Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: you can NEVER stop terror by fighting
kane    11/12/2005 9:50:18 AM
you can NEVER stop terror by fighting.killing will not stop them it will make them more powerful. think if whole iraq becomes a are u gonna stop them. bush thinks he can stop them by fighting. as a citizen from a country(TURKEY) that fights aganist terror, i say that you can't stop it by fighting.we've been fighting aganist pkk for twent years.we killed too many but they are still growing.we must take to kurds to our side to stop PKK. BUSH should do the same to stop terror and the only thing he can do is to retreat.iraq won't forget this but terrorism will be slowed down.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Pars    This is how Islamic radicals see Turkey   2/27/2006 7:53:49 PM
From an Islamic radical web-site: KEMALISM Mustafa Kemal grew up during the last parts of the Ottoman Empire. By now the Empire had become corrupt and lost many of its Islamic ways. Kemal, was to go on to complete the destruction of the caliphate which was already in decline. Ataturk is regarded by all scholars as a kaffir (non-muslim), and it is probable that he would have been proud of this. He was an agent of the shaytan who took the caliphate destroyed it and resurrected the times of Jahiliyya (ignorance- as existed before Islam). He created a state that was godless, secular, and westernised. Ataturk ended the caliphate in 1924. He then banned the Islamic dress code, arabic script, Islamic titles, Islamic family law, and the Islamic calender. He executed any Islamic scholars and opponents who disagreed with him. This was all done for the cause of so-called 'modernisation'. Ataturk claimed that in his new Turkey people would be treated equally regardless of religion. However, he treated all proper muslims as lesser beings, and this has led to it being suggested that perhaps he was a secret Jew or Christian. What is clear is that anyone who follows his ideology of 'Kemalism' can not call themselves muslim.
Quote    Reply

Pars    RE:trustedsourceofinfo. Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   2/27/2006 7:59:51 PM As you can see in their main mage; it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I can edit and you can edit. Therefore it can never be considered as a reliable source.
Quote    Reply

Herodotus    RE:trustedsourceofinfo. Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   2/27/2006 8:04:59 PM
It can be as long as it is cross-referenced, and the sources cited and linked, as they all seem to be on wikipedia. Anybody can write a research paper too...and as long as it is sourced it should be sufficent.
Quote    Reply

Pars    RE:blooper. Islamic sects   2/27/2006 8:17:30 PM
There are two main group sects of Islam. Sunni and Shia. But not all sects belong to them. 1. Alevi sect is neither Sunni or Shia. Nearly all followers of Alevis are Turks. It is heavily influenced by Tengri religion of Ancient Turks and known as the most moderate of all Islamic sects (and therefore greatly hated by radicals). 2. Deobandi sect of Pakistan consider itself as Sunni. But this belief is not shared by other Sunni sects as Deobandis are highly radical. Taliban of Afghanistan was following deobandi sect. Their religious leaders did issue several fatwas. But their most disturbing belief is continous Jihad against everything evil (and they consider a lot of things as evil). Perhaps they are the reasons why Indians hate Muslims so much. They must have got sick of this sect's fanatism and radicalism. (Most of us are much more moderate than them trusredsourceofinfo) Although some make connections with Assasin sect of old to Al-Queda. But there is no religious connection there. The leaders of Al-Queda are Wahhabi but Assassins were Harici (literally the others).
Quote    Reply

Pars    RE:Herodotus. Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   2/27/2006 8:21:31 PM
"It can be as long as it is cross-referenced, and the sources cited and linked, as they all seem to be on wikipedia." But that is not so for all material in Wikipedia. Some material is very good. But most are not. Wikipedia is not a Brittanica. You must confirm what you have read from other sources. Therefore by definition, it is a source but not a reliable source.
Quote    Reply

trustedsourceofinfo     Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   2/27/2006 11:04:05 PM
I vividly remember giving other sources of information since you didnt find wikipedia reliable enough... I mean,the information is all out there on the web...A google search will give u a fair amount of hits....
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE: Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   2/27/2006 11:12:14 PM
Sombody post a bogus Wiki article. Put it with the foxnews is bias evidence...we've been waiting 5 years. They might get fuzzy under "philosophy" but it's a wonderful source of good information overall.
Quote    Reply

trustedsourceofinfo    RE:Indians celebrate thenuclear deal while Moslems protest   3/2/2006 3:38:29 AM
Pars/Kane-can u please explain the behavious of these Indian Moslems.. The civlian nuclear deal could do woders for India and its economy...Yet these Moslems protest.... Let me quote.... " They were protesting the proposed nuclear deal between the two nations." ------------------------------- Islamist wrath snarls up traffic Priya Kapoor/ New Delhi Several thousand Islamist fundamentalists and a sprinkling of Marxist activists held the Capital's traffic to ransom through Wednesday afternoon protesting the visit of US President George W Bush. The rally at the historic Ramlila Maidan was called by the Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, an organisation of Muslim clerics and madarsa students, to protest the visit of the 'anti-Islam' Bush for having launched a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Protestors shout anti-Bush slogans at a mammoth rally organised by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind at Ramlila grounds on Wednesday - S Sabu/ Pioneer The Jamat participants at the rally, who were joined by the Marxist groups especially some teachers from Delhi University and Jamia Milia Islamia, equated President Bush to a dog, the mythological enemy of Prophet Mohammed. The rallyists alleged that President Bush had injured Islamic sentiments by supporting the Danish cartoonists, who had drawn caricatures of the Prophet in poor taste. Former Prime Minister VP Singh and Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar also addressed the rally, along with CPI general secretary AB Bardhan and Jamat leaders like Arshad Madani. They were protesting the proposed nuclear deal between the two nations. With the Islamists taking over the street, the arrangements made by the Delhi Police to ensure smooth flow of traffic proved unequal to the job. While Delhi Traffic Police on Wednesday had sealed Delhi Gate, Kamla Market, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg and Asif Ali Road areas on which the rally was proceeding, the effect of cordoning off these places was felt at other places leading to jammed roads and irate commuters. The impact was most felt at Nizammudin Bridge, Pragati Maidan and Rajghat where traffic was held up for about half an hour. "There was heavy traffic jam from Rajghat, Bahaduashah Zafar Marg to ISBT at around 10 am. It took me an hour to reach Delhi Secretariat which I usually do in 20 minutes," said RK Mishra, a resident of Pandav Nagar. Traffic held up many at South Extension also. "Usually there is no traffic at South Extension, but today there was a huge jam," said Bhagyajeet Bhuyan, who works in a production house. Those who were unaware of the rally suffered the most. "I waited around 15 minutes at Ram Lila Ground. I don't know why the traffic was held up," lamented autowallah Jitendera. At least 1200 vehicles carted the rallyists, belying the expectations of the traffic police who were prepared for around 800 vehicles.
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE: Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   3/2/2006 6:37:35 PM
"it's a wonderful source of good information overall" Pars is right. Wiki is not reliable. It should never, ever be accepted uncritically or without careful verification, which does rather dilute it's usefulness. I'm afraid this is just a continuation of arguments people have been having on the internet since before the World Wide Web appeared, from the days when it graduated from a limited source of mostly interacademic communications into the mass-mess it's become; the internet is interesting and contains a load of data, some of which even corresponds fairly closely to reality. The internet is **not** a substitute for a real education.
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE: Why wikipedia is not a reliable source?   3/2/2006 8:43:52 PM
Ward Churchill....your turn...
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT