was invaded, it's neighbouring countries feel threatened, of course, by the invasion which has been proven to have been justified by lies. They share more than just religion, they share culture, languages (to some extent) friendship family ties .. of course they will want a free and democratic Iraq, free from western occupation and rightly so in fact.
I totally agree, Wayne.
Hm, yeah, Wildebrew, this is true as well. I mean, not all the muslems should be punished. But I wish there could be something done against these terrorists
.
I'm not even sure what ww meant in his original post. If attacks against U.S. and U.K. forces in Iraq are classified as terrorist attacks in his post I disagree. They are "fighting the occupiers" even president Bush said "if my country was occupied I'd fight the occupiers" in one of his speeches. I think they're justified and a part f the war. Attacks against innocent civilians anywhere in the world are not justified by anything (and Israelis have killed more innocent Palestinians than otherwise incidentally just to point out that part of WW's argument). If one of the western countries was invaded we'd all sympathize and we can't possibly expect Muslim countries to feel otherwise and, like I stated above, it does not have to do with religion at all and even if it did that, in itself, does not devalue those opinions. Religion is a huge part of our culture and if people share religion that is their right. And, as far as I've seen from ww's posts his morality and extremist views really remid me of a super religious person, I suppose in a way that's the "anti religion" in this case but I think they are quite as extreme as any religious person's views would be and I think he should then, by his own definitions lose control of all his possessions and be locked up as a danger to society, and I'm just basing this on his views and what he says those who possess those views should be treated, not on my personal feeling of what should be done with him.. AFter all everyone is entitled to those views so in my book that's his right, but it's also anone else's rights to be Mulsim or Christian or a Jew and stick to their convictions.
cheers
-B
Wow, so condemming all muslems because they are muslems and therefore must all be terrorists is not religious discrimination? Removing them from society if they don’t reform and change their views and religion could be considered to be a form of ethnic cleansing. The BNP put about just the types of views that you are now spouting, and we do not condone those types of views in this country. Ines I have to say that I’m surprised at you for agreeing to that type of view, you don’t classify all Christians as bible bashers who push their religion on to others, so why classify all muslems as terrorists. Many muslems have spoken out against the attacks, Islam does not condone the killing of innocent people, and in fact, in some muslem countries murder is punishable by death. It is just that type of extreme talk that turns white people against muslems and vice versa. I believe you come from Dewsbury ww, and one of the suspected bombers was from there also, do you not think that their families have enough to contend with, knowing that their children committed these acts, apparently in the name of their religion, without people like you condemming all that believe in that religion to be removed from society?
Yes and by treating them all like potential terrorists you will further alienate the kind of radical, pissed off, muslims, we should be keeping under survellience...by alienating them, you may well cause these radicals to leave Britain, which will in turn make it a damned sight harder to track their movements ect...also you will incite further anger, hatred and disillusion among young muslim men..which will put Britain at risk of further attacks...the whole idea is ludicrous
And, so, by "preventing those types of people" being only Muslims, from "ever entering society again" (and how do you propose we do that) aren't we discriminating against them based on religion, that is religious discrimination at its peak so by definition if people do that they should be indefinitely put away. This is really quite an entertaining post because it's the biggest pile of tosh I've seen in a long time.
NOt all muslims are terrorists and I realise that's very obvious. Also, not all Muslims disagree with the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Palestine/Israel because most people affected are Muslims too. Some are in favour and some would disagree if those been killed were jews Christians etc. However, when there're Muslims who simply dispprove because the people affected are Muslims, then it's quite obvious that they are ignorent and wish to descriminate against everyone else. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims.
Still load of tosh I'm afraid my friend. Firstly I think the reason that many people in the western world don't really care so much about the invasions is because it's mostsly muslims who are affected (not our religious brothers and sisters etc) and hence we show the same religious discrimination. And also then if the reason Muslims sympathize with terrorists is because their property was destroyed during the Iraq bombing for example they are perfectly valid to support the terrorism (by your post above) but not if the reason they do so is their religion, you must see how stupid that sounds, well how ignorant really, you're smarter than that. Either you're purposely stirring up contraversy or just having a bit of fun, you really cannot be serious on this, if you are, well, you just simply can't back it up with anything acceptible in modern society I'm afraid.
Well loss of property is no excuse for supporting terrorism and there is no justification for terrorism in my oppinion. Serbia is a Christian country. When we attacked it during 1999, tyou didn't see Christians wanting to become terrorists because a Christian country was attacked. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to get rid of the stupid one big family idea which is the route of Islamic fascism.
Wrong analogy WW. The perception with that country sadly was always that it was internal affairs and more of a cevil war than an invasion, and the European Union and Nato especially did interfere afer all. If e.g. Germany was invaded all of Europe would come to its defense,, I believe that's partly what the EU is for right there so I cannot agree with what you just said at all and you are also saying those who sympathize with the Iraq oppposition are terrorists, that's really not right and you know it, only a small minority of over idealistic / religious or just mean people are terrorists in fact, it's not the muslim majority views and I think muslims have full rights to feel furious about the way Palestine is handled by Israel and the invasion of Iraq which was based on lies. Sympathizing with the cause is not the same as supporting the killing of innocent civilians.
When there was an attempted invasion of Cuba which is a largely Catholic country, I don't recall that the worlds catholics suddenly rallied round to protest against it. I have no problems with people disagreeing with what's happening in Iraq or Palestine if they would regardless of the majority religion in those countries. However, some of the Muslimjs who disagree with what's happening only care because the people who are affected are Muslims. That is obviously wrong.
So, most, well, all of the communist countries came to Cuba's aid because they share the same political ideas and you are thinking that is the right thing and religion is wrong, how ignorant is that remark? As you well know most of the catholic countries are in Western Europe, the invasion of Cuba I believe was not an attempt at the religion but the government and so there was nothing religious about it, hence no need to feel the threat to the religion. Now, whatever people say, the recent violence in Palestine and Iraq is really religiously influenced, it's a battle of cultures and Islamic people feel threatened, there's a lot stronger overtones of religious significance to this "wr" than has previously been seen. The main reason the U.S. supports Israel e.g. is because Israel is a predominantly religious state and the American Jews are powerful and believe this land is their by rights. Obviously that suport is almost purely religious and the States should be perminantly banned from particiating in any international trait and should be suspended and its money confisacated and used for other less discriminatory purposes.
Well anyone would suport Israel over the Palestinions who seem to reject peace on every occasion. So how many Catholics from Itally and other catholic countries have joined the IRA? They're a predominantly catholic organisation and the protestants are predominantly unionists in Northern Ireland, you don't see though protestants from all corners of the globe joining the UDA now do you? The religious conflict in Palestine and other conflicts which muslims are involved in wo8ldn't attract interest from Muslims world wide if itwasn't for the fascist beliefs these people clearly have.
Really ww, so, explain to me how it is fair of Israel to occupy the land they took in 1967 and live in rich closed off settlements whilst the Palestinian farmers, cut from their fields by Israeli walls, unable to grow their food, unable to send their kids to school, unable to get to the hospital in less than 8 hours because of the Israeli check points, basically unable to visit friends and family .. well how is that an obvious matter. And how can you explain if Israelis are the good guys that more Palestinians than Israelis have died during the uprising and how is it that an Israeli air strike that targets a guy they claim is a terrorist, misses him and kills 4 innocent by standers and Israeli soldiers shooting down a 14 year old girl going to school is entirely sad and justified whilst the suicide bombings against Israel are evil. Palestinians occupied the land before the Jews were resettled. Israelis want to expand the country over the entire biblical area they claim to hold and they do this through military means mostly, they even don't give Muslims who are born as Israelis the same rights as the Jews, rights to vote etc .. and tell me, is that no religious discrimination as its highest. And why oes Israel have the rights to possesss nucelar arms without having to sign any treeties whilst Iran can't even produce nuclear energy, and this despite the fact that uranium is a natural compound in Iran and they have huge uranium mines whilst the Israelis import that and even finished bombs from the U.S. Again, this post, I'm afraid makes no sense even if we've moved to something slightly different here.
cheers
-Bsettlement and military contro
Well I think the palestinions should have the Gasa Strip and West Bank areas. I have no problem with that but as far as tactics go, well if the Palestinions weren't blowing themselves up, I'm sure Israel wouldn't need to goPalestinion areas and carry out attacks.Also, The land belonged to jews until Muslims kicked them out about 2000 years ago anyway, so the muslims didn't get there first.
So who did the land belong to before the Jews lived on it,? It hasn't always belonged to the Jews. When do you draw a line at who "owns" a land, historic rights really mean nothing and there was an interview yesterday or the day before with a Jewish priest who thinks God intends for Jews to occupy the wst bank and it's their holy duty to keep fighting for that land because it's theirs by God's word. Even the Muslims never claimed that. And while I certainly do not condone the suicide attacks against Israel or any other country I can see why the situation is driving people so desperate and angry that they resort to this foolish and counter productive technique to "fight" for "their" land. And you still haven't addressed my point, why is it ok to sympthize with a country for political or economic or cultural reasons but not religious reasons, that is absolutely out of context I'm afraid.
I'm a moslim, and I want to abuse all moslim terrorists, and beside it I want to abuse everyone who supports a war. Some terrorists had hit usa 11 september, and after that usa went to afganistan and thousands of innesond people have died. listen friends, I think usa doesn't have any right to be in Iraque, and, can you imagine that a country, that can use the highest point of technology, uses the satalite technology for determining where people are, can't find a terrorist? that is impossible. today everyone knows that usa is the most powerful force on the earth, they benefits all highest technological possibilities, but they can't find a terrorist, or they can't catch up. this is nonsense. this shows that, since beginning, usa didn't want to catch these terrorists, they wanted to stay in the middle east, therefore they could be more effected on the area. besides, if usa catches up some terrorists like Ladin, they won't have any reason to stay more in Iraque and Afganistan, so they will wait for a long while to pretend to catch up him. and, the catching of Saddam operation was a real lie, usa took saddam from one of his pocket, and put him to his other pocket.
hey Americans, I like all of you who can't stand hearing blood to spill. I'm one of the most humanist person on the earth, so I can't blame all of you. only I blame usa government for all these merders.
Love ya!!
<grin>let's see what WW has to say about that .. a bit radical post perhaps but I generally agree with its contents actually.
Technology is never 100% accurate in these matters so that is the stupid point of why Bin Laden hasn't been found addressed. Countries shouldn't be sided with for religious reasons because no religion has been prooved beyond doubt to be correct. Countries should be instead judged on how the governments treat their citizens. Siding with dictatorships for ecanomic reasons in my opinion is wrong though if the country is providing another country with useful assistance, it would be stupjid for the country receiving the assistance to fall out with it when it is dependent for the help. Also, if you are against all wars,and those who cause them, then you are against all the muslims who have been in wars in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Philopines, etc. In fact, you should be condemning the Islamic empire which grew as the result of victories in wars. In fact you should be condemning Mohammed because he fought wars too bet you don't do that though, because you're a hypocrite and this I know because if you wasn't, then your views about war would lead you not to follow Islam which is a religion for which wars were fought.
hey, if you think so, I should ask you, did you know that Saddam sent to Iraque by America already? did you know that he was a cionist? even 33rd degree? did you know that in that war Americans bombed the market places, and 8 children 3 woman and a man had died? did you know that America used marble bomb (which is a bomb that it falls, and people think that it is a help packet thrown, and when they touch everything is over) and even this bomb is not used by hitler too? Yes, I'm against wars, I'm against islamic fighters, if a killer of a human is 3even my dad, I would hate him. so firstly learn the facts, and speak to here. Bush took saddam from one of his pocket and put the other. everybody knows this. and quickly I should say this too, if you want to learn that how I learnt all of these, it is enough to know that I am connected with military sources.
and, as I always said, if they find bin ladin they won't have a reason to be in the middle east.
hey world, hear me: I HATE WARS AND WHO LIKES WARS. I HATE KILLERS
and just I noticed something that I had ignored in your last post, islam means "peace" in Arabic, and I can't be condemn my own profet, and he just fought against the enemies who were trying him to inform people for a new religion which was sent by god. and some of people didn't want this, because the things Muhammed told were quite reasonable and he was gaining a huge community in the arabic tenunsila and after all he always did defence wars. if you were moslim or had a religion lesson of moslim you would have learnt it. and as always, I saw that you said it for you didn't know anything about it. and the reasons you said weree quite understandable because you feel like having to defend the things your country does. drop it. not needed. everyone on the earth knows what is usa. and if a moslim (or who thinks himself as a moslim) comes and says that he fights against christian or usa or something else, this would be a kmerder too. because Muhammed completed his task informing people, and the rest is remaining people's minds. people will think and decide. think, learn, and decide. nobody is nosy in your religion, and don't talk the things you don't know anything about.
But if Mohammed was a man of peace, he wouldn't have fought any wars at all. If you're against all who fight in wars, surely you cannot condone Mohammed fighting against people who didn't wish to follow Islam. If Islam was a religion of peace, than it's proffet would have dealt with all situations through peaceful means and not by fighting wars. No proffet of a religion can possibly claim that the religion is peaceful when the proffet has tollerated wars been fought in the name of that religion. If you weren't a hypocrite, you'd condemn Mohammed for allowing wars to be fought in the name of the religion he was trying to spread. You'll also condemn the Islamic empire. You'll condemn Turkey too.
You will also condemn the muslims fighting in Chjechnir, Cashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Ivory Coast, the Philipines, Indonesia, Tailand, etc. The fact that you've drawn more attention to the bad things done by the USA than the bhad things done by countries where the predominant religion is Islam or groups of people who say they reopresent muslims prooves my poinht when the majority of problems in the world involve Muslims.
Hmm, weird, so it's ok if the U.S. goes to war and that does not comdamn their religion or political agenda then. The U.S. is, after all either sponsoring or involved in the majority of wars around the world as well, funny thing that really. Israel is as much a Jewish problem as a Muslim one, both relegions re equally responsible for the conflict and it's not about relegion really, it's about a group of people with superior weapons and money given from the U.S. taking an ever expanding piece of land from their neighbours and ignoring their human rights and trying to portray them as terrorists and about some of the disillusioned neighbours being so desperate poor and angry that they choose to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians, which is sad and disgusting but has nothing to do with Islam. It's a fact that Iraq was sponrorred very stonchly by the U.S. in the Iraq/Iran war and if Iraq had any chemical or biological weapons we all know exactly who supplied those weapons, same nations that supplied Israel with nuclear technology (the U.S. mostly aided by the UK and France). So we have Iraq, Afganistan and Palestine, all Musllim countries being essentially inaded by a super power that does exactly what it wants to and no one can stand up to it, is it strange their neighbours feel uneasy and scared and sympathize with the plight of the countries being invaded, do you have to decie the only reason they feel this way is because of their relegion, that is entirely wrong and a silly assumption. If Germany was invaded by Saudi Arabia, would you honestly say that France and the UK should be condemned for coming to Germany's rescue?
Cheers
-B
You don't understand again, so I want to repeat again. Muhammed came and informed people about a new religion which had sent from god, and to prove it he showed many miracles to people and most of them started to believe him. and Mekkeans, who were earning money from selling idols or something like that didn't like this situation because if all people would believe Muhammed, nobody would buy idols again and they would be poor, and they were very wealth of idols. even they offered the keys of the house of god, (which was used as idols house that times) But Muhammed refused and continued telling people the truth. and, Mekkeans decided to fight with him. and they attacked with an elephant army, but elephant didn't go when they see muhammed, and they attacked with a army which had been formed by 3000 soldier, but Muhammed's army was only 372 people and they won the war. Listen, all Muhammed's wars were defence wars, even you would defend yourself if someone slaps you. and let's come the wars Moslims joins, do you really think that Palestenians started the war? do you really think Iraque caused America to go middle east? usa had said that there were many nucleer weapons in Iraque, where are they? can you show? you can't . first you reply these dilemas, and you have right to talk. I hate attackers, killers, in 1915, a huge army of european countries tried to pass Channakkale canal, but they couldn't, because Turkish army had defended very bravely and pridely their homeland. and 253 thousand soldier of Turkey had died in that war. we gout our award with our freedom, if we are a independed country, this is because of what they defended the homeland. yes, this is prideable, but America's atome bombs and attacks to afganistan and Iraque are not. everyone cheers Turkey's achievement of defending the homeland 80 years ago, but nobody cheers that american army had gone to middle east and caused thousands of people to die. and Turkey, even once didn't commit merder against innesond people, so don't talk my country so silly. our President of republic had played to many tricks that to keep us from war world II, and he achieved and Turkey wasn't in the war. He had said Hitler and Stalin that he was beside of them, but he wasn't beside of none of them.
can you pride with such things? your only pride is before 200 years, indepence of England.
So now despite your values Chesbridge, you're condoning the Turkish prime minister for lying? Also, I don't recall you saying defensive wars are o.k either. I thought you said all wars are bad. America claims it's defending itself against terrorists which is why it went into Afghanistan. Hypocrite, Hypocrite and Hypocrite again! WB, I'm sure you also expect black Americans to go to Africa and White ones back to Europe since they bumped off the natives in what you'd consider an illegal occupation. Also, the descendants of Romans need to go back from Areas which were part of the Roman empire to Rome, Same with descendants of Vikings and Normans too. All the white people in Africa must go back to Europe as well as the whites in Australia and New Zealand because their presence in those areas is as a result of an illegal occupation. When a war is won, sometimes teretory is gained. If we don't send those people back that mjeans it's one rule for Israelies and another for the rest of the world and that wouldn't be right now would it. The neighbours of Iraq wouldn't have anything to fear if they were deesent countries which didn't mistreat their populations. WB, yuou criticise the US for violating human rights abroad, but you haven't critiised Saudi Arabia, iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Turkmanistan or any nation where the predominant religion is Islam. Is it o.k to misstreat people as long as its your own peple?