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 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

Turkey and the E.U.?

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ghost_ie wrote: »
    So you would have no objection to inviting the USA, Canada, China or India to join the EU then?
    Obviously I would have objections; for example, China’s human rights record leaves a lot to be desired. However, I would not rule out political and economic cooperation with those nations on the basis of geography, no. No reason why the European Union could not be renamed at some point in the future, if necessary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭sirromo


    djpbarry wrote:
    I would not rule out political and economic cooperation with those nations on the basis of geography, no.

    The EU is far more than an organisation for political and economic cooperation though. The EU is a single market with ambitions to become a single economy and a fully integrated political union. To pretend that admitting new members to the EU is just a matter of improving the level of co-operation with other countries completely overlooks the real goal of European integration.

    European countries are already cooperating with the Turks and other Asian countries through their common membership of the OECD. I don't think anyone would object if OECD membership was expanded to include other non-European countries. A new member joining the EU is a completely different matter though. It's in the same league as the Americans adding a new state to their union.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    sirromo wrote: »
    The EU is far more than an organisation for political and economic cooperation though. The EU is a single market with ambitions to become a single economy and a fully integrated political union…
    …which makes it an organisation intent on political and economic cooperation, no?
    sirromo wrote: »
    To pretend that admitting new members to the EU is just a matter of improving the level of co-operation with other countries completely overlooks the real goal of European integration.
    Which is?

    Cue conspiracy theories.
    sirromo wrote: »
    I don't think anyone would object if OECD membership was expanded to include other non-European countries. A new member joining the EU is a completely different matter though. It's in the same league as the Americans adding a new state to their union.
    No, it’s not. The US is a federation of states, the EU is not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭jacaranda


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The US is a federation of states, the EU is not.

    It might be interesting to lay out in what ways the EU resembles the federal government in the USA, and how the EU countries resemble the states of the USA.

    One of the main differences is that the EU laws are implemented via the member stated countries governments (the individual countries governments have no option but to implement the EU laws), making it a "local" government law, whereas in the USA there are federal laws and state laws, and all laws are describes as one or the other.

    In the USA there are signs everywhere saying "It is a federal offence to.....", and if we had signs all across the EU saying "it is an EU offence to..." the EU would be even more unpopular than it appears to be now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭BetterLisbon


    jacaranda wrote: »
    It might be interesting to lay out in what ways the EU resembles the federal government in the USA, and how the EU countries resemble the states of the USA.

    One of the main differences is that the EU laws are implemented via the member stated countries governments (the individual countries governments have no option but to implement the EU laws), making it a "local" government law, whereas in the USA there are federal laws and state laws, and all laws are describes as one or the other.

    In the USA there are signs everywhere saying "It is a federal offence to.....", and if we had signs all across the EU saying "it is an EU offence to..." the EU would be even more unpopular than it appears to be now.

    Well we will have a european public prosecutor soon who can prosecute you initially for fraud against the union budget but there is a flexibility cluase to extend the scope of his/her remit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Well we will have a european public prosecutor soon who can prosecute you initially for fraud against the union budget but there is a flexibility cluase to extend the scope of his/her remit.

    Which is not the same thing - the EPP can have his/her remit extended to serious cross-border crime, but the definition of serious cross-border crime is not made by the EU, but by decision of the Member States according to their various legal systems:
    4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.

    In the US context, that would be equivalent to all the States agreeing that certain categories of crime, as defined by State law, could be prosecuted by an inter-state prosecutor. That is entirely different from federal law-making, which is what jacaranda has drawn attention to.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

    I'm more worried about people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up crowded trains, buses and fly 747's into a sky scrapers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    I'm more worried about people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up crowded trains, buses and fly 747's into a sky scrapers.

    Your concerns are statistically misplaced.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Your concerns are statistically misplaced.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    censuspro wrote: »
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"
    Based on the national political statistic of Turkey that is their most recent general election, Islamic extremism has virtually no support among the populace. The largest far-right Islamist party, The Felicity Party, commanded just 2.3% of the popular vote. Contrast that with the typical polling of, for example, Sinn Féin in this country. In that context, your worries with regard to terrorist attacks are largely unfounded.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"

    Which is merely a convenient way of belittling facts that don't suit us.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Based on the national political statistic of Turkey that is their most recent general election, Islamic extremism has virtually no support among the populace. The largest far-right Islamist party, The Felicity Party, commanded just 2.3% of the popular vote. Contrast that with the typical polling of, for example, Sinn Féin in this country. In that context, your worries with regard to terrorist attacks are largely unfounded.

    In what context??? The only person to mention Sinn Fein was you! Why are you drawing comparisons between Sinn Fein and Islamic exremism in Turkey?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which is merely a convenient way of belittling facts that don't suit us.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Which facts were they Scofflaw?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    Which facts were they Scofflaw?

    In this case, the statistical likelihood of suffering from terrorism.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In this case, the statistical likelihood of suffering from terrorism.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.

    And winners of the Lotto have benefited from a statistically unlikely event, but if you planned your financial outgoings around winning the Lotto simply because other people have, then you'd be an idiot.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    censuspro wrote: »
    Victims of terrorism were also statistically unlikely to have suffered from terrorism.

    Next you'll be suggesting a bear patrol tax.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    censuspro wrote: »
    In what context???
    The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And winners of the Lotto have benefited from a statistically unlikely event, but if you planned your financial outgoings around winning the Lotto simply because other people have, then you'd be an idiot.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).

    Which has no relevance to this thread, however it is a tactic used all to often by putting forward a non relevant comparison and then in the same sentence make a rebuttal of that comparison in order to reinforce their own point e.g. Sinn Fein V Islamic extremism or the statistical unlikelihood of winning the lotto V being victim of a terrorist attack.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    censuspro wrote: »
    Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?

    You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

    Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    Should I stop wearing my seatbelt because I'm stastically unlikey to be in a car crash?

    Not if you're nervous about even smaller risks like terrorism.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    sink wrote: »
    Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

    Also by doing that you are letting the terrorists win.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sink wrote: »
    You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

    Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

    Just to reiterate that point:
    Fewer than 300 acts of terrorism were registered in Europe last year and only one was an attack from an Islamist group, with most of them committed by separatist organisations in Spain and France, EU's police agency Europol reports.

    A total of 294 terrorist acts were reported in EU member states in 2009, representing a 33 percent drop compared to the previous year and half the number of attacks registered in 2007, Europol said Wednesday (28 April).

    "While the number of terrorist incidents is declining in Europe, terrorism remains a significant security threat to our society and citizens. Despite the overall trend, we should not drop our guard in the fight against terrorism," Europol director Rob Wainwright said in a statement.

    Europol defines a terrorist offence as any act, planned or executed, that may seriously damage a country or an international organisation if committed to intimidate a population, put pressure on a government or destabilise political, constitutional, economic or social structures.

    The statistics do not include the United Kingdom, however, because its record-keeping differs with that of the other member states. An additional 124 attacks carried out by dissident republican groups were reported in Northern Ireland.

    Most of the attacks in mainland Europe were committed by separatist groups such as Basque separatists ETA in Spain and the Corsican National Liberation Front (FLNC) in France.

    "Islamist terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat to most member states, despite the fact that only one Islamist terrorist attack - a bomb attack in Italy - took place in the EU in 2009," Europol said.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭sirromo


    djpbarry wrote:
    The context of terrorism having no more popular support in Turkey than it does in Ireland (for example).

    It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths while muslim terrorists usually try to maximise civilian casualties.

    As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    sink wrote: »
    You have to factor in cost and preform a cost/benefit ratio analysis. Fastening your seatbelt cost you virtually nothing but in the event of an accident will greatly reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The benefit is clearly outweighed by the cost.

    Refusing EU entry of a potentially valuable economic, political and military ally on the basis that a tiny minority of it's citizens have terrorist sympathies; considering the fact that countries like Ireland and Spain already have terrorist movements of their own, is going to cost more than the potential benefit.

    What are you saying that it's worth the risk??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Just to reiterate that point:


    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    It states that terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat! Regardless of the statistic unlikelihood it is still a legitimate threat!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    sirromo wrote: »
    It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths while muslim terrorists usually try to maximise civilian casualties.

    As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.

    What is 2% of the entire population of Islam?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    censuspro wrote: »
    What are you saying that it's worth the risk??

    Yes. Everything carries risk, if you're not willing to take some risk you're not willing to do anything. Ideally you measure the risk before you decide to take action and on the scale of it the measure of increased risk from terrorism in the event that Turkey joins the EU is minuscule.

    The major risk from Turkish entry is economic and political unrest, which is not unmanageable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    It states that terrorism is still perceived as the biggest threat! Regardless of the statistic unlikelihood it is still a legitimate threat!

    Are you saying that we should protect ourselves against what we perceive to be dangers rather than real dangers? Should children be protected against things that live under the bed rather than obesity?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Are you saying that we should protect ourselves against what we perceive to be dangers rather than real dangers? Should children be protected against things that live under the bed rather than obesity?

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    So which is the bigger threat in your opinion, "gay bashers" or fundamental Islamic terrorists?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    sirromo wrote: »
    It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths

    Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

    nagasaki.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

    nagasaki.jpg

    The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

    Either way, why do posters keep putting up unrelated comparisons as if it makes what they're saying more valid. e.g. Islamic extremeists v Sinn Fein, obesity in children v monsters under the bed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Like the way they did in Nagasaki?

    nagasaki.jpg

    That was carried out by a secular state, during a war. Very different circumstances.

    Now, something like this is comparable:

    Top UN man investigates massacre claims in DR Congo

    Now various terrorists groups use different tactics, depending on there causes, situation etc. Islamic extremists groups aren't the only ones to go for mass casualties, and there are plenty of examples of other groups similarly going for mass casualties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    censuspro wrote: »
    The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

    Its actually a bit more complicated than that. The US was basically engaged in a economic conflict with Japan before that. The whole US narrative of them being attack for no reason by the Japanese is a myth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    I've not read all this thread but i have 1 question :-

    How can a country, over half of which is in Asia, ever be allowed into the E.U??

    Sure it has nothing at all to do with there strategically placed military airports :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    wes wrote: »
    Its actually a bit more complicated than that. The US was basically engaged in a economic conflict with Japan before that. The whole US narrative of them being attack for no reason by the Japanese is a myth.

    I know there's more to it than that but it's not a relevant post to begin with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    censuspro wrote: »
    The bombing of Nagasaki to end WW2 was not a christian crusade. Bear mind it was originally Japan who attacked the US at pearl harbor and forced the US to enter WW2.

    And the so-called Islamic terror attacks you refer to are not Muslim crusades either. You will find the vast majority stem from political issues.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    censuspro wrote: »
    So which is the bigger threat in your opinion, "gay bashers" or fundamental Islamic terrorists?

    If we go back to the post you originally commented on, you'll find it was this:
    I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

    If you're asking me which I consider more of a threat, I'd definitely have to go for "any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant" as a bigger threat than "fundamental Islamic terrorists". Much, much bigger.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If we go back to the post you originally commented on, you'll find it was this:



    If you're asking me which I consider more of a threat, I'd definitely have to go for "any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant" as a bigger threat than "fundamental Islamic terrorists". Much, much bigger.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No that is not what I asked, that the answer that you want to give.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    censuspro wrote: »
    Which has no relevance to this thread...
    Sure it does. You stated that you were worried about Islamic terrorists, right? Now in the context of this thread, that implies you are of the opinion that Islamic terrorism will become a greater threat in Europe should Turkey join the EU, right? However, given the miniscule threat of terrorism within Turkey itself, combined with the low levels of support for Islamic extremism within that country, one has to wonder why Turkey poses such a grave threat to Europe in your mind?
    sirromo wrote: »
    It's a different kind of terrorism though. Christian terrorists try to avoid causing innocent civilian deaths...
    I don’t wish to open that particular can of worms, but, Omagh?
    sirromo wrote: »
    As well as that Turkey has a population of 72 million while the republic of Ireland's population is 4.3 million. If 2% of Turkey's population have extremist or terrorist sympathies, that works out at over a million people.
    And how many people in the rest of the EU sympathise with one terrorist cell or another? I’m guessing there’s a similar small, irrelevant minority in every country and Turkey is no different.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don’t wish to open that particular can of worms, but, Omagh?

    Omagh was not perpetrated by anyone motivated by religion, intending to promote a religion, or looking to fulfill some misplaced religious obligation. Terrible example. Though there are other such supposedly Christian groups for whom murder doesn't seem to present a problem, for instance the Hutaree Christian Warriors, various groups beind abortion clinic attacks etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    prinz wrote: »
    Omagh was not perpetrated by anyone motivated by religion, intending to promote a religion, or looking to fulfill some misplaced religious obligation. Terrible example.
    If you must be pedantic, I was not labeling the perpetrators as "Christian fundamentalists" or "Christian terrorists". However, they were certainly fundamentalists, they were almost certainly from a Christian background and had they died in carrying out the attack, they would have been viewed as martyrs (by some).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    djpbarry wrote: »
    If you must be pedantic, I was not labeling the perpetrators as "Christian fundamentalists" or "Christian terrorists". However, they were certainly fundamentalists, they were almost certainly from a Christian background and had they died in carrying out the attack, they would have been viewed as martyrs (by some).

    It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs. There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    prinz wrote: »
    It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs. There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.

    I've made this point a few times. It's a flawed tactic that's endemic on boards. A poster makes unrelated comparisons and then in the same sentence knocks down the comparison in order to give their own point some re-enforcement. Enough with the comparisons!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    prinz wrote: »
    It's not being pedantic, you simply cannot compare the two, they most certainly would not have been viewed as Christian martyrs.
    I didn't say they would and yes, you are being pedantic because by focusing on my use of the word 'Christian', you're completely missing my point (see below).
    prinz wrote: »
    There's a huge difference between political terrorism and religion inspired terrorism.
    In your opinion. In my opinion, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I don't care how the perpetrators justify their actions - they've all been indoctrinated into some ideology or another to the point were rational decision-making apparently escapes them. Whether their doctrine is social, political, racial or religious in nature is totally irrelevant in my eyes because it simply cannot justify their crimes. Besides, I would argue that a political cause can resemble a religion.

    Anyways, this is getting off-topic. My point is that I remain to be convinced that the 'terrorist element' within the Turkish population is proportionally any larger than that already present within the EU.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I didn't say they would and yes, you are being pedantic because by focusing on my use of the word 'Christian', you're completely missing my point (see below)..

    You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing.

    You are correct in one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever of a greater level of support for terrorism of any kind in Turkey from what I can see, quite the opposite in fact with, the Turkish state and people dealing ruthlessly with the PKK for decades now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    prinz wrote: »
    You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing.
    Perhaps I misinterpreted the meaning of the term 'Christian terrorists' in the original post - apologies for the confusion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    prinz wrote: »
    You responded to a post about Christian terrorists, citing Omagh as an example. There was no Christian element whatsoever behind the Omagh bombing..

    Likewise people say 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. However these people did not attack to spread Islam, they attacked because they were not happy about US foreign policy and US presence in their homelands*


    *assuming you believe the official version of events


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Likewise people say 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. However these people did not attack to spread Islam, they attacked because they were not happy about US foreign policy and US presence in their homelands*

    Bit more to it than that. They were duped into believing they were attacking the Great Satan and would be guaranteed places in heaven with all accompanying rewards. Yes it wasn't an Islamic attack per se but Islam was abused as a convenient method of roping in some volunteers. The concept of Jihad, being in itself hijacked to gain legitimacy. Islam has been stained by the likes of Bin Laden and his cronies. I wouldn't like to hear what men like Saladin and Caliph Umar would think of September 11th.

    But yes, there's a lot of politics also involved particularly in relation to the Saudis.
    *assuming you believe the official version of events

    If by official, you mean reality, then yeah. ;)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement