Benazir Bhutto

Post by **The understudy** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:36 pm

[quote="johnnyk"][quote="Chas"]
What I meant is that especially since 9/11, but even before, we have all been been affected by Islamic terrorism in major ways. I can remember getting on a plane without going through metal detectors, I can remember a time without the daily security hassles, the costs of security passed on to us all, the fears, the risks. . .and the killing of people like Bhutto.[/quote]

Hello CHas

I;m wishing back the times where all of this Security checks was a little bit scaled back like in the 80's or 90's. But It's all a bit wishfull thingking I know since we are living in a world where extremism from wahtever direction has taken hold on us.
I wish Benazir Bhutto had never put her head out of her Car the first place than she would live (for now) and the Pakistanies still have ray of Hope of Democracy.

Your's The understudy!!!

Post by **Jaime** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:34 pm

Wanderlust wrote:I am not saying that any particular religion is wrong

Fair enough, so then why write this:

Wanderlust wrote: I am of course thinking in particular of the Catholics and the Muslims here

Why single out Catholics 'in particular?' In the context of a debate on the assasination of Benazir Bhutto your comment seems superfluous.

Post by **Jockey** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:59 pm

caller wrote:She was killed, if the guy hadn't turned up and did what he did, she'd still be here (for now). I don't think the precise details matter, or are we heading for another freeking conspiracy with GWB to blame - huh?

Kelpiepuss - your posts are pathetic and insulting. How dare you assume the media and Bush are responsible for my views on Islamists and the Muslim faith in general?

Some of us have brains and can make our own minds up.

This started as a thread about Bhutto but all the usual crap is spouted by the dumb-asses who just absorb only the info that feeds their prejudices and end up as rants here.

If any post is pathetic it must be this one. This was an interesting debate with various interesting viewpoints and some amusing comments. Now the insults have started (again unmoderated). Some posters seem to be allowed to use innapropriate language whilst others get pulled up for minor infringements. Not cool.

Post by **Norseman** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:19 pm

Please guys; it's been an interesting debate so far, but will you all please calm down and stop biting each other as soon as religion and the mighty US of A is in the field of fire!!
Back to topic please without mud-slinging and gibes.

Post by **caller** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:29 pm

Well I ain't apologising for complaining about what I regard as a personal insult! I'm tired and bored by the repeated use of such generalisations.

But bow to Norseman comments and agree we should get back on thread.

Post by **Jockey** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:40 pm

How can you be personally insulted if you haven't even contributed in the discussion and your name has never been mentioned? Paranoia? There is only one contributor on this thread who is personally insulting other posters.

That's YOU mate!

Post by **redzonerocker** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:18 pm

never mind personal insults,i think there are some here that are certainly insulting the intelligence of other posters!!

Post by **Wanderlust** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:46 am

Jaime wrote:
Wanderlust wrote:I am not saying that any particular religion is wrong
Fair enough, so then why write this:

Wanderlust wrote: I am of course thinking in particular of the Catholics and the Muslims here
Why single out Catholics 'in particular?' In the context of a debate on the assasination of Benazir Bhutto your comment seems superfluous.

Selective quoting is definitely not cool Jaime, and the reason I mentioned the Catholics was that they are (a) one of the religions with the largest followings, and (b) in my opinion one of the most dogmatic in how the leaders of that faith treat those who follow it, thus, what i thought was a good example to back my point. I did however also mention the Muslims (for similar reasons) and added (the bit you left off) that this does also apply to other organised religions (if you really want me to name them all i will but it would make the post too long and unreadable). I also stated that politicians use religion to try to achieve their ends too, but not once did I say that any individual was wrong or even stupid to follow their particular choice, but i did state what i believe is one of the main reasons people believe and follow a religion. I am sorry if you feel I have made an attack on Catholicism because that is not how I intended it - it was an attack on how the religious and political leaders use religion and try to manipulate people.

Post by **caller** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:55 am

Pathetic reply, Jockey.

But bowing out now, so feel free to fire away....

Post by **johnnyk** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:41 am

klikster wrote:
johnnyk wrote: Chas,
Bush is a fundamentalist Christian and he has destroyed an entire country with no reason. Much more than an airplane....
I'm certainly no fan of Bush .. nor any sort of fundamentalism .. but what Bush has destroyed has been as a politician, not as a fundamentalist Christian.

klikster,
with all due respect i think the two are inseparable in his case, if his public statements and his actions are anything to go by. he lives in a manichean world fueled by evangelical fundamentalist "christianity". he was "elected" in large part by these people and he panders to them at every turn.

Post by **klikster** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:51 am

johnnyk wrote:
klikster wrote:
johnnyk wrote: Chas,
Bush is a fundamentalist Christian and he has destroyed an entire country with no reason. Much more than an airplane....
I'm certainly no fan of Bush .. nor any sort of fundamentalism .. but what Bush has destroyed has been as a politician, not as a fundamentalist Christian.
klikster,
with all due respect i think the two are inseparable in his case, if his public statements and his actions are anything to go by. he lives in a manichean world fueled by evangelical fundamentalist "christianity". he was "elected" in large part by these people and he panders to them at every turn.

I'm coming back into this thread because I respect you via the comments you have made on this and other boards.

I do understand that the 2 may look inseparable .. and it's a convenient argument. One could also say that GWB's motivation for invading Iraq had more to do with the "incomplete nature" of the first Gulf war conducted during GB's presidency. But the fact remains, GWB could not have caused the Iraq invasion as an ordinary private citizen whether fc or not.

One of my best friends in childhood and all through school is now a fundamentalist christian minister and he has never destroyed a country. Many members of my family are "bible belt Baptists" .. none of them have committed acts of terrorism.

I believed that your original statement oversimplified the association. Very few fc's have the resources or inclination to actually commit terrorist acts. They may rant and rave, but the vast majority will not act.

Post by **Jockey** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:06 am

johnnyk wrote: he lives in a manichean world fueled by evangelical fundamentalist "christianity". he was "elected" in large part by these people and he panders to them at every turn.

He is also a proud member of the Yale secret society "Skull and Bones" which some say is a harmless college fraternity and others a satanic secret society.

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:34 am

I believe a guy called pat Robertson one of the top Born again fundementalist christians in the USA called publicly for the assasination of Hugo Chavez because he wouldnt sell oil to the USA at the price they wanted

Very christian

Post by **KelpieKiss** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:35 am

caller wrote:She was killed, if the guy hadn't turned up and did what he did, she'd still be here (for now). I don't think the precise details matter, or are we heading for another freeking conspiracy with GWB to blame - huh?

Kelpiepuss - your posts are pathetic and insulting. How dare you assume the media and Bush are responsible for my views on Islamists and the Muslim faith in general?

Some of us have brains and can make our own minds up.

This started as a thread about Bhutto but all the usual crap is spouted by the dumb-asses who just absorb only the info that feeds their prejudices and end up as rants here.

Caller - My reply was actually to Chas but you seem intent on taking it very personally, even though you weren't part of the discussion. Obviously we do not share the same opinions but that's what discussion forums are for. I saw a lot of anti Islamic thread on this discussion and was only pointing out why I thought it was unjust. I myself am not religious.

I really don't see how at any point I assumed what YOUR views were??? My views may become quite passionate at times as I believe they should be when talking about such subjects as war and terrorism.

You've put no opinion forward on this subject, just attacked mine. I take it anyone who doesn't agree with you usually gets called a 'dumb-ass'. That's school boy debating.

Post by **KelpieKiss** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:47 am

klikster wrote:I believed that your original statement oversimplified the association. Very few fc's have the resources or inclination to actually commit terrorist acts. They may rant and rave, but the vast majority will not act.

They don't generally have the inclination to act as they aren't being persecuted every day. Nobody is going to the FC's homes and taking them away. The only thing that fuels them is their faith and hatred of anything different. I know there are lots of Muslims like this but they generally have much bigger grievances, eg. their countries being taken by Jews or blown up by the US.

Christianity has raped and pillaged the world for centuries to give us the wealthy countries we enjoy living in today. They're still at it in Iraq. Who needs to act when you got Bush and 90 billion dollars of weapons on your side?