lol, does he look like him or something? I shrunk it down at least. Originally it was 250 pix high.Vilham wrote:
Kmarion get that damn picture of my flat mate out of your bloody sig. Its so anoying seeing his face every five seconds.
While there's this brief of topic discussion who the hell is it in your sig? it's been bugging meKmarion wrote:
lol, does he look like him or something? I shrunk it down at least. Originally it was 250 pix high.Vilham wrote:
Kmarion get that damn picture of my flat mate out of your bloody sig. Its so anoying seeing his face every five seconds.
no, it is not. (im a muslim in london, just so you know)ATG wrote:
This is the mainstream thinking of Islam.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpAcrimson_grunt wrote:
While there's this brief of topic discussion who the hell is it in your sig? it's been bugging meKmarion wrote:
lol, does he look like him or something? I shrunk it down at least. Originally it was 250 pix high.Vilham wrote:
Kmarion get that damn picture of my flat mate out of your bloody sig. Its so anoying seeing his face every five seconds.
Thank you. Let the debate/arguing/flames/etc recommenceKmarion wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA
Here ya go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel_the_HammerATG wrote:
lol,
Charles Martel the Hammer/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Charles Martel the Hammer/ in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
* Start the Charles Martel the Hammer/ article or add a request for it.
* Search for "Charles Martel the Hammer/" in existing articles.
* Look for "Charles Martel the Hammer/" in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project.
* Look for "Charles Martel the Hammer/" in the Wikimedia Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video.
* Look for other pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.
If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?.
Last edited by David.Podedworny (2007-04-17 20:50:51)
Welcome!ATG wrote:
Thanks!
Good. Let the law deal with them as it should be.Kmarion wrote:
Rather than start a new topic I'm putting this new story in here.
Four UK men plead guilty on terror-related charge.
This is where it belongs.
Yep... Serge even made a thread about it.Braddock wrote:
Does nobody else see the similarity between the anti Jewish rhetoric in the run up to WWII and the anti-Muslim rhetoric being spouted out now? Hitler said the Jews were evil, not to be trusted and wanted to take control of the world ...exactly what is being said about Muslims now. Hitler managed to sell the idea to the nation of Germany, I didn't think the same thing would be possible in the modern age but we've already seen one Middle Eastern country invaded and there's now speculation on a possible invasion of Iran.
Islamic extremists don't exactly help the image of the Muslim world but they only account for a small percentage, the entire Muslim population of earth can't be tarred with the one brush.
sergeriver wrote:
Everyday we read about the problems in the Middle East, the fight between Israel and Arab Nations, the massive immigration from Muslim countries to Europe, etc. And the generalized feeling in the West towards Islam is that it's a Religion of terrorism, and that we should fear all the Muslims. At least a lot of people think this way, and this general feeling about the Muslim community draws a parallel to the anti-Semitism that was prevelant in the Nazi Germany upto the Holocaust. Are Muslims becoming the new Jews? Is this kind of stereotype, particularly vilification in the media, making Muslims the new scapegoats? What do you think?
Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-25 14:20:49)
Well here we are many, many months later and Islamic Radicals, that live about 1 mile from my home, have plans to kill as many soldiers as they can at FT.DIX , where I work . And you say my fear is "unfounded".Drakef wrote:
I love the part where you try to scare everyone.jonnykill wrote:
So 0.0001% of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world can't cause a lot of trouble for the world huh? Ever here of 9/11 ? The bombing of Bali where 200 people were blown to pieces? How about the theater in Russia? How about the USS Cole? How about Both US embassies blown up in Tanzania? How about the 1993 bombing of the world trade center? How about Spain train bombing? How about the small "absolutely minuscule minority of crack pots " that have killed over 3,000 US troops in Iraq? Minuscule huh? All it takes is one asshole like this idiot to influence one/two kids stupid enough to pull of a suicide bombing in the right place at the right time and it could be the start of ww3. That's how WW2 started. Same could happen today.CameronPoe wrote:
They all featured on a program that was on British TV last night. They're called radical Islamists. They represent in the region of about 0.0001% of the muslim community in England.
They're scary if you listen to them thinking that all muslims think like that. They're laughable when you think about the fact that they are an absolutely miniscule minority of crackpots. The world is not ending. The sky is not falling in. Everybody relax.
You over rate yourself.
CameronPoe did not say that "0.0001% of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world can't cause a lot of trouble". He said that the "world is not ending." Clearly, he means to express that the fear over radical Islamists is unfounded, one that you clearly subscribe to. Yes, we all understand that there have been a number of incidents, but they are nothing compared to the Second World War, which seems to be another way of putting fear into people. However, you seem to count every violent Muslim as radical, even those who may be fighting for a nationalist cause, a free nation, such as Cechnyans, Basques and Iraqis. Truly, are they a threat to the world, or merely trying to fight for their country, as many Christian peoples, such as Americans, Irish, and Scottish have done? They will do no harm if their country is given to them.
We all get it; there are radical Islamists that are a threat to world peace, beyond their borders. They are attempting violent attacks. But you greatly overestimate them. Absolutely, they are the "minuscule minority of crack pots", and they have done some damage, but they are hardly responsible for beginning a trend that may lead to World War III. They are a tiny minority in their own countries, that do damage to Western interests in the Middle East, because they have many reasons: United States bombed their house, United States in on their holy land, etc. They are not mindless killing machines, nor are they a true threat to democracy and the West. You name some incidents, but there are hardly any more, especially in the West. Radical Islam is not another Hitler, nor another way to World War III. Desist with that fearmongering.
We hardly endorse a truce with radical Islam, but it is no reason to begin wars or suspend civil rights. The latter is a result of terrorism- If they truly "hate freedom", as so many have said (because obviously they hate freedom for no particular reason), then they have accomplished something when Western politicians start suspending civil rights. An effective way to combat radical Islam is to end the means of radical Islam, especially in the West. Even radicals will have less reason to travel to attack a country thousands of kilometres away if their home nations are free of Western influence. To carry out attacks in the West is something of a logistical nightmare, I can imagine, and would have little sense to do so if we do nothing to aggravate them. Equally so, they are international criminals, and should be brought to justice.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but for all I know, you're pretending to be something you're not, or you're not something you really are.tahadar wrote:
no, it is not. (im a muslim in london, just so you know)ATG wrote:
This is the mainstream thinking of Islam.
This has what to do with economic policy?The_Mac wrote:
Socialism has its prices.
I don't think Socialism has anything to do with this. Immigrants having a harder time to find work probably does though....The_Mac wrote:
Well, I hate to break it to you, but for all I know, you're pretending to be something you're not, or you're not something you really are.tahadar wrote:
no, it is not. (im a muslim in london, just so you know)ATG wrote:
This is the mainstream thinking of Islam.
I don't disbelieve you, but I don't believe you.
Simply because I'm not going to change my opinion or ideas because you claim something personal. As it is, the Muslims in england, 33% of them openly endorsed the Subway bombings. I have a feeling something bad's going to happen.
And thats not me spreading paranoia. Socialism has its prices.
If Europe hadn't become Socialist, they wouldn't have had to ship all the Arabs over, thus avoiding, to some extent, the problems we have now.Bubbalo wrote:
This has what to do with economic policy?The_Mac wrote:
Socialism has its prices.
Europe needs immigration for the same reason we do. Their "native" population is aging out, while the Third World is still pumping out babies (and thus young workers as well) like there's no tomorrow.The_Mac wrote:
If Europe hadn't become Socialist, they wouldn't have had to ship all the Arabs over, thus avoiding, to some extent, the problems we have now.Bubbalo wrote:
This has what to do with economic policy?The_Mac wrote:
Socialism has its prices.
Socialism naturally lowers the economy, due to governmental interferences with just about everything relating to money. The Economy has a reasonable flex over the birthrate, for civilized countries. When Europe no longer had a sufficient amount of youth to support their old, they had to haul in the Arabs from the Middle East.Turquoise wrote:
First World countries need immigration, plain and simple. It's not specifically a socialism thing.
The birth rate has also dropped significantly in the United States and Canada, and indeed, amongst all first world nations. You can't sit there and honestly believe that it is all attributed to socialism when it is clearly related to common first world societies. Yes, we get it, you don't like socialism and liberals, but this is a bit of a stretch.The_Mac wrote:
Socialism naturally lowers the economy, due to governmental interferences with just about everything relating to money. The Economy has a reasonable flex over the birthrate, for civilized countries. When Europe no longer had a sufficient amount of youth to support their old, they had to haul in the Arabs from the Middle East.Turquoise wrote:
First World countries need immigration, plain and simple. It's not specifically a socialism thing.
Because Socialism was introduced, Arabs were too.