Political Crossfire Forums

MoscowMatt · Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 1647 Location: UK / Hungary

Afgan wrote: elephas wrote: Afgan wrote: The media has done a lot to demonize Islam and create hatred between Christians and Muslims.
No media could ever do as much damage to the image of Islam as the wahhabi radicals did. Actions vs words and images - actions win.

Your post actually proves one of my point. The 'media' propangada have brainwashed you into thinking that ONLY Islamic 'terrorists' commit terrorist Attacks.

The media will not show you, who the real terrorists are :

American Christian Terror against Islamic people : http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html

This was 2004, now it's probably over 250,000 dead

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

Comparing the two - State Sponsered vs Islamic terror, is like comparing

50,000 WWF wrestlers beating up one disabled lad in a wheel chair.

Good thing you're worried about deadly Islamic terrorists. :lol:

P.S, i have not mentioned Afghanistan, so as not to make you look bad.

Whilst the media keeps sheep like you occupied watching bin-laden tapes on Fox or BBC. The Americans/British are carpet bombing the f*** out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Real terrorists!!!!! :lol: Well if Al'Qaeda aren't real terrorists then what the hell are they? :?

Oh by the way ever stopped to think why the 'state sponsored terror' of the US suddenly came to Afghanistan? Ooooo wait couldn't have anything to do with 9-11 by any chance. Well who would of thought it!! So we have the Taliban who let these terrorists train on their land to then go and attack America (wait a minute that sounds like state sponsored terrorism to me) and then people like you wonder why all of a sudden there's US warplanes flying overhead bombing the hell out of everything. Well what the hell do you expect!! :lol:

If you're going to be stupid enough to poke a snake with a stick don't be surprised when it bites you!!

As for Iraq! Well if stopping the genocide of Kurds was not the right thing to do (seeing as we most think we should have not gone there) then don't come crying to the US/UK when it all gets out of hand in the Sudan!

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1590 Location: London

MoscowMatt wrote: If you're going to be stupid enough to poke a snake with a stick don't be surprised when it bites you!!
So you're saying that the response was akin to the basic animal instincts of a snake? I agree, animalistic and unsentient.

Quote: As for Iraq! Well if stopping the genocide of Kurds was not the right thing to do (seeing as we most think we should have not gone there) then don't come crying to the US/UK when it all gets out of hand in the Sudan!

Ah! So that's the reason we invaded. I'm sorry, I forget with the hundreds of reasons we were given for illegally invading a sovereign nation. Regime change is not a legal basis for war under international law. Funny how that seems to get forgotten.

And in all seriousness, why the hell was nothing done about Rwanda? To claim our governance have a deep interest in stopping Genocide is nothing but BS.

Also, I see on some posts we ask for the moderate muslims to stop the extremists representing the Muslim belief worldwide. Perhaps we could look to do the same and remove extremists such as Bush and Cheney.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10208

slitedeviance wrote:

Also, I see on some posts we ask for the moderate muslims to stop the extremists representing the Muslim belief worldwide. Perhaps we could look to do the same and remove extremists such as Bush and Cheney.

That already happens and an opportunity occurs every four years. And, under certain circumstances, Impeachment can occur which would remove the president earlier than 4 years.

When is al-Fatah going to hold elections? al-Qaeda? Ansar al-Sunnah?

MoscowMatt · Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 1647 Location: UK / Hungary

slitedeviance wrote:
Ah! So that's the reason we invaded. I'm sorry, I forget with the hundreds of reasons we were given for illegally invading a sovereign nation. Regime change is not a legal basis for war under international law. Funny how that seems to get forgotten.

Yes just like us illegally attacking Serbia. And look how much fuss got made about that. erm f**k all!!! Still had they been Muslims............ :think: !

So tell me why no fuss about what happened to the Serbs? Afterall regime change it no legal basis for war under international war according to your good self!! :lol:

Yes Iraq is a sovereign nation. Well done!! :clap: So is pretty much every other country on earth!! :lol: I love the way your type always hark on about Iraq being a sovereign nation as if it somehow makes them special compared to the rest of the world!! :roll:

jeechoscopy · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:

MG1962 wrote: jeechoscopy wrote: Who was first, egg or hen?

The egg by some considerable time

So, who gave you that and when? :lol:

Seriously... It's a blame game.

And naturally, Power and poor always ready to FIGHT because power asume itself deserving more power... while poor consider it the only way to survive.

Afgan · Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 479

MoscowMatt

Quote: Well if Al'Qaeda aren't real terrorists then what the hell are they?

Well, i'm gona tell you a secret, psst, listen up?

You gotta be careful, make sure you tell this to your daddy.

Tell him to be very careful when he sleeps at nights. Keep the lights ON.

Al'Qaeda sometimes hides inside womens lingerie, they're everywhere, under your bed, inside your bathroom, up on the roof, inside your computer...

Here watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY :wink:

jeechoscopy · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject:

Afgan wrote: MoscowMatt

Quote: Well if Al'Qaeda aren't real terrorists then what the hell are they?

Well, i'm gona tell you a secret, psst, listen up?

You gotta be careful, make sure you tell this to your daddy.

Tell him to be very careful when he sleeps at nights. Keep the lights ON.

Al'Qaeda sometimes hides inside womens lingerie, they're everywhere, under your bed, inside your bathroom, up on the roof, inside your computer...

Here watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY :wink:
The image about Al-Qaeda is really that in public (due to the media), but actually, they are not that ghost...

Whatever I have understood up to now about Al-Qaeda, is that those people are just filling the gap of reactionism, and nothing more than it. I have never seen so obedient enemy ever, that America has for more power in the world.

prometeus · Joined: 15 May 2006 Posts: 2984 Location: Over the edge

Is it not fair to say that if one has to defend one's religion by comparing it to an other, or by listing wrongs done by the other, one is waging loosing battle?
Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the sincerity of faith expressed by most people, but by the same token I feel that many also lack a certain "strenght" in their faith, or feel that their faith is threatened by outside influence.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1590 Location: London

MoscowMatt wrote: I love the way your type always hark on about Iraq being a sovereign nation as if it somehow makes them special compared to the rest of the world!! :roll:

I'm glad there's something about me you love!

The reason it's an important note is because the fact it's a sovereign nation means that invading it for the purpose of regime change is illegal.

It's not that difficult dude.

Perhaps in return you can answer why you fail to address the way the western powers saw fit to use and manipulate both the governance and people of nations across the globe, supported and supplied terrorist organisations and supported dictatorial regimes which operated death squads?

jeechoscopy · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm Post subject:

prometeus wrote: Is it not fair to say that if one has to defend one's religion by comparing it to an other, or by listing wrongs done by the other, one is waging loosing battle?
Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the sincerity of faith expressed by most people, but by the same token I feel that many also lack a certain "strenght" in their faith, or feel that their faith is threatened by outside influence.

If you support an action taken against a nation (mostly you support actions against Islamic nations, no?) You must be capable of hearing any criticism from those.

Before you become capable to hear any criticism you, must define either you are attacking a certain nation or a religion. Theoretical approach to an attack to those countries used to be political.

Question is, a “chain of nations” is targeted and whom you want to blame, religion (Islam) or the political approach of the certain nations?

prometeus · Joined: 15 May 2006 Posts: 2984 Location: Over the edge

jeechoscopy wrote:
If you support an action taken against a nation (mostly you support actions against Islamic nations, no?) You must be capable of hearing any criticism from those.

Before you become capable to hear any criticism you, must define either you are attacking a certain nation or a religion. Theoretical approach to an attack to those countries used to be political.

Question is, a “chain of nations" is targeted and whom you want to blame, religion (Islam) or the political approach of the certain nations?

My post was in direct response to the first post in this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it bears no apparent relation to what I posted.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:

prometeus wrote: jeechoscopy wrote:
If you support an action taken against a nation (mostly you support actions against Islamic nations, no?) You must be capable of hearing any criticism from those.

Before you become capable to hear any criticism you, must define either you are attacking a certain nation or a religion. Theoretical approach to an attack to those countries used to be political.

Question is, a “chain of nations" is targeted and whom you want to blame, religion (Islam) or the political approach of the certain nations?

My post was in direct response to the first post in this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it bears no apparent relation to what I posted.

I replied to this post:

Quote: Is it not fair to say that if one has to defend one's religion by comparing it to an other, or by listing wrongs done by the other, one is waging loosing battle?
Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the sincerity of faith expressed by most people, but by the same token I feel that many also lack a certain "strenght" in their faith, or feel that their faith is threatened by outside influence.

Surely, you would be responding to some else one but my question is still the same.

If something is threatened... what is it, religion or the certain nations? What do you think?

prometeus · Joined: 15 May 2006 Posts: 2984 Location: Over the edge

Could someone please help out. Maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what "jeechoscopy" is saying. It is clear that there is a bit of language issue. Still, I do not want to come across as ignoring him/her. I also feel that "jeechoscopy" did not understand my post.

If that is the case jeechoscopy, please ask for clarification.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

prometeus wrote: Could someone please help out. Maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what "jeechoscopy" is saying. It is clear that there is a bit of language issue. Still, I do not want to come across as ignoring him/her. I also feel that "jeechoscopy" did not understand my post.

If that is the case jeechoscopy, please ask for clarification.

If language is the case so it means I'm not understood...
There is still, an option, ignore "him/her... "

He don't want to bother you anymore... :-D

prometeus · Joined: 15 May 2006 Posts: 2984 Location: Over the edge

I think you are missing the point which is to open mindedly discus issues, exchange ideas, present view points. It certainly is NOT to ignore one another, especially if we abide by the basic rules of civilized exchange. In this spirit, I do not want to ignore you or your questions. There is, sadly enough, enough ignoring of people and issues in the world today, and that only compounds problems. However, since there is practically no limitation of topics in this forum, I think it is far more constructive to stick to the topic of each thread. If that leads to a "branching out" so be it, but to just simply interject questions that bear no direct or only very marginal relation to the subject, does not lead to a good debate. In this particular thread, Afgan posted something that enumerated a list of deeds that were NOT done by Muslims. Since Muslims are very much in the focus these days, and this is the "Islam" forum, I remarked that it may be a loosing battle when one defends ones religion, in this case Islam, by pointing out that others are "bad" also. "Good" I think stands on it own merits, need not to be compared, if anything only its merits have to be supported.
In your reply, you instead of either agreeing with my position, or pointing out any flaws in it, made statements and posed a question that, at least the way I saw it, had no bearing on the issue. If I was wrong in that assessment, you the second time around did not offer any clarification.

So I say it again, I do not wish to ignore your reply, it is just that I feel that it has no bearing on my statement and as such do not know how to reply to it. Will gladly revisit the thread if you will clarify.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject:

prometeus wrote: I think you are missing the point which is to open mindedly discus issues, exchange ideas, present view points. It certainly is NOT to ignore one another, especially if we abide by the basic rules of civilized exchange. In this spirit, I do not want to ignore you or your questions. There is, sadly enough, enough ignoring of people and issues in the world today, and that only compounds problems. However, since there is practically no limitation of topics in this forum, I think it is far more constructive to stick to the topic of each thread. If that leads to a "branching out" so be it, but to just simply interject questions that bear no direct or only very marginal relation to the subject, does not lead to a good debate. In this particular thread, Afgan posted something that enumerated a list of deeds that were NOT done by Muslims. Since Muslims are very much in the focus these days, and this is the "Islam" forum, I remarked that it may be a loosing battle when one defends ones religion, in this case Islam, by pointing out that others are "bad" also. "Good" I think stands on it own merits, need not to be compared, if anything only its merits have to be supported.
In your reply, you instead of either agreeing with my position, or pointing out any flaws in it, made statements and posed a question that, at least the way I saw it, had no bearing on the issue. If I was wrong in that assessment, you the second time around did not offer any clarification.

So I say it again, I do not wish to ignore your reply, it is just that I feel that it has no bearing on my statement and as such do not know how to reply to it. Will gladly revisit the thread if you will clarify.

Thank you prometeus, for not ignoring my post and giving me another chance to explain...
Though I tried to reply your post and asked a question but with it, I really, opened a sub-branch of the thread. It usually, is used when a question is arisen at a certain point, perhaps to clarify the concept before you go further.

You see

jeechoscopy wrote: prometeus wrote: Is it not fair to say that if one has to defend one's religion by comparing it to an other, or by listing wrongs done by the other, one is waging loosing battle?
Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the sincerity of faith expressed by most people, but by the same token I feel that many also lack a certain "strenght" in their faith, or feel that their faith is threatened by outside influence.

If you support an action taken against a nation (mostly you support actions against Islamic nations, no?) You must be capable of hearing any criticism from those.

Before you become capable to hear any criticism you, must define either you are attacking a certain nation or a religion. Theoretical approach to an attack to those countries used to be political.

Question is, a “chain of nations” is targeted and whom you want to blame, religion (Islam) or the political approach of the certain nations?

I focused on your last sentence that was about threatening a religion. Then I asked to clarify the concept.

Before the concept is cleared, I must say Muslims all around the world feel that whatever’s going in the world is actually a political wave, and not a fight between religions. Further that the idea of “civilizational clash” is a demand of the revolution. The certain countries those also represent their religion are under the therapy. One proactive side is “reacting” with reasons and resolutions while the other is only condemning and crying on. There is an ostensible difference of reactionism. Offences are not only based on occupation but also on beliefs and concepts, perhaps just to create gap. Plus, I think the pope’s addressing was not religious but politics.

That’s why I asked…

Who is actually threatened? Is it a religion OR the chain of the certain countries?

AaaBaa · Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

the reality is; for Islam and Christianity, too many people died.

could anybody deny this?

Muslums killed millions of christians and christians killed millions of muslims.
And today, there are some people who wants them fight again.. They never want this war to end.. As we see. media and politicians doing this job very well, and there are always stupid people to follow them. So, it seems these problems will never solce. Because there are devil ones form both sides who always want problems..

solution is; Muslumans must admit that they have used violence and war to spread Islam.. and Christians must admit that they have used same way. Then both side will work for world piece.. otherwise no happiness for both sided.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24197

AaaBaa wrote: the reality is; for Islam and Christianity, too many people died.

could anybody deny this?

Muslums killed millions of christians and christians killed millions of muslims.
And today, there are some people who wants them fight again.. They never want this war to end.. As we see. media and politicians doing this job very well, and there are always stupid people to follow them. So, it seems these problems will never solce. Because there are devil ones form both sides who always want problems..

solution is; Muslumans must admit that they have used violence and war to spread Islam.. and Christians must admit that they have used same way. Then both side will work for world piece.. otherwise no happiness for both sided.

Christianity doesn't want to kill Muslims. No where will you find in Christian doctrine that we should kill for the sake of Christianity.

Now there are Westerners who happen to be Christian who feel like they need to defend against outside aggressors. But that doesn't have anything to do with being a Christian or not. In fact most of these Westerner prolly are not true born again Christian...yet they feel the need to defend their family and belongings just the same.

AaaBaa · Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

John wrote:

Christianity doesn't want to kill Muslims. No where will you find in Christian doctrine that we should kill for the sake of Christianity.

Now there are Westerners who happen to be Christian who feel like they need to defend against outside aggressors. But that doesn't have anything to do with being a Christian or not. In fact most of these Westerner prolly are not true born again Christian...yet they feel the need to defend their family and belongings just the same.

That's what I ment, John. Christianity and Islam dont want to kill each other.. But some devil ones want this. History is full of them and today there are still many of them in the media and goverments and directing and provoking the brains.

I have always hated radical people. And both side's bad ones feeding the radicalism. This is what everyone must kill, not each other.
BTW not only christians and muslums, jews must stop their radicals, as well.

deuceman · Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 2

I agree that the invasion of iraq was a stupid move by my country, and it is being proved as we speak. There is one thing that bothers me about the ji-hadist, why do they cut off heads in the name of allah, why do they blow themselves and others up in the name of allah? Having never read the quiran I dont know if it has anything similar to the christian commandments, but "thou shall not kill" comes to mind. If Muslims want the respect of the rest of humanity, they need to get control of the extremists whom are killing in the name of Allah. As far as blaming Christians for the wars you have professed, I don't think those "christians" were any more Christian than the "muslims" that are cutting off heads represent Muslims! Bush professes to be a Christian, but he is not living a Christian life. Bush is a warmongering capitalist that hides behind the Christian Banner. There is no greater place in Hell than for Bush and his cohorts, and the Pope, I believe he is an evil man. The whole Catholic Religion is a giant scam. Your right about taking land in the name of Christ, that is blasphemous! I think you presented a reasonable portrayal of the situation, only I am not convinced that the muslim countries are innocent of any similar transgressions. I believe the old adage, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". When you give the Mullahs that power, things go bad. I suppose I could go on a tirade about conditions in Muslim countries, but if your even a little bit cognizant, you probably already know. So Peace be upon you, and mellow out!