British terrorist threat - Is it only a matter of time here?

MooseJam

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Why? I've never met a religious person who doesn't think theirs is the best.

true, but the idea that the IRA were sitting around wishing everybody was catholic, well it's just a strange thought ...

Franz Ferdinand

Not a muslim Helter Skelter? Well ya sure fooled me!
Please forgive me - it's an easy mistake to make I guess, since its hard to otherwise explain your habit of hanging out on this thread stoutly defending Islam, and hanging out on the Islam thread discussing theological fine points on Islamic Surrahs.

There's more to you than you admit.

Not a muslim - yet? When are you converting?
Meantime, your answers are patently irrelevant.

Never mind, I'll redirect the questions to anyone out there who'll actually admit to being a TRUE muslim.
Perhaps Wes?
Maybe you could both drum up some answers on the Islam Forum?
I'm not going to hold my breath though, since I know the facts are rather inconvenient to the faith.
I'll give you a few hours before revealing all.

Bottle of Smoke, I can only imagine you weren't born in this country, and the complexities of the NI conflict are somewhat lost on you.
But just for your info - the IRA are a Marxist organisation.
Marxism is anti-religion - in all guises.
Komrad Marx declared religion to be 'the opium of the people', and unlike you - I'm a reformed addict.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

America's Laws and policies are not dictated by any Christian Cleric, nor do American soldiers scream 'Jesus is Great' as they blow themselves up in a schoolyard full of children.

.

well Bush did come out and say that god talked to him every night and that he was doing the right thing.....now that was before his aids could get to the mike.

HelterSkelter

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

well Bush did come out and say that god talked to him every night and that he was doing the right thing.....now that was before his aids could get to the mike.

I already made that point but it suited Franz to ignore it.

Didn't Blair make a similar statement?

Franz Ferdinand

Bush can say what he likes about his relationship with God. It has little to do with the way wars are fought by the US. They have a Congressional system which has to be convinced of the necessity for war, and vote for it.
Congress voted to allow the invasion of Iraq, but being 'ordered to do it by God' was not one of the reasons I've ever heard mentioned in the Congressional debate. The reasons were multi-fold, including - The removal of a Tyrant, The destruction of a WMD program, The rooting out of terrorist training grounds, Securing Iraq's Oil supplies (that was my own suggestion, not one the US Congress stated), forging Democracy in the Middle East etc.
There's also the possibility that GWB wanted to get Saddam for attempting to assasinate his Daddy some years ago.

No 'God Orders' mentioned.

It wasn't even Bush who first suggested removing Saddam.
Bill Clinton introduced the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998, which was voted into effect by the US Congress. This Act stated "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

I can well imagine it makes sense in the PsyOps War for GWB to yank Osama and his buddies chain a bit by slipping in the 'God on our side' angle. But if you seriously believe it was the reason for an invasion, you're dreaming. Or just want to believe it because you're a God botherer too.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no response to the Martyredom questions?
Let me help then.....

Q; Do you believe in the religious validity of Islamic Martyredom?
A; Islamic Martyredom is a central tenet of the faith, Shaheed (Arabic: شَهيد šahīd, plural: شُهَداء šuhadā) is a religious term in Islam, that literally means "witness". It is a title that is given to a Muslim after his death, if he died during the fulfillment of a religious commandment, or during a war for the religion

This is the inspiration to Jihad in the name of Islam.

Q; Do you believe those who die with the name of Allah on their lips (the Shahid) are martyrs?
A; The shaheed is considered as one whose place in Paradise is promised, according to the verse in the Qur'an "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord." ("Aal-e-Imran" sura, verse 169). Muslim interpretations opine that the "shahid" testify in his death on his faith, or that the "shahid" die during saying the shahadah (muslim profession of faith).

This is the koranic source of inspiration for the murderers who assasinate innocent women and children.

Q; Do you believe that martyrs gain instant access to paradise (and 72 virgins) as your religion teaches?
A; This is from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim - 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy two wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.

This is the koranic reward for the murderers of innocent women and children.

Q; Who do you believe really decides the motivation and integrity of a 'martyr'? Is it you - or Allah?
A; Having spent many happy hours on muslim websites just observing the discussions - I've learned one of Islams most popular sayings; Allah taala - 'Allah knows best'. One of the first occasions I saw its use was on a thread discussing 'martyredom' operations. One muslim commented that these might not please Allah when innocents were killed. He was quickly pounced on and informed that he could not see into the heart of this 'shahid' and could not know what his motivation was when he blew himself up in a crowd of people - perhaps he was 'pure of heart' and 'acted in the name of Islam' in which case no muslim could condemn him or judge him, it is for Allah to do so, and Allah knows best!
The conversation ended with someone pointing out that the 'innocent muslims' killed by the bomber were also 'martyrs for Islam' and would get their 72 virgins in paradise!

None of our muslim posters will honestly admit their deep held views on 'Shahid' because they know well they are forbidden to usurp Allahs judgement. This gives licence to any kind of atrocity - just as long as it is committed 'in the name of god'.

BendiBus

I haven't bothered reading this thread, but I assume it's full of people with 'small willy syndrome' who think we need to spend more money on the security services so we can feel more important in the world.

I'd just like to ask the OP where he gets his information that Ireland is considered the weakest in Europe for dealing with terrorism.

Terry

Franz Ferdinand, please link to where you got those questions and answers listed above.

Franz Ferdinand

I'd show you my personal library, but you could be a crazed Jihadi.

If you don't agree with something I wrote, state your objection.
I'm just not interested in the usual stream of endless drivel about whether the 'source' is valid or not, so forget your demands for 'links'. Thats just a tired old distraction - lets hear some reasoned opinions.
You have a brain?
Use it!

Going back to some earlier stuff, about solutions to prevent a jihadist attack here, I have some additional suggestions.

1) Ban muslim religious schools. We have to force integration on immigrants if necessary.

2) No 'special treatment' for muslims over other groups in society.

3) Ban the hijab.

4) Only accept immigrants from non-EU states which allow reciprocal rights of settlement to Irish people.

Have you ever noticed how difficult it is to get into some of these muslim countries?
Yet we throw our doors wide open to them!

It seems fair to me that we only offer rights to those who offer the same rights to us.

For instance - Malaysian men can marry an Irish woman and get the right to live here permanently.
However, an Irishman who marries a Malaysian woman gets no such rights, and is required to live on 3 month renewable visas in Malaysia.
The preferred option for the Malaysian Immigration Authority is that you take the woman back to Ireland.
This is obviously unfair and should be unacceptable. If they don't change the policy, then we should do to them as they do unto us. Three month visas, or out!

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

Bush can say what he likes about his relationship with God. It has little to do with the way wars are fought by the US.

yep, that's right boy, nothing at all.

God tells bush how to protect his people.... only problem when god said pray for peace Bush thought he said bomb for peace... easy mistake to make.:rolleyes:

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

I have some additional suggestions.

1) Ban muslim religious schools. We have to force integration on immigrants if necessary.

2) No 'special treatment' for muslims over other groups in society.

3) Ban the hijab.

4) Only accept immigrants from non-EU states which allow reciprocal rights of settlement to Irish people.

should we ask the SS if they have any gas chambers going cheap.

Terry

Franz Ferdinand banned.

MooseJam

what was he banned for, he shall be missed as it's a very interesting discussion

Bottle_of_Smoke

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

I'd show you my personal library, but you could be a crazed Jihadi.

If you don't agree with something I wrote, state your objection.
I'm just not interested in the usual stream of endless drivel about whether the 'source' is valid or not, so forget your demands for 'links'. Thats just a tired old distraction - lets hear some reasoned opinions.
You have a brain?
Use it!

We want to know where it's from so we can see if it's a decent source or something from a chat room.

Going back to some earlier stuff, about solutions to prevent a jihadist attack here, I have some additional suggestions.

1) Ban muslim religious schools. We have to force integration on immigrants if necessary.

I don't like the idea of Muslim schools myself but if they can show they're teaching proper syllabus there's no reason to ban them.

2) No 'special treatment' for muslims over other groups in society.

Don't know what you mean.

3) Ban the hijab.

4) Only accept immigrants from non-EU states which allow reciprocal rights of settlement to Irish people.

How would this stop a Jihadi attack? Actually - how would any of your points do anything but provoke a Jihadi attack!?

Have you ever noticed how difficult it is to get into some of these muslim countries?
Yet we throw our doors wide open to them!

It seems fair to me that we only offer rights to those who offer the same rights to us.

So now you want to blame individuals for the actions of their government... See there's a certain terrorist posterboy who does the same.

Moosejam what I was saying about the IRA & Catholiscism, didn't mean it in the way you think I did. Was just trying to illustrate a point about them becoming violent when they were opressed. I don't think they're the same issue.

Terry

MooseJam wrote:

what was he banned for, he shall be missed as it's a very interesting discussion

You're taking the piss, right?

MooseJam

Terry wrote:

You're taking the piss, right?

not really, he was a bit smart and fairly aggressive but I didn't see any rules broken, no personal abuse or the like. I was enjoying this thread shame to see it die

MooseJam

oops duplicate post

Terry

MooseJam wrote:

not really, he was a bit smart and fairly aggressive but I didn't see any rules broken, no personal abuse or the like. I was enjoying this thread shame to see it die

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

Ban muslim religious schools. We have to force integration on immigrants if necessary.

The straw that broke the camels back.

He also refused to supple a link for his Q and A post above that, which led to believe that it was his own wording. The content of which I found unacceptable from a member here.

There is a thread in feedback at the moment (no cats. normal discussion) if you have any further questions on this matter.
link.

zaratustra

Ireland isn't INVOLVED in any terrorism CONFLICTS! Don't worry

irish_bob

terry banning franz ferdinand shows you that free speech is fine untill you say something that a minority doesnt like
i better be carefull or terry ( the PC thug ) will ban me too
way to go terry , i was going to say the muslims in here will buy you a drink but we both know that wont happen , never the less you can tell your other wolly liberal friends how you stood up to a right winger today

thelordofcheese

i'm not a muslim, can i buy him a pint instead?

Terry

irish_bob wrote:

terry banning franz ferdinand shows you that free speech is fine untill you say something that a minority doesnt like
i better be carefull or terry ( the PC thug ) will ban me too
way to go terry , i was going to say the muslims in here will buy you a drink but we both know that wont happen , never the less you can tell your other wolly liberal friends how you stood up to a right winger today

Boards.ie does not employ a policy of free speech.
Read the charter.

Cheese guy, I'll have a bud, thanks.


EDIT:
You probably won't bother reading the charter, so here is part of it.

The Charter wrote:

The Golden Rule:
There is no free speech!
-This is a privately owned website. You do not have the right to say whatever you want on here. You are expected to obey the rules just like anyone else. Not following the rules will get you banned. It is very simple. You are allowed to discuss anything as long as it doesn't break the following rules.

darkman2

Terry wrote:

Boards.ie does not employ a policy of free speech

Yes! How dare boardsies demand free speech. They dont know where their bread is buttered. The cheek of em:mad: Islamic fundamentalists also take this approach but thats neither here nor there.....If boards was democratic we would have democratically elected mods:eek: Good god! Could you imagine it?:D

thelordofcheese

There is a reason that Boards (and most other internet based forums) do not employ freedom of speech, and amzingly it's not a clandestine plot to scilence people whos opinions differ from theirs.

Boards can be made liable for the comments of it's users, see the "they who cannot be named" thing for example.

Thats why users do not have the right to say whatever they want, because they don't have to deal with the consequences of it.

Terry

thelordofcheese wrote:

There is a reason that Boards (and most other internet based forums) do not employ freedom of speech, and amzingly it's not a clandestine plot to scilence people whos opinions differ from theirs.

Boards can be made liable for the comments of it's users, see the "they who cannot be named" thing for example.

Thats why users do not have the right to say whatever they want, because they don't have to deal with the consequences of it.

Exactly.
Then you get people trying to take advantage of that fact and threatening legal action.

MooseJam

Terry wrote:

Exactly.
Then you get people trying to take advantage of that fact and threatening legal action.

I wonder could a suit ever be successfull, I mean I could call you all the things under the sun but I don't know who you are, this being the internet and anonymous

Orange69

thelordofcheese wrote:

There is a reason that Boards (and most other internet based forums) do not employ freedom of speech

Boards is the only internet forum i have ever seen where people are not allowed to openly talk about certain topics...

Terry

MooseJam wrote:

I wonder could a suit ever be successfull, I mean I could call you all the things under the sun but I don't know who you are, this being the internet and anonymous

It's not entirely anonymous.
The Admins can actually trace you to your home address, should they wish.
The same goes any site on the net.

Orange69 wrote:

Boards is the only internet forum i have ever seen where people are not allowed to openly talk about certain topics...

Laws in Ireland differ from those in the rest of the world.

MooseJam

Terry wrote:

It's not entirely anonymous.
The Admins can actually trace you to your home address, should they wish.
The same goes any site on the net.

yea I know that but I cant trace you so if I were to call you some dastardly name would that actually be libelous seeing as I don't know who you are, you're anonymous from my point of view

Terry

MooseJam wrote:

yea I know that but I cant trace you so if I were to call you some dastardly name would that actually be libelous seeing as I don't know who you are, you're anonymous from my point of view

If someone really wanted to, I'm sure there is a way to make boards.ie give up your details if they were suing you.
I'm not very well versed in Irish internet laws.
I know just enough to get by.

Victor

MooseJam wrote:

yea I know that but I cant trace you so if I were to call you some dastardly name would that actually be libelous seeing as I don't know who you are, you're anonymous from my point of view

It merely matters that someone who reads the comment knows who Terry is and that the comment is one that fits the definitons for defamation. You or I don't need to know who Terry is for the defamation to be actionable.