ffs: Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war'

[ALM]

Not likely, its much easier to kill your fellow muslims than it is to target the allied forces. And lets face the facts, why would you go after a hard target if you were a terrorist when you can get easy targets that dont fight back.

Mailman

Oh I see! Their only objective is to kill and it doesn't matter who or what they murder. Surely livestock would be easier to kill than humans in that case.

[DaveB]

Not likely, its much easier to kill your fellow muslims than it is to target the allied forces. And lets face the facts, why would you go after a hard target if you were a terrorist when you can get easy targets that dont fight back.

Mailman

Well, the latest attacks today all appear to have been aimed directly at the police and senior govt officials. Some civilian casualties but nothing like the levels seen with the recent Mosque and Market Place bombings, and attacks on those queing to join the police or army.

[zathras]

Alf I was responding to Zathras who suggested the invasion of Iraq was the reason they went round bombing and beheading people. They (Al-Qaeda collectively) were doing it before, it's just that no-one was taking much interest.

Actually read what I said. It is the continual attacks on Muslim countries and the failure to defend Muslims with the same vigour we apply to Jewish and Christian targets.

A lot of that went on during the Bosnain conflict, but even before

I could go on about the failings of the West to protect Muslims until the cows come home and you would still miss the point.

The other thing to remember is who Saddam Hussein was financed and supplied weopons from - us (or at least the West). That was in the original Gulf War between Iraq/Iran.

So here we have the West bombing someone it consider a friend (prior to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait).

So it allows those who would seek to use violence to go and say 'look, even there Muslim friends are under attack - they want to attack Islam!'.

Now I've looked at the Quoran (despite being Catholic, with some Jewish in me). There is a specific requirement to protect Islam - although that does not spread to the innocent, or non-combatants - the argument for that goes that democratic leaders do as the voters required, and therefore the voters of the political leadership are as responsible as their leaders - it's rubbish but effective propaganda.

This general level attacks on Islam and failure to defend attracks more and more disenfranchised Muslims to the cause and the biggest attack has been on Iraq. That it was justified by lies, falsehoods and outright fraud leads credence to the idea that it was Islam itself that is under attack, and that any excuse - even false ones - will do

The war in Afghanisatan was justified however since the Taleban was hiding those responsible for 9/11. That does not stretch however to Saddam was only a danger to his own people many who were protected under no-fly zones under existing UN mandates.

The Taleban grew out of an extreme form of Islam called Wahidism which equates responsibility for the actions of democratic leaders to those who vote for them.

The 2nd generation of Muslims also do not seem to have the same work ethic as their parents, nor apply the same value to the west and it's values. This makes them easy targets for extreme mullahs extolling extreamist views.

[Dundeegeorge]

Your point is taken Zathras

but consider one question only.
Would you like your female children to be raised in an Islamic society or a laissez-faire one like ours.
The absolute bottom line, and having 2 daughters, I can tell you now without qualification, the fewer muslims there are in the world, the happier I am.

[AtW]

I can tell you now without qualification, the fewer muslims there are in the world, the happier I am.

It would have been better to the world if people like you were happier by achieving something that contributes to humanity rather than have such foolish negative wishes.

[lilelvis2000]

dundee - that's a relative question. If you were muslim the answer would be yes. otherwise it might be no.

I would be concerned as a dad the amount of skin the young women show these days..and the amount of smoking and promicious(sp?) sex they have. but that's just conservative me. If you don't mind them showing off on page 3..more power to you!!

[Dundeegeorge]

Yes Alexei

It would have been better to the world if people like you were happier by achieving something that contributes to humanity rather than have such foolish negative wishes.

you consider it a negative value, but then you're not a parent.
And I do have very strong positive values, but religion (all religion) gets on my tits. And the last time I looked, it wasn't christians or buddhists who were blowing up innocents. (I don't consider Israelies or Palestinians christians by the by).

[Dundeegeorge]

Indeed

dundee - that's a relative question. If you were muslim the answer would be yes. otherwise it might be no.

I would be concerned as a dad the amount of skin the young women show these days..and the amount of smoking and promicious(sp?) sex they have. but that's just conservative me. If you don't mind them showing off on page 3..more power to you!!

Should they as adults choose to make money from people who 'admire the female form' then that would be entirely up to them. It's called freedom.

[ALM]

Should they as adults choose to make money from people who 'admire the female form' then that would be entirely up to them. It's called freedom.

But are your daughter page 3 material? If so please elaborate.

[Dundeegeorge]

Well since they're both at primary school

I wouldn't say so, but then again I'm not on the parole board!!!!!!!!!!