Cyprus-Forum.com

[Me Ed]

Christians, in this day and age, do not kill innocents the name of God, where as the islamists do.

Remember how many RC priests have been slaughtered in Turkey recently.

Before engaging in battle, the 'Padre' is available for to those who are about to 'Carry out their duties' to Queen and Country.

Many innocents are slaughtered in the process and such deaths have been been recently proven.

It's not ALL bad news however, the Military have terms for such deaths, 'Collateral Damage', 'Friendly Fire' and several others which they feel justifies the taking of life "In the name of God".

As to the recent slaughter of the RC priests, I think you will find that the tenets of 'Islam' provide adequately for those who falsely adorn the robes of righteousness OR, practise the habit of groping under the 'Cassocks' of vulnerable young choir-boys.

Christians advocate the 'Slapping of hands' for such crimes.

Islamists favour 'Beheading', as a more effective punishment AND warning, even though the innocent may pay for the crimes of the guilty in some cases.

Which seems to negate your first and explain your second point.

What a bizzaire argument, but its what I've come to expect from defenders of islamic evil by pointing the finger at others instead of extolling the virtues of the so-called religion of tolerance and peace.

I'm no lover of the RC church, but the only reason these priests were slaughtered is because they were preaching in a "free" and "secular" country.

How many imams have been slaughtered in the EU in recent years?

[Schnauzer]

The recent actions of Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly have once again stirred the imaginations of those who have read of them and comment on the horror of them.

Whether or not the actions were either a protest about the involvement of the Swedish military forces in Afghanistan (or elsewhere) or a response to the considered insult of the 'Prophet' by an inconsiderate cartoonist, is a moot point.

What IS certain, is that the actions WERE taken by a most unlikely perpetrator. (imho)

What would compel an intelligent 29 year old family man, father of three small children, studying for a Bsc degree at the University of Bedfordshire, with his whole future before him, to commit to the actions he took?.

The terms 'Brainwashing' and 'Fanaticism' are usually employed when trying to determine the motivations behind incidents such as this, it is very easy to adopt such descriptive opinions when they are so rife in the 'Media' BUT, if one analyses the background of THIS particular perpetrator, it may well reveal that WE (those in condemnation) are actually the 'Brainwashed'.

Not an easy title to admit to I know, the death and destruction is awful and unacceptable and I am not condoning it by any means........ I merely suggest, as in the title of this thread that the 'Motives' may be beyond OUR understanding.
One does not have to be a 'Fanatic' to object to what one may perceive to be 'Unjust'.

Perhaps members might have views which may enlighten us.

Hmmm, Shnauzer, do you think the motives are inherently beyond our understanding, or do you think we are inherently incapable of understanding the motives?

I would plump for the latter Filitsa.

Since we are NOT Islamists, nor are we able (generally) to interpret the true meanings of the tenets of Islam since (again generally) we are unable to speak, write AND think in Arabic, we must rely on the interpretations of those who can.

Thus we are wide open to the possibilities of political deception when we are informed of such tenets.

For as much as it suits the advancement of Christianity and Judaism to condemn Muslims, so too must it be equally valid for Muslims to resist such condemnation.

If the Muslims were left in peace and allowed to practise their faith without interference, there would be peace on earth.

Stealing their lands and resources, ridiculing their beliefs and culture, is a sure fire path to conflict, religious or otherwise.

We of the West have much to answer for and little to be proud of (IMHO)

[Schnauzer]

Christians, in this day and age, do not kill innocents the name of God, where as the islamists do.

Remember how many RC priests have been slaughtered in Turkey recently.

Before engaging in battle, the 'Padre' is available for to those who are about to 'Carry out their duties' to Queen and Country.

Many innocents are slaughtered in the process and such deaths have been been recently proven.

It's not ALL bad news however, the Military have terms for such deaths, 'Collateral Damage', 'Friendly Fire' and several others which they feel justifies the taking of life "In the name of God".

As to the recent slaughter of the RC priests, I think you will find that the tenets of 'Islam' provide adequately for those who falsely adorn the robes of righteousness OR, practise the habit of groping under the 'Cassocks' of vulnerable young choir-boys.

Christians advocate the 'Slapping of hands' for such crimes.

Islamists favour 'Beheading', as a more effective punishment AND warning, even though the innocent may pay for the crimes of the guilty in some cases.

Which seems to negate your first and explain your second point.

What a bizzaire argument, but its what I've come to expect from defenders of islamic evil by pointing the finger at others instead of extolling the virtues of the so-called religion of tolerance and peace.

I'm no lover of the RC church, but the only reason these priests were slaughtered is because they were preaching in a "free" and "secular" country.

How many imams have been slaughtered in the EU in recent years?

"Ah now Paddy, you have to face the truth"

[Me Ed]

Christians, in this day and age, do not kill innocents the name of God, where as the islamists do.

Remember how many RC priests have been slaughtered in Turkey recently.

Before engaging in battle, the 'Padre' is available for to those who are about to 'Carry out their duties' to Queen and Country.

Many innocents are slaughtered in the process and such deaths have been been recently proven.

It's not ALL bad news however, the Military have terms for such deaths, 'Collateral Damage', 'Friendly Fire' and several others which they feel justifies the taking of life "In the name of God".

As to the recent slaughter of the RC priests, I think you will find that the tenets of 'Islam' provide adequately for those who falsely adorn the robes of righteousness OR, practise the habit of groping under the 'Cassocks' of vulnerable young choir-boys.

Christians advocate the 'Slapping of hands' for such crimes.

Islamists favour 'Beheading', as a more effective punishment AND warning, even though the innocent may pay for the crimes of the guilty in some cases.

Which seems to negate your first and explain your second point.

What a bizzaire argument, but its what I've come to expect from defenders of islamic evil by pointing the finger at others instead of extolling the virtues of the so-called religion of tolerance and peace.

I'm no lover of the RC church, but the only reason these priests were slaughtered is because they were preaching in a "free" and "secular" country.

How many imams have been slaughtered in the EU in recent years?

"Ah now Paddy, you have to face the truth"

You need to stick to the thread my friend.

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

[Get Real!]

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

Indeed... what motivated these Brits to commit acts of terrorism? Let's see how clever you are...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... terror.htm

[Me Ed]

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

Indeed... what motivated these Brits to commit acts of terrorism? Let's see how clever you are...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... terror.htm

Stick to the thread you muppet.

[Schnauzer]

Christians, in this day and age, do not kill innocents the name of God, where as the islamists do.

Remember how many RC priests have been slaughtered in Turkey recently.

Before engaging in battle, the 'Padre' is available for to those who are about to 'Carry out their duties' to Queen and Country.

Many innocents are slaughtered in the process and such deaths have been been recently proven.

It's not ALL bad news however, the Military have terms for such deaths, 'Collateral Damage', 'Friendly Fire' and several others which they feel justifies the taking of life "In the name of God".

As to the recent slaughter of the RC priests, I think you will find that the tenets of 'Islam' provide adequately for those who falsely adorn the robes of righteousness OR, practise the habit of groping under the 'Cassocks' of vulnerable young choir-boys.

Christians advocate the 'Slapping of hands' for such crimes.

Islamists favour 'Beheading', as a more effective punishment AND warning, even though the innocent may pay for the crimes of the guilty in some cases.

Which seems to negate your first and explain your second point.

What a bizzaire argument, but its what I've come to expect from defenders of islamic evil by pointing the finger at others instead of extolling the virtues of the so-called religion of tolerance and peace.

I'm no lover of the RC church, but the only reason these priests were slaughtered is because they were preaching in a "free" and "secular" country.

How many imams have been slaughtered in the EU in recent years?

"Ah now Paddy, you have to face the truth"

You need to stick to the thread my friend.

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

You began your 'Analysis' by introducing the subject of '72 Virgins', moved on to claim that the man was a 'Saddo' because he sought a second Wife (perfectly acceptable to his faith) then introduced the subject of the slaughter of the RC 'Priests' in Turkey.

I cannot accept your criticism therefore.

It would be very difficult to determine what motivated the chap, WITHOUT discussing the tenets of Islam and comparing them with those of other faiths.

Even more so if those discussing the issue (like yourself) merely seek to degrade the faith of Islam by ridiculing it. (IMHO).

[Get Real!]

Stick to the thread you muppet.

So how many virgins are these two British punks entitled to you reckon?

[bsharpish]

Again no research into your sources which , in this case, turns out to be a Alex Jones a nutty american ,neo conservative fuckwitt who "believes" that communists run america, 9\11 was staged, the BP oil leak was a conspiracy to ruin gulf coast economy, exploding banknotes,chemtrails and just about any other lunatic idea that will attract punters to his growing media empire.
He also owns infowars and a number of other similar conspiracist sites, subscription internet tv and would love to sell gullible fools even more of his hogwash on DVD or in Books.

So, thus far David Icke and Alex Jones..... both twats - 1 Clearly insane and 1 clearly a media manipulator with a distinct agenda and I've only bothered checking 2 of your "sources" - Next you'll be telling us all that 75 million years ago, there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu who was in charge of 76 planets in our sector of the galaxy, including planet Earth, whose name at that time was Teegeeack

An open mind is a good thing.... but I'd suggest you close the door for a while and try and grasp reality and ask mommy if the sky is really falling in.....

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

Indeed... what motivated these Brits to commit acts of terrorism? Let's see how clever you are...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... terror.htm

[Me Ed]

Christians, in this day and age, do not kill innocents the name of God, where as the islamists do.

Remember how many RC priests have been slaughtered in Turkey recently.

Before engaging in battle, the 'Padre' is available for to those who are about to 'Carry out their duties' to Queen and Country.

Many innocents are slaughtered in the process and such deaths have been been recently proven.

It's not ALL bad news however, the Military have terms for such deaths, 'Collateral Damage', 'Friendly Fire' and several others which they feel justifies the taking of life "In the name of God".

As to the recent slaughter of the RC priests, I think you will find that the tenets of 'Islam' provide adequately for those who falsely adorn the robes of righteousness OR, practise the habit of groping under the 'Cassocks' of vulnerable young choir-boys.

Christians advocate the 'Slapping of hands' for such crimes.

Islamists favour 'Beheading', as a more effective punishment AND warning, even though the innocent may pay for the crimes of the guilty in some cases.

Which seems to negate your first and explain your second point.

What a bizzaire argument, but its what I've come to expect from defenders of islamic evil by pointing the finger at others instead of extolling the virtues of the so-called religion of tolerance and peace.

I'm no lover of the RC church, but the only reason these priests were slaughtered is because they were preaching in a "free" and "secular" country.

How many imams have been slaughtered in the EU in recent years?

"Ah now Paddy, you have to face the truth"

You need to stick to the thread my friend.

You asked what motivated this man to do what he did.

I showed that in islam there are teachings that give this man licence for what he did.

He used the war and some doodles to justify to himself that what he was going to do is allahs will, even though the imam in Luton tried to talk him out of these extremist views a couple of years ago although what one imam teaches from one mosque to another can vary quite widely.

When I put this forward all you did was attempt to deflect the argument to other religions.

You began your 'Analysis' by introducing the subject of '72 Virgins', moved on to claim that the man was a 'Saddo' because he sought a second Wife (perfectly acceptable to his faith) then introduced the subject of the slaughter of the RC 'Priests' in Turkey.

I cannot accept your criticism therefore.

It would be very difficult to determine what motivated the chap, WITHOUT discussing the tenets of Islam and comparing them with those of other faiths.

Even more so if those discussing the issue (like yourself) merely seek to degrade the faith of Islam by ridiculing it. (IMHO).

What clearly motivated the man was the doodles of muhummad.

He then attempted to use the war to justify his attempted slaughter of innocent people because islamic teaching justifies the slaughter of infidels during war.

I believe this is the case because if the war was his primary motive, then he could have easily targeted the UK as he use to live in Luton.

Whilst a muslim can also justify the killing of RC priests as they can be viewed as attempting to create apostates.

It's not about ridiculing islam, it's about exposing how its teachings can be used to justify evil.