Mumbai Shootings [Archive] - hibs.net Messageboard

Removed

26-11-2008, 10:46 PM

My fiancee made friends with a girl from Mumbai when she was doing her Masters course last year - since finishing, her friend has tried to convince her to visit her in Mumbai on several occassions, telling her it's a beautifully civilised and modern part of India with no anti-Western feeling - "it's so metropolitan, you wouldn't know".

I'm also quite good friends with this girl (through association), but everytime she's asked my fiancee to go to India, i've been very vocal in my objections - I was once branded a "backwards racist" by one of this girls' friends for having these ideals, claiming they were outdated and politically driven by the anti-Islamic Western media. I'm paranoid to an extent, i'll grant, but with so much of this kind of thing happening (and being covered on the news regularly), I feel i've only ever been looking out for her.

As absolutely horrendous as this story is, I feel a slight sense of vindication - i'm glad that my fiancee has never had the urge to go there anyway, and i'm not sitting here tonight worrying if she's involved or not. It's an absolutely horrendous situation though, and I hope the b******s responsible are nailed up by their cocks in public and set alight. Also hope the hostages being held are released without further incident!!! :grr:

I've been to India 3 times Scott and never felt threatened even though first time I was there 3 years ago some bombs went off in Delhi. I'm planning to go back to Andra Pradesh early next year - it is the most amazing country in the world - I won't let the terrorists win.

Sylar

26-11-2008, 10:49 PM

I've been to India 3 times Scott and never felt threatened even though first time I was there some bombs went off in Delhi. I'm planning to go back to Andra Pradesh early next year - it is the most amazing country in the world - don't let the terrorists win.

I'm aware some of my sentiments ARE fuelled by paranoia, but I just can't help thinking, "why take the risk"? I love the cuisine (and I don't mean the takeaway version we get), the climate looks lovely, and it's not expensive to get there (particularly skiing, allegedly), but I guess i'm slightly conditioned by this sort of press!

I hope your return trip is uneventful!

Removed

26-11-2008, 10:57 PM

Sylar

26-11-2008, 11:04 PM

Maybe an Indian goalkeeper - most Indians I know seem to be quite good at catching and throwing balls! :greengrin

Coat and shoes already on....

Anyway - I digress - sorry...

deek

26-11-2008, 11:08 PM

I'm aware some of my sentiments ARE fuelled by paranoia, but I just can't help thinking, "why take the risk"? I love the cuisine (and I don't mean the takeaway version we get), the climate looks lovely, and it's not expensive to get there (particularly skiing, allegedly), but I guess i'm slightly conditioned by this sort of press!

I hope your return trip is uneventful!

I have spent quite a bit of time in Mumbai very recently and can tell you that the streets are safe to walk, maybe not last night, but you do not get any hassle from anyone for not being local. As for the food, forget it. It is purley a fantasy to go there thinking that you will love the cuisine because of the fact that you like the take away you get here. The best places to eat safely are the top hotels. I had a few meals in the Taj Mahal palace, the one that is on fire just now. Even then, you have to be careful what you eat. Personally I was not there by choice, but made the most of it. I would not go back for a holiday as I have seen as much of that country as I need to.

Sylar

26-11-2008, 11:14 PM

I have spent quite a bit of time in Mumbai very recently and can tell you that the streets are safe to walk, maybe not last night, but you do not get any hassle from anyone for not being local. As for the food, forget it. It is purley a fantasy to go there thinking that you will love the cuisine because of the fact that you like the take away you get here. The best places to eat safely are the top hotels. I had a few meals in the Taj Mahal palace, the one that is on fire just now. Even then, you have to be careful what you eat. Personally I was not there by choice, but made the most of it. I would not go back for a holiday as I have seen as much of that country as I need to.

I know, hence why I added the section in brackets saying I "don't mean the takeaway version we get here". The girl I know from there has cooked traditional cuisine for us a few times and it's absolutely gorgeous...

I don't know what it is - perhaps it is a disposition which has developed through the press coverage of the region, but it's a part of the world I have no desire to see - i've been to many places across Europe, South America and Africa, and have lived in North America, New Zealand and the UK, so love to travel, but India and the surrounding region has never held any appeal, independent of recent happenings.

majorhibs

26-11-2008, 11:15 PM

My fiancee made friends with a girl from Mumbai when she was doing her Masters course last year - since finishing, her friend has tried to convince her to visit her in Mumbai on several occassions, telling her it's a beautifully civilised and modern part of India with no anti-Western feeling - "it's so metropolitan, you wouldn't know".

I'm also quite good friends with this girl (through association), but everytime she's asked my fiancee to go to India, i've been very vocal in my objections - I was once branded a "backwards racist" by one of this girls' friends for having these ideals, claiming they were outdated and politically driven by the anti-Islamic Western media. I'm paranoid to an extent, i'll grant, but with so much of this kind of thing happening (and being covered on the news regularly), I feel i've only ever been looking out for her.

As absolutely horrendous as this story is, I feel a slight sense of vindication - i'm glad that my fiancee has never had the urge to go there anyway, and i'm not sitting here tonight worrying if she's involved or not. It's an absolutely horrendous situation though, and I hope the b******s responsible are nailed up by their cocks in public and set alight. Also hope the hostages being held are released without further incident!!! :grr:

I've actually got to agree with your mrs' mate here, Mumbai is better than anywhere I've seen in Africa, put it this way though if the two clowns last year had been successful at Glasgow airport we would've had the same results in dreich Scotland, there is f*#kwits everywhere and nowadays although some places are a lot better than others where is really safe? :dunno:

deek

26-11-2008, 11:24 PM

I know, hence why I added the section in brackets saying I "don't mean the takeaway version we get here". The girl I know from there has cooked traditional cuisine for us a few times and it's absolutely gorgeous...

I don't know what it is - perhaps it is a disposition which has developed through the press coverage of the region, but it's a part of the world I have no desire to see - i've been to many places across Europe, South America and Africa, and have lived in North America, New Zealand and the UK, so love to travel, but India and the surrounding region has never held any appeal, independent of recent happenings.

It's all down to the quality of the contents we get at home. They are just not available over there. So anyone cooking for you here will have access to these better quality goods and your meal will be very tasty I would imagine. I myself was very open to the tasting aspect of my travels there. After two nights you know what you can and can't eat and where to eat safely.

Hibrandenburg

27-11-2008, 07:39 AM

EskbankHibby

27-11-2008, 07:53 AM

so whats their problem with the west, they are not muslim radicalists are they????

I guess the terrorists may be but India is largely Hindu with perhaps a surprisingly large (well it was for me in my ignorance) christian community.

My folks go their every year and are due to fly out in about a month, not good.

Surprised they didnt target somewhere like Goa if they really wanted to intimidate tourists.

Hibrandenburg

27-11-2008, 08:02 AM

I guess the terrorists may be but India is largely Hindu with perhaps a surprisingly large (well it was for me in my ignorance) christian community.

My folks go their every year and are due to fly out in about a month, not good.

Surprised they didnt target somewhere like Goa if they really wanted to intimidate tourists.

India is also on the Islamist hit list. Mainly because they too have not lay down to Islamic extremism and defending themselves against their Islamic neighbours.

Betty Boop

27-11-2008, 09:57 AM

Bush and Blair must be at fault! After all they did have the audacity to try and strike back after the twin towers went whooooosh!

All Islamic militants should be released from prisons now and men, women and children forced to grow beards.

Bush and Blair have hardly done much to promote World Peace though have they? Their disastrous illegal war in Iraq and their unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinians has stoked up feelings of hate for the US and Britain. :bitchy:

Hibrandenburg

27-11-2008, 10:31 AM

Sir David Gray

27-11-2008, 11:19 AM

Bush and Blair have hardly done much to promote World Peace though have they? Their disastrous illegal war in Iraq and their unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinians has stoked up feelings of hate for the US and Britain. :bitchy:

IMO these people would be targetting Britain, America and the countries that support them, regardless of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

They hate everything that Western Europe and the USA stand for and are utterly determined that we will all be forced into following their laws and principles and are often even willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their aims. How can anyone hope to successfully work alongside such fanatics to create any kind of lasting peace?

As far as i'm concerned they started this whole situation with their despicable and horrific actions on September 11th 2001. No wars were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11 so they couldn't use that as an excuse. We may not have realised at the time but the world changed forever on that awful day and things will only get worse. Whether it's India, Britain, America, Spain, Bali or wherever, nowhere is safe from these people anymore.

LiverpoolHibs

27-11-2008, 11:46 AM

IMO these people would be targetting Britain, America and the countries that support them, regardless of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

They hate everything that Western Europe and the USA stand for and are utterly determined that we will all be forced into following their laws and principles and are often even willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their aims. How can anyone hope to successfully work alongside such fanatics to create any kind of lasting peace?

As far as i'm concerned they started this whole situation with their despicable and horrific actions on September 11th 2001. No wars were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11 so they couldn't use that as an excuse. We may not have realised at the time but the world changed forever on that awful day and things will only get worse. Whether it's India, Britain, America, Spain, Bali or wherever, nowhere is safe from these people anymore.

So there's no history of pernicious U.S. involvment in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Woody1985

27-11-2008, 11:50 AM

IMO these people would be targetting Britain, America and the countries that support them, regardless of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

They hate everything that Western Europe and the USA stand for and are utterly determined that we will all be forced into following their laws and principles and are often even willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their aims. How can anyone hope to successfully work alongside such fanatics to create any kind of lasting peace?

As far as i'm concerned they started this whole situation with their despicable and horrific actions on September 11th 2001. No wars were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11 so they couldn't use that as an excuse. We may not have realised at the time but the world changed forever on that awful day and things will only get worse. Whether it's India, Britain, America, Spain, Bali or wherever, nowhere is safe from these people anymore.

That's exactly what they want you to think. If you change the way you live because of the pricks then they have won.

They can all GTF as far as I'm concerned.

Haymaker

27-11-2008, 11:57 AM

So there's no history of pernicious U.S. involvment in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

:blah: of course not! the world was peacefull and america a quiet nation that never sponsored terrorism or blood thirsty dictators around the world and never sent CIA specialists into countries to train rebels to overthrow elected governments but after 9/11 they had to defend liberty and stop naughty boys who had WMD and bring about the world peace again.

:wink::greengrin

Andy74

27-11-2008, 12:47 PM

A colleague of mine is in one of the hotels where there is hostage taking going on. They are up on the 18th floor and he is on a lower floor. Don't know the details fully but he is not using the mobile in case he makes noise and was emailing but the power has now gone. I presume he can't leave the room in case he's found. Must be a nightmare.

JimBHibees

27-11-2008, 01:23 PM

Betty Boop

27-11-2008, 02:14 PM

IMO these people would be targetting Britain, America and the countries that support them, regardless of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

They hate everything that Western Europe and the USA stand for and are utterly determined that we will all be forced into following their laws and principles and are often even willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their aims. How can anyone hope to successfully work alongside such fanatics to create any kind of lasting peace?

As far as i'm concerned they started this whole situation with their despicable and horrific actions on September 11th 2001. No wars were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11 so they couldn't use that as an excuse. We may not have realised at the time but the world changed forever on that awful day and things will only get worse. Whether it's India, Britain, America, Spain, Bali or wherever, nowhere is safe from these people anymore. Yip the phoney War on Terror has made the World a far safer place to live in. Can't remember Islamist Extemists targetting the UK before the invasion of Iraq? :confused:

JimBHibees

27-11-2008, 02:19 PM

Yip the phoney War on Terror has made the World a far safer place to live in. Can't remember Islamist Extemists targetting the UK before the invasion of Iraq? :confused:

especially british ones.

Westie1875

27-11-2008, 02:36 PM

That's exactly what they want you to think. If you change the way you live because of the pricks then they have won.

They can all GTF as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly, I was living and working in London when the tubes/bus were bombed and know people who got hurt, however the day after I was straight back on the tube - like you say we cannot live our lives in fear and let them win.

Hibrandenburg

27-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Yip the phoney War on Terror has made the World a far safer place to live in. Can't remember Islamist Extemists targetting the UK before the invasion of Iraq? :confused:

Was only a matter of time though! Extemist Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, ... the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system.

Sir David Gray

27-11-2008, 04:01 PM

So there's no history of pernicious U.S. involvment in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

The USA have always been involved in most world events because of who they are. Your opinions on the issues will obviously determine whether you agree with their involvement or not.

What I will make absolutely clear, though, is that what those evil people did on September 11th was completely unjustifiable on absolutely every single level. It was one of the most shocking atrocities there has ever been and it was inevitable that the USA would react, the terrorists knew that and they also knew that their allies (Britain included) would help them.

That's exactly what they want you to think. If you change the way you live because of the pricks then they have won.

They can all GTF as far as I'm concerned.

They won't alter my way of life or my opinions and beliefs but that doesn't change the fact that the world has become a much more dangerous place in the last 7 years, thanks to the terrorists.

Yip the phoney War on Terror has made the World a far safer place to live in. Can't remember Islamist Extemists targetting the UK before the invasion of Iraq? :confused:

Maybe they didn't, but whether people like it or not, we are a friend and a strong ally of the USA. Just like on a personal level, if one of your friends gets bullied or threatened in any way then you stick up for them and present a united front against the enemy. That is what Britain did in the aftermath of 9/11 and I believe we did the right thing in standing beside them in their hour of need. Whether we (USA and Britain) took the correct course of action by invading Iraq is debatable. Although as I said in another thread, I do believe there could be a case for going into Afghanistan and as far as the terrorists are concerned, that would be enough of a reason to attack us.

Whether or not the terrorist attacks on London in 2005 would have happened if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, one will never really know, although I do believe they would have happened at some point because as I said in my previous post, they hate what we stand for, our values and our way of life. IMO British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan simply sped up the process and made it easier for them to justify their attacks, in their own mind at least.

Put it this way, if given a choice, I would always side with America if it means even one terrorist plot is thwarted and thousands of lives are saved as a result. It's a far better tactic than sitting round a table trying to talk to them. They have no interest in real dialogue and will only try to manipulate the situation to try and achieve their goal, which Hiberlin has stated below.

Was only a matter of time though! Extemist Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, ... the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system.

:agree: Spot on.

Betty Boop

27-11-2008, 05:20 PM

The USA have always been involved in most world events because of who they are. Your opinions on the issues will obviously determine whether you agree with their involvement or not.

What I will make absolutely clear, though, is that what those evil people did on September 11th was completely unjustifiable on absolutely every single level. It was one of the most shocking atrocities there has ever been and it was inevitable that the USA would react, the terrorists knew that and they also knew that their allies (Britain included) would help them.

They won't alter my way of life or my opinions and beliefs but that doesn't change the fact that the world has become a much more dangerous place in the last 7 years, thanks to the terrorists.

Maybe they didn't, but whether people like it or not, we are a friend and a strong ally of the USA. Just like on a personal level, if one of your friends gets bullied or threatened in any way then you stick up for them and present a united front against the enemy. That is what Britain did in the aftermath of 9/11 and I believe we did the right thing in standing beside them in their hour of need. Whether we (USA and Britain) took the correct course of action by invading Iraq is debatable. Although as I said in another thread, I do believe there could be a case for going into Afghanistan and as far as the terrorists are concerned, that would be enough of a reason to attack us.

Whether or not the terrorist attacks on London in 2005 would have happened if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, one will never really know, although I do believe they would have happened at some point because as I said in my previous post, they hate what we stand for, our values and our way of life. IMO British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan simply sped up the process and made it easier for them to justify their attacks, in their own mind at least.

Put it this way, if given a choice, I would always side with America if it means even one terrorist plot is thwarted and thousands of lives are saved as a result. It's a far better tactic than sitting round a table trying to talk to them. They have no interest in real dialogue and will only try to manipulate the situation to try and achieve their goal, which Hiberlin has stated below.

:agree: Spot on. Can you clarify what Iraq had to do with the events on 9/11? :confused:

LiverpoolHibs

27-11-2008, 06:24 PM

The USA have always been involved in most world events because of who they are. Your opinions on the issues will obviously determine whether you agree with their involvement or not.

Well obviously, but that isn't an argument for anything. :confused:

Your point seemed to suggest that was no 'cause' whatsoever behind the 'effect', which is completely untrue.

What I will make absolutely clear, though, is that what those evil people did on September 11th was completely unjustifiable on absolutely every single level. It was one of the most shocking atrocities there has ever been and it was inevitable that the USA would react, the terrorists knew that and they also knew that their allies (Britain included) would help them.

Yes, it was undoubtedly brutal and unjustifiable. But there's some amount of false logic there.

Haymaker

27-11-2008, 06:57 PM

Was only a matter of time though! Extemist Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, ... the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system.

totally unlike extremist christians whom over the centuries have slaughtered non believers and tried to create a Christian world. But wait... Isnt Jesus the most quoted prophet of Allah according to the Quran?

Hmm... the plot thickens...

majorhibs

27-11-2008, 08:52 PM

Well obviously, but that isn't an argument for anything. :confused:

Your point seemed to suggest that was no 'cause' whatsoever behind the 'effect', which is completely untrue.

Yes, it was undoubtedly brutal and unjustifiable. But there's some amount of false logic there.

The only reason I wasnae in Mumbai on wednesday night was down to a quirk of nature, really the odds on my specific crew change in India being delayed by high winds would've been right high. I should have been travelling through Mumbai for a 2 am flight thursday morning. You have been on here for a good while now slating anything to do with the USA regime, British regime & also anyone who has had the audacity to stick up for them. I have no time for any politicians myself, but am just interested to know if in YOUR eyes I was a legitimate target on wednesday night if I'd been there travelling home from my work due to having a British passport?

deek

27-11-2008, 11:54 PM

What crew were you going to?

Bayern Bru

28-11-2008, 12:35 AM

That's exactly what they want you to think. If you change the way you live because of the pricks then they have won.

They can all GTF as far as I'm concerned.

If we take 9/11 for example, there has always been a risk that terrorists could use aeroplanes in an attack (let's avoid the conspiracy theories for the time being). Yet people didn't refuse to travel on the basis that their plane might get hijacked by terrorists. And similarly, there hasn't been a dramatic decrease in the numbers using air travel since 9/11.

Look at Ken Livingstone travelling on the tube the day after 7/7 in London. IMO, PR stunt or not, that did wonders for a lot of people scared to travel on the underground.

The key is to not allow our lives to be ruled by terrorist attacks, and the risk of terrorist attacks, because as you say, it's like conceding defeat.

hibsdaft

28-11-2008, 12:56 AM

We may not have realised at the time but the world changed forever on that awful day and things will only get worse.

these sort of movements and ideas come up in periodically in history but they do fade away eventually.

i'd give this one 30 years max.

horrendous events though. its like 10 Columbine High Schools happening simultaneously.

Woody1985

28-11-2008, 08:26 AM

Was only a matter of time though! Extemist Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, ... the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system.

:agree:

It was also reported that a well respected Imam (I think that's what they're called) said that muslims wouldn't rest until there is a muslim Prime Minister in Britain. They believe that if you do not embrace Islam you are inferior to them. WTF!

How can so many people be blind when it comes to religion? Most, if not all(?) religions believe in the same god but different versions of the story...

Chinese wispers anyone?!

LiverpoolHibs

28-11-2008, 10:12 AM

The only reason I wasnae in Mumbai on wednesday night was down to a quirk of nature, really the odds on my specific crew change in India being delayed by high winds would've been right high. I should have been travelling through Mumbai for a 2 am flight thursday morning. You have been on here for a good while now slating anything to do with the USA regime, British regime & also anyone who has had the audacity to stick up for them. I have no time for any politicians myself, but am just interested to know if in YOUR eyes I was a legitimate target on wednesday night if I'd been there travelling home from my work due to having a British passport?

Jesus wept. Where have I given even the mildest suggestion of that? :confused:

Sir David Gray

28-11-2008, 01:51 PM

Can you clarify what Iraq had to do with the events on 9/11? :confused:

I don't believe that Iraq would have been invaded had 9/11 not occurred. It was obviously mainly down to the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD and could use them within 45 minutes, but it was still part of the wider "War on Terror" that all started as a direct result of 9/11.

Well obviously, but that isn't an argument for anything. :confused:

Of course it is. You asked me if I thought there had been no "pernicious U.S. involvement in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan" that might have made the terrorists feel such hate towards the U.S. and therefore try to justify 9/11.

I'm saying to you that your use of the word "pernicious" is obviously a way of judging the rights and wrongs of their involvement and therefore your opinions on the issues that make the U.S. present in that region will ultimately determine whether or not you agree with their involvement.

totally unlike extremist christians whom over the centuries have slaughtered non believers and tried to create a Christian world. But wait... Isnt Jesus the most quoted prophet of Allah according to the Quran?

Hmm... the plot thickens...

Jesus is a prophet in Islam but he's not the son of Allah.

There may have been people belonging to the Christian faith, centuries ago, who slaughtered non-Christians but I challenge you to come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

I also challenge you to come up with one majority Christian country where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

I don't believe you will be able to come up with any such example on either count, although I am willing to be proved wrong.

On the other hand I can give plenty of examples of majority Muslim countries where Christians have been persecuted and often executed for not following Islam. Somalia, Iran and Saudi Arabia (where Christianity is illegal) are just three examples of Muslim majority nations where Christians are persecuted simply because they do not follow Islam.

There are Christian missionaries who continue to go into countries where Christianity is not the main religion and they try to teach people about Jesus and the Christian faith. They do not force anyone to turn to Christianity and they certainly do not act violently towards those that do not want to believe. In fact, the missionaries themselves are often the ones who end up killed or tortured.

:agree:

It was also reported that a well respected Imam (I think that's what they're called) said that muslims wouldn't rest until there is a muslim Prime Minister in Britain. They believe that if you do not embrace Islam you are inferior to them. WTF!

How can so many people be blind when it comes to religion? Most, if not all(?) religions believe in the same god but different versions of the story...

Chinese wispers anyone?!

No they do not.

Woody1985

28-11-2008, 02:04 PM

No they do not.

I should have said some. Still stupid though. :angeldevi:

LiverpoolHibs

28-11-2008, 02:39 PM

Of course it is. You asked me if I thought there had been no "pernicious U.S. involvement in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan" that might have made the terrorists feel such hate towards the U.S. and therefore try to justify 9/11.

I'm saying to you that your use of the word "pernicious" is obviously a way of judging the rights and wrongs of their involvement and therefore your opinions on the issues that make the U.S. present in that region will ultimately determine whether or not you agree with their involvement.

But just saying that, "your political views will determine whether you believe the US involvement in the Middle East was/is pernicious or otherwise", isn't any kind of argument.

Implicit in your previous post was the suggestion that there had been no U.S. involvement in the region prior to the recent wars.

Betty Boop

28-11-2008, 07:43 PM

I don't believe that Iraq would have been invaded had 9/11 not occurred. It was obviously mainly down to the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD and could use them within 45 minutes, but it was still part of the wider "War on Terror" that all started as a direct result of 9/11.

Of course it is. You asked me if I thought there had been no "pernicious U.S. involvement in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan" that might have made the terrorists feel such hate towards the U.S. and therefore try to justify 9/11.

I'm saying to you that your use of the word "pernicious" is obviously a way of judging the rights and wrongs of their involvement and therefore your opinions on the issues that make the U.S. present in that region will ultimately determine whether or not you agree with their involvement.

Jesus is a prophet in Islam but he's not the son of Allah.

There may have been people belonging to the Christian faith, centuries ago, who slaughtered non-Christians but I challenge you to come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

I also challenge you to come up with one majority Christian country where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

I don't believe you will be able to come up with any such example on either count, although I am willing to be proved wrong.

On the other hand I can give plenty of examples of majority Muslim countries where Christians have been persecuted and often executed for not following Islam. Somalia, Iran and Saudi Arabia (where Christianity is illegal) are just three examples of Muslim majority nations where Christians are persecuted simply because they do not follow Islam.

There are Christian missionaries who continue to go into countries where Christianity is not the main religion and they try to teach people about Jesus and the Christian faith. They do not force anyone to turn to Christianity and they certainly do not act violently towards those that do not want to believe. In fact, the missionaries themselves are often the ones who end up killed or tortured.

No they do not. I think you will find that the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9/11. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

majorhibs

29-11-2008, 05:58 PM

LiverpoolHibs

29-11-2008, 08:38 PM

Falkirk hibee- some of the zoomers on here are so anti everything US you'll never get the last word on them- better no even botherin to try, I've no much time for much to do with the US personally, bit to much of an overbearing nation for my tastes- but at least I dont get the feeling from them that all these anti west types are coming across with- threatening the people/places/things I know and love at home and overseas simply because they have a grievance and we are what they class as western- indefensible, not an argument to be made for this sort of nonsense.

I see you haven't shown me where I suggested that the people killed in Mumbai were 'legitimate targets'. Perhaps an apology...

As for the emboldened part, no not the people and things that you personally love - just lots of people that you/one/us/the West can conveniently forget about.

Haymaker

29-11-2008, 10:24 PM

Jesus is a prophet in Islam but he's not the son of Allah.

There may have been people belonging to the Christian faith, centuries ago, who slaughtered non-Christians but I challenge you to come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

I also challenge you to come up with one majority Christian country where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

I don't believe you will be able to come up with any such example on either count, although I am willing to be proved wrong.

On the other hand I can give plenty of examples of majority Muslim countries where Christians have been persecuted and often executed for not following Islam. Somalia, Iran and Saudi Arabia (where Christianity is illegal) are just three examples of Muslim majority nations where Christians are persecuted simply because they do not follow Islam.

There are Christian missionaries who continue to go into countries where Christianity is not the main religion and they try to teach people about Jesus and the Christian faith. They do not force anyone to turn to Christianity and they certainly do not act violently towards those that do not want to believe. In fact, the missionaries themselves are often the ones who end up killed or tortured.

Sorry, did i say Jesus was the son of Allah?

No i did not. I said Jesus is the most quoted prophet.

"Can you challenge me to come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity".(Sic)

The US and UK Governments? Both have a large Christian majority, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Ruth Kelly... etc. The Last Days theory is alive and well with the UK and US governments. The UK goverment has been involved in alot of action against its own religion... but for minor differences in ceremony.

Am I making excuses for any religious movement to kill people?

No.

I dont agree with the murderers of mumbai, the bombers of london, the hijackers of new york.

I do however believe there is more to a story than the media portrays.

Betty Boop

30-11-2008, 09:13 AM

LiverpoolHibs

30-11-2008, 09:20 AM

Betty Boop

30-11-2008, 09:27 AM

Are you trying to take on Riz's mantle? :wink:Naw! :greengrin Just that something doesn't seem to sit right with me, about the whole thing. The press here also seemed to jump on the bandwagon in announcing that British Pakistanis were involved, with out a shred of evidence. Talking of Riz, where is he?:confused:

LiverpoolHibs

30-11-2008, 12:34 PM

Naw! :greengrin Just that something doesn't seem to sit right with me, about the whole thing. The press here also seemed to jump on the bandwagon in announcing that British Pakistanis were involved, with out a shred of evidence. Talking of Riz, where is he?:confused:

It's not confirmed that it was just ten people, that seems a little unlikely.

He was off to Afghanistan was he not?

Betty Boop

30-11-2008, 12:46 PM

It's not confirmed that it was just ten people, that seems a little unlikely.

He was off to Afghanistan was he not? Oh aye forgot about that, I thought he would have been back by now. :greengrin

Sir David Gray

01-12-2008, 03:40 PM

Sorry, did i say Jesus was the son of Allah?

No i did not. I said Jesus is the most quoted prophet.

"Can you challenge me to come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity".(Sic)

The US and UK Governments? Both have a large Christian majority, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Ruth Kelly... etc. The Last Days theory is alive and well with the UK and US governments. The UK goverment has been involved in alot of action against its own religion... but for minor differences in ceremony.

Am I making excuses for any religious movement to kill people?

No.

I dont agree with the murderers of mumbai, the bombers of london, the hijackers of new york.

I do however believe there is more to a story than the media portrays.

The UK and USA governments, whilst they have a lot of Christians within them, are not examples of Christian organisations and neither of them deliberately set out to indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent people in the name of Christianity.

majorhibs

01-12-2008, 03:53 PM

The UK and USA governments, whilst they have a lot of Christians within them, are not examples of Christian organisations and neither of them deliberately set out to indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent people in the name of Christianity.

I wish you well Falkirk, in your efforts to have the last word wi the ambulance chasers on here who frequent subjects like this but I'm no too optimistic 'bout yer chances... they do go on, & on, & on.... :wink:

Betty Boop

01-12-2008, 04:45 PM

The UK and USA governments, whilst they have a lot of Christians within them, are not examples of Christian organisations and neither of them deliberately set out to indiscriminately murder thousands of innocent people in the name of Christianity.

Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html :greengrin

LiverpoolHibs

01-12-2008, 05:01 PM

I wish you well Falkirk, in your efforts to have the last word wi the ambulance chasers on here who frequent subjects like this but I'm no too optimistic 'bout yer chances... they do go on, & on, & on.... :wink:

I'm not sure you know what 'ambulance chaser' means.

I'll ask again for you to point out where I said the victims of the Mumbai attacks were 'legitimate targets', but I won't expect an answer.

Keep debating the points!

Sir David Gray

01-12-2008, 05:57 PM

Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html :greengrin

I've already said that neither the UK or USA governments can be described as Christian organisations, which is what I originally asked Haymaker to give as the example.

However, you're quite right, he did say that. He said that God told him to "go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan" and "go and end the tyranny in Iraq".

The two factors given for invading the two countries were to "fight terrorists" and "end tyranny". Nothing at all about carrying out a random terrorist attack that deliberately kills thousands of innocent people in the name of Christianity.

Even if you think the Iraq war is illegal, which it probably is, the original targets were Saddam Hussein, other members of the Iraqi government and other supporters of the Baath Party. The targets now are the Al Qaeda insurgents, I don't think you can class any of those targets as innocent civilians. Although unfortunately, like in any war, innocent people are killed.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the Iraq war, let's get back to the original question that I asked Haymaker;

Can anyone come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

Or alternatively can anyone come up with one majority Christian country where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

Even if you can't answer both points, just one of them would be good.

majorhibs

01-12-2008, 06:23 PM

I'm not sure you know what 'ambulance chaser' means.

I'll ask again for you to point out where I said the victims of the Mumbai attacks were 'legitimate targets', but I won't expect an answer.

Keep debating the points!

Dinnae twist words ya absolute halfwit- I asked if you thought I was a legitimate target with my British passport- you do nothing on here but twist things intae your own stupid wee blinkered & prejudiced viewpoint, imo your a jumped up wee nonentity thats never been anywhere, never done anything but who feels like a right hardman when behind a keyboard- all just imo of course. Everything to say about everything but actually daein nowt. Get yerself out into the world son instead o tryin to appear clever on here. I would wager a no bad amount of wages you wouldnae last long in half the places I've seen. But your clever on a computer tho, eh?

LiverpoolHibs

01-12-2008, 06:57 PM

Dinnae twist words ya absolute halfwit- I asked if you thought I was a legitimate target with my British passport- you do nothing on here but twist things intae your own stupid wee blinkered & prejudiced viewpoint, imo your a jumped up wee nonentity thats never been anywhere, never done anything but who feels like a right hardman when behind a keyboard- all just imo of course. Everything to say about everything but actually daein nowt. Get yerself out into the world son instead o tryin to appear clever on here. I would wager a no bad amount of wages you wouldnae last long in half the places I've seen. But your clever on a computer tho, eh?

Dear me. Calm down. You don't know anything about me, and vice versa.

You asked me...

but am just interested to know if in YOUR eyes I was a legitimate target on wednesday night if I'd been there travelling home from my work due to having a British passport?

To which I asked what on earth gave you the impression I thought that, implicit in which would be the suggestion that I thought all British passport holders would be legitimate targets, you didn't reply despite posting again on the thread - so I asked another couple of times.

In short, I've twisted nothing.

Impressive rant though. :agree:

majorhibs

01-12-2008, 07:13 PM

Dear me. Calm down. You don't know anything about me, and vice versa.

You asked me...

To which I asked what on earth gave you the impression I thought that, implicit in which would be the suggestion that I thought all British passport holders would be legitimate targets, you didn't reply despite posting again on the thread - so I asked another couple of times.

In short, I've twisted nothing.

Impressive rant though. :agree:

Yer a slaverin toilet pal, I am SO pleased I ken nowt about ye... I like my wrists the way they are. Sorry tae burst yer bubble wee man but if I was travellin, your type would be the last I'd ever want near.. argumentative, ill informed & prejudiced, like I said, tho Falkirk'll no get the last word here you keep comin back dronin on & on.. "to which I asked...." you twisted things pal, accept it & start to get better, it wont be easy but you should at least try. :agree:

LiverpoolHibs

01-12-2008, 07:24 PM

Yer a slaverin toilet pal, I am SO pleased I ken nowt about ye... I like my wrists the way they are. Sorry tae burst yer bubble wee man but if I was travellin, your type would be the last I'd ever want near.. argumentative, ill informed & prejudiced,

I'd ask for examples of times I've shown myself to be either ill-informed or prejudiced (I'll give you argumentative :wink:) but I imagine I'd get a reply along the lines of...

.. "to which I asked...." you twisted things pal, accept it & start to get better, it wont be easy but you should at least try. :agree:

Which is a fantastic way to argue.

Betty Boop

01-12-2008, 08:35 PM

I've already said that neither the UK or USA governments can be described as Christian organisations, which is what I originally asked Haymaker to give as the example.

However, you're quite right, he did say that. He said that God told him to "go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan" and "go and end the tyranny in Iraq".

The two factors given for invading the two countries were to "fight terrorists" and "end tyranny". Nothing at all about carrying out a random terrorist attack that deliberately kills thousands of innocent people in the name of Christianity.

Even if you think the Iraq war is illegal, which it probably is, the original targets were Saddam Hussein, other members of the Iraqi government and other supporters of the Baath Party. The targets now are the Al Qaeda insurgents, I don't think you can class any of those targets as innocent civilians. Although unfortunately, like in any war, innocent people are killed.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the Iraq war, let's get back to the original question that I asked Haymaker;

Can anyone come up with any current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

Or alternatively can anyone come up with one majority Christian country where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

Even if you can't answer both points, just one of them would be good.What do you mean by a Christian country and a mainstream Christian organisation? Its not so long ago that "good Christian folk" were strolling out of church to watch men and women being lynched, because of the colour of their skin. Don't think you would find many Muslims in the deep south of the US. There are many Christian Fundementalists in the world as well as Islamists, there are also Christian Zionists. Just for your information Iraq was a Secular country, where Muslims and Christians lived peacefully together.

Sir David Gray

02-12-2008, 11:43 AM

What do you mean by a Christian country and a mainstream Christian organisation? Its not so long ago that "good Christian folk" were strolling out of church to watch men and women being lynched, because of the colour of their skin. Don't think you would find many Muslims in the deep south of the US. There are many Christian Fundementalists in the world as well as Islamists, there are also Christian Zionists. Just for your information Iraq was a Secular country, where Muslims and Christians lived peacefully together.

A majority Christian country i.e. a country where the majority of its citizens are adherents of a Christian denomination (R.C., Protestant etc). Any examples of countries in the Americas or Western Europe would be suitable.

A mainstream Christian organisation could be a Christian based group/charity such as Christian Aid or Tearfund or a similar type of organisation.

Your point about there not being many Muslims in the deep south of the USA isn't really a great one as there's not really that many Muslims in the USA as a whole, in relation to their overall population. Exact figures are hard to come by as the USA census does not ask for religious affiliation. However estimates suggest that there aren't that many more Muslims in the USA than there are in the UK. This possibly has a lot to do with the fact that the USA is geographically a long way from Africa and Asia (the two main areas in the world where Islam thrives).

However the Muslims that do exist in the USA are free to openly express their religious beliefs without any fear of government interference or state police carrying out attacks and that was the point I was trying to make when talking about the differences between attitudes to religious tolerance in Christian countries and quite a lot of Muslim nations.

I don't doubt that there are Christian fundamentalists who take the law into their own hands at times. The best example would probably be from the USA where there have been cases of Christians attacking and sometimes killing people who work at abortion clinics. Obviously that is shocking and completely unacceptable. However, many of these people, such as Paul Jennings Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill), were excommunicated from their church when their fanatical views on abortion became apparent. These people are also, thankfully, in the extreme minority.

However, many mosques (some of which are in the UK) do not do enough to steer people away from radical views on the West and those who do not adhere to the Islamic way of life. Tony Blair was once quoted as saying that Muslims in the UK must do more to root out the extremists within their communities. There are also those young British Muslims who go abroad, usually to Pakistan, and come back radicalised after spending time at military camps and Madrasas. This happened to a couple of the 7/7 bombers.

I would say that the number of Islamic terrorists in the world today far outweigh the number of Christian fundamentalists who are prepared to kill for their religious beliefs. The former are also often given quite a bit of support and backing from high ranking individuals within their local Muslim communities, whereas I am not aware of any officially recognised churches, ministers, pastors etc supporting the murders of people who perform abortions, conduct gay marriages or who criticise Christianity etc.

I will also answer the question that Haymaker has so far failed to answer. There are no Christian majority nations where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

There are also no current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

There is also no Christian equivalent of Salman Rushdie who received a fatwa, calling for his execution, from the Iranian spiritual leader in the 80's over his book, "The Satanic Verses" just because it criticised certain aspects of Islam. There have been several instances of people poking fun at Christianity and Jesus in recent years and although they have drawn protests and complaints, I don't think anyone has been threatened with murder over it.

I'm not sure why you mention Christian Zionists in a list of people that somehow promote religious violence. Christian Zionists simply believe that Israel and the immediately surrounding area should be returned fully to the Jews as it was in Biblical times. I don't believe that there is any evidence that they support this aim through violent means.

Finally, I don't understand the point you made about Iraq. Presumably you mean it was a secular country where Christians and Muslims lived peacefully together when Saddam Hussein was in charge. I don't deny that at all and I have never used Iraq as an example of a Muslim country where Christians are persecuted. The three examples I gave were Somalia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Peevemor

02-12-2008, 11:50 AM

A majority Christian country i.e. a country where the majority of its citizens are adherents of a Christian denomination .... :blah:

That must have taken you ages. :greengrin

Good post though. :agree:

FWIW, I'd say that the high proportion of muslims in the UK compared to the US is down to colonialism more than distance/geography.

Betty Boop

02-12-2008, 12:28 PM

A majority Christian country i.e. a country where the majority of its citizens are adherents of a Christian denomination (R.C., Protestant etc). Any examples of countries in the Americas or Western Europe would be suitable.

A mainstream Christian organisation could be a Christian based group/charity such as Christian Aid or Tearfund or a similar type of organisation.

Your point about there not being many Muslims in the deep south of the USA isn't really a great one as there's not really that many Muslims in the USA as a whole, in relation to their overall population. Exact figures are hard to come by as the USA census does not ask for religious affiliation. However estimates suggest that there aren't that many more Muslims in the USA than there are in the UK. This possibly has a lot to do with the fact that the USA is geographically a long way from Africa and Asia (the two main areas in the world where Islam thrives).

However the Muslims that do exist in the USA are free to openly express their religious beliefs without any fear of government interference or state police carrying out attacks and that was the point I was trying to make when talking about the differences between attitudes to religious tolerance in Christian countries and quite a lot of Muslim nations.

I don't doubt that there are Christian fundamentalists who take the law into their own hands at times. The best example would probably be from the USA where there have been cases of Christians attacking and sometimes killing people who work at abortion clinics. Obviously that is shocking and completely unacceptable. However, many of these people, such as Paul Jennings Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill), were excommunicated from their church when their fanatical views on abortion became apparent. These people are also, thankfully, in the extreme minority.

However, many mosques (some of which are in the UK) do not do enough to steer people away from radical views on the West and those who do not adhere to the Islamic way of life. Tony Blair was once quoted as saying that Muslims in the UK must do more to root out the extremists within their communities. There are also those young British Muslims who go abroad, usually to Pakistan, and come back radicalised after spending time at military camps and Madrasas. This happened to a couple of the 7/7 bombers.

I would say that the number of Islamic terrorists in the world today far outweigh the number of Christian fundamentalists who are prepared to kill for their religious beliefs. The former are also often given quite a bit of support and backing from high ranking individuals within their local Muslim communities, whereas I am not aware of any officially recognised churches, ministers, pastors etc supporting the murders of people who perform abortions, conduct gay marriages or who criticise Christianity etc.

I will also answer the question that Haymaker has so far failed to answer. There are no Christian majority nations where Muslims are not free to practice their religion, where they are regularly persecuted and forced to deny their faith by state police and government officials etc.

There are also no current recognised, mainstream Christian organisation whose members go around hijacking planes full of people and then fly them into buildings, blowing up hotels, nightclubs, public transport and killing thousands of innocent people indiscriminately, calling for apostates to be killed and call for people who poke fun at Jesus to be killed, all in the name of Christianity.

There is also no Christian equivalent of Salman Rushdie who received a fatwa, calling for his execution, from the Iranian spiritual leader in the 80's over his book, "The Satanic Verses" just because it criticised certain aspects of Islam. There have been several instances of people poking fun at Christianity and Jesus in recent years and although they have drawn protests and complaints, I don't think anyone has been threatened with murder over it.

I'm not sure why you mention Christian Zionists in a list of people that somehow promote religious violence. Christian Zionists simply believe that Israel and the immediately surrounding area should be returned fully to the Jews as it was in Biblical times. I don't believe that there is any evidence that they support this aim through violent means.

Finally, I don't understand the point you made about Iraq. Presumably you mean it was a secular country where Christians and Muslims lived peacefully together when Saddam Hussein was in charge. I don't deny that at all and I have never used Iraq as an example of a Muslim country where Christians are persecuted. The three examples I gave were Somalia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. You clearly don't know much about Christian Zionism then, have a wee read of this statement from Christian leaders in Jerusalem. http://www.zenit.org/article-16848?l=english

majorhibs

02-12-2008, 08:48 PM

I'd ask for examples of times I've shown myself to be either ill-informed or prejudiced (I'll give you argumentative :wink:) but I imagine I'd get a reply along the lines of...

Which is a fantastic way to argue.

I asked do you think I as in me am a legitimate target due to the fact I pass through ( or at least used to ) Mumbai regularly due to my work, and have a British passport, I aked this quite soon after the atrocities as I was a bit reflective on the fact I would have been in Mumbai at the time all the palaver was going on had it not been for some pretty downright disgusting weather which cancelled our helicopters off the rig, nothing worse than working your 28 then the weather kicks off the day your due home, we get 28 off (25 once you take the travel out of it) but if we lose any days due to acts of God/terrorism/whatever we still have to go back on our due date meaning I'm back on 24th december regardless, just less days at home, but as to my question and further responses to your style of arrogant big headed debating on stuff you know little about, I realise I should'nt have even bothered wi you, being a big mouth doesnt automatically make you the font of all knowledge, working in India & discussing things with the lads fi India that I work with gives me at least a working knowledge of certain situations, in future when turkeys like LH spout off about subjects they know not a lot about I'll do what I should've done fi the off- ignore the ill informed rantings of riz- sorry LH & let these wannabe politicians get on with it among theirselves.

Sir David Gray

02-12-2008, 11:21 PM

That must have taken you ages. :greengrin

Good post though. :agree:

FWIW, I'd say that the high proportion of muslims in the UK compared to the US is down to colonialism more than distance/geography.

That's a possibility as well. :agree:

You clearly don't know much about Christian Zionism then, have a wee read of this statement from Christian leaders in Jerusalem. http://www.zenit.org/article-16848?l=english

I know quite a bit about it. The fact that article has been written by Christian leaders proves nothing and it's not surprising that it paints Christian Zionists in a bad light.

There is a huge split within the church when it comes to the issue of Israel. There are many Christians who are against Israel and are passionately supportive of a Palestinian state. There are also Christians (the Christian Zionists) who believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and that He set aside the Holy Land (the current state of Israel and the immediately surrounding areas as I mentioned in my last post) for those people. They believe that it is all part of the prophecy in the Bible regarding the Second Coming of Jesus.

If you read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism), this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism) or this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) then you will see that there's plenty of support for Zionism from Christians but no mention of it being supported through violent methods.

The issue of Israel is at the centre of the whole global unrest that we are seeing just now. It is no coincidence that one of the places the terrorists in Mumbai targeted was a Jewish centre. These people hate the Jews first and foremost and their stated aim is to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with an Islamic state. There will be no real and lasting peace in the Middle East whilst there are threats being made against Israel's existence, no matter how much politicians in the USA or the UK try to create a peace deal or a "roadmap for peace".

Betty Boop

03-12-2008, 08:00 AM

That's a possibility as well. :agree:

I know quite a bit about it. The fact that article has been written by Christian leaders proves nothing and it's not surprising that it paints Christian Zionists in a bad light.

There is a huge split within the church when it comes to the issue of Israel. There are many Christians who are against Israel and are passionately supportive of a Palestinian state. There are also Christians (the Christian Zionists) who believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and that He set aside the Holy Land (the current state of Israel and the immediately surrounding areas as I mentioned in my last post) for those people. They believe that it is all part of the prophecy in the Bible regarding the Second Coming of Jesus.
If you read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism), this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism) or this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) then you will see that there's plenty of support for Zionism from Christians but no mention of it being supported through violent methods.

The issue of Israel is at the centre of the whole global unrest that we are seeing just now. It is no coincidence that one of the places the terrorists in Mumbai targeted was a Jewish centre. These people hate the Jews first and foremost and their stated aim is to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with an Islamic state. There will be no real and lasting peace in the Middle East whilst there are threats being made against Israel's existence, no matter how much politicians in the USA or the UK try to create a peace deal or a "roadmap for peace". And there lies the problem! :yawn:

LiverpoolHibs

03-12-2008, 10:04 AM

I asked do you think I as in me am a legitimate target due to the fact I pass through ( or at least used to ) Mumbai regularly due to my work, and have a British passport, I aked this quite soon after the atrocities as I was a bit reflective on the fact I would have been in Mumbai at the time all the palaver was going on had it not been for some pretty downright disgusting weather which cancelled our helicopters off the rig, nothing worse than working your 28 then the weather kicks off the day your due home, we get 28 off (25 once you take the travel out of it) but if we lose any days due to acts of God/terrorism/whatever we still have to go back on our due date meaning I'm back on 24th december regardless, just less days at home, but as to my question and further responses to your style of arrogant big headed debating on stuff you know little about, I realise I should'nt have even bothered wi you, being a big mouth doesnt automatically make you the font of all knowledge, working in India & discussing things with the lads fi India that I work with gives me at least a working knowledge of certain situations, in future when turkeys like LH spout off about subjects they know not a lot about I'll do what I should've done fi the off- ignore the ill informed rantings of riz- sorry LH & let these wannabe politicians get on with it among theirselves.

You keep insisting that I'm 'ill-informed' (etc.), but when asked you've not been able to show me where or how I've shown this to be the case. You generally just respond with more half-hearted abuse. I've never claimed to be a 'font of all knowledge' - I'm fairly opinionated, but I don't think that is a bad thing

Surely you can see how I might have objected somewhat to you suggesting (however indirectly) that I thought British and American nationals in Mumbai were 'legitimate targets'?

And I don't think I've come across as arrogant, big-headed or big-mouthed in this thread, again perhaps you could show me where I have been.

hibsbollah

03-12-2008, 10:23 AM

Falkirk Hibee asks an interesting question about why there are no Christian terrorist organisations comparable in scale to muslim ones at present. On one hand, you could choose to believe that this is because there is something fundamental about Islam that makes its followers wantonly murder innocent civilians (the 'bad guys'), and that the Christian religion, by contrast, is wholly peaceable and wholly full of 'good guys'.

On the other hand, you could see terrorism for what it is, a demonstration of the lack of political power. Al Qaeda only exists as a terrorist organisation because it is so marginalised. Their extreme beliefs are not supported by any electorate anywhere in the world, otherwise they would have power. To turn Falkirk Hibee's parallel on its head; there is no state war by a Muslim nation on a Christian nation comparable in scale with say; USA on Afghanistan, USA on Iraq, Turkey (secular) on the Kurdish minority, Russia on Chechnya, Israel on Palestine, Israel on Lebanon I could go on. This doesnt make one side better than the other, it just means one side has the means to fight a war against those it dislikes, while the other side does not have the means, and so resorts to 'terrorism'.

lyonhibs

03-12-2008, 02:27 PM

You keep insisting that I'm 'ill-informed' (etc.), but when asked you've not been able to show me where or how I've shown this to be the case. You generally just respond with more half-hearted abuse. I've never claimed to be a 'font of all knowledge' - I'm fairly opinionated, but I don't think that is a bad thing

Surely you can see how I might have objected somewhat to you suggesting (however indirectly) that I thought British and American nationals in Mumbai were 'legitimate targets'?

And I don't think I've come across as arrogant, big-headed or big-mouthed in this thread, again perhaps you could show me where I have been.

Some people are confusing 'being able to consistently and eloquently structure a coherent opinion' with 'being a know-it-all'

majorhibs

03-12-2008, 05:01 PM

Some people are confusing 'being able to consistently and eloquently structure a coherent opinion' with 'being a know-it-all'

And in steps another young know it all! Surely its plainly obvious that the know it all from Liverpool keeps ducking the first quastion I asked him, did he think I was a legitimate target with MY passport as I should have been in Mumbai last wednesday- not anybody with a UK-USA passport, just me, that was my question to LH but like the know it all wannabe politician he is he keeps ducking out of an answer with slaverings and questions of his own- zero backbone fi the entrant fi Liverpool if you ask me- of course this will just be answered with more ducking and diving and I´m cleverer than you stuff- fair play to him he´s consistent.

LiverpoolHibs

03-12-2008, 06:45 PM

And in steps another young know it all! Surely its plainly obvious that the know it all from Liverpool keeps ducking the first quastion I asked him, did he think I was a legitimate target with MY passport as I should have been in Mumbai last wednesday- not anybody with a UK-USA passport, just me, that was my question to LH but like the know it all wannabe politician he is he keeps ducking out of an answer with slaverings and questions of his own- zero backbone fi the entrant fi Liverpool if you ask me- of course this will just be answered with more ducking and diving and I´m cleverer than you stuff- fair play to him he´s consistent.

Sorry, so this (my very first reply to you)....

Jesus wept. Where have I given even the mildest suggestion of that? :confused:

...wasn't a very clear indication that I didn't think you (or anyone else) would have been a 'legitimate target' but was, in fact, me dodging the question? Right you are.

majorhibs

03-12-2008, 07:56 PM

So there's no history of pernicious U.S. involvment in the Middle East prior to the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Cannae help yourself big guy, eh? Thread on clowns creating havoc, killing indiscriminately & dividing nations where previously none of that existed. But YOU had to get your "well informed" point in! Fairly opinionated you say :blah: one mans fairly opinionated is another mans blabbermouth! Imo of course! I´m no getting an answer if you thought I was a legitimate target last wednesday in Mumbai, tho, am I. Slopier shoulders than Ben Nevis, you. Just say your not goin to answer the question then we´ll all be done wi it. Or is that not the way when superior intellect deals with the minions when they question the "fairly opinionated"

LiverpoolHibs

03-12-2008, 08:30 PM

Cannae help yourself big guy, eh? Thread on clowns creating havoc, killing indiscriminately & dividing nations where previously none of that existed. But YOU had to get your "well informed" point in! Fairly opinionated you say :blah: one mans fairly opinionated is another mans blabbermouth! Imo of course! I´m no getting an answer if you thought I was a legitimate target last wednesday in Mumbai, tho, am I. Slopier shoulders than Ben Nevis, you. Just say your not goin to answer the question then we´ll all be done wi it. Or is that not the way when superior intellect deals with the minions when they question the "fairly opinionated"

I was responding to a particular point. That's generally what happens in a conversation, especially one that had already developed into the causes of such a tragedy and similar tragedies.

And you have had an answer, two pretty explicit answers in fact - one at the time and one a short while ago in post number 72, which I would be interested in a response to. A decent debating style doesn't often involve ignoring posts/making things up.

Hibrandenburg

04-12-2008, 02:47 PM

Seems incredible that 10 men could shut down a city, and carry out an operation of this size on four fronts. Something not right about this story. :bitchy: What were all the intelligence services doing?

Never ceases to amaze me that the people who point the finger at the police/security services for not doing enough are almost always the same who do so when they do.

YehButNoBut

04-12-2008, 03:11 PM

Just seen on Sky news that India has put all major airports on high alert after receiving threats that planes may be hijacked and used for possible attacks.

Airport security has been tightened and travellers are being asked to check in three hours before their flights.

Full story here http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... ress_Trust (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mumbai-Attacks-India-Has-Received-Warning-Of-Possible-Airborne-Terror-Attacks-India-Press-Trust/Article/200812115172174?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_A rticle_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15172174_Mumbai_Attacks%3A_India_Has_R eceived_Warning_Of_Possible_Airborne_Terror_Attack s%2C_India_Press_Trust)

majorhibs

04-12-2008, 07:38 PM

I was responding to a particular point. That's generally what happens in a conversation, especially one that had already developed into the causes of such a tragedy and similar tragedies.

And you have had an answer, two pretty explicit answers in fact - one at the time and one a short while ago in post number 72, which I would be interested in a response to. A decent debating style doesn't often involve ignoring posts/making things up.

Tonights installment- to my simple brain, every answer you have given to my direct question to you about me in Mumbai with my British passport has been met with an indirect non answer- eg Jesus wept where have I given even the mildest suggestion of that- pedantic of me here maybe but that to me is a non answer, you can make of that just about anything, you could retract that anywhere you wanted, in fact its politicians speak to me- and politicians are imo the most dishonest people you could come across, though they tell it different when they explain how they're just keeping ahead of the game- come to think of it I think I know a few potential politicians. 72 was better though. Decent debating style blah blah doesnt make you well informed though. Seems your a wee bit quick wi the self praise throughout all this, mr well informed fairly self opinionated upholder of the truth about the pernicious USA in the middle east- who needs news agencies when weve all got humble you telling it like it is- lucky old us, eh?

majorhibs

04-12-2008, 07:41 PM

LiverpoolHibs

05-12-2008, 10:50 AM

Tonights installment- to my simple brain, every answer you have given to my direct question to you about me in Mumbai with my British passport has been met with an indirect non answer- eg Jesus wept where have I given even the mildest suggestion of that- pedantic of me here maybe but that to me is a non answer,

No it isn't, you know very well that it was a crystal-clear answer, it just suits you to pretend that it wasn't. But just in the interests laying it on thick, I do not think you or anyone else (whether they had a British passport, an American passport and Indian pasport etc. etc. etc.) killed in Mumbai were 'legitimate targets'. I expect you to reply that I am still dodging the question.

N.B. The faux self-deprecating shtick is pretty transparent, btw.

you can make of that just about anything, you could retract that anywhere you wanted,

Retract what?

in fact its politicians speak to me- and politicians are imo the most dishonest people you could come across, though they tell it different when they explain how they're just keeping ahead of the game- come to think of it I think I know a few potential politicians.

Could you explain where I have been dishonest? But as with your non-stop, unsubstantiated claims that I have been 'arrogant', 'big-headed', 'ignorant' and 'ill-informed' in this thread, I won't hold my breath

72 was better though. Decent debating style blah blah doesnt make you well informed though.

No, you're right, it doesn't. But that isn't the point, it helps in arguments/debates if you don't deliberately try to misrepresent the person you're arguing with.

Seems your a wee bit quick wi the self praise throughout all this, mr well informed fairly self opinionated upholder of the truth about the pernicious USA in the middle east- who needs news agencies when weve all got humble you telling it like it is- lucky old us, eh?

Again, where exactly have I praised myself in this thread? I've criticised your style of debating, but that doesn't equate to me praising my own; more misrepresentation - quelle surprise.

And I haven't called myself well-informed, you have just constantly called me ill-informed without backing it up. Perhaps you could make an argument as to why the USA has not been a pernicious influence in the Middle East since the Second World War.

Sir David Gray

05-12-2008, 11:08 PM

And there lies the problem! :yawn:

Fair enough, that's your opinion (which you're fully entitled to by the way), i'm just giving you the facts on the other side of the coin.

Also, that comment above is a bit of a climb down from your other post when you mentioned Christian Zionists in a list of groups of people who are supporters of religiously motivated violence. Apart from a statement from some church leaders criticising Zionist ideology, you haven't provided any proof that Christian Zionists actually support violent extremism to achieve their goals (the church leader in your article only criticises Zionism).

Falkirk Hibee asks an interesting question about why there are no Christian terrorist organisations comparable in scale to muslim ones at present. On one hand, you could choose to believe that this is because there is something fundamental about Islam that makes its followers wantonly murder innocent civilians (the 'bad guys'), and that the Christian religion, by contrast, is wholly peaceable and wholly full of 'good guys'.

On the other hand, you could see terrorism for what it is, a demonstration of the lack of political power. Al Qaeda only exists as a terrorist organisation because it is so marginalised. Their extreme beliefs are not supported by any electorate anywhere in the world, otherwise they would have power. To turn Falkirk Hibee's parallel on its head; there is no state war by a Muslim nation on a Christian nation comparable in scale with say; USA on Afghanistan, USA on Iraq, Turkey (secular) on the Kurdish minority, Russia on Chechnya, Israel on Palestine, Israel on Lebanon I could go on. This doesnt make one side better than the other, it just means one side has the means to fight a war against those it dislikes, while the other side does not have the means, and so resorts to 'terrorism'.

First highlighted point-At no point in any of my posts will you have seen me even suggesting that all Muslims simply go around murdering innocent people. That would be simply untrue. What I have been saying, that I think is true, is that Islam does have a sizeable element within it that is extremely dangerous. An element that is domineering, violent and oppressive both to those of other faiths and even to those within their own communities who do not conform to their high ideological standards.

Also at no point have I suggested that all Christians are completely peaceful people and "full of good guys". I have provided a link, made reference to and criticised the Christian groups in America who have fanatical views on people that perform abortions. I also made reference in another post to Christians carrying out violence hundreds of years ago. I wouldn't have said/done all that if I thought all Christians are totally peaceful.

What I do believe is that if you take the two religions as a whole, Christianity is a far more peaceful and tolerant faith.

Second highlighted point-Israel's war with Lebanon in 2006 began after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel. At the same time, they launched a ground assault into Israel and attacked two Israeli military vehicles. The attack killed three Israeli soldiers, injured two and another two were seized and taken by Lebanon. It later transpired that the two soldiers had in fact been killed. Both their remains were handed back to Israel this year in return for the release of several Hezbollah militants and one man in particular, Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of the murders of an Israeli policeman, an Israeli man and his 4 year old daughter, in 1979.

Israel's actions against Palestine have come mainly from the fact that one of the sides that is heavily involved in Palestinian politics, Hamas, refuses to recognise Israel, wants it replaced by a Palestinian Islamic state and intends to achieve its aim by using whatever means necessary.

Hamas also has a history of capturing Israeli soldiers. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped 2 and a half years ago and hasn't been seen since.

The Palestinians have also indoctrinated and trained many children over the years, to become suicide bombers. They tell them that they will become martyrs and go to Paradise if they murder Jews.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that utterly sick and seriously disturbing.

I've already said in other posts and threads that the war in Afghanistan is justified from the point of view that, not only was the Taliban an extremely brutal regime, but they harboured and protected Al Qaeda terrorists and made Afghanistan a safe haven for them and their supporters.

Turkey, although it is officially secular, is a majority Muslim country. If you're going to go down that road then you can't really say that America attacked a Muslim country in Iraq as it was a secular nation under Saddam Hussein.

Final highlighted point-Well perhaps we should all just wait for the Iranians to develop their nuclear bomb(s). Once that happens we won't need to worry a jot about having enemies or whether they have the means to fight a war against us as we'll all just be wiped out.

hibsbollah

06-12-2008, 10:22 AM

Fair enough, that's your opinion (which you're fully entitled to by the way), i'm just giving you the facts on the other side of the coin.

Also, that comment above is a bit of a climb down from your other post when you mentioned Christian Zionists in a list of groups of people who are supporters of religiously motivated violence. Apart from a statement from some church leaders criticising Zionist ideology, you haven't provided any proof that Christian Zionists actually support violent extremism to achieve their goals (the church leader in your article only criticises Zionism).

First highlighted point-At no point in any of my posts will you have seen me even suggesting that all Muslims simply go around murdering innocent people. That would be simply untrue. What I have been saying, that I think is true, is that Islam does have a sizeable element within it that is extremely dangerous. An element that is domineering, violent and oppressive both to those of other faiths and even to those within their own communities who do not conform to their high ideological standards.

Also at no point have I suggested that all Christians are completely peaceful people and "full of good guys". I have provided a link, made reference to and criticised the Christian groups in America who have fanatical views on people that perform abortions. I also made reference in another post to Christians carrying out violence hundreds of years ago. I wouldn't have said/done all that if I thought all Christians are totally peaceful.

What I do believe is that if you take the two religions as a whole, Christianity is a far more peaceful and tolerant faith.

Second highlighted point-Israel's war with Lebanon in 2006 began after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel. At the same time, they launched a ground assault into Israel and attacked two Israeli military vehicles. The attack killed three Israeli soldiers, injured two and another two were seized and taken by Lebanon. It later transpired that the two soldiers had in fact been killed. Both their remains were handed back to Israel this year in return for the release of several Hezbollah militants and one man in particular, Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of the murders of an Israeli policeman, an Israeli man and his 4 year old daughter, in 1979.

Israel's actions against Palestine have come mainly from the fact that one of the sides that is heavily involved in Palestinian politics, Hamas, refuses to recognise Israel, wants it replaced by a Palestinian Islamic state and intends to achieve its aim by using whatever means necessary.

Hamas also has a history of capturing Israeli soldiers. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped 2 and a half years ago and hasn't been seen since.

The Palestinians have also indoctrinated and trained many children over the years, to become suicide bombers. They tell them that they will become martyrs and go to Paradise if they murder Jews.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that utterly sick and seriously disturbing.

I've already said in other posts and threads that the war in Afghanistan is justified from the point of view that, not only was the Taliban an extremely brutal regime, but they harboured and protected Al Qaeda terrorists and made Afghanistan a safe haven for them and their supporters.

Turkey, although it is officially secular, is a majority Muslim country. If you're going to go down that road then you can't really say that America attacked a Muslim country in Iraq as it was a secular nation under Saddam Hussein.

Final highlighted point-Well perhaps we should all just wait for the Iranians to develop their nuclear bomb(s). Once that happens we won't need to worry a jot about having enemies or whether they have the means to fight a war against us as we'll all just be wiped out.

First of all, I wasnt suggesting you said either of those things, I was suggesting that you have a choice as to what to believe. Either a)religion is at the root of terrorist violence, and thus Christians are inherently more peaceable than Muslims, which is clearly what you believe from your responses. Or b) terrorism is a symptom of lack of political power, and the existence of terrorism in Islamic countries is evidence of a lack of relative power in those countries compared to the West. It doesnt make that terrorism excusable, it just means that it is more complex than a purely religious or ideological conflict.

You are clearly very set in your thoughts about the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006. If you disgaree with the UN and every major humanitarian organisation that Israels response was completely disproportionate (1200 Lebanese civilians killed, 5000 injured) I suspect there is no point debating this issue with you.

Turkey is an ally of the West, and so can be seen as Western in that respect, regardless of the religion of the population. Your semantics cant disguise the fact that conventional war has been waged continuously by the West against muslim countries since the early 90s.

In relation to your final point, you also clearly think that a pre-emptive strike against a country who we suspect at some time in the future may have nuclear weapons is in some way justified. I'm sure Iranians might ask why the UK, and more crucially Israel, are allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons?

Betty Boop

06-12-2008, 01:01 PM

Fair enough, that's your opinion (which you're fully entitled to by the way), i'm just giving you the facts on the other side of the coin.

Also, that comment above is a bit of a climb down from your other post when you mentioned Christian Zionists in a list of groups of people who are supporters of religiously motivated violence. Apart from a statement from some church leaders criticising Zionist ideology, you haven't provided any proof that Christian Zionists actually support violent extremism to achieve their goals (the church leader in your article only criticises Zionism).

First highlighted point-At no point in any of my posts will you have seen me even suggesting that all Muslims simply go around murdering innocent people. That would be simply untrue. What I have been saying, that I think is true, is that Islam does have a sizeable element within it that is extremely dangerous. An element that is domineering, violent and oppressive both to those of other faiths and even to those within their own communities who do not conform to their high ideological standards.

Also at no point have I suggested that all Christians are completely peaceful people and "full of good guys". I have provided a link, made reference to and criticised the Christian groups in America who have fanatical views on people that perform abortions. I also made reference in another post to Christians carrying out violence hundreds of years ago. I wouldn't have said/done all that if I thought all Christians are totally peaceful.

What I do believe is that if you take the two religions as a whole, Christianity is a far more peaceful and tolerant faith.

Second highlighted point-Israel's war with Lebanon in 2006 began after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel. At the same time, they launched a ground assault into Israel and attacked two Israeli military vehicles. The attack killed three Israeli soldiers, injured two and another two were seized and taken by Lebanon. It later transpired that the two soldiers had in fact been killed. Both their remains were handed back to Israel this year in return for the release of several Hezbollah militants and one man in particular, Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of the murders of an Israeli policeman, an Israeli man and his 4 year old daughter, in 1979.

Israel's actions against Palestine have come mainly from the fact that one of the sides that is heavily involved in Palestinian politics, Hamas, refuses to recognise Israel, wants it replaced by a Palestinian Islamic state and intends to achieve its aim by using whatever means necessary.

Hamas also has a history of capturing Israeli soldiers. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped 2 and a half years ago and hasn't been seen since.

The Palestinians have also indoctrinated and trained many children over the years, to become suicide bombers. They tell them that they will become martyrs and go to Paradise if they murder Jews.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that utterly sick and seriously disturbing.

I've already said in other posts and threads that the war in Afghanistan is justified from the point of view that, not only was the Taliban an extremely brutal regime, but they harboured and protected Al Qaeda terrorists and made Afghanistan a safe haven for them and their supporters.

Turkey, although it is officially secular, is a majority Muslim country. If you're going to go down that road then you can't really say that America attacked a Muslim country in Iraq as it was a secular nation under Saddam Hussein.

Final highlighted point-Well perhaps we should all just wait for the Iranians to develop their nuclear bomb(s). Once that happens we won't need to worry a jot about having enemies or whether they have the means to fight a war against us as we'll all just be wiped out. http://wake-up-america.net/The%20Christian%20Zionists.htm

Sir David Gray

06-12-2008, 11:04 PM

First of all, I wasnt suggesting you said either of those things, I was suggesting that you have a choice as to what to believe. Either a)religion is at the root of terrorist violence, and thus Christians are inherently more peaceable than Muslims, which is clearly what you believe from your responses. Or b) terrorism is a symptom of lack of political power, and the existence of terrorism in Islamic countries is evidence of a lack of relative power in those countries compared to the West. It doesnt make that terrorism excusable, it just means that it is more complex than a purely religious or ideological conflict.

You are clearly very set in your thoughts about the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006. If you disgaree with the UN and every major humanitarian organisation that Israels response was completely disproportionate (1200 Lebanese civilians killed, 5000 injured) I suspect there is no point debating this issue with you.

Turkey is an ally of the West, and so can be seen as Western in that respect, regardless of the religion of the population. Your semantics cant disguise the fact that conventional war has been waged continuously by the West against muslim countries since the early 90s.

In relation to your final point, you also clearly think that a pre-emptive strike against a country who we suspect at some time in the future may have nuclear weapons is in some way justified. I'm sure Iranians might ask why the UK, and more crucially Israel, are allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons?

I thought that by saying "On one hand, you could choose to believe that this is because there is something fundamental about Islam that makes its followers wantonly murder innocent civilians" you were suggesting that I was of the opinion that all Muslims believe in murdering innocent people. If that's not what you were suggesting, then I apologise.

On the issue of the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006. As I have said when talking about other wars in other threads/posts, I have great sympathy with any innocent civilians who are killed/injured during war. It is an extremely unfortunate consequence in every single war.

However, the fact still remains that the war was started by Hezbollah who crossed the border into Israel and deliberately kidnapped, killed and injured several Israeli soldiers in a completely unprovoked attack.

If Hezbollah hadn't committed this act of violence in the first place then Israel would have had no need to attack Lebanon and therefore we wouldn't be hearing accusations of Israel acting in a "disproportionate manner".

As far as i'm concerned if a country, or a group represented in a particular country, acts in an aggressive manner towards you, in the way that Hezbollah acted towards Israel in 2006, then you should be fully entitled to fight back and defend yourself against the aggressor.

If, for argument's sake, France came into Dover and deliberately killed and kidnapped some British soldiers, I would fully expect Gordon Brown to order some form of retaliatory attack to be carried out against France, until the kidnapped soldiers were returned to the U.K.

It's also worth noting that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, does not recognise Israel, calls for the destruction of Israel, calls for the deaths of every single Jew living inside Israel and once described the Holocaust as "greatly exaggerated" and a "myth".

As for being set in my thoughts as to the rights/wrongs of the war, whilst it would be fair to say that I am pro-Israel in most matters, that doesn't mean to say that Israel is above criticism. If I think Israel has done wrong then I will certainly say so. As it happens, I think the only thing that Israel did during the entire process that was extremely wrong was that they agreed to a prisoner swap that meant, amongst others, a child killer went free in exchange for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped and later died, being returned to Israel.

My statement on Turkey was only to respond to your comment on Turkey when you expressed the fact that it was secular. All I said was, despite it being an officially secular state, Turkey is predominantly Muslim and if you prefer to describe Turkey as secular instead of Muslim then you can't use the Iraq war as an example of a war that a Christian nation has waged against a Muslim nation as Iraq was secular under Saddam Hussein.

Finally, let me make my position absolutely clear on nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, I don't believe that any country would have nuclear weapons. But for as long as a nation like Iran has them or is in the process of developing them, I support the fact that the U.S., U.K. and more importantly, Israel, has the capability to use them in a defensive manner. I don't believe that any of the three countries above would use their nuclear weapons to start a war or a conflict. I cannot say the same for Iran. I think I've said this before but I do not trust them as far as I could throw them and their current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a very dangerous man who has made several threats with regards to the continued existence of an Israeli state.

I do not believe that an attack on Iran would be wise, unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they are about to use their nuclear weapons to attack Israel or any other U.K. ally.

http://wake-up-america.net/The%20Christian%20Zionists.htm

I still do not agree that the Christians who call for the Jews to be given a homeland that resembles the borders that they believe was promised, by God, in the Bible support the achievement of their aims by violence or murder etc. However, like with the Christians in the U.S.A. who oppose abortion, there may be a very small minority who are more radical in their beliefs and actions. I do not believe that these people are representative of the vast majority of people who class themselves as Christian Zionists.

Let me just ask you this question.

Islam has a Holy country where its origins are believed to be from. Its followers go there to worship together on their pilgrimage, they even have a city where non-Muslims are not allowed. This is, of course, Saudi Arabia with the city being Mecca. No Christian, Jew or anyone else has threatened Islam's right to have Saudi Arabia as their focal point and they haven't attempted to take it over.

The Land of Israel (different from today's state) is the Jewish and Christian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It is where all the teachings in the Torah and the Bible took place. It is where Jesus was born, lived, was crucified and where, according to Christians, he rose again.

The only reason the Jews were scattered all over the place was down to several instances of violent oppression in their own land over the centuries, between Biblical times and now.

If the Muslims have a country where they can call "home" then why can't the Jews?

I appreciate that the above is difficult for someone, who doesn't believe in the Bible, to understand and accept but I think it's a legitimate argument.

hibsbollah

07-12-2008, 06:59 AM

Lets look at your statement closely 'I don't believe that any of the three countries above (Israel, USA, UK) would use their nuclear weapons to start a war or a conflict'. Are you aware that the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians? And before you respond, 'that was 60 years ago', the political climate in the USA is probably more aggressive now than it was then. Hilary Clinton (hardly a political hawk) said she would support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Israeli politicians are constantly ratcheting up the tension with Iran, recently the Defense minister threatened to pre-emptively attack Iran. Bear in mind we are talking about 2 countries who actually have the capability to destroy Iran. Iran doesnt even have the technology to enrich uranium yet, let alone the missiles to send it to Israel, let alone Europe or the USA. Trying to argue Iran poses a threat to British or US civilians is just nonsense.

What makes more sense from a political point of view would be to support moderate politicians in Iran, which was until quite recently undergoing social change and reform, and stop threatening them, which only strengthens hardliners and fundamentalists domestically.

In terms of Lebanon-Israel in 2006, you try to draw a parallel about French soldiers coming to Dover and kidnapping British servicemen, which is a bit weak in my opinion (the moderate Lebanese Govt are opposed to Hezbollah, so the parallel about France doesnt really work). Heres a more accurate one; The Real IRA, from a base in Donegal, fires missiles at a British checkpoint in Ulster, killing 5 British soldiers, and takes 2 hostage, to an unknown location. In response, the UK Government bombs Dublin, killing 1500 innocent civilians and injuring 5000. Dublin is in ruins. Nothing is achieved, except for generating lots more orphans and widows, and a new generation of radical terrorists. Would you support this action as well?

Betty Boop

07-12-2008, 08:42 AM

I thought that by saying "On one hand, you could choose to believe that this is because there is something fundamental about Islam that makes its followers wantonly murder innocent civilians" you were suggesting that I was of the opinion that all Muslims believe in murdering innocent people. If that's not what you were suggesting, then I apologise.

On the issue of the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006. As I have said when talking about other wars in other threads/posts, I have great sympathy with any innocent civilians who are killed/injured during war. It is an extremely unfortunate consequence in every single war.

However, the fact still remains that the war was started by Hezbollah who crossed the border into Israel and deliberately kidnapped, killed and injured several Israeli soldiers in a completely unprovoked attack.

If Hezbollah hadn't committed this act of violence in the first place then Israel would have had no need to attack Lebanon and therefore we wouldn't be hearing accusations of Israel acting in a "disproportionate manner".

As far as i'm concerned if a country, or a group represented in a particular country, acts in an aggressive manner towards you, in the way that Hezbollah acted towards Israel in 2006, then you should be fully entitled to fight back and defend yourself against the aggressor.

If, for argument's sake, France came into Dover and deliberately killed and kidnapped some British soldiers, I would fully expect Gordon Brown to order some form of retaliatory attack to be carried out against France, until the kidnapped soldiers were returned to the U.K.

It's also worth noting that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, does not recognise Israel, calls for the destruction of Israel, calls for the deaths of every single Jew living inside Israel and once described the Holocaust as "greatly exaggerated" and a "myth".

As for being set in my thoughts as to the rights/wrongs of the war, whilst it would be fair to say that I am pro-Israel in most matters, that doesn't mean to say that Israel is above criticism. If I think Israel has done wrong then I will certainly say so. As it happens, I think the only thing that Israel did during the entire process that was extremely wrong was that they agreed to a prisoner swap that meant, amongst others, a child killer went free in exchange for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped and later died, being returned to Israel.

My statement on Turkey was only to respond to your comment on Turkey when you expressed the fact that it was secular. All I said was, despite it being an officially secular state, Turkey is predominantly Muslim and if you prefer to describe Turkey as secular instead of Muslim then you can't use the Iraq war as an example of a war that a Christian nation has waged against a Muslim nation as Iraq was secular under Saddam Hussein.

Finally, let me make my position absolutely clear on nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, I don't believe that any country would have nuclear weapons. But for as long as a nation like Iran has them or is in the process of developing them, I support the fact that the U.S., U.K. and more importantly, Israel, has the capability to use them in a defensive manner. I don't believe that any of the three countries above would use their nuclear weapons to start a war or a conflict. I cannot say the same for Iran. I think I've said this before but I do not trust them as far as I could throw them and their current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a very dangerous man who has made several threats with regards to the continued existence of an Israeli state.

I do not believe that an attack on Iran would be wise, unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they are about to use their nuclear weapons to attack Israel or any other U.K. ally.

I still do not agree that the Christians who call for the Jews to be given a homeland that resembles the borders that they believe was promised, by God, in the Bible support the achievement of their aims by violence or murder etc. However, like with the Christians in the U.S.A. who oppose abortion, there may be a very small minority who are more radical in their beliefs and actions. I do not believe that these people are representative of the vast majority of people who class themselves as Christian Zionists.

Let me just ask you this question.

Islam has a Holy country where its origins are believed to be from. Its followers go there to worship together on their pilgrimage, they even have a city where non-Muslims are not allowed. This is, of course, Saudi Arabia with the city being Mecca. No Christian, Jew or anyone else has threatened Islam's right to have Saudi Arabia as their focal point and they haven't attempted to take it over.

The Land of Israel (different from today's state) is the Jewish and Christian equivalent of Saudi Arabia. It is where all the teachings in the Torah and the Bible took place. It is where Jesus was born, lived, was crucified and where, according to Christians, he rose again.

The only reason the Jews were scattered all over the place was down to several instances of violent oppression in their own land over the centuries, between Biblical times and now.

If the Muslims have a country where they can call "home" then why can't the Jews?
I appreciate that the above is difficult for someone, who doesn't believe in the Bible, to understand and accept but I think it's a legitimate argument. Muslims visit Mecca at least once in their lifetime as part of their religious obligations, and Saudi Arabia is hardly under occupation, as is the West Bank and Gaza. Surely the Palestinians deserve a home as also, instead of living under apartheid-like conditions (as described by Arch Bishop Desmond TuTu a Christian). The Palestinians are treated like second-class citizens in their own homeland, you don't seem to make much comment about them in your posts. Maybe Allah told them they were the chosen ones and promised the land to them? Surely the answer to Peace in the Middle East is for a two-state solution, with equal rights for the Palestinians? http://www.debianhelp.org/node/2783

Sir David Gray

08-12-2008, 05:18 PM

To Hibsbollah and Betty Boop: I don't think that we will agree on either of the issues that I have commented on below. Feel free to respond to what I have said if you wish, but I have a feeling that we will just go round in circles. It has been a good debate, I've enjoyed it and it's good that we have been able to discuss the issues in a civilised manner.

Lets look at your statement closely 'I don't believe that any of the three countries above (Israel, USA, UK) would use their nuclear weapons to start a war or a conflict'. Are you aware that the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians? And before you respond, 'that was 60 years ago', the political climate in the USA is probably more aggressive now than it was then. Hilary Clinton (hardly a political hawk) said she would support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Israeli politicians are constantly ratcheting up the tension with Iran, recently the Defense minister threatened to pre-emptively attack Iran. Bear in mind we are talking about 2 countries who actually have the capability to destroy Iran. Iran doesnt even have the technology to enrich uranium yet, let alone the missiles to send it to Israel, let alone Europe or the USA. Trying to argue Iran poses a threat to British or US civilians is just nonsense.

What makes more sense from a political point of view would be to support moderate politicians in Iran, which was until quite recently undergoing social change and reform, and stop threatening them, which only strengthens hardliners and fundamentalists domestically.

In terms of Lebanon-Israel in 2006, you try to draw a parallel about French soldiers coming to Dover and kidnapping British servicemen, which is a bit weak in my opinion (the moderate Lebanese Govt are opposed to Hezbollah, so the parallel about France doesnt really work). Heres a more accurate one; The Real IRA, from a base in Donegal, fires missiles at a British checkpoint in Ulster, killing 5 British soldiers, and takes 2 hostage, to an unknown location. In response, the UK Government bombs Dublin, killing 1500 innocent civilians and injuring 5000. Dublin is in ruins. Nothing is achieved, except for generating lots more orphans and widows, and a new generation of radical terrorists. Would you support this action as well?

I was aware of the USA's 'previous' regarding the use of nuclear weapons. As I've already said, in an ideal world, no-one would have them but I do believe that the current regime in Iran should not be allowed to be in control of nuclear capabilities but for as long as it does have a nuclear program, I see no problem with the USA, UK and Israel having them as well, in case of an attack from Iran, which is quite possible, especially in Israel's case.

Your alternative example of the IRA is probably more appropriate, although my France example was only supposed to be hypothetical.

If the IRA did do that then I would support any action that the UK government felt was necessary to defend our Armed Forces and our national interests in general, so long as they did not deliberately target the ordinary people of Dublin.

Muslims visit Mecca at least once in their lifetime as part of their religious obligations, and Saudi Arabia is hardly under occupation, as is the West Bank and Gaza. Surely the Palestinians deserve a home as also, instead of living under apartheid-like conditions (as described by Arch Bishop Desmond TuTu a Christian). The Palestinians are treated like second-class citizens in their own homeland, you don't seem to make much comment about them in your posts. Maybe Allah told them they were the chosen ones and promised the land to them? Surely the answer to Peace in the Middle East is for a two-state solution, with equal rights for the Palestinians? http://www.debianhelp.org/node/2783

Saudi Arabia's not under occupation, you're quite correct. As i've already said that's because no-one from outside the Islamic world has ever attempted to take it over. Quite rightly, it is respected as the Holiest country for Muslims as it is where their religion originated. However, although you're correct in saying Mecca is a place Muslims only visit at least once in their lifetime, under Saudi law, it is illegal for any non-Muslim to enter Mecca. It is also illegal to practice any religion, other than Islam, in Saudi Arabia as a whole.

In the case of the Land of Israel, that area was once practically all Jewish but a number of incidents throughout history, such as the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, the Crusades and the Mamluk period, have all resulted in the Jews being dispersed all over the world, through no fault of their own, and the Muslims were gradually introduced into the area.

The Jews have been badly treated in recent times as well. For example, in 1950, Jordan claimed control of East Jerusalem and then denied Jews access to, and desecrated, several of their Holy sites contained in that region such as ancient synagogues and the Western Wall. They also only allowed Christians limited access to their Holy sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Meanwhile, during the same period, Muslim sites such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque were both renovated.

Again you're quite correct in saying that the Palestinian people deserve a home. I believe that the area should be ruled by Israel and if the Palestinians are willing to accept being a minority group within Israel then there is no problem. Unfortunately, with Hamas playing a major role within Palestinian politics and several surrounding states being openly hostile towards Israel, I don't believe this will ever happen. As I've said before, a lasting peace in the Middle East will never materialise as long as there are people threatening Israel's existence.