Jump to content

British Soldier beheaded on public street


TypeO

Recommended Posts

I understand DD. :friends:

I know YOU didn't say she was Muslim. However, I'm not certain that most posters realize that Michael Adebolaji wasn't born into or grow up in a Muslim family. Even if people think banning Muslims from moving to the UK is a good idea, it wouldn't have prevented Adebolaji's parents from emigrating to the UK since they aren't Muslim. That was the point I was trying to make.

I worked at a university for many years, a job that brought me into contact with hundreds of young women. Some of them used to grin and giggle when put on the spot. It was a defense mechanism, I think. If you didn't know this about them you might think them silly or callous at times. I don't know if the young woman in the photo is like that but it's something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding how invading Afghanistan after 9/11 for instance, was motivated by "Christianity"? The US was attacked on 9/11 and went into Afghanistan to attack the perpetrators. Not in the name of Christ, but yes as a geopolitically motivated act.

So I'll accept that the invasion of Afghanistan was started by Americans, or westerners (although we didn't start it any more than we started WW2), but "Christians", suggesting this was a manifestation of a spiritual movement? No. On the other hand, the perpetrators of 9/11, 7/7, etc. made it eminently clear that their vision of Islam (notice I said "their" vision of Islam) was the motivating factor.

The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, including the mastermind Bin Laden so... let's attack Afghanistan??? If you do some research you will understand why first the Russians and then the Americans invaded Afghanistan and guess what, it has NOTHING to do with terrorism and everything to do with an oil pipeline which has been planned since the 70's to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and completely bypass the gulf. This would be a goldmine of untold proportions and has been the goal for this region for years. As a result hundreds of thousands have been killed in a phony war for nothing more than money and power and people wonder why the middle east hates the West? Really? This is about greed, pure and simple. However are the muslims wrong by attacking innocents? Hell yes, I say and have said for years that if the muslims had a leader like MLK or Gandhi there would be a Palestinian state right now and a practical voice at the table keeping the western powers out of the middle east.

Regarding who started WWII, well I guess that depends on your perspective. Since American and European industrialist actually provided the money to Hitler and the boys to rebuild Germany to use as a bulwark against the Soviets, I guess just like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central and South America, Vietnam, etc we wound up having to fight the very golem we created once that golem became sentient and decided to cut the strings of the puppet masters and go rogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not say that the attack on Afghanistan was motivated by Christianity..............it was carried out by a Christian nation, of whom SOME people think going there is their divine right/mission, hence the posters.

This is just as loon as that SOME muslims see it as their divine right/mission to blow up buldings.

The difference is that not the entire army of terrorist-land has come to run over your country, but only the nutjobs.

We as being civilized westerners send back an entire army (including the reli-loons) instead................

Dig?

Dig. But SOME Christians may be dropping bombs in the Middle East and viewing it as some kind of religious duty. However, the only reason they have that opportunity is because their country sent them there for revenge, national security, etc. Christianity was not the motivating factor that put them there. Whereas these terrorists are not claiming to be fighting for their country, they are motivated by their view of Islam. Secular motivation vs. religious motivation, dig? You can impugn the secular motives of the west, but you can't attribute them to Christianity in the same way you can attribute the motives of Al Qaeda, etc. to their view of Islam.

And while the entire army of terrorist land is not overrunning my country, they are overrunning the Middle East since the so-called Arab Spring. Read anything about what it's like to be Christian in Egypt lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, including the mastermind Bin Laden so... let's attack Afghanistan??? If you do some research you will understand why first the Russians and then the Americans invaded Afghanistan and guess what, it has NOTHING to do with terrorism and everything to do with an oil pipeline which has been planned since the 70's to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and completely bypass the gulf. This would be a goldmine of untold proportions and has been the goal for this region for years. As a result hundreds of thousands have been killed in a phony war for nothing more than money and power and people wonder why the middle east hates the West? Really? This is about greed, pure and simple. However are the muslims wrong by attacking innocents? Hell yes, I say and have said for years that if the muslims had a leader like MLK or Gandhi there would be a Palestinian state right now and a practical voice at the table keeping the western powers out of the middle east.

Regarding who started WWII, well I guess that depends on your perspective. Since American and European industrialist actually provided the money to Hitler and the boys to rebuild Germany to use as a bulwark against the Soviets, I guess just like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central and South America, Vietnam, etc we wound up having to fight the very golem we created once that golem became sentient and decided to cut the strings of the puppet masters and go rogue.

Focus shithead.The hippie who joined the Marines! What a fraud..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, including the mastermind Bin Laden so... let's attack Afghanistan??? If you do some research you will understand why first the Russians and then the Americans invaded Afghanistan and guess what, it has NOTHING to do with terrorism and everything to do with an oil pipeline which has been planned since the 70's to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and completely bypass the gulf. This would be a goldmine of untold proportions and has been the goal for this region for years. As a result hundreds of thousands have been killed in a phony war for nothing more than money and power and people wonder why the middle east hates the West? Really? This is about greed, pure and simple. However are the muslims wrong by attacking innocents? Hell yes, I say and have said for years that if the muslims had a leader like MLK or Gandhi there would be a Palestinian state right now and a practical voice at the table keeping the western powers out of the middle east.

Regarding who started WWII, well I guess that depends on your perspective. Since American and European industrialist actually provided the money to Hitler and the boys to rebuild Germany to use as a bulwark against the Soviets, I guess just like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central and South America, Vietnam, etc we wound up having to fight the very golem we created once that golem became sentient and decided to cut the strings of the puppet masters and go rogue.

I actually feel like I'm in WW2 right now as I'm fighting on multiple fronts!

Yes the hijackers were Saudis, but Bin Laden and the infrastructure that trained them was in Afghanistan, you know that. I'm aware of the pipeline theory but there is every rational reason to think that we invaded as an answer to 9/11. Unless you believe we engineered 9/11 and framed some Saudis in Afghanistan so we'd have a pretext to invade. You're not one of THOSE are you? :-)

As for my WW2 comment, I was comparing our attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 to declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, should have been more specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dig. But SOME Christians may be dropping bombs in the Middle East and viewing it as some kind of religious duty. However, the only reason they have that opportunity is because their country sent them there for revenge, national security, etc. Christianity was not the motivating factor that put them there. Whereas these terrorists are not claiming to be fighting for their country, they are motivated by their view of Islam. Secular motivation vs. religious motivation, dig? You can impugn the secular motives of the west, but you can't attribute them to Christianity in the same way you can attribute the motives of Al Qaeda, etc. to their view of Islam.

And while the entire army of terrorist land is not overrunning my country, they are overrunning the Middle East since the so-called Arab Spring. Read anything about what it's like to be Christian in Egypt lately?

Those posters were printed by the secretary of defence, the "seculars" are using the bible to send people to war........amazing paradox.

If those people are really so secalar.........why don't they print secular posters instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel like I'm in WW2 right now as I'm fighting on multiple fronts!

Yes the hijackers were Saudis, but Bin Laden and the infrastructure that trained them was in Afghanistan, you know that. I'm aware of the pipeline theory but there is every rational reason to think that we invaded as an answer to 9/11. Unless you believe we engineered 9/11 and framed some Saudis in Afghanistan so we'd have a pretext to invade. You're not one of THOSE are you? :-)

As for my WW2 comment, I was comparing our attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 to declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, should have been more specific.

Bin Laden was trained and armed by the mighty USA.

Comparing Afghanistan with Pearl Harbor is utter bollocks,

The invasion force that was sent to PH was sent there by the Japanese military high command.

These terrorists were NOT sent by the Afghan high command.

Quite a difference.

Lol Reductio at Japanum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, including the mastermind Bin Laden so... let's attack Afghanistan???

Unless I'm mistaken, the Taliban was the ruling 'government' of Afghanistan and offered Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda safe haven after the U.S. warned them it wasn't in their best interest to do so all things considered, so yea we attacked them. Now, invading Iraq could easily merit triple question marks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bin Laden was trained and armed by the mighty USA.

Comparing Afghanistan with Pearl Harbor is utter bollocks,

The invasion force that was sent to PH was sent there by the Japanese military high command.

These terrorists were NOT sent by the Afghan high command.

Quite a difference.

Lol Reductio at Japanum

American force as a reaction to a sneak attack. Get it?

Guess you didn't get my PM, oh olive branch extender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American force as a reaction to a sneak attack. Get it?

Guess you didn't get my PM, oh olive branch extender?

Just how you wanna see it.........but we already found out we had different opinions.

May the mighty Olive Branch bless you..........relax and have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Bin Laden was from a wealthy SA family.

Egg roll?

Yes, Bin Laden was from a wealthy Saudi family. He also had the support of the USA while operating in Afghanistan during the 1980's. At the time, he and the US government had the same goal; to drive the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan and bring about the collapse of that country's communist government. Pakistan acted as the middle man. The Pakistanis had their own agenda. They think Pakistani influence in Afghanistan gives them "strategic depth" vis-a-vis India.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus shithead.The hippie who joined the Marines! What a fraud..

You know Anjin, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you have suffered a TBI, maybe you had a bad childhood, I don't know but I do know I do not like your personal attacks. You don't know me, who do you think you are to post something like that? Just because I can hold more than one thought in my head at a time does not make me a fraud. I truly feel sorry for you, pathetic little man afraid of the bumps in the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel like I'm in WW2 right now as I'm fighting on multiple fronts!

Yes the hijackers were Saudis, but Bin Laden and the infrastructure that trained them was in Afghanistan, you know that. I'm aware of the pipeline theory but there is every rational reason to think that we invaded as an answer to 9/11. Unless you believe we engineered 9/11 and framed some Saudis in Afghanistan so we'd have a pretext to invade. You're not one of THOSE are you? :-)

As for my WW2 comment, I was comparing our attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 to declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, should have been more specific.

Mstork I understand what you are saying however the Taliban, who we supported for years, were not a legitimate government that represented Afghanistan. Invading that country en force was stupid and a mistake. What I believe is we should have treated these assholes like the Israeli's do in this circumstance. Send in a special ops force to either capture him or take him out. You know, exactly what we did last year, the thing that actually worked.

Regarding the Japanese, we kind of created that problem too when we forced the to open trade with the rest of the world in the 1850's which resulted in the total collapse of the Shogunate. Theodore Roosevelt then praised them and took them under his wing after they defeated the Russians in 1905 telling them it was time for the Japanese people to take their place among the other civilized nations. The rest is as they say, history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330689/Is-country-mad-Why-Anjem-Choudary-poisonous-teachings-influenced-Woolwich-killers-free-draw-benefits-tour-BBC-studios-spouting-murderous-hatred-Britain.html#ixzz2UIf5Eeei

...Disgracefully, Choudary even claimed that he and his followers had signed a covenant — akin to the British military’s covenant to care for the welfare of its soldiers — not to wage war against this country’s people in return for living here unmolested and at our expense.

...Funded by benefits from the infidel taxpayers he so despises, for the past four years he has openly staged ‘Islamic road shows’ across Britain to recruit young men to his chilling cause.

Apparently, one of the accused was on £1,700 of benefits a month. No wonder these people are laughing at us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ady,

Thank goodness for that. We really need help from so-called 'ordinary Muslims'. Their role in condemning these murderers is vital. I am hoping no attacks are made on Muslim citizens who are just going about their day to day business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dearborn, Michigan last year, 2012.

First, the simplest determination if something is just, reverse the roles.

Had this been a Christian-based event, and Muslims were among them in the same way, that

#1 - they would be attacked so viciously?

#2 - that the police would so obviously ignore it?

Secondly, and to me, more importantly, notice throughout, even during the most aggressive parts of this video, how those just passing by take no offense, say nothing, or in any way condemn or speak out against the actions of the aggressors.

Some slow down enough to get a picture or video, but that's about it.

This is a microcosm of Islamic culture.

We are told how there are only a small percentage overall of militant Muslims who are willing to take action against non-believers.

That overall the vast majority are a peaceful, peace-loving people.

But overall, that same vast majority are slow to speak and slower to take action - if done at all - when any of the few DO take actions, as evidenced in this video.

You can say what you want about Christians, they generally speak out/condemn actions linked back to them when those who would identify themselves as Christian commit atrocities of any sort.

The problem with Islam is that it is a primitive religion, in that it hasn't undergone a renaissance as most other major religions have, when necessary.

Do you think this country would be so accepting of Christians treating women with even a fraction of the injustice that Islam practices?

As these massive areas within cities like London continue to expand, do you not believe when a time came and the leaders of Islam declared all should rise up, or they should declare Shariah Law, or anything else, that the vast majority of these peaceful, peace-loving people would refuse or rebel?

They demonstrate no interest in random incidents like this, what makes me think they will at some other time should the leadership actually declare it to be so?

They operate under a primitive belief system that needs to evolve into the 21st century.

And it's naive to think they aren't encouraged to immigrate to other countries in order to spread their numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...