Let's discuss muslims, jews, buddhist, and christians

Deliberately so; he's playing to an audience...

Usually Muslim ones! Ever hear of any Catholic group setting off bombs in Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral? Those towelheads actually blow up one another's mosques. They should all be consigned to the loony bin.

Far from unknown...

Let's not forget the Prods please! Presbyterians to be more accurate, the UDA, the UVF etc.


The Good Friday Agreement which broadly resolved the worst of the conflict is just under 20 years ago but there have been sporadic terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland since then. The last fatalities were in 2002 and the IRA didn't dis-arm fully until 2005 I believe, I think the Unionists did so around the same time. But there are still a few dissident terrorists out there.


Twenty years seems like a long time ago to you, but those people be they Irish, English, Catholic or Protestant who lost loved ones or suffered permanent disability as a result of their injuries, they still care quite a bit I imagine. What is very touching is the amazing capacity many victims of the conflict have shown for forgiveness.

Here's what the IRA did to one church in London.


How surprising that racist slurs no longer draw even a warning here.

One can find all kinds of things in history, but not many of people destroying their own churches. The Irish thing was not intra-denominational but inter-denominational between two diffeernet denominations. How may Catholics set off bombs in their own Catholic churches like the towelheads do blowing up mosques?

There's at least one nutter on PF who'd claim the bloke isn't a Catholic if he doesn't fulfill the Church's minimal requirement of regular

Sunday Mass attedance. And it's highly unliekly he does.

I didn't realise that any PF posters were members of the Vatican committee which set and maintains the precepts of the Catholic Church, i.e. the absolute minimum actions required of Catholics regarding the Church.


Will you be using that term in the Facebook groups which require you to post under your real name?

It was really a political/territorial war, not a religious one. They weren't killing each other for religious differences or on the basis of religious ideology but because one group wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom and the other group wanted to be re-united with the rest of Ireland. It isn't really comparable to what's going on with Muslims. It was just that Notty's joke that all terrorists are Muslims doesn't stand scrutiny because as Delph pointed out, Christians have a history of terrorism too.

Which group wanted to reunited with the South? I remember many years ago an Irish friend said the real goal of the IRA was an independent North Ireland under IRA rule, but they thought the IRA were marxists so I'm not sure how in tune with reality this was.

I remember in the early 90s how surprised I was when I heard British media reporting on Protestant violent/terror groups - they never really got any attention in the US.

In general terms the Republicans, being the indigenous Irish people were largely Catholic and the Unionists, being the descendants of lowland Scots planters were largely Protestant, with most of them being of the Presbyterian faith. Although the two groups were of different religions that's incidental to the fact that it's their political affiliations that caused the division. You have to understand that in terms of identity, the Unionists despise the idea of being considered Irish despite over 300 years living on Irish soil, it absolutely disgusts and enrages them. It's all about whether you consider yourself to be Irish or British.

Well put! Christian terrorism (like the 30 years war) is history. Today's religious terrorists are almost excljusively Muslims and Hindus.

The Ulster question was never an issue I cared about tremendously, but any time I heard Ian Paisely speak I was almost overcome with a desire to donate all my worldly belongings to the IRA. Nasty. Piece. Of. Work.

You mean like the Wroclaw bus bomber and the Lord's Resistance Army?

Has any motive actually been established?


Wow, a group with 300-400 members the last anyone heard of them.

Even if both these examples are right it doesn't come close to challenging the truth value of

Do you personally support the IRA at present and did you during the terrorist period? Do you have any hope (sentimental or real) of Ulster ever coming under Dublin's rule?

Not that I know of, but we can probably be pretty sure it was not because his Muslim/Hindu faith told him to.

No, never have. As indeed is the case with most people in the South. While one can be sympathetic to the situation in the North that led to the activities of the provisional IRA (and the discrimination and corruption up there really was a disgrace), I would not support the murder of civilians. All it did was drive the two communities even further apart and set back the cause of re-unification by God knows how much longer. If you consider yourself to be at war with an occupying force, then target them but I'm sorry, bombs in shopping centres, murdering people as they go about their everyday business, no way, disgusting.

Incidentally I hope you never ask that question of an Irish person in real life. It's simply not done. It's a terrible social gaffe.


The only way that will happen is if a majority of the people of Ireland both north and south vote for it and I can't see that happening for a very long time, I can't imagine when, maybe fifty years from now?? Really couldn't say.

To put it in terms that Harry would understand. That had nothing to do with their religion.

Thanks for the tip. It would have never crossed my mind.

Except it isn't, Polly. There's been an attack on a British soldier only a few weeks ago in Northern Ireland, and there's a high risk of further attacks. If Nationalists (currently only around 1% less in Northern Ireland according to the last census) start to overtake in public life, the Unionists in Northern Ireland are going to go insane, and not in a good way. The Troubles aren't over.


Your friend was right, actually. If you go back and look at the foundation of the IRA with men like James Connolly, there was always a strong Marxist vein running through the IRA and the descendants. The Provisional IRA (what most people call the IRA these days) were also influenced by it, but not heavily so. When the IRA split into the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA became more or less became openly Marxist in their thinking too.

Oh yes, there's always been a Bolshie element in the modern IRA. One has to be careful though because the term IRA has meant different things at different times in our history. My own paternal grandfather was an intelligence officer and assistant quarter-master of his brigade in what later became known as 'the old IRA' but a more money grabbing, Bourgeois individual you couldn't meet and there were many many more just like him. Mind you he was very young, barely out of his teens when fighting in the War of Independence but he was typical middle class, middle of the road, other than wanting Irish sovereignty.

Also Connolly joined the independence movement quite late in terms of the formation of what would become known as the IRA. And he was on very uneasy terms with the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (of which several of my family were members). Both those organisations were mostly pretty socially conservative with roots going way back long before Connolly. Bear in mind that between them they had well over 200,000 members who reflected the general mores of Irish society which has always been essentially moderate.

However, I remember when I was growing up, how Gerry Adams made a strong impression on me as a very ruthless and dangerous individual who would not be deflected from his goals, absolutely single minded and I was convinced that his ideal was to see the whole of Ireland under the control of the Republican movement. I think what they would really have liked was a military coup, to take over Dublin and bring the whole country under Martial law for an initial period, then after a few years establish some kind of Commie set up like Cuba. But they just couldn't quite hack it. I suppose one of the main problems is that they would have to defeat the Irish defence forces and our army though small, is surprisingly good! Also in those circumstances the Brits would be quite likely to send troops over to assist the Irish as they certainly wouldn't have wanted to see such a government installed across the water.

I was recently reading an article in one of the Irish newspapers online about whether we should abandon our neutrality to join a European defence force and one comment really struck me. A guy said 'No way. I'd go to war to help the Brits despite our history. The English, the Scots and the Welsh are our brothers, but the rest of Europe can go f*ck themselves'.

[moved from]


Sorry Atch, there is nothing to notice. Allah doesn't mean God it is a name of an old moon god of some Arab tribes.


Has someone put a gun to their heads to force them to be in Poland long term>? Anyway your generalisation based on hearsay suck.
--
The majority of Muslims are radical, what is viewed as radical is a norm in the world of Islam. I'm not talking about terrorism, but about believe that the Sharia law is the best, that targeting civilian population including women and children is sometimes justified, that honor killing are the right way to go about it , and so on....

Meaning that this myth about radical minority in Islam is just a myth.
Islam is a religion of peace in that sense that not everyone is going out killing infidels but in Muslim countries people are just go about their daily business.

However in the ideological sense Islam is a religion of conquests.

Do you happen to have any sources which support your stance?


Some people's Islam is a religion of conquests. Some people's Buddhism is a religion of violence and conquests.


'Mo is a shortened form of your name and so is entirely permitted (polanda.com/off-topic/random-chat-74400/177/#msg1487344). However, neither Harold nor Haroldo are not shortened forms of Harry and you're clearly very happy to use both those in the main forums:

polishforums.com/feedback/favour-free-open-people-post-under-real-names-80310/2/#msg1576991
polishforums.com/news/poland-berlin-terrorist-attack-ethnic-80323/#msg1576710
polishforums.com/history/poles-killed-innocents-78458/2/#msg1560918
polishforums.com/law/poland-jobs-economic-status-66599/2/#msg1385008

Ok, I had to look that up as I don't know anything about it. I'm afraid I could find no reliable information about this as the theory seems to be discussed only on fundamentalist Christian websites. However it appears that ordinary run of the mill Christians in the Arab world have routinely used the term Allah to mean the Christian God. It may well originate with some long forgotten moon God but there doesn't appear to be any sound, scholarly consensus about the worship of such a God.

Yes, as do the Maltese (who are mostly catholic but whose language is derived from Arabic).

Allah is an Arabic term for "God."
Allah was one of the many deities of the pre Islamic and was apparently considered the highest god in the pagan pantheon and the creator of the world.

Muhammad's father was named "Abdullah," which means "slave of Allah."

Harry sidesteps the points he doesn't want to confront it seems :)

Anyone who can't see the facts staring them in the face is a Neville Chamberlain-ist as far as I am concerned

Oh, heavens! Leave us not let the"facts" get in the way of the truthLOL

By the by, Chamberlain DIDN'T actually go down as history's greatest fool:-) That dubious distinction was shared by............?

I do, but as a matter of my policy I don't post sources on this forum. I find it to be a waste of time because either those are ignored or their validity questioned by the likes of you.

I can give you a number of radical Muslim in the world if that makes you happy - 680,030,000.


Not some people. Islam was created to suit a culture of conquest by the culture of conquest. Even history support that fact. If you look at the history of those religions and how they initially spread onto lager populaces you can see that Christianity and Buddhism spread by a gospel by preaching, by basically peaceful means. Tibet was a site of extremely warlike tribes that had been transferred by the religion into a very peaceful people who changed their view that to cut off someone head is a greatest honor and pleasure know to men into view that contemplation of their own bellybutton is higher calling than anything else.

Islam spread by warlike means and by conquest from the day 0.


Excuse me Atch. Christians in the Arab world are not really a good example to prove or disprove anything. After all they would like to survive, not to be killed on the spot as blasphemes if accidently they would say publicly My God instead of Insha'Allah.

Come on if that is a Christian God that means that Islam is just a massive heresy and distortion of Christianity.