al-Qaeda seizes village that still speaks the ancient language of Christ

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10289944/Syria-crisis-al-Qaeda-seizes-village-that-still-speaks-the-ancient-language-of-Christ.html

Syria crisis: al-Qaeda seizes village that still speaks the ancient language of Christ

A branch of al-Qaeda fighting in the Syrian civil war has seized one of the few remaining villages where the original language of Christ is still spoken, residents say.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02662/Maaloula_2662973b.jpg
A Syrian rebel vehicle with a heavy machine gun driving in Maaloula.


Fighting raged through the picturesque mountain village of Maaloula, near Damascus, on Thursday, as the regime launched a counter-attack against the rebels.

"They entered the main square and smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary," said one resident of the area, speaking by phone and too frightened to give his name. "They shelled us from the nearby mountain. Two shells hit the St Thecla convent."

Maaloula, tucked into the honey-coloured cliffs of a mountain range north of Damascus and on a "tentative" list of applicants for Unesco world heritage status, is associated with the earliest days of Christianity.

St Thecla, who is supposedly buried in the convent, was a follower of St Paul who fled to the village in Syria to avoid marriage, having taken an oath of chastity. It is said that the cleft of rock in which the convent is placed opened up to allow her to escape her pursuers.

The inhabitants are mostly Melkite Greek Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but have historically lived peacefully alongside a Sunni Muslim minority. It is one of only three places in the world where Western Aramaic, a dialect of the language spoken by Christ, is still used.

Until recently, the town had managed to remain mostly unaffected by the civil war that has already claimed more than 100,000 lives. A visit by The Daily Telegraph last year found it ringed by government checkpoints but suffering from the lack of pilgrims and tourists who are normally vital to its economy.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, rebel groups, a mix of the extremist Jabhat al-Nusra and the more moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA), attacked with full force.

"First they took a brick factory owned by a Christian guy, who is now missing," said the resident. "Then at around 5.30am, a car bomb detonated at the checkpoint at the entrance to the village.

"Some of the rebels entered a home near the checkpoint belonging to Yousef Haddad, a Christian. They tried to force him to convert to Islam."

A nun living in a convent in the village told the Associated press that 27 orphans living in the convent were taken to nearby caves for shelter.

Video footage posted on YouTube showed rebel fighters on a pick up truck with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back firing erratically from inside the mountain town.

Christians, who make up approximately 10 per cent of Syria's population, have increasingly become targets in the conflict as sectarian-minded foreign jihadists gain influence in the opposition ranks. Almost a third of the Syriac Christian population has fled the rebel-held northern town of Hassakeh after Christians became targets for kidnappings and assassinations.

Mousab Abu Qatada, a spokesman for the FSA in Damascus and the Damascus suburbs, denied that the attack on Maaloula had been sectarian.

"We are trying to protect the minorities and the holy sites of Syria. We promise to protect it against the criminal regime," he said.

Residents said the rebels had been pushed back to Safir hotel in the mountains, where they had been based since March this year.

The resident said: "They have been annoying the Christian people of the village since then. A Christian farmer cannot go up there to his land unless he is accompanied by a Muslim resident of the village."

The people that Nobel Peace Prize winner President O'Bomber and Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Bliar want to arm and help.

You couldn't make this **** up. But why are all the people on this forum who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 silent?

Thoughts?

[Ardemax]

I literally cannot understand why anyone would launch an attack like this on innocent people. Madness.

The whole situation will be made a thousand times worse if these rebels get into power.

[oli]

When groups like this are involved I don't care much for collateral damage, I just want them gone.

[Eoin247]

Of course since they ''speaks the ancient language of Christ'', this is a particularly awful atrocity :rolleyes: . I really don't like news articles that serve only to promote the typical christian fear of those darned 'evil muslims'.

I mean just look at these quotes before you even get halfway through the article: "They entered the main square and smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary," Two shells hit the St Thecla convent." ''associated with the earliest days of Christianity.'' ''St Thecla, who is supposedly buried in the convent,was a follower of St Paul '' ''the language spoken by Christ, is still used. ''

Of course this was a terrible thing, but it's no more terrible than the rest of the atrocities happening there.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course since they ''speaks the ancient language of Christ'', this is a particularly awful atrocity :rolleyes: . I really don't like news articles that serve only to promote the typical christian fear of those darned 'evil muslims'.

You know what I can't stand? I can't stand it when people become apologists for Islam when any rational thinking person would accept that Islam has some very serious problems within itself and that pretty much all Islamic countries are incompatible with our western values. I don't hate or dislike Islam - infact i've been down time and time again defending Islam as a religion by saying that I believe without Islam the Middle East would be a much worse place.

But does that mean that in every negative article that is TRUE I have to jump in and call it the Religion of Peace when it's record says otherwise? no. The parts of Islam that treat Christians like this, the elements in Islam which treat women as filth and gays as subhuman - I will criticise Islam on that and so should you. It's time you and other westerners stop being spineless on this issue and for once stand up for what is right rather than kowtow to a religion that often uses threats and violence to silence it's opponents. And if you'd like me to provide examples for any of this then i'd be happy to provide - or alternatively listen to Christopher Hitchens provide them:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNd1zTcvlC0


Of course this was a terrible thing, but it's no more terrible than the rest of the atrocities happening there.

Nobody said it was, it's a news report on a part of Syria that has now been taken which happens to be Christian. The underlying theme and backdrop to the article is to point out how Syria's secular government has in many ways protected minorities over the past few decades, hence why support for the Assad Government is strongest among the Alawites, Druze and Christian populations.

[Eoin247]

You know what I can't stand? I can't stand it when people become apologists for Islam when any rational thinking person would accept that Islam has some very serious problems within itself and that pretty much all Islamic countries are incompatible with our western values. I don't hate or dislike Islam - infact i've been down time and time again defending Islam as a religion by saying that I believe without Islam the Middle East would be a much worse place.

But does that mean that in every negative article that is TRUE I have to jump in and call it the Religion of Peace when it's record says otherwise? no. The parts of Islam that treat Christians like this, the elements in Islam which treat women as filth and gays as subhuman - I will criticise Islam on that and so should you. It's time you and other westerners stop being spineless on this issue and for once stand up for what is right rather than kowtow to a religion that often uses threats and violence to silence it's opponents. And if you'd like me to provide examples for any of this then i'd be happy to provide - or alternatively listen to Christopher Hitchens provide them:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNd1zTcvlC0



Hey, i agree with you. Many parts of islam have serious problems, more so than even Christianity. I do criticize Islam for many things, and i have never defended it (So i'm probably more critical of it than you are in that sense). I'm not defending it here either. Rather i'm criticizing the article and its purpose.

However surely you can see that this article was written with an aim of pitting the religions against each other? Just look at some of the quotes i picked out from the first half of the article in my last post. I didn't like the article for that reason, as it serves more as religious propaganda than unbiased views of the war.


Nobody said it was, it's a news report on a part of Syria that has now been taken which happens to be Christian. The underlying theme and backdrop to the article is to point out how Syria's secular government has in many ways protected minorities over the past few decades, hence why support for the Assad Government is strongest among the Alawites, Druze and Christian populations.

Of course nobody said it was. But that is the articles purpose. To the average western Christian this is the way they are going to see it, whether they admit it or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hey, i agree with you. Many parts of islam have serious problems, more so than even Christianity. I do criticize Islam for many things, and i have never defended it (So i'm probably more critical of it than you are in that sense). I'm not defending it here either. Rather i'm criticizing the article and its purpose.

However surely you can see that this article was written with an aim of pitting the religions against each other? Just look at some of the quotes i picked out from the first half of the article in my last post. I didn't like the article for that reason, as it serves more as religious propaganda than unbiased views of the war.

Eh? what? pitting religions against one another? no, the only people pitting religions against one another are the al-Qaeda rebels who entered a Christian village and smashed a Virgin Mary statue along with persecuting Christian land owners - acts which are clearly committed based on religion. The only ones 'pitting' against one another are the al-Qaeda savages who invaded the village and did all of this - not the news report that is merely reporting on it (which i'm very surprised at I must say).

If a report said 'A UKIP member smashed a bag of chips over Labour leader Ed Miliband's head at the Labour conference' would that be 'pitting political groups against one another' no - it'd be reporting the relevent facts.


Of course nobody said it was. But that is the articles purpose. To the average western Christian this is the way they are going to see it, whether they admit it or not.

Because that is what is happening - Christians are being persecuted now that the secular Assad Government is under siege.

[karter]

But does that mean that in every negative article that is TRUE I have to jump in and call it the Religion of Peace when it's record says otherwise? no. The parts of Islam that treat Christians like this, the elements in Islam which treat women as filth and gays as subhuman - I will criticise Islam on that and so should you. It's time you and other westerners stop being spineless on this issue and for once stand up for what is right rather than kowtow to a religion that often uses threats and violence to silence it's opponents. And if you'd like me to provide examples for any of this then i'd be happy to provide - or alternatively listen to Christopher Hitchens provide them:


Islam doesn't tell people to treat women as filth, the Quran although slightly discriminating, says that men and women are equal (However it tells that it's a solemn duty of a woman is to be obedient and caring towards her husband and the duty of a man is to maintain his wife) and as for homosexuality, I think the Bible says the same

The religion, does not use the means of violence, a few of its followers do

[-:Undertaker:-]

Islam doesn't tell people to treat women as filth

Do not twist my words, I never said Islam 'tells' - I said elements of Islam do treat women and gays as subhuman. I never once made a claim about what the textual scripts of Islam say so don't drag me onto territory which I wasn't even debating.

But now that you mention it, i'll retort this - you have read and know of the moderated Islamic book ... you must understand that there are many different interpretations of the book and different books, the Wa'abhani sect book and teachings in Arabia for example is a lot different to what you could buy over the counter here in Britain. For you say say that the moderated book is the 'true version' of Islam is exactly what huge numbers of muslims will say who read the Saudi version of the book - and who believe in it.


the Quran although slightly discriminating, says that men and women are equal (However it tells that it's a solemn duty of a woman is to be obedient and caring towards her husband and the duty of a man is to maintain his wife) and as for homosexuality, I think the Bible says the same

The religion, does not use the means of violence, a few of its followers do

When I say religion, i'm not debating the book itself - i'm discussing the religion and everything that stems from it, ie the religious culture. In very much the same way that Chrisitianity as we understand it today is very different to what it was 2,000 years ago or what is written in the Bible. But here are the facts (amongst western muslims).

Islamic attitudes on Homosexuality
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=british+muslim+attitudes+to+homosexuality (various links)

Islamic attitudes to any criticism of Islam
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=fitna The film and reactions criticising Islam
The murder of Dutch poltician Pym Fortuyn for criticising Islam https://www.google.co.uk/#q=pim+fortuyn
The fatwa placed on the author Salman Rushdie for criticising Islam https://www.google.co.uk/#q=salman+rushdie
The death threats placed against Geert Wilders for daring to critixise Islam https://www.google.co.uk/#q=geert+wilders+threats

Islamic attitudes on women
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=iranian+revolution&spell=1 Reaction in Iran by Islam after secular values introduced.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee8f8nWVWZA

It all reminds me of the video above. There you have a high profile Liberal Democrat politician actually criticising the fact that a author in the west dared to exercise his free speech and subject Islam to the same criticism and mockery that Christians and Jews are subjected to weekly - yet look at the reaction from Islam to any sort of criticism.

And yet Shirley Williams and the spineless audience think Rushdie shouldn't have been knighted out of fear of offending Islam - a religion that seems to be offended all the time and over everything. Enough is enough - no other religion acts in the same childish brutual and absolutist manner. The fact is - whenever Christianity or Judaism is insulted we do not see the same reaction as we do from Islam.

[Eoin247]

Eh? what? pitting religions against one another? no, the only people pitting religions against one another are the al-Qaeda rebels who entered a Christian village and smashed a Virgin Mary statue along with persecuting Christian land owners - acts which are clearly committed based on religion. The only ones 'pitting' against one another are the al-Qaeda savages who invaded the village and did all of this - not the news report that is merely reporting on it (which i'm very surprised at I must say).

Well i cannot convince you of how i am reading this article. I think though, that if you read it again carefully at perhaps a later date when you don't have as strong opinions on the crisis then you might see what i see.



If a report said 'A UKIP member smashed a bag of chips over Labour leader Ed Miliband's head at the Labour conference' would that be 'pitting political groups against one another' no - it'd be reporting the relevent facts.

Because that is what is happening - Christians are being persecuted now that the secular Assad Government is under siege.

Yes. But that would be the equivalent of this article being no more than ''Rebels attack christian village". Which this article isn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well i cannot convince you of how i am reading this article. I think though, that if you read it again carefully at perhaps a later date when you don't have as strong opinions on the crisis then you might see what i see.

Yes. But that would be the equivalent of this article being no more than ''Rebels attack christian village". Which this article isn't.

So the article and newspaper should censor itself (and the facts) and omit the word 'Islamic' from the report as to not cause offence to muslims?

I loathe this sort of intellectual dishonesty.

[Eoin247]

So the article and newspaper should censor itself (and the facts) and omit the word 'Islamic' from the report as to not cause offence to muslims?

I loathe this sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Ok so you would prefer ''Muslims attack Christian village'' (Even though everybody knows that all the rebels are Muslims anyway?). Fine, but this article still just isn't that.

I don't really know what else i can say to prove to you what kind of article this is, I'll repeat part of my earlier post.



I mean just look at these quotes before you even get halfway through the article: "They entered the main square and smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary," Two shells hit the St Thecla convent." ''associated with the earliest days of Christianity.'' ''St Thecla, who is supposedly buried in the convent,was a follower of St Paul '' ''the language spoken by Christ, is still used. ''


To add to that i'll take some more out of the article, except from the second half this time:

"First they took a brick factory owned by a Christian guy, who is now missing," - Very vague. Of course insinuating that the Christian was killed even though the caller simply hasn't seen him.

"Some of the rebels entered a home near the checkpoint belonging to Yousef Haddad, a Christian. They tried to force him to convert to Islam." - Insinuating that they beat and tortured him. Yet that isn't what the witness said. They could have just given him some verbal abuse.'


'A nun living in a convent in the village told the Associated press that 27 orphans living in the convent were taken to nearby caves for shelter.'' - A precautionary measure because the town is a warzone between government and rebel forces as we see from the next sentence. Yet of course the reader is given the impression that the muslims were going to kill them otherwise.


''video footage posted on YouTube showed rebel fighters on a pick up truck with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back firing erratically from inside the mountain town.'' - Funny how they don't mention what they are firing at. The key words ''from inside'' should also show that they are probably attacking government forces.


''Almost a third of the Syriac Christian population has fled the rebel-held northern town of Hassakeh '' - Considering that there is currently near 2 million syrian refugees this is hardly much of a surprise


And Finally:


''They have been annoying the Christian people of the village since then. A Christian farmer cannot go up there to his land unless he is accompanied by a Muslim resident of the village." - I suppose the word '' annoying'' says it all really.
This article insinuates so much, without saying anything explicitly. When i first read through the article i felt outrage. It was only when i read it slower a second time that I truly saw what this article was.

[karter]

Since when did violent Muslim groups become an "element" of Islam or the Islamic culture, pretty sure everywhere you go, the Islamic teachings tell you to follow peace and brotherhood. The problem is that many Muslims get easily offended and use violence to show their disagreement. This has become so common in the present times that it has spread almost everywhere, so much that it has literally become an image of Islam. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie for example (who by the way is my favourite author) was a huge overreaction to something which was not even mildly offensive. Events like these happen because of mainly the attitude in Muslims of protecting the religion no matter what, a result of obsession with the religion. Lack of education in most Islamic countries could be the reason too.

Anyway, criticising Islam, it's elements or culture is not a right thing to do. Criticising the Muslim groups and bodies which spread hate and violence in the name of Islam is what you should do

[-:Undertaker:-]

Eoin,

You haven't answered my question, all you are doing it reposting a post that I am struggling to find something wrong with. Your 'issue' with this is clearly the mention of 'muslim' or 'Islam' in the article - which of course you are only taking issue with due to your desire not to upset Islam or muslims. Now you may take that position, but i'm asking you again: should the newspaper omit the words Islam and/or muslim from articles which may offend or criticise the Islamic religion? it's a yes or no question.


Since when did violent Muslim groups become an "element" of Islam or the Islamic culture, pretty sure everywhere you go, the Islamic teachings tell you to follow peace and brotherhood. The problem is that many Muslims get easily offended and use violence to show their disagreement. This has become so common in the present times that it has spread almost everywhere, so much that it has literally become an image of Islam. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie for example (who by the way is my favourite author) was a huge overreaction to something which was not even mildly offensive. Events like these happen because of mainly the attitude in Muslims of protecting the religion no matter what, a result of obsession with the religion. Lack of education in most Islamic countries could be the reason too.

So you at least concede that Islam as a whole does overly take offence.

Now the only part we could possibly have disagreement on now is whether or not criticism of Islam should be allowed even if it causes offence - I personally think it should and that if muslims are offended and decide to take to the streets burning books, threatening authors or intimidating news channels - that they should be told no, that is not how you act to criticism and/or mockery and we will not tolerate it.

If you agree with me on that statement then we agree with one another.


Anyway, criticising Islam, it's elements or culture is not a right thing to do. Criticising the Muslim groups and bodies which spread hate and violence in the name of Islam is what you should do

I will criticise the parts of Islam which use violence, threats and intimidation to silence any criticism of Islam.

[Eoin247]

You haven't answered my question, all you are doing it reposting a post that I am struggling to find something wrong with. Your 'issue' with this is clearly the mention of 'muslim' or 'Islam' in the article - which of course you are only taking issue with due to your desire not to upset Islam or muslims. Now you may take that position, but i'm asking you again: should the newspaper omit the words Islam and/or muslim from articles which may offend or criticise the Islamic religion? it's a yes or no question.


I'm not sure if you're talking to me or karter. But if you are talking to me you have misread my last post. I edited it to highlight my points. I never said they should omit the words islam or muslim. In fact i said it was fine to include that at the begining of my last post. The second part of my post shows what is wrong with this article.

[Onirela]

why do they want to sieze a small village anyway oh

[oli]

Eoin, I get what you're saying and I completely agree.
Just so you know ;)

[AgnesIO]

You know what I can't stand? I can't stand it when people become apologists for Islam when any rational thinking person would accept that Islam has some very serious problems within itself and that pretty much all Islamic countries are incompatible with our western values. I don't hate or dislike Islam - infact i've been down time and time again defending Islam as a religion by saying that I believe without Islam the Middle East would be a much worse place.

But does that mean that in every negative article that is TRUE I have to jump in and call it the Religion of Peace when it's record says otherwise? no. The parts of Islam that treat Christians like this, the elements in Islam which treat women as filth and gays as subhuman - I will criticise Islam on that and so should you. It's time you and other westerners stop being spineless on this issue and for once stand up for what is right rather than kowtow to a religion that often uses threats and violence to silence it's opponents.

I am not denying Islam has problems, however why should Islamic countries have to conform to our Western values? That to me is an ignorant viewpoint, and I cannot understand why anyone would see this as a problem. I can see you are not totally anti-Islam given your last part of the first paragraph - so kudos there.

Additionally, I still categorically refuse to blame Islam for the terrorist group that is Al-Qaeda. These lunatics can use Islam as their shield, but I don't believe that - Islam may have started their beliefs, but it isn't the cause of their sickening acts. On the other hand, I totally agree with your views on the way it views women - it is ridiculously old-fashioned for a start.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure if you're talking to me or karter. But if you are talking to me you have misread my last post. I edited it to highlight my points. I never said they should omit the words islam or muslim. In fact i said it was fine to include that at the begining of my last post. The second part of my post shows what is wrong with this article.

I do not see one point in your post that makes any sense, it appears to me that you are seriously nitpicking. In any case, take the example of the man who you say might have been verbally abused (because those rebels/al-Qaeda are just kitty cats aren't they?) - who on earth as a soldier would make it their mission to verbally abuse somebody of another religion in a supposed non-religious war?

You are closing your eyes here to what the Syrian war is - it's heavily influenced by religion, of which you are correct - the Christians are a very small part of it. But it's telling that the Christians, Druze and Alawites all are hoping for an Assad victory. And why? because the Assad Government has protected religious minorities over the years against the muslim majority .... just take a look at the attacks in Egypt on thr Coptic Christian Church.

So to conclude that, yes it is important that the fact Islamic fighters have entered a Chrisitian village and are purposely intimidating the local Christian population - just as it would be a massive story if Christian US troops entered an Iraqi city and started firing at the Cresent over the mosque and desecrating the local mosque whilst telling the locals to convert.


I am not denying Islam has problems, however why should Islamic countries have to conform to our Western values? That to me is an ignorant viewpoint, and I cannot understand why anyone would see this as a problem. I can see you are not totally anti-Islam given your last part of the first paragraph - so kudos there.

I haven't argued that they should be compelled to conform to our western values, indeed as a small-c conservative there are many issues socially that i'm probably much closer to conservative Islam on than western liberalism. But this isn't what i'm getting at and i've argued this in a university class too - i'm merely arguing that I refuse to have Islamic values imposed on myself or my country and that I am not going to sit here and pretend that Islamic (Saudi, Jordanian, Iranian etc) culture is somehow equal to British Christian culture - and that it shouldn't be treated so in law for example regarding Sharia Law.

I actually had the majority of my left wing class argue back with me that Saudi culture of Iranian culture (the same cultures which regard homosexuality for example, an issue the left are obsessed with, as worthy of death) ... that somehow these cultures are equal to our British Christian culture and thus should be treated equally so in this country. I don't regard such backward cultures (in many aspects) as equal to my culture and do not believe I should be cociered into pretending it is.


Additionally, I still categorically refuse to blame Islam for the terrorist group that is Al-Qaeda. These lunatics can use Islam as their shield, but I don't believe that - Islam may have started their beliefs, but it isn't the cause of their sickening acts. On the other hand, I totally agree with your views on the way it views women - it is ridiculously old-fashioned for a start.

Depends on the interpretation of Islam, the problem is more widespread throughout Islam than people seem to believe - you just have to take a look at the history of Islam for the evidence of that.

[AgnesIO]

I haven't argued that they should be compelled to conform to our western values, indeed as a small-c conservative there are many issues socially that i'm probably much closer to conservative Islam on than western liberalism. But this isn't what i'm getting at and i've argued this in a university class too - i'm merely arguing that I refuse to have Islamic values imposed on myself or my country and that I am not going to sit here and pretend that Islamic (Saudi, Jordanian, Iranian etc) culture is somehow equal to British Christian culture - and that it shouldn't be treated so in law for example regarding Sharia Law.

I actually had the majority of my left wing class argue back with me that Saudi culture of Iranian culture (the same cultures which regard homosexuality for example, an issue the left are obsessed with, as worthy of death) ... that somehow these cultures are equal to our British Christian culture and thus should be treated equally so in this country. I don't regard such backward cultures (in many aspects) as equal to my culture and do not believe I should be cociered into pretending it is.



Depends on the interpretation of Islam, the problem is more widespread throughout Islam than people seem to believe - you just have to take a look at the history of Islam for the evidence of that.

I apologise, Dan. The way that post was written made it appear you were complaining that they weren't conforming with Western values which is wrong (I should have known better from a guy like yourself!) May I ask exactly what you study at University? Got to say, I am going to miss having those sort of debates :(

In fairness, the history of Christianity is not exactly glorious! I'm yet to meet an Islamic follower who is an extremist nut case, but you never know what the future holds :L I agree that Islamic culture should not be imposed on you, but I guess having been brought up away from cities I've never experienced this (my Islamic experiences being in other countries).

[Eoin247]

I do not see one point in your post that makes any sense, it appears to me that you are seriously nitpicking. In any case, take the example of the man who you say might have been verbally abused (because those rebels/al-Qaeda are just kitty cats aren't they?) - who on earth as a soldier would make it their mission to verbally abuse somebody of another religion in a supposed non-religious war?

You are closing your eyes here to what the Syrian war is - it's heavily influenced by religion, of which you are correct - the Christians are a very small part of it. But it's telling that the Christians, Druze and Alawites all are hoping for an Assad victory. And why? because the Assad Government has protected religious minorities over the years against the muslim majority .... just take a look at the attacks in Egypt on thr Coptic Christian Church.

So to conclude that, yes it is important that the fact Islamic fighters have entered a Chrisitian village and are purposely intimidating the local Christian population - just as it would be a massive story if Christian US troops entered an Iraqi city and started firing at the Cresent over the mosque and desecrating the local mosque whilst telling the locals to convert.

I pretty much quoted from the entire article at this stage. I'm hardly nitpicking. If you can't see my point from any of the quotes I explained, then ( while you know a lot about politics) you don't know much about journalistic/writing techniques. Can you not see how much this article insinuates? Reading it fact for fact (taking a pro government witness as fact in this case), nothing truly terrible has happened to any of these Christians.

For the last time. The only thing I have a problem with is the article itself. And after going through the article in detail in my last post to point out its problems, I'm not the only one who can see the article for what it is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I apologise, Dan. The way that post was written made it appear you were complaining that they weren't conforming with Western values which is wrong (I should have known better from a guy like yourself!) May I ask exactly what you study at University? Got to say, I am going to miss having those sort of debates :(

In fairness, the history of Christianity is not exactly glorious! I'm yet to meet an Islamic follower who is an extremist nut case, but you never know what the future holds :L I agree that Islamic culture should not be imposed on you, but I guess having been brought up away from cities I've never experienced this (my Islamic experiences being in other countries).

I study Philosophy, Politics and Economics. :) Surprisingly with the politics, which is probably the one I enjoy least out of the three, I expected everyone to be mouthy in the class yet they rarely ever said anything - that's why I constantly provoked them into debating me. I once had (and you won't believe this) a left winger in the class tell me that we shouldn't have any borders and that everybody should be able to come here... to which I replied something along the lines that i'd left that stand as a statement without any further comment. :P

Anddddd it's true on Christianity, sure. But we're talking about the modern day, and Christianity does not have the problems that Islam has by any stretch of the imagination. The history of Islam afterall is based on relentless conquest.


I pretty much quoted from the entire article at this stage. I'm hardly nitpicking. If you can't see my point from any of the quotes I explained, then ( while you know a lot about politics) you don't know much about journalistic/writing techniques. Can you not see how much this article insinuates? Reading it fact for fact (taking a pro government witness as fact in this case), nothing truly terrible has happened to any of these Christians.

For the last time. The only thing I have a problem with is the article itself. And after going through the article in detail in my last post to point out its problems, I'm not the only one who can see the article for what it is.

Nobody claims it's the worst thing in the world, I just think in every post here you've been grasping at straws as to not seem offensive or critical of Islam - I doubt we would ever see such a reaction from you concerning the Catholic Church or CoE.

But hey.

[AgnesIO]

I study Philosophy, Politics and Economics. :) Surprisingly with the politics, which is probably the one I enjoy least out of the three, I expected everyone to be mouthy in the class yet they rarely ever said anything - that's why I constantly provoked them into debating me. I once had (and you won't believe this) a left winger in the class tell me that we shouldn't have any borders and that everybody should be able to come here... to which I replied something along the lines that i'd left that stand as a statement without any further comment. :P


Embarrassingly, I can believe you. In my AS/A Level class we had a couple of nutters, one was obsessed with communism, and other had this daft idea that we should all be scared of China. Furthermore, in another class there was this CHINESE girl that couldn't work out why she couldn't find China.. whilst looking at a map of Europe. This is further escalated by another who thought Brazil was connected to Spain |-) Hate subjects where there are no real viewpoints to argue :L

[Chippiewill]

But why are all the people on this forum who backed Obama in 2008 and 2012 silent?

Ultimately there is a lot of disappointment over Obama's actions, and certainly most people would have hoped for better. However it's important to realise that Obama had support not necessarily because he's the best man for the job, but because both John McCain and Mitt Romney were just ridiculously inappropriate. We certainly shouldn't kid ourselves that their foreign policy would be any better.

---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 12:44 PM ----------


I once had (and you won't believe this) a left winger in the class tell me that we shouldn't have any borders and that everybody should be able to come here... to which I replied something along the lines that i'd left that stand as a statement without any further comment. :P

It's not an entirely absurd thought, the Schengen area seems to be doing pretty well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ultimately there is a lot of disappointment over Obama's actions, and certainly most people would have hoped for better. However it's important to realise that Obama had support not necessarily because he's the best man for the job, but because both John McCain and Mitt Romney were just ridiculously inappropriate. We certainly shouldn't kid ourselves that their foreign policy would be any better.

Oh no i'm not claiming they'd be any better - i'm just asking why they aren't stepping in any criticising him whereas we know if McCain or Romney had won, the same people would now be posting 'IF ONLY OBAMA HAD WON!!!!!!' sigh.


It's not an entirely absurd thought, the Schengen area seems to be doing pretty well.

The people in German and French cities which have been completely taken over will disagree with you on that, as will the people of Boston in this country, the original inhabitants of Tower Hamlets, areas of Leister, London, Birmingham and so on and so on.

[Chippiewill]

'IF ONLY OBAMA HAD WON!!!!!!' sigh.

Well it is all about playing the odds, the most likely candidate not to do this would have been Obama.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well it is all about playing the odds, the most likely candidate not to do this would have been Obama.

From his rhetoric, not from his records.