Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

1356

Comments

  • #102
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Their throats were slit but their heads were not completely cut off."

    Oh well that clarification makes it all okay.. :P


  • #103
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    Oh well that clarification makes it all okay.. :P

    Being obtuse now, are we?

    For the third time, could you get back to me on the point raised here....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    In the quaran,it states a womans testimony is worth less than a mans..

    As it does in the Bible (along with a lot worse when it comes to women), yet you won't find all Jews or Christians professing to believe that particular view. Likewise, not all Muslims hold such beliefs, despite it being written in their holy book.


  • #105
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,053 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I mean why is it only Muslims in countries with already strained relationships with the US who are full on rioting over this?
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvnn_NQDYccDCNlVlcx7zZR3dIjw?docId=CNG.7f23ea5f543b6342902a442e1feea6f4.801

    And that is the sound of a foot meeting a mouth...


  • #106
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    As it does in the Bible (along with a lot worse when it comes to women), yet you won't find all Jews or Christians professing to believe that particular view. Likewise, not all Muslims hold such beliefs, despite it being written in their holy book.

    No you wont,and you wont see them feverishly defending a book to the nth degree or killing us ambassadors over a film that had nothing to do with a us ambassador..


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No you wont,and you wont see them feverishly defending a book to the nth degree or killing us ambassadors over a film that had nothing to do with a us ambassador..

    You use "them" in a collective sense, as if the actions of some are representative of the views of all. You've completely missed the point I was trying to make.

    I'm in no way condoning the actions of the violent protestors and rioters, but their actions are in no way representative of the views of all Muslims. You're tarring 1.6 billion people with the one brush, and using your outrage towards a minority as a means to hate a majority.


  • #108
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    As it does in the Bible (along with a lot worse when it comes to women), yet you won't find all Jews or Christians professing to believe that particular view. Likewise, not all Muslims hold such beliefs, despite it being written in their holy book.

    Do you want to list your specific objections or substantiate that claim?


  • #109
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No you wont,and you wont see them feverishly defending a book to the nth degree or killing us ambassadors over a film that had nothing to do with a us ambassador..


    For the fourth time, could you answer the question raised here?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Do you want to list your specific objections or substantiate that claim?

    I won't, because that would be completely off-topic for this thread. But you know the particular books and relevant verses of the Old Testament I'm speaking of. Christians don't abide by the particular passages (for various reasons), while the same passages are seemingly ignored by most Jews. My point is that despite particularly distasteful passages being present in the Bible, its adherents don't necessarily hold that these passages are true or binding, for whatever reason. Likewise, not all Muslims will hold passages and verses of the Quran as true or binding, directly refuting christmass2012's claim.


  • #111
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    Do you want to list your specific objections or substantiate that claim?

    I won't, because that would be completely off-topic for this thread. But you know the particular books and relevant verses of the Old Testament I'm speaking of. Christians don't abide by the particular passages (for various reasons), while the same passages are seemingly ignored by most Jews. My point is that despite particularly distasteful passages being present in the Bible, its adherents don't necessarily hold that these passages are true or binding, for whatever reason. Likewise, not all Muslims will hold passages and verses of the Quran as true or binding, directly refuting christmass2012's claim.

    Why did you bring it up if it's off-topic though?

    If you post something surely the onus is on you to back your claim up both in reference to the Qur'an and the Bible?

    Your claim is highly questionable.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Why did you bring it up if it's off-topic though?

    If you post something surely the onus is on you to back your claim up both in reference to the Qur'an and the Bible?

    Your claim is highly questionable.

    My point wasn't off-topic, it was illustrative; answering your question (listing and substantiating my specific objections to the Bible) would have been off-topic. Please go back and read my two posts again, as I genuinely cannot see what is causing you concern.

    I won't discuss Biblical references and interpretations in this thread, because I won't drag it further off-topic than I already appeared to have done. Any problems, PM me.


  • #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    My point wasn't off-topic, it was illustrative; answering your question (listing and substantiating my specific objections to the Bible) would have been off-topic. Please go back and read my two posts again, as I genuinely cannot see what is causing you concern.

    I won't discuss Biblical references and interpretations in this thread, because I won't drag it further off-topic than I already appeared to have done. Any problems, PM me.

    Your point wasn't off topic, but yet being asked to explain your position is? I think that all posts should be open to questioning or criticism.

    All I'm asking you to do is elaborate on your position.


  • #114
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    You're tarring 1.6 billion people with the one brush, and using your outrage towards a minority as a means to hate a majority.

    You have to admit though individualism is not something that is promoted or encouraged within the religion of islam..


  • #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Your point wasn't off topic, but yet being asked to explain your position is? I think that all posts should be open to questioning or criticism.

    All I'm asking you to do is elaborate on your position.

    Rightio ...

    My original point was in reference to christmas2012's post, where she stated that, in the Qur'an, the testimony of women is considered to be lower than that of men. My reply attempted to illustrate that the adherents of a particular religion don't always hold what's written in their holy book to be their own opinion or view. That is, to say, not all Muslims would believe the testimony of women is anything less than the testimony of men, as christmas2012's original point implied. To give an example of this, that christmas2012 could relate to, I said there are passages in the Bible that speak of women in a similar or worse fashion, but despite this not all Christians or Jews would hold such views, despite it being written in their holy book. There are a multitude of reasons why a Christian or Jew would not hold such views, but I didn't get into that.

    My original point was pretty clear, and I don't believe I could make it much clearer. I really don't see why you need to force me to spell it out word by word. It wasn't an attact on Christianity, as you likely see it.

    I won't be dragging this thread further off-topic. I apologise for dragging it off-topic now, as it likely is. If you need a further explanation of the above (and I don't see how that would be possible), PM me.


  • #116
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    You have to admit though individualism is not something that is promoted or encouraged within the religion of islam..
    So they're all the same? I really suggest you inform yourself better on the religion, the level of generalisation you are making is pretty unbelievable. To even speak of Islam as being such a homogeneous entity, as you appear to think, is entirely incorrect, let alone to speak of Muslims as if they're some sort of borg-like collectivity who all think the same and act the same displays a total lack of understanding of the reality of the religion and its adherents.


  • #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    Rightio ...

    My original point was in reference to christmas2012's post, where she stated that, in the Qur'an, the testimony of women is considered to be lower than that of men. My reply attempted to illustrate that the adherents of a particular religion don't always hold what's written in their holy book to be their own opinion or view. That is, to say, not all Muslims would believe the testimony of women is anything less than the testimony of men, as christmas2012's original point implied. To give an example of this, that christmas2012 could relate to, I said there are passages in the Bible that speak of women in a similar or worse fashion, but despite this not all Christians or Jews would hold such views, despite it being written in their holy book. There are a multitude of reasons why a Christian or Jew would not hold such views, but I didn't get into that.

    My original point was pretty clear, and I don't believe I could make it much clearer. I really don't see why you need to force me to spell it out word by word. It wasn't an attact on Christianity, as you likely see it.

    I won't be dragging this thread further off-topic. I apologise for dragging it off-topic now, as it likely is. If you need a further explanation of the above (and I don't see how that would be possible), PM me.

    Your point isn't clear because you've not provided it much basis. I'm disappointed that a poster of your calibre won't provide good reason for their argument on a thread.

    If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but realistically you shouldn't bring up points that you won't be able to discuss when questioned on.

    The reason I decided to post here rather than PM is because I think that other posters on the thread should be able to see your response. If you make a claim you should be able to stand by it on thread.

    On that note, I won't bring it up again, but to post something and refuse to elaborate on it when questioned isn't a real "discussion".


  • #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Your point isn't clear because you've not provided it much basis. I'm disappointed that a poster of your calibre won't provide good reason for their argument on a thread.

    If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but realistically you shouldn't bring up points that you won't be able to discuss when questioned on.

    The reason I decided to post here rather than PM is because I think that other posters on the thread should be able to see your response. If you make a claim you should be able to stand by it on thread.

    On that note, I won't bring it up again, but to post something and refuse to elaborate on it when questioned isn't a real "discussion".

    What, exactly, is my claim, the one you're having issue with? That there are passages in the Bible which reference women in a distasteful way?


  • #119
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    What i find worrying about the whole fiasco,is that the muslims there,seem to be more outraged about the actual film,than the actions of those who lynched and killed the US ambassador,who was an innocent party in all of this,and had nothing...nothing to do with the film that the egyptian director filmed about mohammed.

    They need to chill out a little bit,take off the rage tinted glasses,and not take every insult to their ''god'' so personally,its not like they got a personal attack on themselves..Even if someone personally attacked me etc,i would turn the other cheek so to speak,because it will wind them up even more,if they think youre not affected by them..

    That egyptian director got what he wanted,notioriety and fame,of epic proportions,people the world over,know about this guy,and will want to see his film,and he caused a huge outcry in the arab world,what more publicity could one want?Sounds like a dream..


  • #120
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    What, exactly, is my claim, the one you're having issue with? That there are passages in the Bible which reference women in a distasteful way?

    I think if you claim something about the Bible, you should walk through your objections and let others see if they are valid or not.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    They need to chill out a little bit,take off the rage tinted glasses,and not take every insult to their ''god'' so personally,its not like they got a personal attack on themselves
    Muslims do not think that Muhammad was god. And many devout Muslims will take these types of things 'personally', whether you agree with it or not. I'm not advocating/condoning violent reactions either before anyone accuses me of that, or membership of the PC brigade.


  • #122
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    And devout Muslims will take these types of things 'personally', whether you agree with it or not

    They shouldnt take it so personally,or indeed react so violently about a depiction of their prophet..

    Understanding their behaviour is all good and well,but there is a thin thin line of ice between understanding it and being complacent in condoning it..


  • #123
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    And many devout Muslims will take these types of things 'personally', whether you agree with it or not.

    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.


  • #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    I think if you claim something about the Bible, you should walk through your objections and let others see if they are valid or not.

    Where did I raise an objection or a controversial claim? Re-read my explanatory post again, a couple of posts above. I was pointing out to christmas2012 that not everything that's written in a holy book is taken by its adherents as literal and proclaimed as their own opinion or belief. This was to point out that her insinuation that all Muslims believe the testimony of women is lower than that of men, despite it being written in the Qur'an, is nonsense. You know the Biblical passages about women I'm talking about. But nowhere did I say that a Christian would take these literally; I understand that there are particular contexts and interpretations to consider when reading such passages, but that's beside the point. My point, again, was that taking something that's written in a holy book at face value, and then insinuating that all followers of that religion believe it, is nonsense, and nothing more than a shallow attempt at painting millions of people as bad.


  • #125
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    What i find worrying about the whole fiasco,is that the muslims there,seem to be more outraged about the actual film,than the actions of those who lynched and killed the US ambassador,who was an innocent party in all of this,and had nothing...nothing to do with the film that the egyptian director filmed about mohammed.

    He wasn't killed because of the film. He was killed because he was the U.S. ambassador. The Muslims rioters want an Islamic Empire from Morroco to Indonesia, from Central Asia to Sudan and they want the entire world to submit to Islam.
    They need to chill out a little bit,take off the rage tinted glasses,and not take every insult to their ''god'' so personally,its not like they got a personal attack on themselves..Even if someone personally attacked me etc,i would turn the other cheek so to speak,because it will wind them up even more,if they think youre not affected by them..

    These maniacs can be no more reasoned with than Adolf Hitler. They are fanatics. They believe they are commanded by Allah to spread Islam by force and to kill all who do not submit. It is a religious obligation as far as they are concerned.
    That egyptian director got what he wanted,notioriety and fame,of epic proportions,people the world over,know about this guy,and will want to see his film,and he caused a huge outcry in the arab world,what more publicity could one want?Sounds like a dream..

    The Egyptian director is a Coptic Christian, a minority in Egypt who are being mercilessly persecuted by Islamic fanatics.
    I think the film is idiotic but it has exposed the religious intolerance of a very vocal violent minority in Mid East countries.
    Meanwhile Tom Holland, the popular historian has come under threat of death by extremists for daring to produce a mainstream historical documentary on C4 about the origins of Islam.
    C4 pulled the show to appease these savages.
    Our very freedom of speech is now in the balance.


  • #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    Where did I raise an objection or a controversial claim? Re-read my explanatory post again, a couple of posts above. I was pointing out to christmas2012 that not everything that's written in a holy book is taken by its adherents as literal and proclaimed as their own opinion or belief. This was to point out that her insinuation that all Muslims believe the testimony of women is lower than that of men, despite it being written in the Qur'an, is nonsense. You know the Biblical passages about women I'm talking about. But nowhere did I say that a Christian would take these literally; I understand that there are particular contexts and interpretations to consider when reading such passages, but that's beside the point. My point, again, was that taking something that's written in a holy book at face value, and then insinuating that all followers of that religion believe it, is nonsense, and nothing more than a shallow attempt at painting millions of people as bad.

    I know passages which are commonly claimed to be such certainly. In all the discussions on boards.ie I've seen when these Biblical passages have actually been raised, they've been isolated from their original context and twisted. It's not about "literal" or "not literal" it's about what the passages are actually saying in their correct context.

    That's why I'm asking you to quote what you mean so we can discuss it. Otherwise I can't see much basis to your argument.

    Your point seems lacking to me. You claimed that Christians ignore the Bible on these issues, I'm just asking how. If you didn't want this to be an issue discussed, you shouldn't have raised it?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Cali Tinkling Crater
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Cali Tinkling Crater


    This is not the bible discussion forum, move on and get back on topic please


  • #128
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.

    Indeed, their religious leaders should be laying down the law to them that what they are doing is wrong.

    Its all just an excuse under the guise of religion. These guys need to lighten up, it's 2012.


  • #129
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    They shouldnt take it so personally,or indeed react so violently about a depiction of their prophet..
    Well 'they' do regardless of whether you like it or not. And 'they' do not react violently, some do.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    Understanding their behaviour is all good and well,but there is a thin thin line of ice between understanding it and being complacent in condoning it..
    So you're basically accusing me of condoning violence because I can understand how and why Muslims may take something said/depicted about Muhammad personally. Excellent leap of logic there, again well done.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.
    Again, some are.


  • #130
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    So you're basically accusing me of condoning violence because I can understand how and why Muslims may take something said/depicted about Muhammad personally.

    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..


  • #131
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..
    That's exactly what I did in my post.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..
    Also, understanding someone's else behaviour or rationale for doing/thinking something etc. does not equal ascribing reasons for that behaviour.


  • #133
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Oh i didnt say it was equal..


  • #134
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    Oh i didnt say it was equal..
    You did.


  • #135
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour..I didnt say it was equal to though..


  • #136
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour
    Yes, that would be the general idea alright.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    ..I didnt say it was equal to though..
    Yes you did.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour


  • #137
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    By (..............)to though..

    For the fifth time - could you get back to me on the point raised here please....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • #138
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...


  • #139
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Nodin wrote: »
    For the fifth time - could you get back to me on the point raised here please....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90
    Something tells me you'll be waiting, even moreso than you are at present :)


  • #140
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Overheal wrote: »
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvnn_NQDYccDCNlVlcx7zZR3dIjw?docId=CNG.7f23ea5f543b6342902a442e1feea6f4.801

    And that is the sound of a foot meeting a mouth...

    That's protesting, notice in my post I referred to full on violent rioting. That's only happening in countries with an already politically volatile relationship with the US, it seems. So I stand by my theory that religion is just a front for venting deeper anger which has probably been waiting for an excuse.


  • #141
    V_Moth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭V_Moth


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...

    I think you are simplifying are very complex region far too much. Qaddafy was hardly secular, at least not when it suited him. The latter extreme is largely due to poisonous influence of Saudi-Arabia and its export of Wahhabism/Salafism into the wider Middle Eastern region.

    One should bear in mind that Islam is not one united religion, but rather consists of three elements - the Sunni, Shia and mystical "Sufi" elements. Each differ in their interpretation of the Quran. The Salafists (most likely responsible for the recent attacks) are an extreme subset of Sunni Islam.

    I would wager the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by these attacks and opposed to the extremism advocated by Salafists.

    EDIT: How did that smiley get there??


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    That's protesting, notice in my post I referred to full on violent rioting. That's only happening in countries with an already politically volatile relationship with the US, it seems. So I stand by my theory that religion is just a front for venting deeper anger which has probably been waiting for an excuse.
    It's not an either/or situation imo, poverty, US imperialism and a religion that is not inherently peaceful all adds to the situation. It's like the perfect storm for things like this.
    We're lucky that most human beings are essentially peaceful, we're lucky that most human beings don't interpret holy books literally.
    Religion plays a massive role in every persons life in every country, you can't underestimate how damaging religion can be.
    Religion can be a powerful force for good but maybe that's to be said in a different thread.


  • #143
    lagente
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭lagente


    Biggest arms shipment yet has just gone to Turkey from Libya. From there it will go to Syria.
    The ultimate disgrace.
    over 400 tons including SAM 7 anti-aircraft + rpgs
    " Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from Libya." is the article in the Times.

    Was looking at some of the Ummah brigade videos, with the Irish Libyans in it. The Irish fighters are mercenary Islamic fundamentalists, especially those at the top. Some are Salafists, an extremely dangerous form of Islam, that is causing the problem in Egypt. The Irish fighters are trying to soften us to their militant actions through the media, but their actions speak louder than their bullsh1t. Be under no illusions, they are troublemakers. The key ones will survive this conflict because they are very useful people in gathering a mass of supporters, contacts, etc.
    Reading more into the conflict I discovered that the conflict is being disguised as a sectarian and religious war. It's actually a war being fueled by the Saudi regimes and Iran trying to hold sway of the region. They are paying people to go fight and cause mayhem. Sickening that Ireland had to be involved in this.


  • #144
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...
    That wasn't a secular country either.


  • #145
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lagente wrote: »
    ..........

    Was looking at some of the Ummah brigade videos, with the Irish Libyans in it. The Irish fighters are mercenary Islamic fundamentalists, especially those at the top. Some are Salafists, an extremely dangerous form of Islam, that is causing the problem in Egypt. .......


    You've a source for this?


  • #146
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour
    Yes, that would be the general idea alright.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christmas2012
    ..I didnt say it was equal to though..
    Yes you did.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christmas2012
    I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour


    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..


  • #147
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..

    For the sixth time - Some reason you can't answer the question....?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • #148
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Oh..okay
    So do black muslims go round hating themselves, or is there perhaps a set of circumstances and conditions that you haven't considered?

    No i dont think black muslims hate themselves..


  • #149
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..
    I really can't tell why you're doing this, but yet again as I stated here:
    You said, and I'll emphasise the relevant bit:
    christmas2012 wrote:
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong
    I replied:
    me wrote:
    Also, understanding someone's else behaviour or rationale for doing/thinking something etc. does not equal ascribing reasons for that behaviour.
    Understanding something does not equate to ascribing reasons for it.


  • #150
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,353 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No i dont think black muslims hate themselves..
    So why do they adhere to a religion that has a "psychotic hatred for those who are black"?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Ayaan Hirsi Ali was making points about how blacks were looked down on by certain sects of muslims and in general arab muslims would look down on them..


Advertisement