Liverpool FC Forum

by **JBG** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:25 pm

Its not my intention to stir the pot but there's a lot of speculation on tv that some of the terrorists are British born Pakistanis.

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:27 pm

i dislike those people who claim to embrace british life, only to cause mayhem and death to those who support them when they were growing up etc.

housing, benefits, healthcare, education - all free. they have short memories. biting the hand that feeds them.

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:28 pm

Sabre wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

You don't see it these days because we have better pretexts to declare war. But if you look at the Spanish history and other countries, we have killed in the name of God a lot of times.

The problem is not the religion per se. All religions, without being twisted by the wrong people are good. The problem is that behind the religion there's people, and greedy people will use whatever pretext to declare war. Yesterday it might be religion, today another, but the true goal of every war is related to getting resources and wealth you initially don't have and the answers to that aggressions.

For instance it's said that the muslims of Palestina have a bad time with the Isralies no? but the truth is that a Palestinian guy who is Christian is not much better under the Israelies than the Muslim guy, they also have problems. So, is it really a religion problem? or a political problem?

Did we the Europeans in the past really fought for St George or St Peter? or for the fúcking gold and control of the seas? Would the american send troops to Iraq if there wasn't oil there, would they go there to fight for the freedom?

I think that just as the Western Civilization used religion to kill and get the gold and wealth, the muslim religion is being used aswell in this part of the history.

Because not always have been the same way... In the XII century the muslims of Spain had better maths, better architecture, better literature and better social peace. The XII century Christians of my country were more backward (I'm christian, but I have to admit what's true)

So, is the problem the religion, or the people behind them using it for their terrenal purposes?

Terrorism must be combatted, and removed. Of course it must. But we shouldn't blame the religion, but those who twist that religion.

That's a good post, mate. I was going to write something the same earlier, but you've spared me the effort.

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:33 pm

When the Iberian peninsula was part of the Roman Empire there were several important settlements in the province, such as Segóbriga, Ercávica and Gran Valeria. However, the place where Cuenca is located today was uninhabited at that time.

After Muslim troops conquered the area in 714, they soon realized the value of this strategic location and they built Conca alcazaba (an Arabic fortress) between two gorges dug between the Júcar and Huécar rivers, surrounded by a one km long wall. Cuenca soon became an agricultural and textile manufacturing city, enjoying growing prosperity.

Around the twelfth century the Christians, living in northern Spain during the Muslim presence, started to slowly recover the Iberian peninsula. Castile took over western and central areas of Spain, while Aragon enlarged along the Mediterranean area. The Muslim Kingdom, Al-Andalus, started to break into small provinces (Reinos de taifas) under christian pressure, and in 1100 these areas were near Conca. Conca was conquered by Alfonso VIII , King of Castile, from the Taifa's Kingdom of Toledo in 1177. Previously it had been handed to Castile, under the marriage agreement between princess Zaida and Alfonso VI, but it was soon recovered by the Muslims in 1108, after the battle of Sagrajas.

Alfonso VIII granted a city title, and it was considered to be "Muy noble y muy leal" (Very noble and very faithful). It was given a name, the Fuero, written in Latin, that ruled Cuenca's citizenship, and it was considered one of the most perfect written at that period of time. During the next few centuries Cuenca enjoyed prosperity, thanks to textile manufacturing and livestock exploitation.The cathedral started to be built at that time, in an anglo-norman style, with many French workers, since Alfonso VIII's wife, Leonor de Plantagenet, was French

article taken from internet on 12th century spain

christians were hardly backward sabre

concept of jihad

christian rebuilding after expelling moors in 12th century spain

interesting articles

by **Big Niall** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Very sad.

I don't know much about each side's claim to Kashmir and agree that the enemy is always called a terrorist these days but if Muslim groups feel that it should be their's then they have a right to fight the Indian army for it (including guerilla warfare against Indian soldiers, barracks etc), but no right to kill ordinary people.

My view is that soldiers should fight soldiers, and that if the enemy has a bigger army then use guerilla warfare against military targets but never ordinary people in hotels,bars etc.

I don't think this group of muslims are total nuts who want to blow themselves up to go to heaven but killing ordinary people cannot be justified.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:19 pm

JBG wrote:Its not my intention to stir the pot but there's a lot of speculation on tv that some of the terrorists are British born Pakistanis.

one of them who was arrested is a Pakistani national. a few of them are said to be fishermen. i didnt hear about any saying that any were Brit born though. everything is so unclear.

im watching CNN and the journalists are allowed to get so close to the hotels and even up to the lobby. wtf are the authorities doing :no

by **aCe'** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:20 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Sabre wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

You don't see it these days because we have better pretexts to declare war. But if you look at the Spanish history and other countries, we have killed in the name of God a lot of times.

The problem is not the religion per se. All religions, without being twisted by the wrong people are good. The problem is that behind the religion there's people, and greedy people will use whatever pretext to declare war. Yesterday it might be religion, today another, but the true goal of every war is related to getting resources and wealth you initially don't have and the answers to that aggressions.

For instance it's said that the muslims of Palestina have a bad time with the Isralies no? but the truth is that a Palestinian guy who is Christian is not much better under the Israelies than the Muslim guy, they also have problems. So, is it really a religion problem? or a political problem?

Did we the Europeans in the past really fought for St George or St Peter? or for the fúcking gold and control of the seas? Would the american send troops to Iraq if there wasn't oil there, would they go there to fight for the freedom?

I think that just as the Western Civilization used religion to kill and get the gold and wealth, the muslim religion is being used aswell in this part of the history.

Because not always have been the same way... In the XII century the muslims of Spain had better maths, better architecture, better literature and better social peace. The XII century Christians of my country were more backward (I'm christian, but I have to admit what's true)

So, is the problem the religion, or the people behind them using it for their terrenal purposes?

Terrorism must be combatted, and removed. Of course it must. But we shouldn't blame the religion, but those who twist that religion.

That's a good post, mate. I was going to write something the same earlier, but you've spared me the effort.

yea very good post have to agree...

End of the day.. however it is you look at things, religion has been something of a curse for humanity all along...
Wars were started (and continue to be) in the name of religion.. Advances in science and technology were hindered at different stages throughout history in the name of religion… and probably most importantly common sense has yet and again been disregarded by many in attempt to follow misinterpreted beliefs and mythical principles..

Not all muslims are terrorists and NOT ALL terrorists are muslims.. As soon as you start labeling people that’s when you start bringing out the hate and bitterness in them… You look at Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan..etc and you can see that those countries and people have suffered quite a lot in the last few decades… whether they’ve been fairly or unfairly treated by the global community is a whole different discussion but you need to realize that you have a whole bunch of ticked off people gathered around a relatively limited geographic region all sharing similar views, beliefs, cultures and most importantly to outsiders one religion…
Now what you don’t want do is label the whole population or everyone in that region a terrorist because most likely what you’ll end up doing is tick more people off and infuse more hate and intolerance in those people… at the moment what you have is a minority that is –if anything- trying to gain acceptance within that region or within their people by using religion as a blanket, under which they try to justify their heinous actions.

Basically, what you have is a war against terrorism, not against muslims or arabs or dare I even say extremists.. once you start broadening the definitions and start labeling people, you start losing aim and goal… you get people hating each other and not knowing who the real enemy is or what the war is about… its politics above everything else and you’d understand why a government –say the US government- would throw around the term at each and every corner trying to use it to legitimize their hidden agendas and otherwise unacceptable wars.. imm not saying tolerance is the answer and believe me im as far from being a hippie as they come but as people.. hatred and narrow-mindedness will get us nowhere..

by **tubby** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:46 pm

Judge wrote:
metalhead wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

He isn't debating that, he is debating the setreotyping that some people say about.

Like if someone is a muslim, then definetly he is a terrorist. People do say that.

i heard saying that not all muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are muslim

Really? I had no idea the IRA were Muslim. :laugh:

by **tubby** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:49 pm

Big Niall wrote:Very sad.

I don't know much about each side's claim to Kashmir and agree that the enemy is always called a terrorist these days but if Muslim groups feel that it should be their's then they have a right to fight the Indian army for it (including guerilla warfare against Indian soldiers, barracks etc), but no right to kill ordinary people.

My view is that soldiers should fight soldiers, and that if the enemy has a bigger army then use guerilla warfare against military targets but never ordinary people in hotels,bars etc.

I don't think this group of muslims are total nuts who want to blow themselves up to go to heaven but killing ordinary people cannot be justified.

Kashmir belongs to India. They have no claim to it at all.

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:51 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Judge wrote:
metalhead wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

He isn't debating that, he is debating the setreotyping that some people say about.

Like if someone is a muslim, then definetly he is a terrorist. People do say that.

i heard saying that not all muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are muslim

Really? I had no idea the IRA were Muslim.

i think the point was to ensure that we dont brand all muslims with the terror tag

by **JBG** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:52 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Judge wrote:
metalhead wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

He isn't debating that, he is debating the setreotyping that some people say about.

Like if someone is a muslim, then definetly he is a terrorist. People do say that.

i heard saying that not all muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are muslim

Really? I had no idea the IRA were Muslim.

Yeah, what about ETA and the Bader Meinhof Gang, or the Weathermen?

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:52 pm

see above

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:52 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Judge wrote:
metalhead wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

He isn't debating that, he is debating the setreotyping that some people say about.

Like if someone is a muslim, then definetly he is a terrorist. People do say that.

i heard saying that not all muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are muslim

Really? I had no idea the IRA were Muslim.

Or the domestic terrorists in the U.S. (uni-bomber, Okla. City bombers etc.)

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:53 pm

ya Fu*king eejits, see above post before quoting

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:53 pm

Judge wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Judge wrote:
metalhead wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Why are people in this thread likening, or wanting, to connect the word Muslim to the word terrorist? I look at the word "terrorist" as a very incoherent and often dirty one anyway. It's often abused in its use, and the majority of the time by beaurocratic, suit-wearing hypocrites.

no offence to any muslim but you dont see christian or hindu or taoist groups going on some form of jihad in the name of religion do you? its unheard of.

He isn't debating that, he is debating the setreotyping that some people say about.

Like if someone is a muslim, then definetly he is a terrorist. People do say that.

i heard saying that not all muslims are terrorists, but ALL terrorists are muslim

Really? I had no idea the IRA were Muslim.

i think the point was to ensure that we dont brand all muslims with the terror tag

this one nobheads

Liverpool FC Forum

Terror attacks in mumbai

Who is online