Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

UN workers killed in Afghanistan

1…89111314…16

Comments

  • #302
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,378 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Jakkass wrote: »
    To be fair. Abortion clinic shooters are another aspect of extremism. Extremism manifests itself in pretty much every system of thought.

    Yes and no. The difference is that the anti-abortion extremists are acting with the belief that they are saving the lives of the innocent. They're not doing it because they feel insulted.

    NTM


  • #303
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    A few years back there was a football match in Turkey between Leeds and Turkish side Galatasaray. An element of Leeds fans were in a pub in Istanbul and acting the role. They spat on and tore down a Turkish flag. They whipped out their cocks and started waving them in the faces of Turkish women in the pub in front of their men. You can probably guess what happened next. At least one Leeds fan fan was stabbed to death and dozens of others were kicked to within inches of their lives by enraged and insulted Turkish men. Were these Turkish men the savages? The things that they felt most strongly about, i.e. their country and their womenfolk were desecrated, disrespected and humiliated in front of their eyes by ignoramuses and they exploded. Again I can pretty much bet the farm that you will have said that the Leeds fans got what they deserved.
    Again, you are still missing the point.

    What those Leeds fans did was insult a nation for no reason whatsoever. They were not protesting against Turkey. They were not expressing distaste for any particular element of Turkey. They were simply drunk football hooligans who wanted to cause trouble. Certainly not comparable to a protest against a religious belief system. Again, let me reiterate. You can burn a Bible in protest and you can burn a Torah in protest. Why can you not burn a Qur'an in protest? He objects to what it says and wishes to protest against it. That is quite different from drinking in a pub and starting to take the piss out of the locals.
    You know full well that if you insult the mother of an Italian man then you are lighting the fuse to a powder keg. Just because you are free to do so are you going to do it just for a laugh?
    You just aren't getting this for some reason. Personal abuse =/= Objection to a belief system. Personal abuse =/= objection to what is written within a book.
    People like you kick a dog and then have the audacity to call animal welfare when the beast bites you back.
    People like me understand the difference between personal insults and protests. Just because a protest offends someone doesn't mean that said protest is illegitimate. A personal insult is not a protest.


  • #304
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Typical answer when someone dares to question the official story.

    Of course I'm the sheep: so who was responsible?


  • #305
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    RichieC wrote: »
    9/11 was a conspiracy no matter what you believe.

    Touché.


  • #306
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Of course I'm the sheep: so who was responsible?

    Stop it! I already fed the troll damn it!


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Ok, and if they had hit Saudi no doubt you would say you can't ignore the oil. I'm sure everything in the region played into the descision. I'm afraid my world view allows for complex descisions to be made, which factors in many differnent things, including direct threats to the people of a country.

    Whats your point? MY one is that it would not have happened had 9/11 not of.

    If you do a simple google the people who planned, funded and took responsibility for the attack were in Afghanistan, acting with impunity under government protection. Note AFGHANISTAN. Saudi Arabian government, as disgusting as it is would not dare directly and so blatantly support an attack like that on American soil.

    Really this isnt that complicated, and you can just google it.

    Actually Sam, it would have happened. The Taliban were invited to the US a year or two prior to 9/11, when Unocal and Argentinian oil company Bridas were jockeying for the contract to run an oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin to the Indian Ocean. The Taliban went with the Argentinians. The Americans esssentially tried the bribery route by issuing them with an ultimatum of "accept our carpets of gold or get buried under carpets of bombs!" The plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan was hatched LONG before September 11.


  • #308
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Actually Sam, it would have happened. The Taliban were invited to the US a year or two prior to 9/11, when Unocal and Argentinian oil company Bridas were jockeying for the contract to run an oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin to the Indian Ocean. The Taliban went with the Argentinians. The Americans esssentially tried the bribery route by issuing them with an ultimatum of "accept our carpets of gold or get buried under carpets of bombs!" The plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan was hatched LONG before September 11.

    Citations from a reliable source please.


  • #309
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    fontanalis wrote: »
    This is not a time for whataboutery; a bigot burning a book or a bunch of savage cavemen commiting murder - you decide which is the worse crime.
    Good article.
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/shades_of_gray.php

    I was responding to someone who claimed that only Muslims react violently to cultural, religious, sectarian or racial insensitivities. Do not chime in and attempt to muzzle what is a perfectly frank and rational rebuttal.


  • #310
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I believe Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11.

    That's a pretty commonly held belief. Explain where conspiracy comes in to that view, if you will.

    Why can't you state emphatically that you know Al-Qaeda were responsible. I "believe" is the catch-all term now for embracing a theory that you want to be true because the alternatives are uncomfortable.


  • #311
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    You really never(.....)ple who claim to be rational and unbiased.

    I defend any group that I think is being unfairly stereotyped. I had a dig at somebody doing it at American soldiers earlier, and now I'm back here pointing out the large numbers of holes in your plot.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Why are you defending the Muslim extremists?
    .

    Please quote where he's done so.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    You can burn a Bible in protest and you can burn a Torah in protest
    .

    ...narrowing our parameters, I see.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    sock puppet wrote: »
    True that actually! I should have phrased it better

    Kind of dilutes the glib "conspiracy theory" insult, doesn't it?


  • #313
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Why can't you state emphatically that you know Al-Qaeda were responsible. I "believe" is the catch-all term now for embracing a theory that you want to be true because the alternatives are uncomfortable.

    To quote Bubs - "No offence man, that is some weak ass thinking. You equivocating like a mother ****."


  • #314
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭RichieC


    SamHarris wrote: »
    To quote Bubs - "No offence man, that is some weak ass thinking. You equivocating like a mother ****."

    I only thanked the Bubs quote cause I love him :D


  • #315
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I believe Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11.

    That's a pretty commonly held belief. Explain where conspiracy comes in to that view, if you will.

    Because the news told you. What did you see for yourself?

    If it was planned by the Yanks themselves to muster up support for an attack in the Middle-East, then it's not totally new to them.

    http://nformdradio.com/northwoods.html


  • #316
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Why can't you state emphatically that you know Al-Qaeda were responsible. I "believe" is the catch-all term now for embracing a theory that you want to be true because the alternatives are uncomfortable.
    It's not a theory. They claimed responsibility for the attack. If you want to go waffle on about conspiracy theories then this is your place.
    Nodin wrote: »
    I defend any group that I think is being unfairly stereotyped.
    O ho. Do you defend Catholic priests when people here on AH call them all paedophiles? Does "righteous and valiant protector of groups being unfairly stereotyped" Nodin defend everyone being unfairly stereotyped?
    and now I'm back here pointing out the large numbers of holes in your plot.
    And now i'm flying through a black hole. Saying random things is so fun, isn't it?


  • #317
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    /facepalm

    That's called personal abuse. It's not protest against anything. Islam is not a person to be protested against. It is a belief system. People are allowed to "protest" against any other Religion and the same should hold for Islam.

    It doesn't matter how you define it, it's is an insult that some take extremely seriously. Insulting someone's wife or someone's beliefs or anything that they cherish and hold dear is still an insult. And for your information you can really only "protest" against actions or conditions. Not against abstract things like a religion or a sexual orientation. Personal abuse! Protest! You talk about freedom of expression to insult when this pastor burns a Quran and then redefine the term insult when it's directed at someone's relative rather than at someone's religion. That's pretty weak.


    I am ill-informed about their "cultural sensitivities"? My parents come from the Middle East. I am fluent in Arabic. I know more about their "cultural sensitivities" as you call it than you seem to think you do.

    That may be but it doesn't give you a monopoly on the truth nor a monopoly on people's threshold for the tolerance of humiliation. I myself have an apartment in an Arab country. I would never pat a small child on the head with my right hand. I would never insult the locals by having my girlfriend sunbathe topless on the beach or flit about town in garish and tarty clothing and I would never stagger around the street blind drunk. Things I could easily get away with in Ireland or England or America.
    So we should ignore barbarianism and stupidity just because it's "their culture"?

    Why do you consistently insist that people are condoning the UN killings? I certainly am not and I haven't encountered anyone on this forum doing so either.

    "Oh, Judge, It was the pastor's words. They made me pick up my sword and slash through the sinews and bones of the UN worker's necks. In fact, i'm traumatised, I want to file a lawsuit against the Pastor. It's his fault that I had to see all that blood, I am now emotionally scarred for life and he is to blame. It's not my fault, I didn't mean to slice their heads off."

    What was that all about?


  • #318
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Because the news told you. What did you see for yourself?
    I saw videos of Al-Qaeda members claiming responsibility for the attacks. I heard of (And saw personally) people actually commending the attackers just days after the attacks.

    Nowadays, the same people are complaining that the attackers damaged the image of Islam.


  • #319
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Because the news told you. What did you see for yourself?

    If it was planned by the Yanks themselves to muster up support for an attack in the Middle-East, then it's not totally new to them.

    http://nformdradio.com/northwoods.html

    This is what CT's always boil down to - isnt this weird, and couldn't this group do *this*. It is never a coherent narative, which comfortably fills all the gaps required,does not require enormous stretches of imagination or does not baloon till people basically accuse 100's of thousands of Americans/ whatever basically being in on it.

    I introduce you to a little friend called Occam's Razor. It's only used when a theory is equal in other respects, but I'd recommend you use it all the time, as evidence clearly does not have the same bearing on your reality as mine.

    A false flag is, say, a mine hitting a boat in the gulf. Maybe no one killed. Not the most videotaped event in world history or the most studied collapse of a building in world history. Your doing intellectual backflips so "The yanks" can continue to be your buggy men.


  • #320
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    It doesn't matter how you define it, it's is an insult that some take extremely seriously. Insulting someone's wife or someone's beliefs or anything that they cherish and hold dear is still an insult. And for your information you can really only "protest" against actions or conditions. Not against abstract things like a religion or a sexual orientation. Personal abuse! Protest! You talk about freedom of expression to insult when this pastor burns a Quran and then redefine the term insult when it's directed at someone's relative rather than at someone's religion. That's pretty weak.





    That may be but it doesn't give you a monopoly on the truth nor a monopoly on people's threshold for the tolerance of humiliation. I myself have an apartment in an Arab country. I would never pat a small child on the head with my right hand. I would never insult the locals by having my girlfriend sunbathe topless on the beach or flit about town in garish and tarty clothing and I would never stagger around the street blind drunk. Things I could easily get away with in Ireland or England or America.



    Why do you consistently insist that people are condoning the UN killings? I certainly am not and I haven't encountered anyone on this forum doing so either.




    What was that all about?

    I'm confused as to what people are arguing about now... Is it that this pastor has responsibility for the killings (however much) or is it that he should not be allowed to burn the book to begin with?


  • #321
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Yes and no. The difference is that the anti-abortion extremists are acting with the belief that they are saving the lives of the innocent. They're not doing it because they feel insulted.

    NTM

    You're kind of correct MM but they invoke religion as a justification for their actions. They have no problem advocating that the child, once born, be condemned to a life of misery and poverty if they then deem the mother to be a "welfare queen" or some other such blight upon their vision of a perfect world. Those who clamour for the killing of gays do so under the banner of "god's word". You'll be hard-pressed to find a non-Christian firebombing a family planning clinic.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭RichieC


    SamHarris wrote: »

    A false flag is, say, a mine hitting a boat in the gulf. Maybe no one killed. Not the most videotaped event in world history or the most studied collapse of a building in world history. Your doing intellectual backflips so "The yanks" can continue to be your buggy men.

    Northwood was to be quite a bit more serious than that.


  • #323
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    It doesn't matter how you define it, it's is an insult that some take extremely seriously. Insulting someone's wife or someone's beliefs or anything that they cherish and hold dear is still an insult. And for your information you can really only "protest" against actions or conditions. Not against abstract things like a religion or a sexual orientation. Personal abuse! Protest! You talk about freedom of expression to insult when this pastor burns a Quran and then redefine the term insult when it's directed at someone's relative rather than at someone's religion. That's pretty weak.
    Deary me... I really see no point in continuing this discussion. You just do not want to concede that there is a distinction between protest at the contents of a book and a belief system and personally insulting someone.

    That may be
    No, that is the truth. There is no "may" about it.
    but it doesn't give you a monopoly on the truth nor a monopoly on people's threshold for the tolerance of humiliation.
    But it does, understandably, offer me far greater insight in to their "cultural sensitivities" as you put it. If someone burned a Bible, I would not feel humiliated. I would certainly not support them but I wouldn't attack them either.
    I myself have an apartment in an Arab country.
    Great stuff. Where else do you have apartments? Does it come with a free "How to instantaneously become acquainted with the Arab world" guide?
    I would never pat a small child on the head with my right hand.
    Never heard of this. Perhaps it's something in the gulf regions? Would you pick up a friend's young child and kiss her/him on the forehead or hug them?
    Why do you consistently insist that people are condoning the UN killings? I certainly am not and I haven't encountered anyone on this forum doing so either.
    No, my main gripe is with people blaming the pastor in lieu of the killers. The pastor should not bear any responsibility for the actions of barbarians living a few thousand miles away. There should not be a violent reaction to a relatively peaceful protest. The fact that there was one is abhorrent.
    What was that all about?
    You posted
    Strangely enough if anyone is apprehended for these crimes they can actually plead a crime of passion rather than 1st degree, premeditated murder and thus recieve a lighter sentence thanks to this fool's antics.

    I replied
    "Oh, Judge, It was the pastor's words. They made me pick up my sword and slash through the sinews and bones of the UN worker's necks. In fact, i'm traumatised, I want to file a lawsuit against the Pastor. It's his fault that I had to see all that blood, I am now emotionally scarred for life and he is to blame. It's not my fault, I didn't mean to slice their heads off." said the poor Afghani Muslim who was manipulated by a man 7,500 miles away in to grabbing a sword and hacking through a few innocent people's trachea and vertebrae.
    I've added a few words in bold. Just in case you needed any extra clarification...


  • #324
    SamHarris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    RichieC wrote: »
    Northwood was to be quite a bit more serious than that.

    Sure, but really it changes nothing. To me all this says is 1960's US officials contemplated killing citizens, and then had their idea rejected. This hardly throws everything I know about the world into a new light.

    Really there is no point in arguing this - I am convinced anyone who still believes 9/11 was carried out by anyone but al Qaeda is not going to be convinced by ANY evidence - everything will be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

    I care not at all - most of it is harmless although insulting to some of those that died that day (I remember someone saying the NY firemen were in on it, or payed off or some such). What I DO find worrying is that it is so prevalent in the Muslim world to believe it was anyone else but those who profess to follow the same faith (usually Jews according to the poll).


  • #325
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭Palmach


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Insulting someone's wife or someone's beliefs or anything that they cherish and hold dear is still an insult.

    Would it be wrong to call a member of the BNP a Nazi on the basis that it insulted his beliefs? If I called the Queen of England a whore would the English rush out and start to behead Irish people?

    After thinking about these questions some rather conclusions should spring into the inquiring alert mind.


  • #326
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Again, you are still missing the point.

    What those Leeds fans did was insult a nation for no reason whatsoever. They were not protesting against Turkey. They were not expressing distaste for any particular element of Turkey. They were simply drunk football hooligans who wanted to cause trouble. Certainly not comparable to a protest against a religious belief system. Again, let me reiterate. You can burn a Bible in protest and you can burn a Torah in protest. Why can you not burn a Qur'an in protest? He objects to what it says and wishes to protest against it. That is quite different from drinking in a pub and starting to take the piss out of the locals.

    party, I'm not missing the point at all. In fact it's quite apparent that it is you who is missing the point. You try to separate what you call personal abuse from protest. I'm sorry but that dog won't hunt. What makes you such an authority in determining that Muslims wouldn't find the burning of a Quran as an insult. You don't have to reiterate that one can burn a Torah or Bible or even the Anarchist's Cookbook in protest. One can burn a Quran if one wants to. But why? This pastor doesn't believe or agree with what's written therein? So what? He probably has a problem with what's written in Harry Potter novels or Stephen King books or Gay Biker's Weekly or any other of a plethora of publications but because he knew that his infantile little stunt would cause a firestorm, then that's why he did it.
    You just aren't getting this for some reason. Personal abuse =/= Objection to a belief system. Personal abuse =/= objection to what is written within a book.

    People like me understand the difference between personal insults and protests. Just because a protest offends someone doesn't mean that said protest is illegitimate. A personal insult is not a protest.

    You can split hairs about definitions and pedantics all you want. The fact remains that this guy burnt a Quran because he knew it would piss a load of people off. He knew that it would be the ultimate insult. He cloaked his actions under the blanket of "legitimate protest". Well that crap doesn't fool me. Yes it's his right to burn any book he wants to but don't be so vacuuous as to call this a protest. It was an adolescent little stunt to stir up trouble. He did it purely for notoriety, not for any legitimate gripe against a deeply held conviction regarding injustice which is the bulwark of any genuine protest.


  • #327
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    party, I'm not missing the point at all. In fact it's quite apparent that it is you who is missing the point.
    jackie, I'm not missing the point at all. In fact it's quite apparent that it is you who is missing the point. (I love that phrase, don't you?)
    You try to separate what you call personal abuse from protest.
    Is personal abuse a form of protest? Is calling someone fat protesting against the person or is it just an insult?
    One can burn a Quran if one wants to. But why? This pastor doesn't believe or agree with what's written therein? So what? He probably has a problem with what's written in Harry Potter novels or Stephen King books or Gay Biker's Weekly or any other of a plethora of publications but because he knew that his infantile little stunt would cause a firestorm, then that's why he did it.
    Do people (Besides certain crazy fans) base their lives and their actions over the contents of a book? You can write a story about a man who goes around from town to town killing everyone in site and he wouldn't burn it. Why? Simply because it's a story designed to entertain and do little else. A religious book however is a set of beliefs.
    You can split hairs about definitions and pedantics all you want.
    It is the definition of words that give them their meaning.
    The fact remains that this guy burnt a Quran because he knew it would piss a load of people off.
    No. He burnt a Qur'an to protest and express his distaste at its content.
    He cloaked his actions under the blanket of "legitimate protest". Well that crap doesn't fool me.
    Oh no, of course it doesn't. Can I have a lend of his phone number seeing as you must have spoken with this man before to know his true intentions?
    Yes it's his right to burn any book he wants to but don't be so vacuuous as to call this a protest. It was an adolescent little stunt to stir up trouble.
    If an Atheist burned a Bible or drew a caricature e.t.c. mocking Christianity is that an "adolescent little stunt" or a protest?


  • #328
    Panrich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭Panrich


    As Jackiebaron has pointed out the pastor was well aware that his infantile stunt would cause a reaction. The reaction was predictable with the lunatics it was aimed at. As sure as sticking your hand into a beehive and giving it a good shake will get you stung. The pastor has got his reaction and created more divisions and the mullahs have got their pound of flesh.

    Glory be to God and Praise to Allah :rolleyes:


  • #329
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It's not a theory. They claimed responsibility for the attack. If you (.........)random things is so fun, isn't it?

    Angry fellow, aren't you?

    Now, earlier you accused RichieC of something.

    Originally Posted by partyatmygaff
    Why are you defending the Muslim extremists?

    Now, would you care to quote and link the post where he defended them? Thanks in advance.


  • #330
    celts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭celts


    They're both wrong.You should have respect for all religion's and creed's and Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace as well so beheading's are againt the rules of the Quaran.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Nodin wrote: »
    Angry fellow, aren't you?
    Persistent fellow, aren't you?
    Now, earlier you accused RichieC of something.


    Now, would you care to quote and link the post where he defended them? Thanks in advance.
    How sly...

    Now, let's go back a page and read my last question to you.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    O ho. Do you defend Catholic priests when people here on AH call them all paedophiles? Does "righteous and valiant protector of groups being unfairly stereotyped" Nodin defend everyone being unfairly stereotyped?

    You wait for a few posts to be made so that my question to you is sent back to the previous pages and then you bounce back to continue your smug little condescending diatribe unabated. Now if you will please answer my question quoted above?


Advertisement