Imams enraged with Morrison

[BigP]

I wonder why all Christians aren't condemned when a Christian breaks the law?

I wonder why all Hindus aren't condemned when an Hindu breaks the law?

I wonder why all Buddhists aren't condemned when a Buddhist breaks the law?

I wonder why all the Zoroastrians aren't condemned when a Zoroastrian breaks the law?

Gee, only Muslims are told they are responsible for the actions of all Muslims continually. I wonder why? Could it be Islamophobia? Nah! Of course not, no one here suffers from Islamophobia, now do they?

If these peeps were running around Australia killing people in the name of their religion, I feel confident they would be called on it Brian

The point is, "these people" are running "around Australia killing people." Look in your newspapers, they are filled with reports of Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion you care to name BUT their co-religionists aren't called to account on their actions. This only happens with Muslims. Until I see the Islamophobes calling Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion to heel, for it's failure to control it's members, I'll still call them Islamophobes.

So you are saying we should delve into the backround of every killer to acertain their religious beliefs ?

[Bobby]

Come on Brian,
you take things too literally.
Saddam was a strongman not
a limp twisted coward and apologist.
We need a strongman to get rid
of all the terrorists.

Oh, Saddam was a strong man. He was so strong, he provoked the US into invading Iraq - twice. He was so strong, he pissed off two thirds of his nation's population (Kurds and Sh'ia). He was so strong, he decided he could attack his neighbours twice (Iran in 1979 and Kuwait in 1989) - he lost both wars, badly. Indeed, he lost all his wars in the end. I thought you'd have liked his fate - danglin' at the end of a rope.

Bobby, strong men rule for only one person - themselves. Saddam Hussein was a failure. His strong man act only worked on those who were scared of him. Guess what happened when he encountered people who were bigger and stronger than him? Mmmm?

Hi Brian,
the Yanks were the ones who built Saddam up during the war with Iran.
When he got too big for his boots -
the monster the Yanks created, had to be destroyed.
However that caused a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.

ISIS never had a chance when he was running the show -
that's my point.

[brian ross]

I wonder why all Christians aren't condemned when a Christian breaks the law?

I wonder why all Hindus aren't condemned when an Hindu breaks the law?

I wonder why all Buddhists aren't condemned when a Buddhist breaks the law?

I wonder why all the Zoroastrians aren't condemned when a Zoroastrian breaks the law?

Gee, only Muslims are told they are responsible for the actions of all Muslims continually. I wonder why? Could it be Islamophobia? Nah! Of course not, no one here suffers from Islamophobia, now do they?

If these peeps were running around Australia killing people in the name of their religion, I feel confident they would be called on it Brian

The point is, "these people" are running "around Australia killing people." Look in your newspapers, they are filled with reports of Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion you care to name BUT their co-religionists aren't called to account on their actions. This only happens with Muslims. Until I see the Islamophobes calling Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion to heel, for it's failure to control it's members, I'll still call them Islamophobes.

So you are saying we should delve into the backround of every killer to acertain their religious beliefs ?

Why not? It seems to be the usual way in which "Muslims" are treated, so why not all other religious affiliations as well? Or is it too hard, too equitable to do so?

[brian ross]

Come on Brian,
you take things too literally.
Saddam was a strongman not
a limp twisted coward and apologist.
We need a strongman to get rid
of all the terrorists.

Oh, Saddam was a strong man. He was so strong, he provoked the US into invading Iraq - twice. He was so strong, he pissed off two thirds of his nation's population (Kurds and Sh'ia). He was so strong, he decided he could attack his neighbours twice (Iran in 1979 and Kuwait in 1989) - he lost both wars, badly. Indeed, he lost all his wars in the end. I thought you'd have liked his fate - danglin' at the end of a rope.

Bobby, strong men rule for only one person - themselves. Saddam Hussein was a failure. His strong man act only worked on those who were scared of him. Guess what happened when he encountered people who were bigger and stronger than him? Mmmm?

Hi Brian,
the Yanks were the ones who built Saddam up during the war with Iran.
When he got too big for his boots -
the monster the Yanks created, had to be destroyed.
However that caused a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.

ISIS was a bunch of johnny-come-latelies, Bobby. Before ISIS you had various groups, such as al Q'aeda, Kurds, Sh'ia militias, Sunni militias and so on. You seem to think that there was Saddam and then there was ISIS. There wasn't. Saddam was toppled in 2003. ISIS didn't come to prominence until 2006, well after Saddam had left the stage.

ISIS never had a chance when he was running the show -
that's my point.

ISIS actually was formed in 1999, in Iraq, Bobby.

[Bobby]

Brian - it's not about dates - it's about ideas -
muslim fundamentalists have always been around -
whatever name they go by at the present time is irrelevant.

[Rorschach]

I wonder why all Christians aren't condemned when a Christian breaks the law?

I wonder why all Hindus aren't condemned when an Hindu breaks the law?

I wonder why all Buddhists aren't condemned when a Buddhist breaks the law?

I wonder why all the Zoroastrians aren't condemned when a Zoroastrian breaks the law?

Gee, only Muslims are told they are responsible for the actions of all Muslims continually. I wonder why? Could it be Islamophobia? Nah! Of course not, no one here suffers from Islamophobia, now do they?

If these peeps were running around Australia killing people in the name of their religion, I feel confident they would be called on it Brian

The point is, "these people" are running "around Australia killing people." Look in your newspapers, they are filled with reports of Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion you care to name BUT their co-religionists aren't called to account on their actions. This only happens with Muslims. Until I see the Islamophobes calling Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion to heel, for it's failure to control it's members, I'll still call them Islamophobes.

So you are saying we should delve into the backround of every killer to acertain their religious beliefs ?

Why not? It seems to be the usual way in which "Muslims" are treated, so why not all other religious affiliations as well? Or is it too hard, too equitable to do so?

bwian, bwian bwian.... are you really that dense... we all know that we are talking about people killing others in the name of their religion. You do get it now.... Right?

[brian ross]

Brian - it's not about dates - it's about ideas -
muslim fundamentalists have always been around -
whatever name they go by at the present time is irrelevant.

Your "ideas" are pointless, Bobby 'cause the dates betray them. Saddam used Terrorists to benefit his regime, when he wanted them. When he didn't, he kept them on ice until they were needed. He was no "strong man" towards Terrorists - if they favoured him and were neutral in Iraq. As I keep pointing out, take out investments in wood chipping machines if you want a "strong man" like Saddam in power - 'cause he'll need a lot of them...

[Rorschach]

bwian, bwian bwian.... are you really that dense... we all know that we are talking about people killing others in the name of their religion. You do get it now.... Right?

[cods]

I wonder why all Christians aren't condemned when a Christian breaks the law?

I wonder why all Hindus aren't condemned when an Hindu breaks the law?

I wonder why all Buddhists aren't condemned when a Buddhist breaks the law?

I wonder why all the Zoroastrians aren't condemned when a Zoroastrian breaks the law?

Gee, only Muslims are told they are responsible for the actions of all Muslims continually. I wonder why? Could it be Islamophobia? Nah! Of course not, no one here suffers from Islamophobia, now do they?

If these peeps were running around Australia killing people in the name of their religion, I feel confident they would be called on it Brian

The point is, "these people" are running "around Australia killing people." Look in your newspapers, they are filled with reports of Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion you care to name BUT their co-religionists aren't called to account on their actions. This only happens with Muslims. Until I see the Islamophobes calling Christians/Buddhists/Hindus/Jews/any other religion to heel, for it's failure to control it's members, I'll still call them Islamophobes.

So you are saying we should delve into the backround of every killer to acertain their religious beliefs ?

[color=#FF0040]Why not? It seems to be ... o?[/color]

so shouting Allah is God.. Allahu Akbar.....is not a Muslim terrorist war cry....

which! unless you prove otherwise

I have yet to hear any CHristian group having a similar war cry when they kill randomly

why not put us all out of our misery bri bri... and just tell us ONE GROUP of CHRISTIANS who have blown the living shit out of innocent people..

and screamed glory to god...

that shouldnt be too hard for a clever chappy like you.

[cods]

bwian, bwian bwian.... are you really that dense... we all know that we are talking about people killing others in the name of their religion. You do get it now.... Right?

he cant name one can he???

he cant name anyone any other religion.

he must be a compulsive liar...

or his names Rip Van Winkle and hes been dead for a 100 years..