EU asks Tamil Tigers to surrender

Did you hear this?

Never! They are the most determined rebel group there is! They are actually supported by many civilians, both in Tamil Ealam and across the world!
How do you think this will end?

Sri Lanka has a lot more experience fighting insurgents than any other country does, besides maybe a few countries in Latin America. It also knows the tactics that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam use, and is adjusting its own.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam are getting a lot of foreign support, and no other country is prepared to go in and fight for Sri Lanka.
They are not going to surrender.

Possibly the UN will hop in. Depends on the civilians or Tigers getting any footage out to the rest of the world. Once the war is on the news everywhere, the UN will once again probably think it neccesary to do something to protect the civilians... That's kinda the way it works these days.

Not so, I'm afraid.
You see, Sri Lanka has no OIL, so the US politicians.. erm I mean the UN good-doers do not really care. Now if that was Iraq, they would have INVENTED evidence of Sri Lanka army using genocide, chemical weapons, and close to (if not already IN) production of nuclear weapons. They would then have swept the island-country no matter what the cost, placed Tamil puppets as a legitimate government, while -at the same time- killing of TAMIL an Senhal alike. Anyone who would want the foreign troops off their land would be titled a terrorist and linked to Al-Qaeda, even if they are no Muslims to begin with.

Got the idea?

Wow, your anti-American posts almost rival those of our incredibly intelligent and sexy administrator on the Ikariam boards:

Quote :

The US can be challenged. It cannot win a war with any nuclear-armed opponent, such as China, as wars where both sides have nuclear weapons are never won. This means that the US cannot enforce anything on most countries it wants to enforce things on. Hence Iran is trying to scare them, even if they do not actually make weapons of mass destruction, into believing there is a threat.

The US is not about to fall, it has been in steady decline since it became a superpower. It used to have a lot of trade with another of the richest countries in the world, the United Kingdom, and China, but its trade with both those countries are falling. Only three per cent of the UK's trade is with America. Some American products sold in the UK are also manufactured in the UK, and as the new American administration is showing that it has little understanding of how economics work I can see America's global trade being severed. I know people who are trying to convince people not to buy American goods, and this is in the founding state of America's closest ally. It is not being anti-American, it is merely breaking through the popular image of America's global influence to see that they are damned unless something makes the psyche of the entire country change.

On the point of the US military, they are, of course, the world leaders when it comes to technology. But the training of their soldiers is not quite as good as it is in the UK, and some of America's enemies, both former and present, who have larger armies anyway. And besides, if America hopes to have money when its global trade is about to shatter and it is spending billions on pointless wars that have achieved nothing, with more enemies than allies on all fronts, where will it cut expenditure? The army! There is nowhere else left for it to cut expenditure.

Political analysts have foreseen the downfall of America for quite some time. Look at the facts:

- Its power projection is backfiring
- Its global trade is breaking apart
- Its new government are borrowing money and have no idea of what to do about the economy
- Eight years of the economy in freefall have just been boosted by the new administration funding the market as a whole rather than specific areas
- Its enemies are becoming more powerful with international support
- It cannot impose trade sanctions because they would most likely backfire and they are its most powerful weapon
- It will not risk a war with an opponent that has weapons of mass destruction

So, then, where does that leave America? They will not be the world's foremost power, and will probably not even be a superpower.

If it wasn't for their reputation for being powerful, they would have already fallen.

Unlike some, I am waiting for the US to fall. It is the last state to employ extermination as a weapon of war. It is the last state that claims to act in full support of human rights when it ignores them. It is the only state to tear apart countries and commit genocide, and it is the last state to think that such things are acceptable because countries do not have a democracy.
I know I am fiercely anti-American, but I challenge you to deny that any of the above statements are false. And they are all referring to events in the last sixty years, most of them in the last thirty, and many of them happening as you read this.

But you are right. America protects its own free world. They are also very bad at fighting insurgents or guerrillas.

Now who says I'm anti-American? I'm anti-American POLITICIANS. Anti-Bush if you like, but NOT anti-American AT ALL.

In fact, eventhough I had learnt English at school through LadyBird and Oxford curricula, my pronounciation now is American if compared to any English speaking nation at all.

Hmm, now what's with this annoying red underlines? EVENTHOUGH, not "even though" or even-though. It's LEARNT not learned, and I dunno why it doesn't lik PRONOUNCIATION either! (See? I'm a Britt by grammar/spelling but American by accent.

To put it in a nutshell, I hate ANYONE who tries to claim the sole right of being correct, enforcing their own views/values unto others, be that Bush, Bin Laden, or middle ages Popes all the same.

Quote :

I'm a Britt by grammar/spelling

Then stop spelling Brit wrong! Being a Brit by spelling and grammar is actually impossible because not all Brits speak English. The majority of Scotland does not, some of Wales does not, some of Northern Ireland does not, and in fact there are dialects in England that are less similar to English than the Scots language is!

Quote :

Bin Laden

Bin Laden doesn't actually claim the sole right of being correct, at least not for himself. You have been brainwashed by western media, who think he has declared war against them when he has actually declared war against modern Islam.
Just America covering up the fact that it was their own actions that turned him and many Islamic militants (and Catholic militants, as well, like a few you have all encountered) against them.

ROTFL..

Ok, first things first.. I like Britt and Scott rather than the single T for some odd rason. I also spell Brazillian with double l's and Brittish with double t's.

I'm nor arguing who speaks what language in Britain. I'm saying I speak ENGLISH not in the way the UK residents do. If they opt to speak any other language, then that's not included within my "announcement" brackets.

Now, as for Osama.. me? Brain washed?? Mate I don't even live out THERE.. I live IN HERE.
Osama has declared war against anything and everything. He is using his own skewed interpretations of religious texture to serve his sick mind urges.

There's no such thing as "modern" Islam (as opposed to what? "Orthodox" Islam?). There's only ONE version of the book, but so many "quorums" using ignorance of both common muslims and westerners alike to get their way into making themselves lading figures.

I could carry on forever, you know, but one thing I'm not is "brain washed" by anything or anyone at all

Quote :

Osama has declared war against anything and everything

He actually called a jihad against Islamic states that do not follow shari'ah law. The Islamic states that do not follow shari'ah are officially considered to be modern Islam rather than traditional Islam, and are thus similar to the religious practices of Muslims in the United Kingdom where they have became 'Anglicised' or whatever other culture is dominant in their area. If it is not Islam how it was two hundred years ago, Osama has declared war on it, or has called for civil disobedience.

And I reiterate: Islam is, and will always be the same through centuries. Political interpretations try to impose certain rules/values that are NOT Islamic into the practice of Islam, but that is just what it is.. POLITICAL (or power thirst or whatever you want to call it)

And if Osama has indeed declared war against what you would call modern Islamic states, how come he is bombing Saudi Arabia (the MOST STRICT in applying Shari'ah laws)??

One other thing: How WAS Islam 200 years ago?

Quote :

One other thing: How WAS Islam 200 years ago?

Believe it or not, it was a lot more similar to Christianity. But it is not as divided, and has not been affected as much by social differences.

Quote :

And if Osama has indeed declared war against what you would call modern Islamic states, how come he is bombing Saudi Arabia (the MOST STRICT in applying Shari'ah laws

He only bombed Saudi Arabia after the US got involved, because he sees the two as allies. He thinks that Saudi Arabia will go the same way as Dubai, and would introduce more western elements into society.

And religion and politics affect each other. They can influence each other, and can change each other. They even control each other. The wording in the Qur'an may not change, but interpretations of the wording the the Qur'an do. Salah al Din is an excellent example of this, and Osama bin Laden himself is another.

How someone can convince other people to hate someone else because of their race or beliefs is beyond me.

Domnall Ban, Tacksman of England, made you argue with Elfair because you thought he was insulting Gaelic culture, remember? Anyone want to know how he did that?

Quote :

Domnall Ban, Tacksman of England, made you argue with Elfair because you thought he was insulting Gaelic culture, remember? Anyone want to know how he did that?

Sorry Elfair. Fanatics occupied my brain

I think it's better than anyone who has heard of the Laugh of the insane bitches doesn't know, Seamus.

Ok, I'm not a fan of going in too deep in such conversations, so I'll have my last say on the matter and let you believe what you may, ok?

I claim to be an expert here, because unlike most I HAVE received proper religious education, and I master the Arabic language well.

Neither words NOR Meaning change. Only those who are ignorant can be tricked into the conviction that "this" word was "actually meant to be" that or "holds another meaning" or "can be generalised to be".. etc.

And before I leave this point, and just to avoid any possible misunderstandings: I'm not referring to YOU by "ignorant", but I rather mean those MUSLIMS who would be tricked into believing the verses they read so clearly worded are actually hinting another totally irrelevant meaning. (I will give an example later on).

To say Islam was "much like Christianity" is like saying Pagans are actually Jews, or even Owls are much like bats to that matter!!

"He only bombed Saudi Arabia after the US got involved, because he sees the two as allies." you say. Well, Osama is a USA puppet who had turned against them when they let him off. He fought against the Russians in Afghanistan, and guess who trained him, provided him with weapons.. etc.

By then Saudi Arabia was already an ally of the US, but it didn't matter because he himself was an ally (or rather an obedient servant).

Everybody in this area knows the Saudis will NEVER go the same way as Dubai. Mind you, why bomb the would-bees and leave out DUBAI??


Now, the example on silly interpretations I will give here is actually not only Osama Bin Laden's view, but is actually being used by many tight scholars. including those of Saudi Arabia itself. Taliban are just overdoing it.

The verse they refer to as an instruction to women to stay at home actually reads what can be translated as follows: It starts with "Oh ye women of the prophet..." notice? WOMEN OF THE PROPHET. So, they say these are examples to be followed. Easy, huh?

Then the verse further specifies "you are non like any other women", so they just look away from this one. Piece of cake!

Then instructions not to "talk too soft" etc until it says "and stick at home unlike the days of pre-Islam". Now that they take on face value, neglecting the "unlike the days or pre-Islam".

Then it says "God only wills to rid you off sin YE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE PROPHET", and again.. this is overlooked to serve their agenda.

So, explicitly addressing the Prophet's wives, asserted by the declaration they are like non others, and a conclusion that this speech/these instruction were directed at members of the household of the Prophet, and it is still being used to prove women are supposed to stay at home, not eligible to work or -in the case of Taliban- even get proper education. Some even go as far as stating her mere voice should not be heard by strangers.

Now you wanna know what Islam was like 200 years ago? 400 years ago?? 1400 years ago?

The Prophet's WIFE, Aisha (one of the 8 women these verses were actually directed at) was a narrator of the Prophet's speeches, instructions and deeds, as well as an interpreter of the Holly Qur'an. How is that to you that SHE understands not that her voice is "not to be heard"??

At the days of the Prophet, and at his presence, Naiba bent Ka'ab actually faught alongside the muslim army. HE did not order her to go back home!!

Ok, down further through time women of the Omayya and Abbassins dynasties actually attended religious, scientific and literature debates alongside men. Noone -back then- said it was against religion.

Egypt in the 14th century was actually ruled by a woman (Shagar Al Dorr), and noone said she was incompetent.

200 years ago, the Ottomans were ruling most of the Islamic world, and I don't think Ottomans were anything like Taliban either. In fact, the current Saudi dynasty were amongst rebels against the Ottomans in the 19th and early 20th century.

I could go on and on forever you know, but it serves no purpose when you have your mind set on something (or mine on another) to keep on in what would be a "Byzantine debate" to now end.

Thank you for letting me say my piece.

Signed: A STRICT Muslim, who knows his religion well

We're all friends here, Aswan, don't be afraid to join in a debate. You'll get used to them, and they actually become rather fun

Meanings of words change. 'Gael' used to refer to a Scottish Highlander. Now it refers to them, the Irish, the Manx, and their descendants across the world.
Words don't change, Aswan, but I guarantee that their meanings do. The word '****ing' is another good one, as it was an Anglo-Saxon word that was used to describe everything, that was considered coarse after the Norman invasion, and is now swearing.

I wish I knew Arabic well enough so I could read the Qur'an

@Aswan: makes you wonder what's the best way to go when you're talking about translating holy scriptures. The muslims and the catholic church have both set a good example of what happens if you dont: the majority of the believers will need someone to tell them what they say, which is bound to result in abuse of that position. On the other hand, I can see as a christian that transelating sciptures into hundreds of languages has it's downsides too. For instance: some words just dont excist in other languages, or some have tens of possible meanings to them...

At this point 'westerm cultures' doesn't even seem to need to rape someones believes to make a war anymore... And somehow I hope the middle-eastern cultures will get to that point too, cuz then, just maybe, we'll stop blaiming the mess we make on earth all on God.

And in the end, I don't think anybody will find salvation, or know God, throgh religion, or solely through education. What it all comes down to, is your heart. You just gotta really, truely, be looking for God Himself...

Quote :

the majority of the believers will need someone to tell them what they say, which is bound to result in abuse of that position

Not any more, I don't think. As there's no real power held by the leaders of any religion any more, except maybe those in Iran and African religions, it can only lead to different interpretations. The Bible has been translated into almost every language in the world, and very rarely are different interpretations to do with the local language. Language is not the problem. Culture is.

Quote :

some words just dont excist in other languages, or some have tens of possible meanings to them...

As a linguist, I'd disagree with you there. There is always a way to express something in every language, even if when translated it makes no sense to a speaker of one language when it does to the other. The Gaelic word for 'yes' is also the Gaelic word for almost anything positive, and often appears in places that an English-speaker would not expect.

Nighean wrote:

Quote :

the majority of the believers will need someone to tell them what they say, which is bound to result in abuse of that position

Not any more, I don't think. As there's no real power held by the leaders of any religion any more, except maybe those in Iran and African religions, it can only lead to different interpretations. The Bible has been translated into almost every language in the world, and very rarely are different interpretations to do with the local language. Language is not the problem. Culture is.

Well most Muslims and the Jews stick to the original language of their scripture. And that's great, as long as everyone actually can read it on his own. And here's the thing: a lot of them don't, so they actually are dependent on what their spiritual leader tells them.

Quote :

Quote :

some words just dont excist in other languages, or some have tens of possible meanings to them...

As a linguist, I'd disagree with you there. There is always a way to express something in every language, even if when translated it makes no sense to a speaker of one language when it does to the other. The Gaelic word for 'yes' is also the Gaelic word for almost anything positive, and often appears in places that an English-speaker would not expect.

Now, as a so-called linguist, you should also know that it is very hard to translate an entire book, with a very deep spiritual message, and not lose any part of the message, or add new messages to it....

Quote :

Well most Muslims and the Jews stick to the original language of their scripture. And that's great, as long as everyone actually can read it on his own. And here's the thing: a lot of them don't, so they actually are dependent on what their spiritual leader tells them.

In the case of Jews, yes, this is true, but all Muslims speak Arabic as it is written in the Qur'an. It is an essential part of being a Muslim, or at least is in the UK. I don't know too much about the details, maybe Aswan would be so kind as to help us out?
It is also the same for non-Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles, as well, where sermons are often in Gaelic. iSlut, your cousins know that

Quote :

Now, as a so-called linguist, you should also know that it is very hard to translate an entire book, with a very deep spiritual message, and not lose any part of the message, or add new messages to it....

Messages also change with culture. Language is a problem, but it is not the main one. To one culture, a message might mean peace. To another, it might mean wealth. It depends entirely on the society that reads a book, no matter what language they read it in. Whilst languages have changed the meanings of text in the past, they cannot change the entire context.

so...the Tamil Tigers...

They haven't surrendered yet. I don't think they will.

As I said before I won't be debating here, and iSlut: it has NOTHING to do with being friends, because we ARE. It however has to do mostly with the fact that although I do speak English fairly well it is not my mother tongue, thus I'm not familiar with some "specific" terminology. If I had to debate with a surgeon I would still be faced with the same problem. I simply don't know the terms for specific operations, or for that matter some internal members of the human body.

However, I will respond to Gallowglass' request and assert that even if a muslim does not speak Arabic in common life, they are obliged to do so in their prayers. Qur'an cannot eb translated. Only the meanings (interpretations) can, but it must be read in the way it was originally revealed (ascended from God according to our belief).

Oh, and btw.. the Irani example has nothing to do with islam. In fact I'd go as far as stating confidently that those who call themselves Siite muslims are Shiite.. but no muslims at all. Their beliefs (faith itself) is flawed they are technically followers of a completely ifferent religion that has nothing to do with islam.

Under Islam, there is NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER for a religious scholar. We have no position to be compared with -say- a priest, or rev or -of course- the Pope.

We have RESPECT for religion preachers and scientists, but apart from that they have no authority in the sense that a person's relation with God is just that.. between them an God, and no one can intercept or convene between God and his worshipers.

[Silent mode back on]

Ok, stop. Before too long, this will turn into a flaming thread. Religion is, unfortunately, a matter of pure faith. So, technically, in argument terms, religion has no basis. We're all buddies here, let's keep it that way. Keep it clean folks! Also, Happy Valentines mates!

Quote :

Happy Valentines mates!

Sssh! She'll hear me!