«

[omg]

are you some kind of a crazy person or something aagr? by supressing something all you do is give the people who follow it more fire. look at the early christians i can imagine romans saying *why if we let them all become chrisitian it will destroy our empire* of course all the burning and feeding to lions certainly stopped the christians didnt it ....
and the crusades certainly stopped the worship of muhammed (pbwh) didnt it..
as for now we already have vast muslim populations all over the west. well its certainly screwed us up hasnt it..
do you know how much of our modern science we stole from the muslim nations. if it wasnt for them we wouldent have our modern systems of mathmatics, astronemy, medicine, architecture. and did we take these things peacefully. no. we stole them from them while similtaneosly trying to send these people back to the stone age.

if we let them in europe LOL. guess what foo, they are ALREADY HERE.
bet thats you running and screaming then isnt it.

[efthimios]

Some would argue that christianity destroyed the empire.
And even if it wasn't the sole reason it sure helped.
Anyway I agree with you omg, more or less.



BTW, european civilization is NOT based on christianity. In fact if christianity never existed things might have turned much better IMO.
If you want the foundations of europe then look at greeks, etruscans, romans, celts, among other. All of them far predating christianity.

[PrejudiceSucks]

No, the way Europe was formed was by bastards with a lot of brute force at their disposal. All of the royal families are essentailly in-bred.

The situation 500 years ago is similar to the Middle east to be honest and I don't like the way that they are forcing democracy into countries that don't need it at all and it actually does damage.

Iraq used to be ruled quite well, now it's a shambles, people die every day with car-bombs. It wasn't like that 5 years ago, 5 years ago it was well ruled and they had the same luxuries as we have in Europe. It is a country with several factions, all of which will gladly kill themselves if it does damage to their enemies.

He killed a fair few from all of them, but on the other hand we didn't have bombings every day and also the infrastructure and law enforcement was better than the USA's. Now they've blown it back into the stone age.

Anyway, whole countries being ruled by faith is stupid, it brings on fanatacism that is a cross between patriotism and religious over-devotion.



And Stroggy, Christians, Jews and basically every other religion does not let the others freely worship on their territory. If anyone tried to set up a mosque in France or England, even Holland or Belgium, then they probably would have been hung in public. It's true and to be honest, Muslims were quite tolerant compared to most other religions in that period.

[efthimios]

It looks like you have NO IDEA what was life like in Iraq before the war for the majority of the people.


And it is not every religion having problem and trying to persuade people or forbid them to believe. Just the few major you have mentioned.

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Jul 23 2005, 01:47 PM
Iraq used to be ruled quite well, now it's a shambles, people die every day with car-bombs. It wasn't like that 5 years ago, 5 years ago it was well ruled and they had the same luxuries as we have in Europe. It is a country with several factions, all of which will gladly kill themselves if it does damage to their enemies.

He killed a fair few from all of them, but on the other hand we didn't have bombings every day and also the infrastructure and law enforcement was better than the USA's. Now they've blown it back into the stone age.

Erm, Prejudice, are you quite sure you know what you're talking about there? :blink: No offence, but I think you ought to be a bit more careful before you make such sweeping statements.
I was definitely not in favour of the US attacking Iraq, and I agree with you that attacking it hasn't exactly served to improve things for the population. It has certainly triggered a civil war that might have been avoided, destroyed most of the country's infrastructure and all that, but still you can't seriously claim it was being ruled well five years ago. Iraq was a dictatorship, and to a certain extent all dictatorships work "well", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's beneficial for the population. As for the country's having the same "luxuries" as Europe, that might have applied to a tiny minority, but the wealth in Iraq wasn't exactly equally distributed. There were (and still are) a few rich people who can lead a life of luxury by European standards, but that doesn't mean that everybody was well off.
When you're speaking of efficient law enforcement, do you realise we're talking about one of those countries in which it used to be (and still is for all I know) quite common to accuse political opponents of dealing with drugs and have them executed though enforcing the strict drug laws? And referring to Saddam's genocide of the Kurds as "killing a fair few from all of them" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think?

[omg]

its an odd thing dictatorships.
when travelling eastern europe i have met many old people who would like communism back. i have even met some young people who will debate the merits of comunism.
i think managing to prevent an all out civil war in a country that is just an amalgamation of tribes that hate each other is good leadership.
yes the massacre of kurds was unaceptable.
what about the kurdish terrorists? they were doing some pretty unaceptable things . he gassed them and they stopped bombing iraqi civilians.
now you could say "but thats horrific" and yes it is.
so what about what the americans did to afghansitan in retaliation for sept 11?
is that acceptable becuse they didnt use chemical weopens? have you seen what a *daisy cutter* can do? i dont know which way i would rather die. probably niether.
....
i hate these debates becuse its really hard to not sound like you are saying that saddam was a really nice chap. he isnt. but then niether is bush. and the funny thing is that bush isnt exactly cleanly democratically elected is he. although i dont want to start debating that fiasco. just most people take it as given that he cheated the first time (as the recounted votes... gahhh.)
so which dictator is your faveorate flavour?
can you blame saddam for using weopens sold to him by the yanks? (kind of like those opposition leaders set up for drugs if you think about it)
isnt it all just a big set up?

[A. J. Raffles]

Well, but you're forgetting about the insignificant detail that it wasn't Kurdish terrorists who were gassed but entire villages which were packed with civilians.

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing all this stupid terrorism business over and over again, to be quite honest.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Yeah, same here, it's getting a bit wearing.

Here is a run-down of my opinions, so that they never need be voiced (much) again :

I don't particuarly like people using the excuse of 'this country is full of Muslims and we've had some troubles in the past' for invading countries.

I don't think that we should force democracy all around the world when some countries don't want it.

I really disagree with the current ruling of the UK and USA am also disgusted by the fact that the USA can't understand that it's possible for them to lose a war .




And @ A.J

I didn't just say 'The Kurds' he actually killed off a few people from every faction. The gassing of the Kurds was regrettable but not entirely unjustified.

@ All

Don't bother insulting me for slagging off Christianity etc. , I'm personally against religion due to the wars it causes.

[omg]

Originally posted by A. J. Raffles@Jul 23 2005, 05:05 PM
Well, but you're forgetting about the insignificant detail that it wasn't Kurdish terrorists who were gassed but entire villages which were packed with civilians.

and in afghanistan all that was bombed was terrorists?
i told you i dont like saddam. but niether do i like bush. they are as bad as each other as far as killing innocent civilians goes. the only difference is bush kills innocent civilians in countrys he doesnt rule.
i didnt forget that they were civilians. nore do i think it was a good thing to do. but if you are going to invade countrys with dubios leadership we might as well invade america right now.
how many civilians have been killed under bush?

[mm_pie]

Now, the guy who they shot has nothing to do with the attacks. :ranting: But why did he run away from the police? A panic attack? It's a possibility. At least the met have been honest, that shows some decency.

Now its time to rant about the terrorists. :ranting:
A lot of people have let them win now i think. Inter Milan have said that they will not be travelling to england tonplay their games. Widespread anarchy. People are letting them win. My opinion, continue everything as normal as a sign of persistance against those w******.