Muslim Protests

It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

skipper wrote:
Just to clarify something mentioned above, over 1 000 000 people who protested in 2003 on streets of London against war in Iraq were not 'fanatical organized group'...they were right!!!
So we should have let Saddam carry on ruling Iraq??????


The war and his death were not the problem, it was the underestimation of what needed to be done after the war.

Best thing would be to form a new country called Kurdistan and split that section of Iraq away from the rest.

Then transfer the Shi'ites to Iran, leaving Iraq as a Sunni country.

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

gus ceasar is a legend wrote:
I can see some kind of uprising in this country against certain members of our community and to be honest I will probably feel happy being part of it.
The problem with "popular uprisings" is that you move away from the rule of law, and lose control over who is targeted and how they are targeted.

In America in the week after 9/11, a man was shot dead in Texas by someone who thought his target was Osama Bin Laden.

The dead man was a cashier at a petrol station, who was a bearded, turban wearing...Sikh.


Even with the instruments of state law enforcement, mistakes still happen, i.e. Jean Charles De Menezes.

User avatar
U.F.G Anfield '89
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: Royal Holloway University of London

Post by U.F.G Anfield '89 »

skipper wrote:Real problem is that we now have British Army fighting British Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan...both of which us, British taxpayers are financing one way or another...knowing history I'm afraid it's only question of time before they bring fight back home...I sincerely hope i'm wrong on this one... :(

Just to clarify something mentioned above, over 1 000 000 people who protested in 2003 on streets of London against war in Iraq were not 'fanatical organized group'...they were right!!!

Everybody's admiting it now, mr Miliband and mr Obama included...
if you look how he voted in the senate i think you'll find that mr Obama knew they were right back then.

User avatar
olgitgooner
Posts: 7431
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:39 am
Location: Brexitland

Post by olgitgooner »

In hindsight, it would have been better to leave Saddam in charge of Iraq.

Better for us. But not better for the marsh arabs, kurds, or anyone else who Saddam didn't like.

The man was a modern-day Hitler. Guilty of genocide.

I'm glad he's gone. But it seems to me that, in most arab countries, the population only respect ultimate rule. Despot, or ultrastrict monarchy.

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

QuartzGooner wrote:
skipper wrote:
Just to clarify something mentioned above, over 1 000 000 people who protested in 2003 on streets of London against war in Iraq were not 'fanatical organized group'...they were right!!!
So we should have let Saddam carry on ruling Iraq??????


The war and his death were not the problem, it was the underestimation of what needed to be done after the war.

Best thing would be to form a new country called Kurdistan and split that section of Iraq away from the rest.

Then transfer the Shi'ites to Iran, leaving Iraq as a Sunni country.
That 'procedure' is known as ethnic cleansing and the very idea is fascist to say the least...i'm surprised at yr logic considering yr background...

btw, follwoing yr logic regarding protests, why US/UK haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Pakistan?

UFG...Obama, february 2009: "we should be carefull at exiting Iraq, as we were careless entering it"

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

skipper wrote:
QuartzGooner wrote:
skipper wrote:
Just to clarify something mentioned above, over 1 000 000 people who protested in 2003 on streets of London against war in Iraq were not 'fanatical organized group'...they were right!!!
So we should have let Saddam carry on ruling Iraq??????


The war and his death were not the problem, it was the underestimation of what needed to be done after the war.

Best thing would be to form a new country called Kurdistan and split that section of Iraq away from the rest.

Then transfer the Shi'ites to Iran, leaving Iraq as a Sunni country.
That 'procedure' is known as ethnic cleansing and the very idea is fascist to say the least...i'm surprised at yr logic considering yr background...

btw, follwoing yr logic regarding protests, why US/UK haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Pakistan?

UFG...Obama, february 2009: "we should be carefull at exiting Iraq, as we were careless entering it"
Transfer of Shi'ites to Iran makes a lot of sense to me.

Nothing fascist about it.

If they are there, in Iran, a largely Shi'ite country, then they will not be fighting a civil war in Iraq.
They would not be "booted out" of Iraq with no economic compensation, but Iraq appears to me to be a society and country split into three main groups who all war with each other.


Skipper said:
"btw, follwoing yr logic regarding protests, why US/UK haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Pakistan? "

Well look at the fuss caused by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan!

The Americans have fought in Somalia and Pakistan, so you are incorrect to mention those.

A force should have taken out Mugabe, but now there is a power sharing agreement with Tsangirai so things are moving on right track.

Sudan - definitely should be a proper UN force there.

North Korea - the nucleur bomb should be eradicated and the President assasinated.

China - I would say that a military invasion of China is a vast undertaking. But I would prefer a total ban on contact with them until they stop persecuting Tibet.


None of that absolves my original point, why didn't these Muslims protest against the massacres in Mumbai?

Or did they agree with them?

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

Quartz,

Compensated or not (as if money can sort these things out), moving large parts of population from their home soil is ethnic cleansing and is fascist! That's a bottom line...(I know you would love to see same scenario applied in Israel but that's another topic, isn't it? :wink: )

Regarding Mumbai massacre, of course they agree with it and support it...these guys are worst kind of radicals, but another question is:

Who is financing this particular 'brand' of Islam (I think it's called Wahabbi!!?)


Answer: Saudi Arabia and UAE - great mates of US/UK I belive ad indirectly it's us who's sponsoring them through our thirst for cheap petrol...so untill this shit is sorted out it's always going to be 'common people' having a go at each other, uprisings of this or that sort, that's how capitalism survives...

And we all know that all this mess is about oil and nothing but oil...

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

I do not believe transferring Shiti'ites to Iran is bad at all.

It makes so much sense.

The UN could even re-draw Iraqi's borders to give a bit more space to Iran for the extra population, after all, Churchill drew a lot of these borders on a map in his study!

Iraq is a new artitificial country, which has failed on ethnic lines.

These matters are about a lot more than oil.

It is a clash of civilisations, that is engulfing the world in a world war three.

A different war from the first two, in that there are fewer definitive physical front lines, and a far greater flux of combat units.

Yet a world war nonetheless.

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

QuartzGooner wrote:I do not believe transferring Shiti'ites to Iran is bad at all.

It makes so much sense.

The UN could even re-draw Iraqi's borders to give a bit more space to Iran for the extra population, after all, Churchill drew a lot of these borders on a map in his study!

Iraq is a new artitificial country, which has failed on ethnic lines.

These matters are about a lot more than oil.

It is a clash of civilisations, that is engulfing the world in a world war three.
A different war from the first two, in that there are fewer definitive physical front lines, and a far greater flux of combat units.

Yet a world war nonetheless.
I advise you read again yr post and think about it...how fascist it is...and as I said considering yr background it's actualy shocking...

regarding bold lettering..i know you guys can't wait for yr Messiah to return, but aren't you pushing things a bit too far? :banghead:

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

I do not believe what I have said is shocking at all.

There have been transfers of populations throughout history...it made a lot of sense for the Germans who were stranded in Russia and Prussia after World War Two to go to Germany, though their families had emigrated in some cases up to 550 years earlier.

The Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq are fighting a terrible war of suicide bombers and grenade attacks, with hundreds of civilians dying each week.

Separate them.
Makes sense.


The Messiah is indeed awaited, but he is not our Messiah.

He will be for the whole world.

(And he is not technically returning, for though he has likely lived on earth before as the person known as King David, he has never actually come and revealed himself as the Messiah).

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

Oh no, he won't be my Messiah :wink: I'll be off to Venezuela and watch yoo pri**s nuke each other out :banghead:

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

skipper wrote:Oh no, he won't be my Messiah :wink: I'll be off to Venezuela and watch yoo pri**s nuke each other out :banghead:
When the Messiah comes there will be no more war.

That's the main point of him!

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

QuartzGooner wrote:I do not believe what I have said is shocking at all.



The Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq are fighting a terrible war of suicide bombers and grenade attacks, with hundreds of civilians dying each week.

Separate them.
Makes sense.


The Messiah is indeed awaited, but he is not our Messiah.

He will be for the whole world.

(And he is not technically returning, for though he has likely lived on earth before as the person known as King David, he has never actually come and revealed himself as the Messiah).
1st bold: Divide et Impera,old Roman saying :wink:

2nd bold: I think it's hillarious to expect that some Mohammed in Sudan and Xio Ming in China and Gustav in Sweden and Jochan in Germany all agree that yr Messiah is going to be one for whole of the world!? Get real man :wink:

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

When The Messiah comes you will know all about it.

It will be a very real event.

Nations will stop fighting each other.

As to what else will happen, no one knows or sure, though there has been a lot of speculation.

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

QuartzGooner wrote:When The Messiah comes you will know all about it.

It will be a very real event.

Nations will stop fighting each other.

As to what else will happen, no one knows or sure, though there has been a lot of speculation.
WE'll all turn jewish I suppose? Mohammed in Sudan and Jochen in Germany as well? 8)

Come on, can you speculate on possible out(2nd)comings?

Post Reply