Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Ella Paphiti, just for you mate. Let us see your famous aussis deal with this one. soon you will be infiltrated and nothing you can do about it.

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/internati ... ixantistes

Western Women are prone to be attracted to men of "Wealth", whereas those with Eastern tendencies are more apt to favour men who demonstrate "Fervour" and probably are drawn to the Jihadists because they recognize that they are demonstrating "Courage" in their resistance to the changes the Western (and other Western influenced forces} are imposing upon their culture.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but it is a fact and ALL the propaganda to the contrary will NEVER change it, the Jihadists are not afraid of the mightily superior forces arrayed against them, they are more afraid of LIFE without their faith than DEATH with it.

THAT takes "Courage" and I defy anyone to contradict the fact, (Which DOES NOT imply that I am in favour of atrocities) it merely illustrates that I am able to see further than the end of Obama's nose.

So what your saying is that courage equals credit for the Jihadists.

Taking everything in to account. Are you in favor of the jihadists over the "west" because they are demonstrating courage?

Not at all, I merely indicate that a lesser force (the Jihadists) MUST be accredited a degree of "Courage" in order to face down a vastly superior force (those of the West and others).

Whatever the political stratagems of EITHER side of the conflict are, "Courage" is a necessary virtue for ALL combatants.

The Jihadists are as entitled to fight for that which THEY believe in as are their opponents, were it not so, the West would be at liberty to impose ANY influence throughout the world in the guise of "Might is Right" and "Billy be Damned" whatever any other (sect) or religiously-governed nation might think if it does not accept the domination of the greater force.

My views should NOT be taken as an endorsement of atrocities (which incidentally are prevalent on BOTH sides of this conflict) they are, as indicated on many occasions, my opinion that a certain amount of "Courage" is attributable to the Jihadists.... that's all.

You are fucking sick, you pervert, fuck off ¬

[Maximus]

Ella Paphiti, just for you mate. Let us see your famous aussis deal with this one. soon you will be infiltrated and nothing you can do about it.

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/internati ... ixantistes

Western Women are prone to be attracted to men of "Wealth", whereas those with Eastern tendencies are more apt to favour men who demonstrate "Fervour" and probably are drawn to the Jihadists because they recognize that they are demonstrating "Courage" in their resistance to the changes the Western (and other Western influenced forces} are imposing upon their culture.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but it is a fact and ALL the propaganda to the contrary will NEVER change it, the Jihadists are not afraid of the mightily superior forces arrayed against them, they are more afraid of LIFE without their faith than DEATH with it.

THAT takes "Courage" and I defy anyone to contradict the fact, (Which DOES NOT imply that I am in favour of atrocities) it merely illustrates that I am able to see further than the end of Obama's nose.

So what your saying is that courage equals credit for the Jihadists.

Taking everything in to account. Are you in favor of the jihadists over the "west" because they are demonstrating courage?

Not at all, I merely indicate that a lesser force (the Jihadists) MUST be accredited a degree of "Courage" in order to face down a vastly superior force (those of the West and others).

Whatever the political stratagems of EITHER side of the conflict are, "Courage" is a necessary virtue for ALL combatants.

The Jihadists are as entitled to fight for that which THEY believe in as are their opponents, were it not so, the West would be at liberty to impose ANY influence throughout the world in the guise of "Might is Right" and "Billy be Damned" whatever any other (sect) or religiously-governed nation might think if it does not accept the domination of the greater force.

My views should NOT be taken as an endorsement of atrocities (which incidentally are prevalent on BOTH sides of this conflict) they are, as indicated on many occasions, my opinion that a certain amount of "Courage" is attributable to the Jihadists.... that's all.

Aren't they just murdering their brothers though?

I have not seen or heard about any vastly superior force from the west engaging them in combat yet.

[miltiades]

Ella Paphiti, just for you mate. Let us see your famous aussis deal with this one. soon you will be infiltrated and nothing you can do about it.

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/internati ... ixantistes

Western Women are prone to be attracted to men of "Wealth", whereas those with Eastern tendencies are more apt to favour men who demonstrate "Fervour" and probably are drawn to the Jihadists because they recognize that they are demonstrating "Courage" in their resistance to the changes the Western (and other Western influenced forces} are imposing upon their culture.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but it is a fact and ALL the propaganda to the contrary will NEVER change it, the Jihadists are not afraid of the mightily superior forces arrayed against them, they are more afraid of LIFE without their faith than DEATH with it.

THAT takes "Courage" and I defy anyone to contradict the fact, (Which DOES NOT imply that I am in favour of atrocities) it merely illustrates that I am able to see further than the end of Obama's nose.

So what your saying is that courage equals credit for the Jihadists.

Taking everything in to account. Are you in favor of the jihadists over the "west" because they are demonstrating courage?

Not at all, I merely indicate that a lesser force (the Jihadists) MUST be accredited a degree of "Courage" in order to face down a vastly superior force (those of the West and others).

Whatever the political stratagems of EITHER side of the conflict are, "Courage" is a necessary virtue for ALL combatants.

The Jihadists are as entitled to fight for that which THEY believe in as are their opponents, were it not so, the West would be at liberty to impose ANY influence throughout the world in the guise of "Might is Right" and "Billy be Damned" whatever any other (sect) or religiously-governed nation might think if it does not accept the domination of the greater force.

My views should NOT be taken as an endorsement of atrocities (which incidentally are prevalent on BOTH sides of this conflict) they are, as indicated on many occasions, my opinion that a certain amount of "Courage" is attributable to the Jihadists.... that's all.

Aren't they just murdering their brothers though?

I have not seen or heard about any vastly superior force from the west engaging them in combat yet.

Only someone as perverted as this gatagiozi would find these savages courageous, do you see why I tell him constantly to fuck off. He makes me puke the fucking pervert.

[miltiades]

These barbaric savages have now embarked upon the destruction of Iraq's cultural history, Fucking courageous of them.
These evil bastards must be eliminated and soon. West WAKE UP!

[Garavnoss]

Ella Paphiti, just for you mate. Let us see your famous aussis deal with this one. soon you will be infiltrated and nothing you can do about it.

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/internati ... ixantistes

Western Women are prone to be attracted to men of "Wealth", whereas those with Eastern tendencies are more apt to favour men who demonstrate "Fervour" and probably are drawn to the Jihadists because they recognize that they are demonstrating "Courage" in their resistance to the changes the Western (and other Western influenced forces} are imposing upon their culture.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but it is a fact and ALL the propaganda to the contrary will NEVER change it, the Jihadists are not afraid of the mightily superior forces arrayed against them, they are more afraid of LIFE without their faith than DEATH with it.

THAT takes "Courage" and I defy anyone to contradict the fact, (Which DOES NOT imply that I am in favour of atrocities) it merely illustrates that I am able to see further than the end of Obama's nose.

So what your saying is that courage equals credit for the Jihadists.

Taking everything in to account. Are you in favor of the jihadists over the "west" because they are demonstrating courage?

Not at all, I merely indicate that a lesser force (the Jihadists) MUST be accredited a degree of "Courage" in order to face down a vastly superior force (those of the West and others).

Whatever the political stratagems of EITHER side of the conflict are, "Courage" is a necessary virtue for ALL combatants.

The Jihadists are as entitled to fight for that which THEY believe in as are their opponents, were it not so, the West would be at liberty to impose ANY influence throughout the world in the guise of "Might is Right" and "Billy be Damned" whatever any other (sect) or religiously-governed nation might think if it does not accept the domination of the greater force.

My views should NOT be taken as an endorsement of atrocities (which incidentally are prevalent on BOTH sides of this conflict) they are, as indicated on many occasions, my opinion that a certain amount of "Courage" is attributable to the Jihadists.... that's all.

You are fucking sick, you pervert, fuck off ¬

Once again you manage to display your "Debating skills" I suggest you READ what is written and try to understand the content.

[Garavnoss]

Ella Paphiti, just for you mate. Let us see your famous aussis deal with this one. soon you will be infiltrated and nothing you can do about it.

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/internati ... ixantistes

Western Women are prone to be attracted to men of "Wealth", whereas those with Eastern tendencies are more apt to favour men who demonstrate "Fervour" and probably are drawn to the Jihadists because they recognize that they are demonstrating "Courage" in their resistance to the changes the Western (and other Western influenced forces} are imposing upon their culture.

It's a bitter pill to swallow but it is a fact and ALL the propaganda to the contrary will NEVER change it, the Jihadists are not afraid of the mightily superior forces arrayed against them, they are more afraid of LIFE without their faith than DEATH with it.

THAT takes "Courage" and I defy anyone to contradict the fact, (Which DOES NOT imply that I am in favour of atrocities) it merely illustrates that I am able to see further than the end of Obama's nose.

So what your saying is that courage equals credit for the Jihadists.

Taking everything in to account. Are you in favor of the jihadists over the "west" because they are demonstrating courage?

Not at all, I merely indicate that a lesser force (the Jihadists) MUST be accredited a degree of "Courage" in order to face down a vastly superior force (those of the West and others).

Whatever the political stratagems of EITHER side of the conflict are, "Courage" is a necessary virtue for ALL combatants.

The Jihadists are as entitled to fight for that which THEY believe in as are their opponents, were it not so, the West would be at liberty to impose ANY influence throughout the world in the guise of "Might is Right" and "Billy be Damned" whatever any other (sect) or religiously-governed nation might think if it does not accept the domination of the greater force.

My views should NOT be taken as an endorsement of atrocities (which incidentally are prevalent on BOTH sides of this conflict) they are, as indicated on many occasions, my opinion that a certain amount of "Courage" is attributable to the Jihadists.... that's all.

Aren't they just murdering their brothers though?

I have not seen or heard about any vastly superior force from the west engaging them in combat yet.

I would imagine that the well documented actions of the Western (and other) forces which are involved in daily bombing raids (with devastatingly destructive consequences) could be seen as an "Engagement".

There is probably a degree of "Ground force" engagement (Snipers etc) some of which is reported on and some not.

As to an "All Out" confrontation, the West (and others) do not seem to have the inclination to embark upon such a campaign at the moment, although, the Jihadists (due to their recent horrendous activities) are possibly trying to "Goad" the West (and others) into committing to precisely that kind of confrontation.

As to the killing of their own Brothers, one would have to be of the same frame of mind (or in possession of a better understanding of how the Jihadists THINK) to venture a valid explanation.

I would hazard a guess that the THINKING behind it is that a DEATH by suicide bombing (to a devout follower of the faith) would be preferable to one as a result of an aggressive bombing assault or even preferable to a LIFE under the oppression of a culture which THEY consider to be inferior to their own.

The explanations could be quite simple if we were a little more prepared to accept the views of others but, we would need to try understanding them first......, not much chance on THIS forum I fear, we have an "Elder Spokesman" who THINKS for us all.

[Garavnoss]

These barbaric savages have now embarked upon the destruction of Iraq's cultural history, Fucking courageous of them.
These evil bastards must be eliminated and soon. West WAKE UP!

I fear your "Scriptum Maledicentiam" has reached a point where it is in complete control of your emotions..., a very sad case.

I think it better to ignore you altogether, you are not a worthy contributor to any civilized discussion.

[Maximus]

I would imagine that the well documented actions of the Western (and other) forces which are involved in daily bombing raids (with devastatingly destructive consequences) could be seen as an "Engagement".

There is probably a degree of "Ground force" engagement (Snipers etc) some of which is reported on and some not.

As to an "All Out" confrontation, the West (and others) do not seem to have the inclination to embark upon such a campaign at the moment, although, the Jihadists (due to their recent horrendous activities) are possibly trying to "Goad" the West (and others) into committing to precisely that kind of confrontation.

As to the killing of their own Brothers, one would have to be of the same frame of mind (or in possession of a better understanding of how the Jihadists THINK) to venture a valid explanation.

I would hazard a guess that the THINKING behind it is that a DEATH by suicide bombing (to a devout follower of the faith) would be preferable to one as a result of an aggressive bombing assault or even preferable to a LIFE under the oppression of a culture which THEY consider to be inferior to their own.

The explanations could be quite simple if we were a little more prepared to accept the views of others but, we would need to try understanding them first......, not much chance on THIS forum I fear, we have an "Elder Spokesman" who THINKS for us all.

This does not sound overwhelming after all.

But they are committing horrendous activities NOT towards an overwhelming force and NOT towards the west.

[Garavnoss]

I would imagine that the well documented actions of the Western (and other) forces which are involved in daily bombing raids (with devastatingly destructive consequences) could be seen as an "Engagement".

There is probably a degree of "Ground force" engagement (Snipers etc) some of which is reported on and some not.

As to an "All Out" confrontation, the West (and others) do not seem to have the inclination to embark upon such a campaign at the moment, although, the Jihadists (due to their recent horrendous activities) are possibly trying to "Goad" the West (and others) into committing to precisely that kind of confrontation.

As to the killing of their own Brothers, one would have to be of the same frame of mind (or in possession of a better understanding of how the Jihadists THINK) to venture a valid explanation.

I would hazard a guess that the THINKING behind it is that a DEATH by suicide bombing (to a devout follower of the faith) would be preferable to one as a result of an aggressive bombing assault or even preferable to a LIFE under the oppression of a culture which THEY consider to be inferior to their own.

The explanations could be quite simple if we were a little more prepared to accept the views of others but, we would need to try understanding them first......, not much chance on THIS forum I fear, we have an "Elder Spokesman" who THINKS for us all.

This does not sound overwhelming after all.

But they are committing horrendous activities NOT towards an overwhelming force and NOT towards the west.

Depending on how you view the term "Overwhelming", I would have thought that persistent aerial bombardment from out of range sources could be considered such, particularly if the targets are greatly less well equipped to resist.

The Jihadists ARE committing horrendous acts and, (as I mentioned previously) they have their own reasons for such acts, certainly I would not condone such activities but, neither would I condone aerial bombardment on civilians (whatever the excuses), a dead body is a dead body, I have seen too many to be able to sanction one and dismiss the other regardless of the origins, I wish we could focus (sans abuse) on the causes of the troubles in the Middle Eastern regions (and elsewhere), I think there is a far too much of it lately.

[Maximus]

I would imagine that the well documented actions of the Western (and other) forces which are involved in daily bombing raids (with devastatingly destructive consequences) could be seen as an "Engagement".

There is probably a degree of "Ground force" engagement (Snipers etc) some of which is reported on and some not.

As to an "All Out" confrontation, the West (and others) do not seem to have the inclination to embark upon such a campaign at the moment, although, the Jihadists (due to their recent horrendous activities) are possibly trying to "Goad" the West (and others) into committing to precisely that kind of confrontation.

As to the killing of their own Brothers, one would have to be of the same frame of mind (or in possession of a better understanding of how the Jihadists THINK) to venture a valid explanation.

I would hazard a guess that the THINKING behind it is that a DEATH by suicide bombing (to a devout follower of the faith) would be preferable to one as a result of an aggressive bombing assault or even preferable to a LIFE under the oppression of a culture which THEY consider to be inferior to their own.

The explanations could be quite simple if we were a little more prepared to accept the views of others but, we would need to try understanding them first......, not much chance on THIS forum I fear, we have an "Elder Spokesman" who THINKS for us all.

This does not sound overwhelming after all.

But they are committing horrendous activities NOT towards an overwhelming force and NOT towards the west.

Depending on how you view the term "Overwhelming", I would have thought that persistent aerial bombardment from out of range sources could be considered such, particularly if the targets are greatly less well equipped to resist.

The Jihadists ARE committing horrendous acts and, (as I mentioned previously) they have their own reasons for such acts, certainly I would not condone such activities but, neither would I condone aerial bombardment on civilians (whatever the excuses), a dead body is a dead body, I have seen too many to be able to sanction one and dismiss the other regardless of the origins, I wish we could focus (sans abuse) on the causes of the troubles in the Middle Eastern regions (and elsewhere), I think there is a far too much of it lately.

ISIS (who are not a nation) did not engage the west for the causes of the troubles in the middle east. They started to ethnic cleanse in Syria.