London bombings

yes theyre my breasts...



lets stay on topic though

....ähh sorry what did you say, i was just staring at those great godgiven natural wonders...

Quote:

Originally posted by Motek18

I don't believe what I'm hearing from this group. Does anybody here ever read the news on Al-Arabiya or Al-Jazeera?? This is the voice of the Muslim world and many extremist use them as a venue to speak. Bin Laden doesn't talk of just defending his land from Infidels, he's talking about making the world more "Mulsim-friendly". He advocated attacks on those who banned the headscarf in school, some of his followers, right in the UK have called for an over-throw of the government for a more muslim-type government, under Sharia law. Look, France, Germany, and Holland, are already feeling the effects of heavy Muslim immgration, with racial attacks on those who criticize Islam on the rise.

The words you hear from Bin Laden and friends is for EU consumption, in order to push governments to "give in" for peace. This situation is EXACTLY like pre-Hitler.

No, it's not. Give in to what, exactly? The agenda that Bin Ladin has is religous, with political ramifications. The agenda that Hitler had was territorial, with racial implications.

Where is Bin Ladin's Rhineland?

Bin Ladin threatens through terrorism. Hitler threatened through invasion. Terrorism is an ineffective offensive weapon, in terms of territorial aggression. It's a very effective defensive weapon, which is why Bin Ladin is not a threat outside of his own area. His messages with regard to a Muslim frendly environment around the rest of the world are as much theatrical oration as they are actual Al-Quaeda policy. It's propaganda to the followers, more than it is meant as an actual threat of violence against these specific people.

Mind you, nowhere in this thread have I advocated pulling out of the Middle East.

Quote:

Originally posted by FeFeHumHum

yes theyre my breasts...



lets stay on topic though

Nah, let's not.

Prayers and best wishes from Strasbourg, France.

i´ve been to london 4 weeks ago. the places on tv are still familiar to me


BTW: i think the situation is not at all comparable to hitler. except they are both crazy misled guys.

Quote:

Originally posted by FeFeHumHum

[reply=EricLindros]
[reply=FeFeHumHum]
[reply=EricLindros]
Psss....anyone else in this discussion feel like you're being watched? Creepy!

you are....
[/reply]


HEY HEY, My eyes are up here, missy!
[/reply]
i could say the same to you, stop looking at my breasts.
[/reply]

You have breasts? I hadn't noticed.

And would ya kindly chill out with the quote trains?

*growls*


YOU fucking chill out with the quote trains. *eyes her delete button*


seriously though. ON TOPIC

Stop looking at FeFe's b00bies, stay on the f*cking topic!!

YM

Alright, comparison to Hitler, as many think it's not:
Hitler and Muslim extremists both took advantage of their deteriorated homelands by claiming that they could provide a solution/vengance for actions commited against them. Hitler was much more effective in his rallying of his country, as he was elected to office and proceded with a full-scale war. Bin Ladin does not have the numbers, but I'm fairly confident that if he did the result would be much the same.
Hitler promoted the idea of racial purity--this included religious purity. Check out some books on the German churches situations durring WWII. Hatred was directed, ethnic and religious, toward the Jews. In nearly all of Bin Ladin's speaches, the Jews are cited as one of the main reasons for his attacks. The backing of Israel by GB, the support and population of the US--all are reasons for attacks.
As for saying Bin Ladin is not a threat outside of his own territory, forgive me, this is a ridiculous claim. If talking about politcal control, you're correct; we know, however, that he is responsible for the deaths of thousands outside of said territory. Once again, he seeks to destory the culture of the US and Western World.. which is why the World Trade Centers were attacked. What were Hitler's main targets when bombing Britian? Westminster Abby, St. Paul's Cathedral, and the British Museum.
The main differences between Bin Ladin and Hilter are Bin Ladin's lack of troops and power, and Hitler's desire for racial purity opposed to religious purity (though, Hitler strived for the latter--just not exclusivly).

The threat is real with an Islamic society strong in nearly all of Europe. Not all Muslims are extremists, but a divide in ideology and allegance does exist.
Proof? The first three Brits to die in Afganistan were muslims, fighting for the Taliban.

Damn...I want to party with Bank. He just said all that I was thinking, but was to lazy to write.

Quote:

Originally posted by theheadhoncho

[reply=FeFeHumHum]
yes theyre my breasts...



lets stay on topic though

Nah, let's not.
[/reply]

Yeah, lets.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Alright, comparison to Hitler, as many think it's not:
Hitler and Muslim extremists both took advantage of their deteriorated homelands by claiming that they could provide a solution/vengance for actions commited against them.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Hitler was much more effective in his rallying of his country, as he was elected to office and proceded with a full-scale war. Bin Ladin does not have the numbers, but I'm fairly confident that if he did the result would be much the same.

You don't think he has the numbers? Really? Circa 1935 Germany had a total population of around 65 million people. Total estmates on the Muslim population of the world are around 1.3-1.7 BILLION people. Estimates of the total number of people serving in the German military over the ten year period starting in 1935 are about 18 Million. Do you not think that Bin Ladin can find 18 Million extremeists willing to fight for his cause drawing from over a Billion people? If less that 1.5 percent of the Muslums in the world agree with his philosophy he would have as many people under him as Hitler did.

The result will not be the same because while Bin Ladin preaches pro-Islamic beliefs, he has no desire to conquer any land. This here is a pretty big difference between Hitlers goals and Bin Ladin's goals.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Hitler promoted the idea of racial purity--this included religious purity. Check out some books on the German churches situations durring WWII. Hatred was directed, ethnic and religious, toward the Jews. In nearly all of Bin Ladin's speaches, the Jews are cited as one of the main reasons for his attacks. The backing of Israel by GB, the support and population of the US--all are reasons for attacks.

On the surface this is factually correct, however, when you look at it a little deeper its more complicated than that. Just because both disliked the Jews does not make them one in the same. Hitlers hatred of the Jews stemmed from the religious propaganda he himself actually followed and he described in Mein Kampf how the anti-semetic Christian Social Party infuenced him. Bin Ladins hatred for the Jews also stems from his religion, however, the big difference here is their religious afiliations. Hitler was Catholic. And while he was very anti-semetic and killed lots of Jews, he was indifferent when it came to other religions that were of no consequence to him. The original programme of the Nazi Party drawn up by Adolf Hitler in 1920 called for religious tolerance for all religions that did not threaten Germany. While Hitler was anti-semetic, it was used in conjunction with an Empirical desire.

Osama's Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalist background forces him into hating all people who are not Muslim (infidels). While he can use the Jews, and Israel in particular, to stur up popular support for his crusade, he really has no desire to conquer other lands. He dislikes any and all non-Muslims and that is the basis for his actions, not a polically minded domination, as was the case with Hitler.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

As for saying Bin Ladin is not a threat outside of his own territory, forgive me, this is a ridiculous claim. If talking about politcal control, you're correct; we know, however, that he is responsible for the deaths of thousands outside of said territory.

I kind of figured you would obviously take it in it's proper context, since, you know, his followers have killed thousands of people worldwide. He is not a political threat. He is not a territorial threat. He is a terroristic threat, with the power to instill fear of injury on people. He does not, nor will he ever, have the means, support, or capabilites that are required to undertake an offensive thrust such as Hitler did. This is really where the comparison breaks down. Ok, they're two guys who hate Jewish people, and do so for popular gain amongst their followers. But Hitler used that political gain as a tool to create, or at least attempt to, his empire. Bin Ladin can't do that, and has really shown no desire to do that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Once again, he seeks to destory the culture of the US and Western World.. which is why the World Trade Centers were attacked. What were Hitler's main targets when bombing Britian? Westminster Abby, St. Paul's Cathedral, and the British Museum.
The main differences between Bin Ladin and Hilter are Bin Ladin's lack of troops and power, and Hitler's desire for racial purity opposed to religious purity (though, Hitler strived for the latter--just not exclusivly).

No, i think the real difference is that Hitler was a political leader with empire building aspirations that used his racial and ethnic hate for popular support, while Bin Ladin is a religious leader who's support is based on his stated hate for Infidels (that include, but are not limited to the populations that Hitler used) but has none of those political or territorial aspirations.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

The threat is real with an Islamic society strong in nearly all of Europe. Not all Muslims are extremists, but a divide in ideology and allegance does exist.
Proof? The first three Brits to die in Afganistan were muslims, fighting for the Taliban.

The threat is real all over the world regardless of whom lives where. World Trade centers; USS cole in Yemen; Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2 US embassies); Karachi, Pakistan; London; Nightclub in Bali, ect (For a complete list:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html )

These attacks will continue. The only real way to stop them is through somewhat dramatic ideological shifts in the Middle East reigon, which will be very difficult to do. Not impossible though. Unfortunately the way in which we (the US, in particular when I say we, but all allied countries, actually) are currently going about it is serving only to produce more hatred throughout the reigon.

the point is?

,

nah.nukin is too easy.i wanna see the whites in their eyes before chargin them through with our bayonets

one cannot reason with hatred in its purest form. these people hate all that is not pure in there eyes. islam is not the same religion that these folks follow, it is the crutch that they lean on for support. hitler was a political animal and as such had the power of a state ( germany) behind him. one of the fallacies in the muslim situation is that this is new. europe has been engaged with the mid-east for hundreds of years. from the holy wars forward , they have been interacting , occupying and ruling these same peoples. europe has been fighting this war for a great deal longer than the u.s..after ww1 the european powers divided these land into unnatural groupings and created artifical states. with tyrants ruling the masses , the people live in poverty and grasp at any straw for hope. when only the devil is talking he is all you hear. the u.s. has only cared about the oil and left the people with no hope. combine that with our steadfast support of israel annd it is onlt natural that they would hate us. that said, we can not and will not allow a small group of thugs to hold the western world hostage. they have proved that they will stop at nothing, abuse women and children and kill anyone , anyway they can. we have a choice as a people. our country ( u.s.) is a mixure of peoples ( mostly from the european lands). we can work together, to punish those who kill and inspire others to do the same. we must help the arabs that will allow us to help and do all we can to repair the damage that our peoples have committed over the centuries. hatred is an infectous thing, only our understanding the plight of the innocent ones can lead to a truly permanant solution. stand brave our english friends, you are not alone.
a u.s. citizen

i dont read long posts..


just comment:

*extremley sad*

the world we live in , our world, ios extremely fucked up. this is just another symptom of deeper problems

Alright.... response to ericlindros:
The last thing you mention is, surprisingly, pro-Bush. I have no idea whether you support the man or not, but the Iraq war was waged for many reasons (not simply the WMD, as media tends to wave around), and the promotion of rights, thus, change in ideology, was one of them. And, despite the terrorism which occours throughout the region, I think it's taking root. Take a look at Israel's actions; weapons of other Middle Eastern nations being turned over voluntarily; the fact that women can vote and hold office in Iraq.
I'm sure a lot disagree... just an opinion...
As for your remarks about Bin Ladin's numbers, I think your facts proved my point. You said "If less than 1.5 percent" of Muslims agreed with him, then he'd have an equal army. The fact is, they don't, and he doesnt--but they are always open for recruiting; I don't credit the low numbers to his desire to simply blow people up.... I credit it to the fact that most Muslims are level headed. Bin Ladin has to recruit, which means that his 'army' must be composed of people who completly support him. Hitler had the draft. Works a lot better.
As for the Church, you're correct... to a point. I think that there's several reasons Hitler never reached the level of religious purity that Bin Ladin takes stock in. The German Population at the time was overwhelmingly Christian, and partially Jewish, with most other faiths of insignificant percentages. This gave him a clear target. Furthermore, the Churches themselves acted as more propoganda for the Regime. In Germany, churches were owned by the state, 98% of the population payed a state tax, and so the State basically messed around in the churches. Jesus became a German Warrior, Jews were devils, etc. Anyone who disagreed with this, or had different religious beliefs regarding Christianity, was executed. Bonhoeffer is only one of the men killed for this (though, he also spoke out against the state). I don't think that if Hitler lived in a religiously diverse society, he would have gone any easier on them, as long as Christians were in the majority. They're simply more scapegoats.

Final note: Hitler didn't simply use Jews as scapegoats for political gain. After he assumed power, he continued by the systematic execution of them, as well as Gypsies, Gays, and others deemed 'impure' (which includes those mentaly handicapped, and the elderly, if living off the State). The majority of the country didn't see this as a big enough problem to speak out against, or agreed with it. He is the same as Bin Ladin in this regard-- his goal was not simply political power, or vengance for WWI, but also the execution of the Jews. And all Jews. If it was merely a ploy for power, he would have left them in the ghettos. As I stated before, there is little doubt in my mind that if there were not so many level-headed (because, yes, there are a lot) Muslims, Bin Ladin would do the same.

As for now, he's simply enjoying himself.

whats with all the hitler shit