Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
317 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
....and more to the pudding
Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, struck Fusilier Rigby with a car before hacking him to death.
Adebolajo had claimed he was a "soldier of Allah" and the killing was an act of war.
They had heard that Adebolajo and Adebowale drove a car into Fusilier Rigby at 30-40mph, before dragging him into the road and attacking him with knives and attempting to decapitate him with a meat cleaver
This no video game my dear VGZiens, this real life
.....alias such are islamic activities
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 2:51 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
You still haven't grown over this apparently? Most persons in civilized countries know that you should not ascribe actions of individuals to any group they may belong too. How did spokesmen of the group respond to this murder BTW, you do not mention that. Did they applaud or condemn the murder, or did they stay silent?
You still haven't grown over this apparently? Most persons in civilized countries know that you should not ascribe actions of individuals to any group they may belong too.
so if by growing up means completely turning a blind eye to activities of islamic fundamentalists while they butcher normal pepople...then dr doLittle please count me out
berzerker wrote:
How did spokesmen of the group respond to this murder BTW, you do not mention that. Did they applaud or condemn the murder, or did they stay silent?
the crime has been committed and a non-islamic person lost his life and you piece of shit are asking how the spokesmen responded??
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:36 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
if by growing up means completely turning a blind eye to activities of islamic fundamentalists
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
How did spokesmen of the group respond to this murder BTW, you do not mention that. Did they applaud or condemn the murder, or did they stay silent?
the crime has been committed and a non-islamic person lost his life and you piece of shit are asking how the spokesmen responded??
You ascribe the act of individuals to a group. This group has spokesmen, (and spokesmen speak for the group, got it?). If the spokesmen of the group that you accuse condemn an act, then the basis for ascribing that act to the group simply falls away. In that case you could argue (which you didn't) that there is reason to believe that the spokesmen either (i) do not truly represent the group or (ii) give the politically correct answer without really meaning it. Those exceptions would need to be established though. You didn't so we must assume that these exceptions do not apply.
Your dodging all of this simple logic suggests that you know that the murder was generally condemned by British muslims. But of course it is always easier not to let facts stand in the way of cheap rhetoric.
Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:11 pm
craterface
Poopypants
Joined: Jun 26, 2009
Posts: 356
Wow, it seems that in Egypt, they jsut had a fully democratic election and the islamic brotherhood won against the western democrats. So what did the losers do, when they got beaten in their own game played by their own rules?
They removed the newly elected government by military force and stamped them as terrorists.
Guess the MOMENT things not go as planned, they self willingly strip themselfs of all their democratic principle and use barbaric force. So democratic. Even if the other party would set a regime too, this is not the way the west should have act. They just lost their credibility, proven that they re just power hungry animals, and that shifty evil is even worse than straight up honest evil.
Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:26 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Yes, it was basically the same as in 1991, when FIS won the elections in Algeria, and of course when Hamas won the elections in Palestine in 2006. If the peoples of the Arab world want more fundamentalist rulers and elect them when given the opportunity, then this choice needs to be respected, because is was made democratically. That the western democracies didn't act accordingly in all of these cases, is hypocritical. Apparently the Arabs may elect in office anyone they want, as long as it is someone favoured by the west.
I wouldn't want to live in a society ruled by those fundamentalists either, but apparently the people there feel differently.
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 3:05 am
craterface
Poopypants
Joined: Jun 26, 2009
Posts: 356
It's just so disgusting. This way they basically saying "Oookay yep, guess you religious fanatics were right about us after all, by this act we admit to be just as greedy, power hungry and evil as you thought and yes, a threat to you all since we're forcing us upon you all wheter you like it or not."
Of course not all islam are fanatics and it is wrong (and useless) to attack innocent western bystanders on the street, that I approve. That won't change anything since the only "sin" a simple westerner has against an islam fanatic is to be born and lived under a different goverment, were consumerism rules and abided it's laws to survive in a world ruled by money.
If they are so against the west, then go after the politicans but blowing up a schoolbus doesn't solve anything since the leaders does not even care about the casualties in the first place. Actually it only gives them cause to attack back and force their greed on the islam world so with acts like this, they basically harm themselfs in the long term.
But even so, this what went down in Egypt it's simply atrocious.
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:10 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Generally international politics, but politics in general I suppose, has always been somewhat hypocritical. Arguments are used when they suit the purpose and ignored when they don't. Iraq gets condemned and even invaded for breaching international law while the invasion itself is a breach of international law and countries that breach international law on a much greater scale (like Israel) don't even get sanctioned. Iran gets boycotted for alleged development of nukes while countries that have already developed nukes (sometimes by flouting the same rules that Iran is accused of having broken) (like Pakistan) get billions in aid.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 12 of 12Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
