Cyprus-Forum.com

[Natty]

Hey, can I ask a question? Why are the children holding swords? And howcome the parents look happy? Have the children been attacked? I'm slightly confused.........

[cypezokyli]

Your excusing their murderous acts because deep down you are a believer your self in the bullshit philosophy of God all mighty , and the promised land of paradise.

thank you.

you have obviously unerstood everythingabout what i think about religion

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR INDISCRIMINATE PRE-MEDITATED MURDER

i agree.... isnt your support of the invasion in iraq doing precisely that ?

[miltiades]

I can not believe that you are using the same lame excuses that the terrorists are using to justify their perverted action. Look there is a huge , a massive difference between the invasion of Iraq , Afghanistan , or indeed the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. All of these actions bring death and distraction to civilians , but the motivating forces behind such acts are totally different. Afghanistan was invaded in order to remove the Taliban from power following 9/11 , since the Taliban were openly supporting OBL .Iraq was invaded in order to remove a vicious dictator , that the West believed had massive amounts of WOMD , wrongly assumed , but for the first time Iraq has got a chance to progress to a democratic status, highly unlikely given that the fanatics are daily killing their own people with the whole aim of destabilizing the elected government. Cyprus was invaded following the military coup which Turkey considered threatening to the T/Cs.None of these actions above had as their ultimate goal the indiscriminate killing of innocents and none believed that these actions would open the gates of heavens to its dead soldiers.
The perpetrators of these horrific acts are seen as martyrs by an ideology that if not challenged from within would lead to catastrophic events. The London bombings , 9/11 , Madrid , Bali , Iraq , even Istanbul , are being excused and blamed on events that are happening mostly in the Middle East. You are proving what most commentators fear that even peace loving Muslims feel obliged , as you do , to give credence to the perception that the West by its actions is anti -Islamic , this could not be further from reality.
I refer you to all my previous postings where I made my position perfectly clear on where I stand on religion and my genuine belief that it is religion that is the main reason for so much human suffering. I do not distinguish between one religion and another , but I do concentrate on ideologies deriving from within religious beliefs.

[Freddy]

Cypezokyli, No I was not being sarcastic about Sadam and his WMD. Also, there are no sources involved in this other than the media history!
If you are old enough then you will obviously know that he first proved that he had the weapons by using them on his own peoples. Later (some say when it was convenient to certain parties), it was proved that he still had WMD and it was believed that it was still being produced. The fact that he still had WMD (and thought still to be producing it) was well documented in the media around the world, quite simply by using the intelligence material GIVEN to the media by certain 'parties', quite simply to prove their argument. The run around he gave the UN was also a daily media feature. But, as I said, his Ace in the hole was to get rid of the WMD (which obviously he did) and then cry foul. His objective, I believe, was to belittle the U.S. and cause division within the nation. Enough said.

[michalis5354]

The WMD has been used as an argument to justify the attack against Iraq and to make Saddam as dangerous as possible! Why is there no hard evidence that Saddam had such possesions? WMD were the reason for UK to side with USA agaisnt Saddam!

Still today no hard evidence has been found!

[miltiades]

Just the fact that this monster medieval despot has been removed and ridiculed in front of the whole world , and the fact that Iraq might , just might have a chance of a democratic government is enough. I doubt that the religious fanatics will give democracy a chance. They have primitive ideologies and live in the dark ages. For as long as people have got God behind them , the savage killings will go on , just take a look at the Middle East today , isn't this the place where the Son Of GOD AND THE PROPHET CAME FROM ?
They did not do a very good job did they ?

[Freddy]

Re: Sadam - Michalis5354: No hard evidence! Please see my earlier entries about proof, even via the media! As said - it was Sadams clever trick.............!

[cypezokyli]

from the person responsible at the time
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,974998,00.html

Hans Blix said; "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media

for those who do not know who this guy was , and what position exactly he had :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

not to mention joskas fisher famous quote :
"excuse me , but i am not convinced" .

nobody was convinced. everybody knew...
and as for the rediculus argument , that they invaded to change a dictator, then how does that explain :
1. why they do not attack all other countries with dictators and "happenned" to chose the country that "happenns" to sit one of the biggest oil reserves in the world
2. their cooperation with dictatorships (eg. greece and spain) or them initiating others (i.e. chile) ?


moreover, even if we accept , that their aims where purely altruistic (sth they also do not claim ) , and we assume that they have the ethical right (granted by themselves) , and the legal right (not greanted by the SC) to intervene in another country to bring democracy , they should have at least the ability to achieve their purposes.
even one of the most fervent supporters of the invasion , namely "the economist" , has numerous times reffered to a badly planned operation , who only worsened the situation.
their inability to read some history books - even in the case where a country is run by a dictator , a foreign invasion will always unify the people against the invador. ALWAYS. their prediction was that the iraqis would wait for them "with open arms". i still can remember those rediculous (close up shots) of ten people pretending to be happy around the falling saddams statue. they predicted that they would stay for some months...now, after three years, it doesnot seem that they are leaving soon. saddams dictotorhip was a military one - never was saddams iraq described as islamic. with their invation, they gave the opportunity to certain elites to instrumentalise religion, and make things even worse.

in short, besides the absence of any ethical reasoning for such an attack , their inability and immense stupidity only worsened the situation. at least when it comes to that , clinton was way more clever...

[miltiades]

Cypezokyli , were we watching the same TV Chanel ??? You are suggesting that the Iraqis loved the bastard??

"" i still can remember those ridiculous (close up shots) of ten people pretending to be happy around the falling saddam's statue.""

OK tell us why you hate the West so much.,
Maybe you also have an opinion on the barbarians in the UK who killed their sister / cousin , because they disagreed on her choice of boyfriend, and made the little ones watch while they stubbed her 18 times. Go on give us your analogy .

[cypezokyli]

miltiadi , this game really gets tiring. the main reason for that is because you arenot reading what i am writing. you are not even answering my important points (i even numbered them for *** sake) .
i never justified the attacks in london , nor i ever said that i hate the west. i EXPLICITLY, told you above , that a suicide attack in london is fundamentally different from a suicide attack in baghdad. so , pleace make an effort to READ what i write. the london attacks were tragic , but they cannot explain everything.
moreover make an attempt to answer to what i write instead of bringing to me rediculous examples of a story in the UK i ve never heard before. what does that story has to do , with the iraq invasion , oil, geostrategic interests - or even reasons that civil wars brake out ? we are either going to have a serious discussion, or we better stop.

what does a barbaric honour killing in the UK, has to do with what we are discussing here ?!!!
some years ago , sth similar happened in limassol. a father cought his daughter with her boyfriend in bed, and he shot him with his hunting gun , but i dont try to explain the turkish invation through that event


.............

Cypezokyli , were we watching the same TV Chanel ??? You are suggesting that the Iraqis loved the bastard??

letting around the fact , that that was the only thing you found worthwhile commenting....
i didnot suggest that the iraqis loved the bastard (see , i dont have a problem calling him one ).
but i seriously doubt that they were happy from the american invasion ( i hope you undertand the fundamental difference between the two sentences - its two different things )

now, if you want me to give you a class on how propagande shots are taken , i can. if you zoom in , on a group of 10 people you can sell them in the US or in the UK public, as the hundreds of iraqis who came out in the streets to welcome the american soldiers. the over 2500 dead american soldiers prove exactly the opposite .
and by opposite i mean (the iraqis do not want the american there......which is fundamentaly different from iraqis loving saddam ....and has nothing to do with the someone killing his sisters boyfriend in a suburb of the UK )

if you are interested in learning about propaganda - i would suggest to you to watch the american moovie "wag the dog" .