Cyprus-Forum.com

[Me Ed]

I will put some arguments forward as a comparison ...

From most peoples point of view, the invasion of Iraq by the coallition was illegal.

From the GC point of view, the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey was illegal.

Certain elements of Iraq and Afghanistan have chosen to murder innocent civilians (their own people!) post invasion.

Can you imagine what Cyprus would be like today if Orthodox GCs after the 74 invasion decided to murder innocent GCs to impose a facist dictatorship on religious grounds?

Everyone knows that most (~70% although the actual statistics regarding casualties vary widely but all credible ones do put it at "most") of the deaths during and after the recent invasions have been muslim on muslim, so who exactly is wiping who out?

Is the alternative for regular Iraqis and Afghans actually better if the occupying forces just left and let the Taliban in?

Before people accuse the coallition of making these countries less safe, a nation is only as safe as the mentality of it's citizens, Cyprus and Serbia being very good examples of how nations can suceed post invasion.

[Simon]

It was not my intention to cause dismay to any member, neither would I wish for my comments to be regarded as an indication that I am a supporter of those who are so often subjected to ridicule on account of their beliefs.

It would appear that the subject of 'Virgins' is a source of great amusement to those who wish to attack the integrity of 'Islam' which I consider quite offensive even though I am NOT of the faith.

Whatever peculiarities or deficiencies a person 'outside' the faith of Islam may perceive, it does not give them the right to ridicule those within the faith, nor does it entitle them to foist decadent beliefs upon them which, in my humble opinion, is the root cause of much of the conflict in the regions where the tenet's of Islam are THE accepted principles, where the West is viewed with disdain on account of the said decadence.

The actions of those that resist changes to their lifestyles and beliefs are, in my humble opinion, a matter entirely governed by their own ethics, the fact that they are at odds with (what they perceive to be) the decadent West, is a moot point.

Whatever conflicts occur among they who practise the faith of Islam, it should be left to them to discover and solve their differences, it should NOT be under the influence of a nation (or nations) which are considered to be morally inferior to their own.

Suicide bombings are a terrible consequence of what WE of the West have inflicted upon those nations which now practise such actions, perhaps a closer look at our OWN culture, might give us a clue as to WHY those Islamic nations seek to resist OUR influence with such ferocity.

Strange how it seems to be so obvious to me.

Floda, the West are not in Afghanistan to 'foist decadent beliefs' upon the Afghans, whatever you perceive these 'decadent beliefs' to be. They invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 to prevent the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda operatives. They are still fighting the Taliban today, not the average Afghan.

Further, it seems that you have not addressed the points made in my post at all. Perhaps Paphitis was right, I am wasting my time.

Various people have ridiculed Christianity on this forum and I have yet to hear you object, perhaps because it is a religion of the evil, decadent West? Members have the 'right' to criticise or even ridicule any faith they wish, it's called freedom of speech. As long as no individual is inciting violence or hatred, let them say their piece. As the saying goes, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it'.

Suicide bombings are a terrible consequence of what WE of the West have inflicted upon those nations which now practise such actions, perhaps a closer look at our OWN culture, might give us a clue as to WHY those Islamic nations seek to resist OUR influence with such ferocity.

This paragraph is of the same ilk as your previous post and more complete nonsense, for reasons I have formerly explained yet you seem to have ignored.

[Simon]

I would just like to thank Paphitis, Repulse Warrior and Milo for your kind words.

[Simon]

Firstly, many suicide bombers are/were not blowing themselves up to resist the occupation (or 'oppression'), especially in Iraq. Even the vast majority of the British troops that are dying in Helmand for instance are killed by IEDs. Most of these suicide bombers (especially in Iraq) were actually blowing themselves up in markets filled with women and children, areas packed with civilians, even mosques, in revenge attacks on certain religious communities or rival tribes. It is a type of power struggle with the intention of destabilising the country.

And who would benefit more from destabilizing these countries?

THE OCCUPIER OF COURSE!

And not to mention that “suicide bombings” were totally unheard of prior to these countries’ invasion & occupation by the US/UK!

You’re finally waking up to reality Simon!

GR, every one of your ideas, from the Greek nature of Cyprus, to the occupation of Iraq, is a far fetched conspiracy. The destabilisation of Iraq was of course not beneficial to the West. In fact, the destabilisation was the prime source of criticism for the West's actions. Explain to me how the West cajoled all these people into killing themselves. After all, money would be quite useless I suspect. It seems you are the one who needs to wake up.

What about the suicide attack of 9/11? The US were not in Iraq or Afghanistan at this time. Let me guess, Bush did it. Suicide bombings have been happening all over the world for a long time, the despicable action was not invented in Iraq, but just imported there.

[Floda]

It was not my intention to cause dismay to any member, neither would I wish for my comments to be regarded as an indication that I am a supporter of those who are so often subjected to ridicule on account of their beliefs.

It would appear that the subject of 'Virgins' is a source of great amusement to those who wish to attack the integrity of 'Islam' which I consider quite offensive even though I am NOT of the faith.

Whatever peculiarities or deficiencies a person 'outside' the faith of Islam may perceive, it does not give them the right to ridicule those within the faith, nor does it entitle them to foist decadent beliefs upon them which, in my humble opinion, is the root cause of much of the conflict in the regions where the tenet's of Islam are THE accepted principles, where the West is viewed with disdain on account of the said decadence.

The actions of those that resist changes to their lifestyles and beliefs are, in my humble opinion, a matter entirely governed by their own ethics, the fact that they are at odds with (what they perceive to be) the decadent West, is a moot point.

Whatever conflicts occur among they who practise the faith of Islam, it should be left to them to discover and solve their differences, it should NOT be under the influence of a nation (or nations) which are considered to be morally inferior to their own.

Suicide bombings are a terrible consequence of what WE of the West have inflicted upon those nations which now practise such actions, perhaps a closer look at our OWN culture, might give us a clue as to WHY those Islamic nations seek to resist OUR influence with such ferocity.

Strange how it seems to be so obvious to me.

Floda, the West are not in Afghanistan to 'foist decadent beliefs' upon the Afghans, whatever you perceive these 'decadent beliefs' to be. They invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 to prevent the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda operatives. They are still fighting the Taliban today, not the average Afghan.

Various people have ridiculed Christianity on this forum and I have yet to hear you object, perhaps because it is a religion of the evil, decadent West? Members have the 'right' to criticise or even ridicule any faith they wish, it's called freedom of speech. As long as no individual is inciting violence or hatred, let them say their piece. As the saying goes, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it'.

Au Contraire my friend, I have often defended the tenets of Christianity with the same sincerity as I have defended ANY religious doctrine which adheres to it's tenets.

The fact that I am myself affilliated (in a broad sense) to Christianity and, in tandem with your comment that freedom of speech entitles me to make observations (disparaging or otherwise) on my own or other beliefs, I would like to further elucidate regarding comparisons between Islam (which you claim I have little knowledge of) and Christianity (of which I certainly should know much more, in keeping with a vast number of those who claim to be such Christians).

In my considered opinion (and I base such on first hand experiences gathered from close involvement with Islam in various countries) those who abide, follow and adhere to the tenets of Islam do so with a genuine fervour that is sadly lacking among Christians towards their own tenets.

Such a bold statement is easily defended by a cursory glance through the pages of history (past and recent).

Unfortunately (again in my considered opinion) the fervour of the Christian falls FAR behind that of probably every other religion or belief on the face of this earth.

I do wonder if THAT may be at the root of why so many Islamic nations are so reluctant to embrace the 'Gift' of democracy so strenuously ?, the fact that some may appear to be on the threshold of doing so, may well be the result of infiltration, bribery and corruption perpetrated by the Western powers who are renowned for their ability to resort to such tactics.

If you disagree with THAT statement, perhaps you can explain how the mighty U.S.A. ever came into existence and, how Israel came to be the power that it is today.

Beware Cyprus, the Israeli is quietly scratching at the back door whilst the Middle East is in flames, perhaps YOU are next on the list.

[Get Real!]

Firstly, many suicide bombers are/were not blowing themselves up to resist the occupation (or 'oppression'), especially in Iraq. Even the vast majority of the British troops that are dying in Helmand for instance are killed by IEDs. Most of these suicide bombers (especially in Iraq) were actually blowing themselves up in markets filled with women and children, areas packed with civilians, even mosques, in revenge attacks on certain religious communities or rival tribes. It is a type of power struggle with the intention of destabilising the country.

And who would benefit more from destabilizing these countries?

THE OCCUPIER OF COURSE!

And not to mention that “suicide bombings” were totally unheard of prior to these countries’ invasion & occupation by the US/UK!

You’re finally waking up to reality Simon!

GR, every one of your ideas, from the Greek nature of Cyprus, to the occupation of Iraq, is a far fetched conspiracy. The destabilisation of Iraq was of course not beneficial to the West. In fact, the destabilisation was the prime source of criticism for the West's actions. Explain to me how the West cajoled all these people into killing themselves. After all, money would be quite useless I suspect. It seems you are the one who needs to wake up.

Simon, I don’t know why you bother participating in political discussions with your child-like “understanding” of world affairs…

It seems that one would have to first take you through the most basic of well known techniques that colonialists and imperialists use to attain their goals against their victims, such as manufacturing consent, false flag operations, divide and rule techniques, and heaps more of prerequisite foundation knowledge that you clearly lack… but who is going to bother wasting their time teaching you all that?

What about the suicide attack of 9/11? The US were not in Iraq or Afghanistan at this time. Let me guess, Bush did it. Suicide bombings have been happening all over the world for a long time, the despicable action was not invented in Iraq, but just imported there.

That’s right Simon… imported by the occupier!

Let’s add 1 + 1 for baby Simon…

Something that did NOT exist prior to the occupation but profoundly DID after the occupation can only mean that it was IMPORTED by the occupiers!

[Floda]

So many "martyrs" blowing themselves up for the religion of peace must find Allah experiencing a shortage of virgins for rewarding his brave warriors. By now, they must be receiving virgin rabbits. Ah well, maybe they'll appreciate a change from goats and donkeys.

They've thrown in a few sheep, god knows how they went on in Glasgow for the Muslim airport bombers, you couldn't find 72 virgins older than 12 years in the whole of the city.

Does not THIS comment illustrate the common decadence which exists in the U.K. ?

[Simon]

Firstly, many suicide bombers are/were not blowing themselves up to resist the occupation (or 'oppression'), especially in Iraq. Even the vast majority of the British troops that are dying in Helmand for instance are killed by IEDs. Most of these suicide bombers (especially in Iraq) were actually blowing themselves up in markets filled with women and children, areas packed with civilians, even mosques, in revenge attacks on certain religious communities or rival tribes. It is a type of power struggle with the intention of destabilising the country.

And who would benefit more from destabilizing these countries?

THE OCCUPIER OF COURSE!

And not to mention that “suicide bombings” were totally unheard of prior to these countries’ invasion & occupation by the US/UK!

You’re finally waking up to reality Simon!

GR, every one of your ideas, from the Greek nature of Cyprus, to the occupation of Iraq, is a far fetched conspiracy. The destabilisation of Iraq was of course not beneficial to the West. In fact, the destabilisation was the prime source of criticism for the West's actions. Explain to me how the West cajoled all these people into killing themselves. After all, money would be quite useless I suspect. It seems you are the one who needs to wake up.

Simon, I don’t know why you bother participating in political discussions with your child-like “understanding” of world affairs…

It seems that one would have to first take you through the most basic of well known techniques that colonialists and imperialists use to attain their goals against their victims, such as manufacturing consent, false flag operations, divide and rule techniques, and heaps more of prerequisite foundation knowledge that you clearly lack… but who is going to bother wasting their time teaching you all that?

What about the suicide attack of 9/11? The US were not in Iraq or Afghanistan at this time. Let me guess, Bush did it. Suicide bombings have been happening all over the world for a long time, the despicable action was not invented in Iraq, but just imported there.

That’s right Simon… imported by the occupier!

Let’s add 1 + 1 for baby Simon…

Something that did NOT exist prior to the occupation but profoundly DID after the occupation can only mean that it was IMPORTED by the occupiers!

Get Real, the only baby like mind here is yours. You believe every silly little conspiracy theory that is fed to you. You have not answered the question in my post, you conveniently ignore it, which tells me you have no argument, but can only resort to jejune attacks.

Please explain to me why the US want a destabilised Iraq, and why 'the surge' took place to increase security? Why the US and others are training Iraqi forces to keep the peace? Why the British have all but withdrawn, with the Americans also looking to withdraw (and already have from the cities)? Again I ask, how did the US persuade so many Muslims to kill fellow Muslims so easily? I could understand your logic if you were arguing the US wants a stable, subservient nation in the Middle East, but a wildly unstable graveyard for coalition troops and an unreliable ally? You are an illogical individual GR, very little of what you say ever makes sense, and you never have the slightest shred of proof for any of your arguments. You hate the West and therefore will believe anything which puts the West in a poor light, and excuses others of their crimes. Therefore, it is a waste of my time to debate anymore with such an irrational individual.

[Get Real!]

Firstly, many suicide bombers are/were not blowing themselves up to resist the occupation (or 'oppression'), especially in Iraq. Even the vast majority of the British troops that are dying in Helmand for instance are killed by IEDs. Most of these suicide bombers (especially in Iraq) were actually blowing themselves up in markets filled with women and children, areas packed with civilians, even mosques, in revenge attacks on certain religious communities or rival tribes. It is a type of power struggle with the intention of destabilising the country.

And who would benefit more from destabilizing these countries?

THE OCCUPIER OF COURSE!

And not to mention that “suicide bombings” were totally unheard of prior to these countries’ invasion & occupation by the US/UK!

You’re finally waking up to reality Simon!

GR, every one of your ideas, from the Greek nature of Cyprus, to the occupation of Iraq, is a far fetched conspiracy. The destabilisation of Iraq was of course not beneficial to the West. In fact, the destabilisation was the prime source of criticism for the West's actions. Explain to me how the West cajoled all these people into killing themselves. After all, money would be quite useless I suspect. It seems you are the one who needs to wake up.

Simon, I don’t know why you bother participating in political discussions with your child-like “understanding” of world affairs…

It seems that one would have to first take you through the most basic of well known techniques that colonialists and imperialists use to attain their goals against their victims, such as manufacturing consent, false flag operations, divide and rule techniques, and heaps more of prerequisite foundation knowledge that you clearly lack… but who is going to bother wasting their time teaching you all that?

What about the suicide attack of 9/11? The US were not in Iraq or Afghanistan at this time. Let me guess, Bush did it. Suicide bombings have been happening all over the world for a long time, the despicable action was not invented in Iraq, but just imported there.

That’s right Simon… imported by the occupier!

Let’s add 1 + 1 for baby Simon…

Something that did NOT exist prior to the occupation but profoundly DID after the occupation can only mean that it was IMPORTED by the occupiers!

Get Real the only baby like mind here is yours. You believe every silly little conspiracy theory that is fed to you. You have not answered the question in my post, you conveniently ignore it, which tells me you have no argument, but can only resort to jejune attacks.

Please explain to me why the US want a destabilised Iraq, and why 'the surge' took place to increase security? Why the US and others are training Iraqi forces to keep the peace? Why the British have all but withdrawn, with the Americans also looking to withdraw (and already have from the cities). Again I ask, how did the US persuade so many Muslims to kill fellow Muslims so easily? You are an illogical individual GR, very little of what you say ever makes sense, and you never have the slightest shred of proof for any of your arguments. You hate the West and therefore will believe anything which puts the West in a poor light. Therefore, it is a waste of my time to debate anymore with such an irrational individual.

You and Paphitis, are some of the stupidest people I’ve ever come across so here’s an exercise for you baby Simon…

Illegal Turkish settlers on Cyprus are something that did NOT exist prior to the Turkish occupation but profoundly DID after the Turkish occupation, so would it be fair to say that the occupier IMPORTED them to Cyprus?

[Get Real!]

Baby Simon asks...

Why the US and others are training Iraqi forces to keep the peace?



PS: Would anyone object and blame me if I were to slap the living daylights out of this ignorant fool called Simon?