Opinion Paris

Remove this Banner Ad

Sanders said:
What if your neighbour is Kate Upton? :p
Click to expand...

Well fortunately or unfortunately Kate is not my neighbor. But I thought it referred to the donkey type ass. Better go back to St David's for a refresher.
 
radiojake said:
You guys give them way too much credit by calling it a terrorist attack.. even more so by calling it an act of war

but by doing so you get the enemy that the media and the fear-mongers so desperately need..




Always knew you were a moron but it's nice to have that confirmed
Click to expand...
Lol says the psychopathic teacher. Remind us all what you think of Anzac dat again. Nutter.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sanders said:
You do seem very confused. You wrongly tried to portray it as another religious conflict, when any high school drop out knows it is not.



Maths not your strong suit then?

over a nearly 40 year conflict there were less than 3,000 casualties in total. Let that sink in for a moment. Even your little pic shows that. That is **** all.

To put it into context the number of terrorist deaths from ISIL in the last 2 weeks is around 35% of the total number of deaths attributed to the IRA in nearly 40 years.

The problem the Irish have is that this tiny little conflict is one of the only things that make them interesting or noteworthy so they like to inflate it into something bigger as a badge of honour. Like you're doing now.




No you can't help me or anyone else for that matter with that sort of simplistic, 2 dimensional drivel. It might fly down the pub, but you didn't answer my question:

What religious differences were they fighting over? It was your claim, you said they were, so what were they?

Just because 2 sides of a conflict have different religious belief doesn't mean they are fighting a theological war.




seriously, that's what you are holding out in place of a reasoned argument? Whether it's true or not (who knows/cares) it's not an argument.

you would do well to seek some assistance.
Click to expand...
What a s**t comment. Racist.
 
Mike Smyth said:
Lol says the psychopathic teacher. Remind us all what you think of Anzac dat again. Nutter.
Click to expand...


Haha - I've been called lots of things in my time but psychopathic is not one of them - I have many wonderful and fulfilling relationships with lots of great people and if anything I'm too empathetic at times. But you know, having a critique of a hi-jacked, nationalist holiday makes me a social pariah, apparently...

Funnily enough, you're the one who seems to be constantly angry and has a constant need to 'other' different groups to maintain your own warped sense of superiority. You even do it in regards to Port supporters, so it's not a stretch to think that you can easily dismiss and dehumanise people from far away lands.
 
Sanders said:
Religion is a dividing line in many conflicts but it is not the driving motivation, cause of reason.

With the exception of the more modern extreme fundamentalists, it's just as often about oppression, social & wealth imbalance and privilege, your usual revolutionary fires. One party is in charge and has all the goodies, and other groups don't have any. They fight, someone eventually wins, there is brutality but there is rarely a modern thrust towards theology.

it's mostly about haves and have nots.
Click to expand...

You hit on the right thing--at the end of the day most conflict is about two things: power and money.

Religion, nationalism, etc...those are very often the umbrella which conflicts are carried out under--but at the end of the day it is power and money.

These groups (at their highest level) in the middle east aren't interested in religion except to use as a chariot to carve out their own fiefdom--no more no less. I certainly believe they have ardent followers who absolutely think what they are doing is "righteous"...but those kinds of people and those type of beliefs will exist for nationalism and any other kind of "ism" you can think of, equally as easily as religion.

Osama certainly wasn't "suffering" with his most ardent believers in the caves and valleys of Afghanistan--instead he was in the "relative comfort" of a home with his family and wives. He was interested in power--and loved exerting it. He could never be the ruler of Saudi Arabia--but he could be the "ruler" of his little fiefdom. Religion was just the means to carve out his influence--no more and no less.

They can call it jihad and whatever the hell else makes them feel good--but it is simply about power and $$
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He is correct because the very fact they occupy war torn countries mean their income is limited and hence their actual power. Thats why their marketing is important. Im sure they bemefit from funding from some muslim countries but I cant imagine a powerhouse like Iran would tolerate them if they got bigger. I suggest the world sends in its armies once and for all and demolish them. Most of their soldiers are boys playing war for the thrills PS4 couldnt provide.
 
adelaidecrows said:
He is correct because the very fact they occupy war torn countries mean their income is limited and hence their actual power. Thats why their marketing is important. Im sure they bemefit from funding from some muslim countries but I cant imagine a powerhouse like Iran would tolerate them if they got bigger. I suggest the world sends in its armies once and for all and demolish them. Most of their soldiers are boys playing war for the thrills PS4 couldnt provide.
Click to expand...
given that they control what's left of Iraq, including oil fields and banks, I don't think funding is a problem. But they wouldn't survive a ground war, they are basically Saddam's old army with a few extra PS4 recruits.
 
SydCrow said:
given that they control what's left of Iraq, including oil fields and banks, I don't think funding is a problem. But they wouldn't survive a ground war, they are basically Saddam's old army with a few extra PS4 recruits.
Click to expand...

I agree but the income generated would all go on purchasing weapons and ammo. The heavy bombing and combat would really hinder the effectiveness of their finances. If they were truly powerful we would see so many more terrorist attacks other than the odd dillusional religious nutjob. Hence why Waleed is right, they rely heavily on the anti muslim sentiment for marketing.
 
adelaidecrows, I wasn't going to prod any further on the subject since this is a football forum and I don't like seeing political and religious discussions invade it as much as anyone else, but since you've decided to continue to participate in this thread, could you at least explain what you were referring to with the following?

adelaidecrows said:
No, they just butchered christians in an arena for giggles.
Click to expand...
 
fabs33 said:
adelaidecrows, I wasn't going to prod any further on the subject since this is a football forum and I don't like seeing political and religious discussions invade it as much as anyone else, but since you've decided to continue to participate in this thread, could you at least explain what you were referring to with the following?
Click to expand...

Rome and Early Christians didn't exactly get on well together under a couple of Emperors!
 
adelaidecrows said:
Rome and Early Christians didn't exactly get on well together under a couple of Emperors!
Click to expand...

I suspected that's what you were referring to but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt just in case you knew something I didn't. If you think Romans during the persecution of Christians were Catholic then it's best you look into the subject further. At the time the Roman's weren't Catholic, instead they worshiped the ancient Roman deities, like Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, etc. It was the Edict of Milan which ended the persecution, and roughly one hundred years later the two groups united and subsequently over time became the Roman Catholics of today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top