Liverpool FC Forum

by **112-1077774096** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:06 pm

i just wanted to add this article by tony parsons in the mirror, great read

SPEECHLESS AT OAF'S VILE RANT
25 September 2006

I AM not sure that some people have quite got the hang of this freedom of speech lark.

It is not freedom of speech when some mouthy oaf gets the chance to shout down everybody else. It is not freedom of speech when nobody else has a chance to get a word in edgeways. It is not freedom of speech when you are given a platform to praise terrorists, when what you should be given is a right-hander.

It was not freedom of speech when Abu Izzadeen was allowed to scream abuse at Home Secretary John Reid at what was meant to be a meeting with the Muslim community in the East End.

It was not freedom of speech when the same overfed oaf was allowed to shriek his hatred for this country for 12 minutes on BBC Radio 4's today show.

In the East End, police, security guards and hard man John Reid himself stood meekly by while Abu Izzadeen ranted about what an insult it was to have a government minister enter what he called a "Muslim area".

The East End a Muslim area? Don't tell Barbara Windsor.

As everyone from the Home Secretary to the Metropolitan Police to the BBC bent over backwards to not appear anti-Islamic, freedom of speech was hijacked by Abu Izzadeen.

The tragedy is that everyone was so busy listening patiently to Abu Izzadeen's hate-filled rant, that other Muslims lost their chance to voice their concerns to a senior government minister.

Don't worry about John Reid - he can get a date with Andrew Marr or Jeremy Paxman or Adam Boulton any time he likes.

It was the other Muslim voices that Abu Izzadeen screamed down. It was their freedom of speech he stole.

My old neighbour Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens, was on TV yesterday morning and he expressed concerns about the Pope's take on Islam, he talked about the strains on our multi-cultural society, he talked about being refused entry to America - and he did it all in such an intelligent, civilised manner that it made you feel that there is still a better tomorrow waiting to be won. That's freedom of speech - when all ranges of opinion are allowed a voice. Not just the ones who shout loudest.

It turns out that the fat firebrand Abu Izzadeen lives on £176 benefits a week. So it's not just his speech that is free. It is his entire, state-funded life in cushy old Britain. Abu wants to introduce Sharia law to the UK. But will Sharia law pay his council tax?

It is high time to work out where freedom of speech ends and incitement to hatred begins. It's not difficult. Abu Izzadeen has appeared on web sites urging young Muslims to bomb Britain. He should not be on Radio 4 - he should be banged up, charged with incitement to murder.

The Special Branch are said to be studying transcripts of his website rants. About time. Abu Izzadeen is repulsive living proof of what happens to a society when its values are mocked. In the end, too much freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all.

How long do we have to listen to nutcases praising terrorists and threatening our destruction? How long must we listen to fanatics who have been given a home here acting as if they own the place? When do we get to reclaim our country?

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:31 pm

I try to be calm and not lose my temper but things like that make my blood boil. People in this country are forced to keep quiet because if we dont we are labelled racist, while these extremists can get away with incitement, intimidation, and violence.

by **jkop** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:19 pm

s@int wrote:I try to be calm and not lose my temper but things like that make my blood boil. People in this country are forced to keep quiet because if we dont we are labelled racist, while these extremists can get away with incitement, intimidation, and violence.

Couldnt agree more. :nod

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:45 pm

Hereupon, i said Bin Laden was already a terrorist and USA was “Democracy and Freedom Warrior”. And they began the war which was based in Democracy and Freedom, against terrorism, because of this they are now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then i reminded the other terrorism events like East Turkestan, Chechenya, Lebanon, etc…. So, after your question , i asked this question :

Quote
Wasn't there terrorism(Goverment Terrorism) in Bosnia? or Wasn't there terrorism(Goverment Terrorism) in Lebanon? Isnt there terrorism(Goverment Terrorism) in Chechenya? Isn't there terrorism(Goverment Terrorism) in East Turkestan? Why don't USA(Democracy and Freedom Warrior) try to defeat terrorism from Chechenya, East Turkestan, Lebanon,Bosnia?

Iraq is the dubious one. Saddam obviously does have a history of antagonism with the United States. Whether or not war was the best option is debatable. Personally I don't think it was. Afghanistan was more clear cut as a terrorist shelter. Chechnya has nothing to do with the United States. It's an internal conflict within the Russian Federation. Lebanon is more complex in that it's part of radical Islam's ongoing war against Israel. Bosnia was a consequence of the break-up of Yugoslavia with long-standing tensions finally boiling-over. Turkestan also isn't a concern for the United States. That's a conflict involving China.

And now ,you are slanting the issue and asking this question:
Quote
Where are all the Muslim nations of the world when their "brothers" need help?

Now, pls divulge the contradiction. How can you decide that i want america to protect Muslims after the conversation above?? I’m sorry but there is someone telling slanted things who isn’t me….

You are, because you are using the line of argument that simply because the United States is involved in conflict in certain areas of the Muslim sphere, that this somehow means that they must involve themselves wherever Muslims find themselves in conflict. But the contradiction is that you also mention that you don't want America to meddle in Muslim affairs.

Besides, i dont want America to protect Muslims. I just want America to keep away from Muslims and to be consistent in its own actions.

They are. The point is like I said before that either way America acts, it attracts violence. If they interfere, it's used as a rallying call for conflict against them. If they don't interfere, they are accused of double-standards.

I say again, were it not for the need to support Israel and the West's need for oil, I would be more than happy for the West to sever all ties with the Muslim world to the point where as far as I'm concerned, the Muslim nations hostile to Western contact would no longer exist and would be left to stagnate in isolation. This situation would change only when the Muslim sphere reforms and joins the liberal democratic modern 21st century.

I dont want America to kill innocent people while begining the war against killers of innocent people

No one does. But it's simply that happens in any conflict. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world works.

No, they should go away from the lands where was occupied by them. If you enter my house to comit burglary, you must risk for dying. After your death by me, your relatives shouldn’t complain.

A more accurate analogy would be to imagine that two neighbours were living side by side. One Arab, one Jewish who both had long histories and origins in that particular neighbourhood. Then one day the Arab neighbour decided to break into the Jewish neighbour's house, but the Jewish neighbour fought back, repelled the invasion and also seized the aggressive Arab neighbour's garden, pond and shed.

I don’t take this sentence serious. Because it is childish. And it isn’t proving that America dont kill civilians. I’ll give a statistical information: 3900 Iraqi civilians have died in July….

So?

Statistics taken out of context mean very little.

Churchill and Truman killed thousands of civilians.

But the context was war.

Yes, majority of the world.

When did this worldwide global all-Earth referendum take place?

And pls don’t give me local examples like Bob Gedolf,

Local? The same Bob Geldof who organised among the largest global events in history? Witnessed by billions of people across the planet?

East London,

Huh? You mean the city in South Africa?

I never mentioned it.

West Browmwich,

Eh?

OK, you've lost me now.

blah blah. Because i dont live in England and i dont give examples from Yukari Nohutlu, Middle Yozgat, Zekeriya Beyaz, etc…

And you'd be right not to present such examples. I'm talking about global culture wars, not Uzbekistani pop groups.

I said this because, you had asked before what religion was blah blah’s murderer,etc…

Of course. Balance is vitally important.

I explained above why i asked “where was America”. And no Muslim want America to save them. Muslims want America just dont touch themselves.

I've already addressed this point at the beginning of this post. Muslims don't know what they want. At least the Muslims who believe in this nonsensical jihad against the West. It's a classical example of looking for a scapegoat.

Actually, i dont care why the Arab world do nothing.

And there's my point. People ignore the real issues, because it's easier to just say "It's America's Fault!!!!"

Radical Muslims would have you believe that America (whom admittedly are by no means perfect) are the source of all evil, while they the radical Muslims are as clear as sunlight and smell of roses and honey.

The sad thing is that some naive people actually believe it.

Many, living in the UK.

Because Arabs are unableness to defend thier own countries.

No, not unable.

Unwilling.

And they don't care other Muslims all over the world.

Bingo!

Now you've got it.

Same they hadn't care Ottoman against UK while 1st World War. And they are now taking the consequences. I will talk about Turkiye, cuz im Turk. We Turks aren't like Arabs. We always care our brothers even if they betray us.

Sounds like an absurd foreign policy to Manhattan.

Turkiye had protected all the Muslims for 650 years. Turkiye had already performed its duity. But unfortunatelly we arent strong enough now.When we get strong, USA and its supporters wont be able to meddle Muslim world anymore.And we will protect those unable Arab World again while their own (genetical) brothers are living in luxury in Saudi Arabia ,UAE, .. .

I'm afraid you are deluding yourself. Turkey has no intentions of acting as the guardian of the Muslim world. They want closer ties with Europe, not the Arab sphere. They know which way the wind is blowing.

by **woof woof !** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:26 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:I'm afraid you are deluding yourself. Turkey has no intentions of acting as the guardian of the Muslim world. They want closer ties with Europe, not the Arab sphere. They know which way the wind is blowing.

Superficially at least that would seem to be the case . Bear in mind however that the PRO ISLAMIC ruling party AK won a landslide victory in the general elections that swept them into power .

"Turkeys Prime Minister.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AK) is one of Turkey's most popular politicians.

But his pro-Islamist sympathies earned him a conviction in 1998 for inciting religious hatred.

He had publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

He was sentenced to 10 months in jail, but was freed after four.

However, because of his criminal record, he was barred from standing in elections or holding political office.

Parliament last year changed the constitution to allow Mr Erdogan to stand for a parliamentary seat. (BBC NEWS) "

Perhaps Manhatten , the statements by our Turkish member are not just the musing of a single individual but the deeply held feelings of many Turks ?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:34 pm

Perhaps Manhatten , the statements by our Turkish member are not just the musing of a single individual but the deeply held feelings of many Turks ?

It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but I still don't believe that Turkey would move towards establishing themselves as a pan-Islamic protection force, and the Turkish PM and his party appear to be pushing greatly for EU membership. It's already an observing member of the EU's conservative party bloc.

by **Woollyback** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:12 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Perhaps Manhatten , the statements by our Turkish member are not just the musing of a single individual but the deeply held feelings of many Turks ?

It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but I still don't believe that Turkey would move towards establishing themselves as a pan-Islamic protection force, and the Turkish PM and his party appear to be pushing greatly for EU membership. It's already an observing member of the EU's conservative party bloc.

the fact that turkey are (still) part of NATO tells us exactly which way their government wants to align themselves. but how much of that is putting money ahead of principles is open to debate

by **Big Niall** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:02 pm

Do they see the irony that when somebody says that Islam has violent tendancies that loads of muslims go onto the streets and threaten to kill the person who said it?

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:04 pm

yeah, if you call us violent again we will cut your head off and burn some building to prove we are not

by **afs66** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:13 pm

Iraq is the dubious one. Saddam obviously does have a history of antagonism with the United States. Whether or not war was the best option is debatable. Personally I don't think it was. Afghanistan was more clear cut as a terrorist shelter. Chechnya has nothing to do with the United States. It's an internal conflict within the Russian Federation. Lebanon is more complex in that it's part of radical Islam's ongoing war against Israel. Bosnia was a consequence of the break-up of Yugoslavia with long-standing tensions finally boiling-over. Turkestan also isn't a concern for the United States. That's a conflict involving China.

I've already addressed this point at the beginning of this post. Muslims don't know what they want. At least the Muslims who believe in this nonsensical jihad against the West. It's a classical example of looking for a scapegoat.
[b]And there's my point. People ignore the real issues, because it's easier to just say "It's America's Fault!!!!"

Radical Muslims would have you believe that America (whom admittedly are by no means perfect) are the source of all evil, while they the radical Muslims are as clear as sunlight and smell of roses and honey.

The sad thing is that some naive people actually believe it.

Many, living in the UK.
You are, because you are using the line of argument that simply because the United States is involved in conflict in certain areas of the Muslim sphere, that this somehow means that they must involve themselves wherever Muslims find themselves in conflict. But the contradiction is that you also mention that you don't want America to meddle in Muslim affairs.

They are. The point is like I said before that either way America acts, it attracts violence. If they interfere, it's used as a rallying call for conflict against them. If they don't interfere, they are accused of double-standards.

I say again, were it not for the need to support Israel and the West's need for oil, I would be more than happy for the West to sever all ties with the Muslim world to the point where as far as I'm concerned, the Muslim nations hostile to Western contact would no longer exist and would be left to stagnate in isolation. This situation would change only when the Muslim sphere reforms and joins the liberal democratic modern 21st century.
No one does. But it's simply that happens in any conflict. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world works.

A more accurate analogy would be to imagine that two neighbours were living side by side. One Arab, one Jewish who both had long histories and origins in that particular neighbourhood. Then one day the Arab neighbour decided to break into the Jewish neighbour's house, but the Jewish neighbour fought back, repelled the invasion and also seized the aggressive Arab neighbour's garden, pond and shed.

So?

Statistics taken out of context mean very little.

Churchill and Truman killed thousands of civilians.

But the context was war.

Generally i dont agree these parts of your posts and ideas. Because you are solid at your side and me too at my side. You are intransigent because you disregard statistics, photos and etc... But i dont slander you, because your thoughts are right for you. And same thing for me.And i dont want to argue anymore. Because both thoughts of us wont change...

Local? The same Bob Geldof who organised among the largest global events in history? Witnessed by billions of people across the planet?
Huh? You mean the city in South Africa?
I never mentioned it.
Eh?
OK, you've lost me now.
And you'd be right not to present such examples. I'm talking about global culture wars, not Uzbekistani pop groups.

Yes, local. You and someone had given local examples like the events in East London, Bob Gedolf, etc..
And i dont need to know Bob gedolf and what he did. I haven't heard him before you had mentioned.
Those Uzbekistani Groups were joke

They are not pop groups, anyway, not important

No, not unable.

Unwilling.

I chosed consciously the word "unable". But i think this word "unable" doesnt reflect my main word which i want to say. I couldn't find the right word. That is not "unwilling" too.
I mean with the word "unable" that they are out of heart to defend their lands.

And they don't care other Muslims all over the world.

Bingo!

Now you've got it.

We are at the same side here. But i think you intend different thing. I meant above, they dont care even their brothers so they only think saving their own asses personally.
I want to say something interesting which i had heard on Turkish TV. A Turkish war correspondent who had gone to Lebanon while Israel were bombing the South Lebanon mercilessly. He said that people were laughing, making fun,swimming and lying under the sun in non-bombing sides of Lebanon. Their brothers' death are non of their business.
I dont want to make this thought general, but i think that is quite true :blush:

Sounds like an absurd foreign policy to Manhattan.

Possible. I take a lot of things absurd,too. But it doesnt change the reality..

I'm afraid you are deluding yourself. Turkey has no intentions of acting as the guardian of the Muslim world. They want closer ties with Europe, not the Arab sphere. They know which way the wind is blowing.

After this writing above, i suspect your other ideas are without knowledge,too, like thoughts above. Your thoughts never change. Because i am living in Turkiye, i am citing the general opinion of Tuks and you say that i am deluding myself

Of course we Turks dont want to be chummy with Arabs. Also Arabs are disreputable in Turkiye.But nonetheless they are Muslims. When a Muslim suffers, whole Muslims must suffer. This is not Pan-Islamism. This is the duity of Muslims. Turkiye want to be closer with Europe, because Turkiye want to take advantages of European Union's economical power. This is the only and main reason. This doesn't prove that we want to be European or this doesn't prove that we want to transfer European culture...
There is a Turkish proverb. I will try to translate. If i couldnt, pls dont take wrong. Bear=(AYI in Turkish) Uncle=(DAYI in Turkish)
Preveb is
"You must call the bear(AYI) as uncle(DAYI), untill passing over the river"
European Union and Turkiye's relationship is like the preverb according to Turk side. That's all...

BTW: Please dont cut my sentences. For example, when i said "Fenerbahce Fans dont support Liverpool while Liverpool is playing against Fenerbahce", dont quote just "Fenerbahce Fans dont support Liverpool" part.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:02 pm

You are intransigent because you disregard statistics, photos and etc...

What statistics?

What photos?

Yes, local. You and someone had given local examples like the events in East London, Bob Gedolf, etc..And i dont need to know Bob gedolf and what he did. I haven't heard him before you had mentioned.

Sorry dude, but if you think "London" and "Bob Geldof" are "local" then you really need a broader view of the world.

I chosed consciously the word "unable". But i think this word "unable" doesnt reflect my main word which i want to say. I couldn't find the right word. That is not "unwilling" too. I mean with the word "unable" that they are out of heart to defend their lands.

The correct word is "unwilling"

Because there is no such thing as an Arab bloc.

It's full of internal strive.

We are at the same side here. But i think you intend different thing. I meant above, they dont care even their brothers so they only think saving their own asses personally.

Excellent. You are finally getting it.

I want to say something interesting which i had heard on Turkish TV. A Turkish war correspondent who had gone to Lebanon while Israel were bombing the South Lebanon mercilessly.

Oh yes, I'm also sure the "merciless" Israelis had red glowing eyes and were devouring children by the hundreds too.

He said that people were laughing, making fun,swimming and lying under the sun in non-bombing sides of Lebanon. Their brothers' death are non of their business.
I dont want to make this thought general, but i think that is quite true

Like I've said previously, the "unity and fraternity" nonsense preached by the extremists just does not exist.

After this writing above, i suspect your other ideas are without knowledge,too, like thoughts above. Your thoughts never change. Because i am living in Turkiye, i am citing the general opinion of Tuks and you say that i am deluding myself

So you can provide statistical evidence to prove that the general opinion of Turks is to be the policing force across the Islamic sphere?

Of course we Turks dont want to be chummy with Arabs. Also Arabs are disreputable in Turkiye.But nonetheless they are Muslims. When a Muslim suffers, whole Muslims must suffer. This is not Pan-Islamism. This is the duity of Muslims.

There's a big difference between Muslims sympathising with other Muslims, and Muslims wanting to intervene to protect other Muslims.

Turkiye want to be closer with Europe, because Turkiye want to take advantages of European Union's economical power. This is the only and main reason. This doesn't prove that we want to be European or this doesn't prove that we want to transfer European culture...

Thus far, Turkey have only made moves towards Europe. Granted it doesn't mean they wish to abandon their Islamic culture, but it in no way suggests they wish to proceed as far as you believe they should to become the protectors of the Islamic world.

There is a Turkish proverb. I will try to translate. If i couldnt, pls dont take wrong. Bear=(AYI in Turkish) Uncle=(DAYI in Turkish)
Preveb is
"You must call the bear(AYI) as uncle(DAYI), untill passing over the river"
European Union and Turkiye's relationship is like the preverb according to Turk side. That's all...

Makes no sense to me. Sorry.

Must have been lost in translation.

BTW: Please dont cut my sentences. For example, when i said "Fenerbahce Fans dont support Liverpool while Liverpool is playing against Fenerbahce", dont quote just "Fenerbahce Fans dont support Liverpool" part.

I don't cut sentences. I take nothing out of context. I break down long posts to address points individually. If anything you should be pleased that I do at least pay close attention to everything you try to say.

by **woof woof !** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:15 pm

You know guy's , what started off as an interesting debate has now become a more of a "I'm right your wrong " confrontation . Maybe you should continue via pm ,instead of reading your by now tedious arguement it would at least save me a few more seconds of my life that could've been better spent elsewhere.

by **zarababe** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:43 pm

lol is this still goin on ..

Your life and mine Woof :laugh:

Come on guys take some advice form the wise Woof.. PMing will do a lot to save your already depleted reputations

Oh and before you both start paraphrasing your response to my post .... I'M JOKIN OK

by **66-1120597113** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:25 pm

woof woof ! wrote:You know guy's , what started off as an interesting debate has now become a more of a "I'm right your wrong " confrontation . Maybe you should continue via pm ,instead of reading your by now tedious arguement it would at least save me a few more seconds of my life that could've been better spent elsewhere.

Here here!!
Its become tedious long ago.

Everyone has there veiws whether right or wrong..threads like this are pointless!
Its been proven time and time again on here that political/religious debates always end in trouble with bans and rows!

Everyone knows anyway that if someone cares enough about these issues they tend to feel strongly.Everyone also knows that if we all said what we honestly felt people would get offended and the sh.it would really hit the fan.
People hold back what they want to say,try to pussyfoot around the true sentiment of their post with inuendos and undercurrents because they dont wanna get banned.
I've been banned twice because of threads like these,some people have been banned for good!
Its not really worth it is it when theres so many different opinions!
Threads like this go round in circles...then after a while someone gets dizzy

by **afs66** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:59 am

What statistics?

What photos?

The statistic that i had mentioned on my previous posts.
The photos that I had sent a PM to you before.

Sorry dude, but if you think "London" and "Bob Geldof" are "local" then you really need a broader view of the world.

Then tell me problems of East part of Istanbul. Because Istanbul is one of the most popular city of the World. I will accept East New York, East Pekin, East Paris,…. And Bob Gedolf. Who the hell is he? Realy i dont know. I tried to search on Google Turkiye but unfortunately found nothing… And really i wonder something that do i need to know who Bob Gedolf is, to show my backround studies?

The correct word is "unwilling"

Because there is no such thing as an Arab bloc.

It's full of internal strive.

The correct word isn’t “unwilling” for me. Because Arab World dont care intervene of foreign nations to internal issues of their cognates’ and lack of the authority is rising the hostilities. This is not “unwilling”. This is a nation’s out of heart.

Excellent. You are finally getting it.

I had already known that. But i couldn’t tell or you didn’t want to understand. The excellent point isn’t my getting it. Excellent point is your understanding me finally

Oh yes, I'm also sure the "merciless" Israelis had red glowing eyes and were devouring children by the hundreds too.

Dude, you want to be sarcastic. But doing sarcasim to me rather doing sarcasm to a Turk about this issue is absurd. Check the history of Jewish people. You will see that only Ottoman had acepted Jewish people and given them lands to live after Spain had pis.sed them off. If we looked them as evils, our grandfathers wouldn’t have done that. So i am mentioning reality. I am not making comment. Israel’s actions are mercilessly. THAT IS ALL.

Like I've said previously, the "unity and fraternity" nonsense preached by the extremists just does not exist.

I said before that i didnt approve extremists.

So you can provide statistical evidence to prove that the general opinion of Turks is to be the policing force across the Islamic sphere?

No. I am citing my sights. Because i spent my 25 years with Turks on Turkiye. So, you, give me statistical evidence to prove that the general opnion of Turks is "not" to be the policing force across the Islamic sphere…

There's a big difference between Muslims sympathising with other Muslims, and Muslims wanting to intervene to protect other Muslims.

If someone sympathise with other one, he would naturally want other not to be hurt and he would naturaly want to protect other. And if someone’s prophet teached him that “Someone who is sleeping satiated while his neighbour suffers owing to hunger,isn’t at our side”, he would naturally say my words.

Thus far, Turkey have only made moves towards Europe. Granted it doesn't mean they wish to abandon their Islamic culture, but it in no way suggests they wish to proceed as far as you believe they should to become the protectors of the Islamic world.

Anyway, we wont be able to deal. You are bypassing Turkiye’s historical mission but i wont mention about this. Neither my english allows this nor you would accept.

Makes no sense to me. Sorry.

Must have been lost in translation.

I hadt this preveb ranslated to my frind. “calling a bear as an uncle till you pass over the river.” I hope it will make sense to you.

PS: I had already tried to PMing and not to argue anymore. But my dear friend Manhattan had said that he chosed speaking publicyly.And this is my last post in this thread.
Thank all of you for your tolerance to a different thinking member...

Liverpool FC Forum

Bin laden

Who is online