NationStates Jolt Archive

Following the attacks upon London, I feel the need to urge everyone not to blame Islam for it. Muslims are, in general, decent and tolerant people, just like everybody else. We must not go off with a "crusading" attitude against Islam in general in revenge for the actions of a few individuals. Also, we must maintain order here in Britain and stand together with the Muslim community in condemning this attrocity, and avoid racial conflict within our own communities. What do you think? Please keep it pleasant.

sure most people in the UK will have gotten over the bombs long before the news channels stop saturation coverage.

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Carops here. We must not make this a glorified witchhunt for all and any Islamic person in the UK. Having said that, I would like to see a commitment by the Islamic organisations within the UK and in Eurpe as a whole, to clean their own houses. They should make it very very clear that theyt want no part of this type of activity and that those that perpetrate any such action wll be expelled and handed over to the approrpriate authorities. While no clear condemnation of terrorist activity is forthcoming, it is going to be difficult to disassociate them from this activity.

Agreed. The perpetrators of the crime aren't even true Muslims. They callously use religion as a tool for their own evil gains. Real Muslims are undoubtedly sickened and appalled by this.

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.
Exactly.

Hell, if mainstream Islam as a whole just spoke out against the extremists, it would help to place the blame where it truly belongs...on the extremists.

Until they do, though, a large number of people are going to say that "silence speaks volumes". *shakes head*

I'm gonna point this out again ...

There is no evidence linking today's events to any group. There is only a semi-anonymous claim from an unlinked to website.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Carops here. We must not make this a glorified witchhunt for all and any Islamic person in the UK. Having said that, I would like to see a commitment by the Islamic organisations within the UK and in Eurpe as a whole, to clean their own houses. They should make it very very clear that theyt want no part of this type of activity and that those that perpetrate any such action wll be expelled and handed over to the approrpriate authorities. While no clear condemnation of terrorist activity is forthcoming, it is going to be difficult to disassociate them from this activity.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but Alien Born, could you check your TGs? Please and thank you.

It should be noted that British Muslim leaders wasted no time in condemning the attacks. The story is here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm)

And not to be a pain, Kecibukia, but you can't exactly expect "Islam" to start policing their various sects any more than you can expect, say, the Catholics to police every Christian group out there. There's a lot of variation in Islam, nearly as much as in Christianity, so to blame the major sects of Islam for the acts of some radicals is like blaming the Vatican for the nutjobs who blow up abortion clinics.

I agree with you that it's not all entirely Islam's fault. Unfortunately, the radical elements of the religion give a bad name for all of the others. Having lived so close to NYC during the 9/11 attacks, being in school when it happened, having 20 or 30 kids called down to the office after they announced what had happened, and seeing all those kids outside the office crying hysterically as I passed by to go to lunch... having my own father, who worked in NYC and had to literally walk across the George Washington Bridge to get home because it was so congested from people trying to flee the city... it's a truly terrible feeling. I'll tell you now, truthfully, that when I got home, saw the television on and seeing the footage of the towers falling... I wanted to kill as many Arabs as I could. And I'm not lying, as hateful as that seems. Obviously that hatred cooled down after a week or so, but unfortunately our president horribly mishandled the situation and, if anything, I'm more angry now than I was then.

I hope you guys are able to handle the situation better than we did. My heart goes out to all of London.

London is a city of multiculturalism. There shouldn't be a lot of finger-pointing there at least.

Why is Islam, anything to do with it, the terrorists did it because they wanted to, claiming they do it for religion is a pathetic excuse.

I'm gonna point this out again ...

There is no evidence linking today's events to any group. There is only a semi-anonymous claim from an unlinked to website.
*sighs*

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,364134,00.html

Best I could find.

Be vigilent and work to end the radical training schools and curtail the Wahabi sect so that they don't work as terrorist recruiting offices.


http://www.mikelynaugh.com/SupportTheTroops/Thumbs/tn_IMG_3567.jpg

Yes it would be nice if Islamic groups get vocal about nto supporting the actions of the terrorists at the very least but if they do that I will worry for their safety from these terrorist groups. I can understand if they don't want to endanger their own lives.

I think we're all sensible enough to not blame this atrocity on Islam. And if we are not, then I must say I will be ashamed. :(

Yes it would be nice if Islamic groups get vocal about nto supporting the actions of the terrorists at the very least but if they do that I will worry for their safety from these terrorist groups. I can understand if they don't want to endanger their own lives.

That's the problem, though. If Muslims try and speak out against the terrorists they themselves become targets for 'siding with the infidels.'

*sighs*

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,364134,00.html

Best I could find.

That's not evidence. Anyone with a computer and internet access who wanted to stir up some anti-Muslim fervor could have written that. For all anyone knows, Jerry Falwell could have written that. Jesus himself could have written that.

It's not evidence because some yokel posted it on an internet forum.

That's the problem, though. If Muslims try and speak out against the terrorists they themselves become targets for 'siding with the infidels.'
Fear rules over them, for some anyway.

Its interesting how no one thought this way during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. You know, seperate the people from the attrocitors... Or, for that matter, the people of Iraque from Hussein not so long ago. Did they have to suffer for the will of one man?

That's the problem, though. If Muslims try and speak out against the terrorists they themselves become targets for 'siding with the infidels.'

I have a hard time thinking of an answer to these extremists' actions other than violence, can someone help me find one???

That's the problem, though. If Muslims try and speak out against the terrorists they themselves become targets for 'siding with the infidels.'


Thats exactly what I was saying, that and that I understand if they don't want to speak out because it endangers their lives.

*sighs*

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,364134,00.html

Best I could find.
Save your fucking sighs for people who don't read your links. From your article, bolded parts mine:The authenticity of the document could not be immediately confirmed. But in recent months, authentic bulletins and claims of responsibility from different terrorist groups, including the Iraqi al-Qaida affiliate, have been posted to the "al-Qala'a" Web site where today's posting was found. Inauthentic material, however, has also been posted to the site in the past.

I have a hard time thinking of an answer to these extremists' actions other than violence, can someone help me find one???


HEAVY emphasis on intelligence and arrests

No-of course we should not punish Islam.

Only those responsible for and connected to the attacks.

I dont care if they are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Branch Davidians- hunt them and every last motherfucker they do business with-turn them upside down and shake out all the bugs-interrogate all, investigate every lead and kill them all-take their shit and break what we dont take.
Fuck them all.

Chase down every student visa and check them all out. Eject every one thats expired or not in order after clearing them of involvement.

Stop worrying about offending or insulting people. Worry about living first then being polite later.

Save your fucking sighs for people who don't read your links. From your article, bolded parts mine:

Do you honestly doubt that Islamic fundamentalists were behind this?

HEAVY emphasis on intelligence and arrests

Well, then let's not overlook anything. Including the mosques. I wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned because we were trying to be politically correct.

As for arrests, that works fine within your own borders. But if the bastards have fled overseas, creeping into their houses in the night and killing them silently is something that really works wonders.

I think we're all sensible enough to not blame this atrocity on Islam. And if we are not, then I must say I will be ashamed. :(

If only that were true. People are ugly when they have knee-jerk reactions to things like this. After 9/11 a good friend of mine who worked in a convenience store was shot in the back of the head simply because he was of the Islamic faith.

It should be noted that British Muslim leaders wasted no time in condemning the attacks. The story is here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm)

And not to be a pain, Kecibukia, but you can't exactly expect "Islam" to start policing their various sects any more than you can expect, say, the Catholics to police every Christian group out there. There's a lot of variation in Islam, nearly as much as in Christianity, so to blame the major sects of Islam for the acts of some radicals is like blaming the Vatican for the nutjobs who blow up abortion clinics.


If there were "Christian" groups openly advocating killing thousands and overthrowing governments to form theocracies, I would expect the major sects to do more than pay lip service. I would also expect individual churches, temples, etc, to perform some "inhouse" cleaning.

My point is that there have been a number of Muslim leaders openly preaching these kinds of acts. Do the members of the Mosque throw them out on their *sses? Report others who are advocating these acts? Do the "major" sects openly condemn Wahabism? Do they hold the charity organizations accountable for where the money goes?

The people who are committing these acts have ussually been part of the the major sects and, with everything that has been going on, each mosque,sect, group, etc. needs to look at themselves to ensure that these extremists are not in their own homes.

Well, then let's not overlook anything. Including the mosques. I wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned because we were trying to be politically correct.

As for arrests, that works fine within your own borders. But if the bastards have fled overseas, creeping into their houses in the night and killing them silently is something that really works wonders.


I agree - anything we can do. And I am not totally against covert-ops like you suggested either as long as we are 100% sure we have the right guys.

I'm gonna point this out again ...

There is no evidence linking today's events to any group. There is only a semi-anonymous claim from an unlinked to website.

True!

However, to be perfectly fair you must admit that this sort of thing is pretty out of character for even the IRA these days. Who else would do such a thing at this time? (G-8 meeting).

I don't want us to send the B-2s to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass on a hunch, but let's be realistic... it's not the French because they're mad at not getting the Olympics.

http://www.mikelynaugh.com/SupportTheTroops/Thumbs/tn_IMG_3567.jpg

Fine, let's look at probable perpetrators.


IRA or some subset group - Not fucking likely, they ain't that stupid.

Anarchists - Possible, but from what I can find, they have had little to no major activity lately, and I can't think of anything Britain has done that would really piss them off.

Communist extremists - Again, not likely, little previous activity in europe lately, especially on this scale.

Fascist extremists - See above

Christian Fundies - Would have reason to attack Spain or Canada, not Britain.

That pretty much leaves us with AQ and their ilk. They are the most probable perpetrators. It's possible they didn't do it, but it's probable they did.

what reaons would christians have to attack spain or canada??????????????????????

If there were "Christian" groups openly advocating killing thousands and overthrowing governments to form theocracies, I would expect the major sects to do more than pay lip service. I would also expect individual churches, temples, etc, to perform some "inhouse" cleaning.

My point is that there have been a number of Muslim leaders openly preaching these kinds of acts. Do the members of the Mosque throw them out on their *sses? Report others who are advocating these acts? Do the "major" sects openly condemn Wahabism? Do they hold the charity organizations accountable for where the money goes?

The people who are committing these acts have ussually been part of the the major sects and, with everything that has been going on, each mosque,sect, group, etc. needs to look at themselves to ensure that these extremists are not in their own homes.

I agree. In fact I honestly can't understand seeing it any other way. If they aren't policing themselves then they will be associated by many with the perpetrators - right or wrong, it will happen.

If you're not part of the solution...

If only that were true. People are ugly when they have knee-jerk reactions to things like this. After 9/11 a good friend of mine who worked in a convenience store was shot in the back of the head simply because he was of the Islamic faith.

Hate crimes.... :( :mad: :(

<Snip>.
Out of interest, have you ever heard of the Ku Klux Klan?

It does look like the AQ style of doing things. Highly orchestrated/well planned attacks on public transportation in the financial district.

It was wierd, last night I was thinking about the next Olympics in 2012 and thought that a terror attack during that was likely. Then today I heard about these bombings and was kinda creeped out. Then I thought maybe the French did it.

It does look like the AQ style of doing things. Highly orchestrated/well planned attacks on public transportation in the financial district.

It was wierd, last night I was thinking about the next Olympics in 2012 and thought that a terror attack during that was likely. Then today I heard about these bombings and was kinda creeped out. Then I thought maybe the French did it.

french are too cowardly to do something like this all they do is insult british foods

Fine, let's look at probable perpetrators.


IRA or some subset group - Not fucking likely, they ain't that stupid.

Anarchists - Possible, but from what I can find, they have had little to no major activity lately, and I can't think of anything Britain has done that would really piss them off.

Communist extremists - Again, not likely, little previous activity in europe lately, especially on this scale.

Fascist extremists - See above

Christian Fundies - Would have reason to attack Spain or Canada, not Britain.

That pretty much leaves us with AQ and their ilk. They are the most probable perpetrators. It's possible they didn't do it, but it's probable they did.

Raven what reason would Christians have to attack Spain or Canada?

french are too cowardly to do something like this all they do is insult british foods

Actually, I think you might have that the other way around:
The French are too noble to do something like this. (They do have the right to insult British foods, though.)

Aw crap. I just defended the French. I feel a little dirty now... ;)

french are too cowardly to do something like this all they do is insult british foods


oh come on everybody insults british food :p

seriously though, I never thought the French actually did it, it was a joke about the Olympic debaucle. And There are some bad ass french soldiers truthfully.

Raven what reason would Christians have to attack Spain or Canada?

Um... maybe gay marriage? (Just guessing)

Well, then let's not overlook anything. Including the mosques. I wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned because we were trying to be politically correct.

As for arrests, that works fine within your own borders. But if the bastards have fled overseas, creeping into their houses in the night and killing them silently is something that really works wonders.


The mosques are often the area of heavy recruitment. They should be focused on. Faithful innocents shouldnt have a problem with this.

Another is all of the related charities. Scrutinize them and those they do business with.

The tables need to be turned. Any terrorist "safe" haven needs to be assaulted, infiltrated and annihilated. Anyplace they felt safe needs to be violated in a big way. People with dirty hands need to disappear and those that facilitated their business activities need to tremble, worrying they are going to be snatched up too.

And There are some bad ass french soldiers truthfully.
Actually, the bad ass soldiers in France aren't even French -- The French Foreign Legion. :D

Save your fucking sighs for people who don't read your links. From your article, bolded parts mine:

Does anyone want to make any bets on who it was? Because looking at statistics, I KNOW where I'm putting my money.

True!

However, to be perfectly fair you must admit that this sort of thing is pretty out of character for even the IRA these days. Who else would do such a thing at this time? (G-8 meeting).

I don't want us to send the B-2s to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass on a hunch, but let's be realistic... it's not the French because they're mad at not getting the Olympics.

http://www.mikelynaugh.com/SupportTheTroops/Thumbs/tn_IMG_3567.jpg
1 Attacks of this scale are out of character for the IRA at any point in it's history. Now that the IRA has pretty much quit the terror business they can almost be ruled out as suspects for this series of bombings.

2 It has nothing to do with the olympics. London's hosting of the olympics was announced what, the day before yesterday? Assembling the bombs and choosing people to plant them (or blow themselves up with them) almost certainly took longer than a few days.

Raven what reason would Christians have to attack Spain or Canada?

Fundamentalists would attack them for two reasons:

1. Gay rights/ Gay marriage legalization (self evident why)
2. They hate Catholics, so Spain would be hit and Quebec as well. Another thing is these countries have more secular governments, so that would draw their ire as well.

My point is that there have been a number of Muslim leaders openly preaching these kinds of acts. Do the members of the Mosque throw them out on their *sses? Report others who are advocating these acts? Do the "major" sects openly condemn Wahabism? Do they hold the charity organizations accountable for where the money goes?


No.

Okie lemme explain some key things here ...

1] There is no special tattoo or eye color or aura that denotes a terrorist. If a member of the Mosque is quietly planning to go blow up a bus, we have no way of knowing unless he says something. If he does say something, we stop him. I'm willing to bet more terrorists attacks have been prevented in the Mosques than have been formulated there.

2] There is only one "major" sect in Islam. Sunni. Of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, 1.2 billion (est.) are Sunni. Wahabism has its place in the Muslim world. If it were not for the Wahabist movement, Mecca would still be in the hands of the Saud family and only their friends and "contributers" would be allowed to pray at the Kabbah. Wahabists made Mecca open to *all* Muslims. Among the Wahabists are some splinter groups that tend to be violent. It's the same among fundamentalist Christian groups ... they have their splinter groups that tend to be violent. Wahabi != Terrorist.

3] In Islam, Zakkat (charity) is a private thing. We tend to put the money in an envelope and stick it in a locked box near the door of the Mosque. We don't know how much people put in there and we don't ask. If the Mosque, in turn, uses that money to fund terrorism and we find out about it, we stop it.

4] We continuously and openly denounce terrorism. However, you've got the US Army, inarguably the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen, hunting for a 6'8 skinny Arab with a 7' beard and they can't seem to find him ... what makes you think a bunch of rag-tag, poor, working hand to mouth six days a week to feed their family Muslims can do it? I know a lot, and I mean a lot, of Muslims. I have never met a terrorist.

what reaons would christians have to attack spain or canada??????????????????????
Gay marriage

Gay marriage

Beat me. :mad:


:mp5:


Take that, ya drunk commie! :rolleyes:

Its really kind of impossible to disagree with this thread. Duh, we shouldn't stereotype Muslims as psychos. Its just plain stupid and unethical.

Unfortunately, the idea that Arabs America may have already been circulated already. Think about it:

Our government seems intent not to bring peace in the Middle East, but rather to crush Palestine. That makes all of Palestine automatically the bad guys in the minds of many Americans

We attacked a sovoreign mostly-Muslim nation (Iraq.) seemingly just so Haliburton could make a few more million dollars.

Right-wing pundits such as those on the 700 Club( although they don't represent America by a long chalk) were saying that we should have ed the holy shrine that Muqtada al-Sadr was hiding in because he had made it a place of war.

So on some subliminal level, a lot of America's populace associate Islam with extremists militants



Before I leave off this post, let me say: I know some of you may take offensed to some of my comments so I'll get a few things straight:

Palestine has committed many attacks against Israel and vice-versa

But Saddam's a nutcase, many of you will probably cry! We should have taken him out ASAP! No doubt he's a nutcase, but ponder this:

If we had not gone to war in Iraq, we may have captured a lot of Al-Qaeda bigwigs by now. Also, we could have helped out in Sudan, who's ruler is even more psychotic than Saddam.

The mosques are often the area of heavy recruitment. They should be focused on. Faithful innocents shouldnt have a problem with this.

Another is all of the related charities. Scrutinize them and those they do business with.

The tables need to be turned. Any terrorist "safe" haven needs to be assaulted, infiltrated and annihilated. Anyplace they felt safe needs to be violated in a big way. People with dirty hands need to disappear and those that facilitated their business activities need to tremble, worrying they are going to be snatched up too.

I herewith give you the responsibility of making all necessary preparations with regard to the organizational, practical and financial aspects of an overall solution of the Islamic question in the Western sphere of influence. I further give you the responsibility of submitting to me promptly an overall plan of the preliminary organisational, practical and financial measures for the execution of the intended final solution of the Islamic question.

(does that count as a Godwin?)

1 Attacks of this scale are out of character for the IRA at any point in it's history. Now that the IRA has pretty much quit the terror business they can almost be ruled out as suspects for this series of bombings.

2 It has nothing to do with the olympics. London's hosting of the olympics was announced what, the day before yesterday? Assembling the bombs and choosing people to plant them (or blow themselves up with them) almost certainly took longer than a few days.

Exactly.

I herewith give you the responsibility of making all necessary preparations with regard to the organizational, practical and financial aspects of an overall solution of the Islamic question in the Western sphere of influence. I further give you the responsibility of submitting to me promptly an overall plan of the preliminary organisational, practical and financial measures for the execution of the intended final solution of the Islamic question.

(does that count as a Godwin?)


Sorry, WL- I'm missing your point. I cant tell if you agree or disagree.

I dont suggest accomplishing the things I mentioned is an easy task, but these are certainly problem areas that need to be concentrated on.

Border security is another.

1 Attacks of this scale are out of character for the IRA at any point in it's history.
Bloody Friday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday)....22 bombs in Belfast city centre over the space of just over an hour. At one point there were 6 in the space of 3 minutes.

But this wouldnt have been the IRA.

I further give you the responsibility of submitting to me promptly an overall plan of the preliminary organisational, practical and financial measures for the execution of the intended final solution of the question.

(does that count as a Godwin?)

Yes, it is a Godwin

Fundamentalists would attack them for two reasons:

1. Gay rights/ Gay marriage legalization (self evident why)
2. They hate Catholics, so Spain would be hit and Quebec as well. Another thing is these countries have more secular governments, so that would draw their ire as well.

Catholics are Christians too.

I don't hate Catholics... and I don't know any other Protestant Christian who does.

Sorry, WL- I'm missing your point. I cant tell if you agree or disagree.

I dont suggest accomplishing the things I mentioned is an easy task, but these are certainly problem areas that need to be concentrated on.

Border security is another.

I agree, but it will require some distasteful acts on our part.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival". The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

Bloody Friday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday)....22 bombs in Belfast city centre over the space of just over an hour. At one point there were 6 in the space of 3 minutes.

But this wouldnt have been the IRA.
I stand corrected. Sorry for the misinformation.

Its really kind of impossible to disagree with this thread. Duh, we shouldn't stereotype Muslims as psychos. Its just plain stupid and unethical.

Unfortunately, the idea that Arabs America may have already been circulated already. Think about it:

Our government seems intent not to bring peace in the Middle East, but rather to crush Palestine. That makes all of Palestine automatically the bad guys in the minds of many Americans

We attacked a sovoreign mostly-Muslim nation (Iraq.) seemingly just so Haliburton could make a few more million dollars.

Right-wing pundits such as those on the 700 Club( although they don't represent America by a long chalk) were saying that we should have ed the holy shrine that Muqtada al-Sadr was hiding in because he had made it a place of war.

So on some subliminal level, a lot of America's populace associate Islam with extremists militants



Before I leave off this post, let me say: I know some of you may take offense to some of my comments so I'll get a few things straight:

Palestine has committed many attacks against Israel and vice-versa

But Saddam's a nutcase, many of you will probably cry! We should have taken him out ASAP! No doubt he's a nutcase, but ponder this:

If we had not gone to war in Iraq, we may have captured a lot of Al-Qaeda bigwigs by now. Also, we could have helped out in Sudan, who's ruler is even more psychotic than Saddam.

There is only one "major" sect in Islam. Sunni. Of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, 1.2 billion (est.) are Sunni.

Are you sure of that figure? I believe (though I could be wrong) that Shi'a makes up abput 20% of Islam. If I have that wrong, please feel free to correct me.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival". The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

that nazi-quoting is really quite chilling.

Following the attacks upon London, I feel the need to urge everyone not to blame Islam for it. Muslims are, in general, decent and tolerant people, just like everybody else. We must not go off with a "crusading" attitude against Islam in general in revenge for the actions of a few individuals. Also, we must maintain order here in Britain and stand together with the Muslim community in condemning this attrocity, and avoid racial conflict within our own communities. What do you think? Please keep it pleasant.

Tip of the hat to common sense and practicality. You have not just my sympathies, but my utmost respect.

that nazi-quoting is really quite chilling.

Yes, and aside from me, you're probably the only one who sees where all this war between the West and Islam will lead us.

Eventually, our hands will be forced. And we will become what we conquered so many decades ago.

Catholics are Christians too.

I don't hate Catholics... and I don't know any other Protestant Christian who does.


No, but the hardcore terrorist "Christians" like Christian Identity, the KKK, and extremist fundamentalists hate us Catholics based on their warped theology and belief that if you aren't like them, you aren't a true Christian.

No Protestants I know (besides the run ins I've had with the aforementioned) hete Catholics; they actually follow their religion as opposed to using it for power and personal gain at the expense of others.

Originally posted by Whispering Legs
In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival". The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting what you appear to be suggesting. Please tell me I misunderstood you.

I'm gonna point this out again ...

There is no evidence linking today's events to any group. There is only a semi-anonymous claim from an unlinked to website.

Well. The fact it was multiple bombs kind of suggests it was the Islamic extreamists.

UK types: Has the IRA ever done multiple bombs like that?

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting what you appear to be suggesting. Please tell me I misunderstood you.

I'm trying to make a point.

Given enough terrorist attacks, the people of ANY nation will demand action - especially if the attacks continue on a large scale, and involve primarily civilian targets.

They will demand a particular type of action. And some will propose it.

I'll make a bet with you as an example. Give London ten more attacks like today, with some being on the scale of thousands dead, and the BNP will be ruling the UK by a wide majority.

I'm trying to make a point.

Given enough terrorist attacks, the people of ANY nation will demand action - especially if the attacks continue on a large scale, and involve primarily civilian targets.

They will demand a particular type of action. And some will propose it.

I'll make a bet with you as an example. Give London ten more attacks like today, with some being on the scale of thousands dead, and the BNP will be ruling the UK by a wide majority.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

I agree, but it will require some distasteful acts on our part.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival". The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

No. Have you not listened? What of the Muslims born throughout Europe into Muslim communities? They are Europeans. And anyway, this is possibly the most appaling thing ive ever seen posted on this forum. Should we return thousands of people to the third world simply because of the acts of a few extremists. No.

My .02.

First off my heart goes out the victims and their families.

If only we had a simple solution.

People have said the Muslim community should speak out. Some do and some can't.

Don't forget that Muslim families be they English or American can have relatives back in the Muslim countries. They don't openly speak out for fear of reprisal against those members. The filth we are fighting would not hesitate to attack those people. Especially if a persons words were getting airtime. The Muslims that are my coworkers have family in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Saudi Arabia. We can probably protect my coworkers but we can't protect their extended family members. Would you speak out if you knew your sister, uncle, parents, cousins would probably get killed as a result?

Muslims are involved in the fight. I am no longer in the government, but I still have friends that are. There are many Muslims that have been recruited and help in many areas. Translation, cultural information, and regional info. I would not be surprised if some of the "informational extraction" methods :rolleyes: were gleaned from talking to Muslims.

There will be a counter strike. Probably by the British SAS against something. We will probably not hear about it.

So speaks the arm chair general. ;)

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.

I agree. If Christians started behaving this way, and the church leaders didn't speak out in condemnation of such behavior, the blame would fall squarely on Christianity - as well it should.

I agree. If Christians started behaving this way, and the church leaders didn't speak out in condemnation of such behavior, the blame would fall squarely on Christianity - as well it should.

So it's time to enscribe "Mary" to the M-16s, put a Cross on the cammies and invade Mecca? ;)

Orginally posted by Whispering Legs
<snip>


This is an appaling idea. I can't believe anyone would suggest such a thing. I'm sickened by the very thought of it. :mad:

No. Have you not listened? What of the Muslims born throughout Europe into Muslim communities? They are Europeans. And anyway, this is possibly the most appaling thing ive ever seen posted on this forum. Should we return thousands of people to the third world simply because of the acts of a few extremists. No.

And you can't see why I posted it.

I'm making a point - that on our current path, both parties are leading to this end.

If nothing changes, it will be forced upon us. It would only take a few thousand more dead in a few more incidents in the West to provoke this sort of reaction.

Something like this was already proposed (but not adopted) in the US in the aftermath of 9-11. The BNP is already proposing it - and people vote for the BNP.

How many more attacks, and how many more dead would make the BNP idea popular? Not too many.

I post this as a warning of things to come. I don't want to be correct, but I think I will be.

This is an appaling idea. I can't believe anyone would suggest such a thing. I'm sickened by the very thought of it. :mad:

WL was speaking rhetorically...

If I did misunderstand WL, I apologize.

If I did misunderstand WL, I apologize.

It's ok. I've been trying to Godwin the thread, largely because I believe that this is inevitable.

You may believe it's appalling. Many people may believe so. But if there's enough blood spilled, you and everyone else will not be able to stop themselves.

We've exercised restraint so far, especially in comparison to the enemy. But that won't last.

I'm trying to make a point.

Given enough terrorist attacks, the people of ANY nation will demand action - especially if the attacks continue on a large scale, and involve primarily civilian targets.

They will demand a particular type of action. And some will propose it.

I'll make a bet with you as an example. Give London ten more attacks like today, with some being on the scale of thousands dead, and the BNP will be ruling the UK by a wide majority.

You misjudge the British if that is your opinion. The IRA could not move the political opinion of the British, Al Quaeda will not do so either. The British are fiercely protective of their individual rights, their right to freedom of thought, speech and expression. A very watered down version of the Patriot act was rejected, and this attack will make no difference to that. Don't forget Britain has suffered massicve casualties in war. We will regard this as an enemy act, and set about dealiing with the enemy, not with creating lots of scare stories and restricting the liberties of our people.

My major concern is that the US media is going to try to set the agenda on how we should react, and what they will want is not what we are naturally inclined to do.

You misjudge the British if that is your opinion. The IRA could not move the political opinion of the British, Al Quaeda will not do so either. The British are fiercely protective of their individual rights, their right to freedom of thought, speech and expression. A very watered down version of the Patriot act was rejected, and this attack will make no difference to that. Don't forget Britain has suffered massicve casualties in war. We will regard this as an enemy act, and set about dealiing with the enemy, not with creating lots of scare stories and restricting the liberties of our people.

My major concern is that the US media is going to try to set the agenda on how we should react, and what they will want is not what we are naturally inclined to do.

You need to explain the BNP then. I don't believe that a proposal to restrict the liberties of "only" the Muslims will be objected to. Nor do I believe that any nation is above electing a man who was in trouble for political speech.

The Germans did it. I'm sure the UK could do it. I know the Americans can do it. It's just a matter of time.

Exactly.

Hell, if mainstream Islam as a whole just spoke out against the extremists, it would help to place the blame where it truly belongs...on the extremists.

Until they do, though, a large number of people are going to say that "silence speaks volumes". *shakes head*

ditto...it is very difficult to seperate the 1 from the other,i am very unfamiliar with islam,so i will obviously not lump all muslims into a group.that said,they need to speak out against these atrocities,or it looks like complicity.

i find it impossible to believe any religion would condone murder,or protect those that perpetrate such hideous crimes.obviously the clerics need to,and the muslim community,need to stand up and say they are not going to let there religion be co opted by a small group of evil people.

unfortunately,many ignorant people will lash out at the muslim community for this attack.
after 911 i was pleasantly suprised that most americans did not lash out.some did,but luckily it was a small minority,and when caught,were punished.
i hope the same occurs again :(

You need to explain the BNP then. I don't believe that a proposal to restrict the liberties of "only" the Muslims will be objected to. Nor do I believe that any nation is above electing a man who was in trouble for political speech.

The Germans did it. I'm sure the UK could do it. I know the Americans can do it. It's just a matter of time.

It is hardly necessary to explain a very fringe minority party, that IIRC has only ever won a couple of concil seats in very economicaly depressed areas. We have a freedom of expression tradition that allows for the existence of the BNP. The UK communist party is probably more popular.
Because the Germans did chose a man 'in trouble for his political speech', and the result was so much suffering and hardship for us, is one of the basic reasons why the Brits will not do it.

It is hardly necessary to explain a very fringe minority party, that IIRC has only ever won a couple of concil seats in very economicaly depressed areas. We have a freedom of expression tradition that allows for the existence of the BNP. The UK communist party is probably more popular.
Because the Germans did chose a man 'in trouble for his political speech', and the result was so much suffering and hardship for us, is one of the basic reasons why the Brits will not do it.

I don't believe that the BNP is doing anything other than voicing what the Tories believe in their hearts.

I don't believe that the BNP is doing anything other than voicing what the Tories believe in their hearts.

Oh, I doubt that. The BNP is a working class movement.

I don't believe that the BNP is doing anything other than voicing what the Tories believe in their hearts.

You have a very misguided idea of the two parties then.

Damn those British foods!

You have a very misguided idea of the two parties then.
There is considerable talk amongst Tories that they should jump on the racist bandwagon, instead of doing what they're doing now, pandering to political correctness. Indeed, outside political speculation is that they could absorb all of the BNP constituency with that move, and not lose any current voters.

They don't look very convincing when they pander like that.

Oh, I doubt that. The BNP is a working class movement.

The BNP are also a bunch of loons trying to look credible and failing because of what they call the "Propagandist BBC"

There is considerable talk amongst Tories that they should jump on the racist bandwagon, instead of doing what they're doing now, pandering to political correctness. Indeed, outside political speculation is that they could absorb all of the BNP constituency with that move, and not lose any current voters.

They don't look very convincing when they pander like that.

Shame that the tories current leader is a Polish Jew who the BNP despise

It's ok. I've been trying to Godwin the thread, largely because I believe that this is inevitable.


Quick aside, I've seen you say this before, could you briefly explain what Godwin is?

Shame that the tories current leader is a Polish Jew who the BNP despise

Being racist can be selective. I'm sure that if the Tories were racist towards Arabs and Muslims, it wouldn't drive away any votes as long as other groups were left out of it.

The BNP are fascists, to be sure. But what they really are is people motivated by hate. If another, larger, more effective party can preach some satisfying hate, they'll flock to it.

The BNP thinks this is happenning:
22 February 2005
BNP: TORIES ARE STEALING OUR POLICIES
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
TORY leader Michael Howard was yesterday accused by the neo-Nazi British National Party of "moving in on our turf".

Leader Nick Griffin said the Conservatives hoped to win votes by adopting the BNP's hard-line stance on asylum and immigration.

He feared the BNP's share of the poll would be hit but was delighted the Tories had, he claimed, played the race card in the run-up to the election.

Mr Griffin said: "It's not a problem in our key areas where our vote is holding up or being boosted by them talking about the issue.

"But I quite freely accept that, on a nationwide basis, the Tories will con enough people to make a significant hole in our vote. It is a definite move on to our turf."


And others are suggesting it:
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/18/do1802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/18/ixopinion.html

The BNP are also a bunch of loons trying to look credible and failing because of what they call the "Propagandist BBC"

Yes, well that's true too; but you have to admit that they really find what base they have with the working class, so they are hardly idelogical bedmates with the tories and the countryside alliance.

Yes, well that's true too; but you have to admit that they really find what base they have with the working class, so they are hardly idelogical bedmates with the tories and the countryside alliance.

Oddly, they said the same thing about union workers and the rural people and the rich people here in the US.

Oh, that union workers would always vote Democrat.... never side with the rich, or with Southern bible thumpers who live in rural areas.

It happened. Hate is a good uniter.

Yes, well that's true too; but you have to admit that they really find what base they have with the working class, so they are hardly idelogical bedmates with the tories and the countryside alliance.

agreed I just dont see it long term as they ony really agree on 3 things, hating Europe, hating Blair and hating Aslum seekers

agreed I just dont see it long term as they ony really agree on 3 things, hating Europe, hating Blair and hating Aslum seekers

They could do it long enough.

Catholics are Christians too.

I don't hate Catholics... and I don't know any other Protestant Christian who does.

Many rabid fundementalists consider catholics to be hell bound idol worshipers and the Pope to be the Anti-Christ.

I agree, but it will require some distasteful acts on our part.

In any real respect, we're talking about the expulsion of the Islamic people from every sphere of life of the West and the expulsion of the Islamic people from the living space of the West. Measures to date should be discussed and the concept of the 'deportation' of the Islamic people to the East should be introduced - for appropriate labour... in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The final remnant will have to be treated accordingly, because it would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Islamic revival". The number of Muslims in Europe should be immediately enumerated and the methods of evacuation should be considered with regard to age and country of origin.

<watches the masterful satire fly over many a head . . .>

Following the attacks upon London, I feel the need to urge everyone not to blame Islam for it. Muslims are, in general, decent and tolerant people, just like everybody else. We must not go off with a "crusading" attitude against Islam in general in revenge for the actions of a few individuals. Also, we must maintain order here in Britain and stand together with the Muslim community in condemning this attrocity, and avoid racial conflict within our own communities. What do you think? Please keep it pleasant.
Sorry for showing up late, but I just have to weigh in.

I'm getting sick and tired of making excuses for these people. We say the exact same thing every goddamn time it happens, and the problem is--surprise surprise--getting worse. I don't see any other demographic so actively engaged in terrorism like this. Say what you will about interventionist policies--I'm tired of those too, but nothing justifies the shit these people are starting, and the damage they insist on causing. I see some merit in their cause, but their methods are inexcusable, and something needs to be done about it.

Oddly, they said the same thing about union workers and the rural people and the rich people here in the US.

Oh, that union workers would always vote Democrat.... never side with the rich, or with Southern bible thumpers who live in rural areas.

It happened. Hate is a good uniter.

Yes, but US politics is very different. There is at least one ex-klansman in the senate.

Also I think the southern swing to the republican party is more about gun control than anything else.

It's ok. I've been trying to Godwin the thread, largely because I believe that this is inevitable.

You may believe it's appalling. Many people may believe so. But if there's enough blood spilled, you and everyone else will not be able to stop themselves.

We've exercised restraint so far, especially in comparison to the enemy. But that won't last.

I'll be able to stop myself, and once I arm myself I'll be able to stop lots of other people too. :sniper:

Yes, but US politics is very different. There is at least one ex-klansman in the senate.

Also I think the southern swing to the republican party is more about gun control than anything else.

The best part is that the Klansman is a long time member of the Democratic Party.

The swing of labor union members is also about gun control. It's the other third rail of American politics. Despite that, Democrats thought that no union member would vote against them - because they had so many other issues in common. But it happened.

I believe that with enough attacks, and some changes by the Tories, which they seem to be thinking about silently, it could happen.

The Tories also don't have the stigma of being official fascists.

Sorry for showing up late, but I just have to weigh in.

I'm getting sick and tired of making excuses for these people. We say the exact same thing every goddamn time it happens, and the problem is--surprise surprise--getting worse. I don't see any other demographic so actively engaged in terrorism like this. Say what you will about interventionist policies--I'm tired of those too, but nothing justifies the shit these people are starting, and the damage they insist on causing. I see some merit in their cause, but their methods are inexcusable, and something needs to be done about it.
Granted...but good God...what do you want moderate, non-terrorist Muslims to do? Change faiths? Bleach their skin so they don't get identified as 'Arab'? How can we blame people who happen to be of the same religious or ethnic background as these other nutjobs? Imagine how they feel every single time something like this happens...scared they'll become targets as people lash out. Frankly, were I one of them, I'd be pretty friggin' paranoid too.

Many rabid fundementalists consider catholics to be hell bound idol worshipers and the Pope to be the Anti-Christ.

I met one in NYC that tried to get me to go to the Jerry Falwell Crusade. I love putting those folks into paradoxes...

She: So we worship the same God, and while the Pope is a great spiritual leader, you should come hear the words of Mr. Falwell, whom also is.
Me: Ah, but the Pope is infallible in matters of dogma.
She: Why?
Me: He's chosen by God.
She: But anybody can be chosen by God!
Me: True. And maybe Mr. Falwell is. But I *know* the Pope is, as he has been for 2000 years in an unbroken line going back to Saint Peter. "Upon this rock do I lay my Church." Remember?
(Mark conveniently not mentioning the Avignon Popes...)
She: Um... er... okay...
Me: So you see, I'm already covered. But I do recommend you coming to Saint Patricks. It's just down the block, and there's a 5PM service.
She: Ah... thanks... You've given me a lot to think about!
(walks away... slowly... confused.)

I go back to my Roast Beef sandwich...

I met one in NYC that tried to get me to go to the Jerry Falwell Crusade. I love putting those folks into paradoxes...

She: So we worship the same God, and while the Pope is a great spiritual leader, you should come hear the words of Mr. Falwell, whom also is.
Me: Ah, but the Pope is infallible in matters of dogma.
She: Why?
Me: He's chosen by God.
She: But anybody can be chosen by God!
Me: True. And maybe Mr. Falwell is. But I *know* the Pope is, as he has been for 2000 years in an unbroken line going back to Saint Peter. "Upon this rock do I lay my Church." Remember?
(Mark conveniently not mentioning the Avignon Popes...)
She: Um... er... okay...
Me: So you see, I'm already covered. But I do recommend you coming to Saint Patricks. It's just down the block, and there's a 5PM service.
She: Ah... thanks... You've given me a lot to think about!
(walks away... slowly... confused.)

I go back to my Roast Beef sandwich...

It's even more fun when you are Discordian, and thus are a Pope yourself. Plus you never run out of confusing things to say.

[/threadjack] :p

I'm getting sick and tired of making excuses for these people. We say the exact same thing every goddamn time it happens, and the problem is--surprise surprise--getting worse. I don't see any other demographic so actively engaged in terrorism like this. Say what you will about interventionist policies--I'm tired of those too, but nothing justifies the shit these people are starting, and the damage they insist on causing. I see some merit in their cause, but their methods are inexcusable, and something needs to be done about it.

Agreed. It seems like long before calls for justice for the victims go out we've got the police and the politicians wringing their hands and going "It's not Islam's fault! Islam is great, oh God no don't blame Islam!".

Well screw that. Not every Nazi killed Jews, that dosen't mean the ideology wasn't bullshit. Islam was a terrible idea at the time and it's barbaric and outdated now. "Moderate" muslims are just people who don't really follow the creed properly. There's a reason why they're called "fundamentalists", people. It's because they go by the fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a religion are violent bullshit (those who bother to actually read through a qua'ran before they start defending it know jihad is the founding Pillar of Islam) then the religion as a whole has a lot to answer for. The Catholic Church gets a lot of flak because a few of its members get up to no good, so why are excuses made all the time for the leaders of the Dar'al Islam?

This is Sauron, by the way.

The best part is that the Klansman is a long time member of the Democratic Party.

The swing of labor union members is also about gun control. It's the other third rail of American politics. Despite that, Democrats thought that no union member would vote against them - because they had so many other issues in common. But it happened.

I believe that with enough attacks, and some changes by the Tories, which they seem to be thinking about silently, it could happen.

The Tories also don't have the stigma of being official fascists.

When, if as I suspect, is the case, people find out that a sizeable percentage of the people who did this to London turn out to be British Citizens who reside in Britian (and probably in some cases were born there), I have no doubt that there is going to be a considerable backlash societally:. I don't doubt that. Certainly immigration reform is on the cards, and I imagine that mosques and islamic groups - which have traditionally got a free ride in the UK despite their behaviour - will increasingly be monitored far more closely at the very least.

But I don't see the tories becoming the next BNP and expelling all immigrants and mandating the practices of british culture. I imagine any backlash that occurs will be on the same scale as immigration reform in the early 80s, when thatcher took the wind out of the national front's sails. Moreover it could either be Labour or the Conservatives who pass the legislation.

The best part is that the Klansman is a long time member of the Democratic Party.

The swing of labor union members is also about gun control. It's the other third rail of American politics. Despite that, Democrats thought that no union member would vote against them - because they had so many other issues in common. But it happened.

Hah, you mean Robert "Sheets" Byrd?

I agree that gun control is another "third rail". Gore lost a lot of union votes, especially mining unions like coal, because of his anti-gun stance.

Granted...but good God...what do you want moderate, non-terrorist Muslims to do? Change faiths? Bleach their skin so they don't get identified as 'Arab'? How can we blame people who happen to be of the same religious or ethnic background as these other nutjobs? Imagine how they feel every single time something like this happens...scared they'll become targets as people lash out. Frankly, were I one of them, I'd be pretty friggin' paranoid too.

Who says these "nutjobs" don't have a lot of popular support? This is the other thing governments keep trying to peddle: that every muslim who isn't a suicide bomber is as appalled as us at their actions. Well frankly I doubt it. Look how many people were dancing in the street after September 11th in Palestine. And how many more do you suppose were less openly celebrating, or at least quietly pleased? I know at least one muslim at my old school (and there weren't too many in my year) that, the day after September 11th, said that he thought it was good, because "it was all the white cunts like you who died". And he wasn't even a proper muslim, he didn't do the daily prayers at inconvenient moments or abstain from booze or anything.

And why is it them we're always having to be careful not to make paranoid?! It's us that have been and are the targets of terrorism, not them. This "blame the victim" double standard shit is just getting absurd.

Islam breeds hate. Unfortunately for us one of the specific things it breeds hate for is the West.

Who says these "nutjobs" don't have a lot of popular support? This is the other thing governments keep trying to peddle: that every muslim who isn't a suicide bomber is as appalled as us at their actions. Well frankly I doubt it. Look how many people were dancing in the street after September 11th in Palestine. And how many more do you suppose were less openly celebrating, or at least quietly pleased? I know at least one muslim at my old school (and there weren't too many in my year) that, the day after September 11th, said that he thought it was good, because "it was all the white cunts like you who died". And he wasn't even a proper muslim, he didn't do the daily prayers at inconvenient moments or abstain from booze or anything.


Islam breeds hate. Unfortunately for us one of the specific things it breeds hate for is the West.

Whatever. Clearly you've convinced yourself, and feel justified in thinking every Muslim is probably a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.

Just one question though...does Catholicism breed pedophilia? Because it sure seems rife with it. I guess all Catholics secretly support it, because I only hear a few of them openly decrying it. [/rhetorical, sarcastic]

And why is it them we're always having to be careful not to make paranoid?!

Not THEM. Reminding the OTHER nutjobs out there that not all Muslims are terrorists is an attempt on the government's part to stop 'vigilante justice'...but Muslims STILL know they are going to be targets in lieu of the actual terrorists. They are RIGHTFULLY paranoid that such attacks are going to cause people to come after THEM.

copy from another thread, my last 2 cents.

Let me just sum up my point here and leave it at that:

1) The West is not, nor has ever been perfect. We can not judge Islam and practices of Muslims on moral grounds alone, with the idea that we are somehow 'better'. We have GOTTEN better, we are WORKING on improving, but there is no underlying, innate moral superiority at work here.

2) Fundamentalist Islamists have twisted their religion the same way ANY fundamentalist will. Unfortunately, in many Muslim nations, there is no separation of church and state, and so these fundamentalist factions have very real political power to further their aims. Muslims all around the world oppose this, and Muslims all around the world decry this. Do not judge Islam, or the practitioners of this faith by the political/religious schemings of those who currently hold power.

3) Rather than blaming and hating Islam, support MODERATE Muslims in their attempt to wrest power away from fundamentalists.

Whatever. Clearly you've convinced yourself, and feel justified in thinking every Muslim is probably a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.

Just one question though...does Catholicism breed pedophilia? Because it sure seems rife with it. I guess all Catholics secretly support it, because I only hear a few of them openly decrying it. [/rhetorical, sarcastic]

This is something I've touched in some other posts. It's okay to slag off the Catholics, but never the Muslims. Tell me, would you even consider reversing that point and saying in a thread about "Paedophile Priests" that Islam was "rife" with terrorism? I somehow doubt it. As for this crap:

but Muslims STILL know they are going to be targets in lieu of the actual terrorists. They are RIGHTFULLY paranoid that such attacks are going to cause people to come after THEM.

Do you have anything at all to back that up? We've had a lot of incidents of people of Arab or Asiatic ethnicity, often aslyum seekers, garroting, beating to death and torching or otherwise assaulting white people and getting infuriatingly lenient sentences since Spetember 11th in Britain (none of these events getting much in the way of media coverage), but not a single instance of whites going down to Bradford to dish out "vigilante justice". I believe I can think of one incident in 2001 where someone set a paper bag on fire and stuck through in the door of a mosque to zero effect, but that's it.

Everyone who's looked at the figures knows that incidents of Muslim-on-White crimes far outweigh both numerically and in terms of severity the incidents of White-on-Muslim crime.

And yet there seems to be an almost excessive level of legislation being introduced to protect them. Well I'm sorry if it's not politically correct to say so, but even if the majority of the muslim population isn't a threat (and I don't think they are, I know and work with several) there is definitely a lot of shady business going on that the police needs to deal with. Without having the words "institutional racism" hamstringing their investigations every second day.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of paedophilia, Mohammed's wife was fourteen. He was old enough to be the girl's grandfather.

Fundamentalist Islamists have twisted their religion the same way ANY fundamentalist will. Unfortunately, in many Muslim nations, there is no separation of church and state, and so these fundamentalist factions have very real political power to further their aims. Muslims all around the world oppose this, and Muslims all around the world decry this. Do not judge Islam, or the practitioners of this faith by the political/religious schemings of those who currently hold power.

A fundamentalist, by their very definition, holds to something's fundamentals. How can they be said to be "twisting" Islam by going by its fundamental principles? Let's not forget that Islam was a faith brought into being at the point of a sword--Mohammed was thrown out of Mecca for being a dangerous iconclast, raised an army in Medina and came back and subdued the city by force. Jihad is one of the Pillars of Islam.

It was a faith spread by soldiers, not preachers. That's the truth of it. Are you seriously telling me you can't draw some negative connotations from that?

It was a faith spread by soldiers, not preachers. That's the truth of it. Are you seriously telling me you can't draw some negative connotations from that?


<thinks back to the Conquistadors . . .>

<thinks back to the Conquistadors . . .>

And there it is again. You can point of Christianity's historical flaws and that's cool, but pointing out Islam's historical flaws is somehow racist.

Well whatever. Personally I'm not in the business of defending any of the three religions based on the scriptures--the Talmud is bullshit and thus anything added onto it (New Testament, Mohammed's scribblings...) is just more bullshit.

Islam, however, seems to be the worst of a bad bunch, as it has toned down the least over the centuries. Sure you get some pretty shady characters down in the Bible Belt, but you don't get the Inquisition burning you at the stake any more. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has religious police that within the last decade forced a bunch of children at a girls' school back into a burning building for being improperly dressed. I don't think that's the same as being intractable about teaching the theory of evolution in schools, personally.

And there it is again. You can point of Christianity's historical flaws and that's cool, but pointing out Islam's historical flaws is somehow racist.

Actualy, what I was saying is "Pot, meet Kettle. I think you have something in common . . ."

This is something I've touched in some other posts. It's okay to slag off the Catholics, but never the Muslims. Tell me, would you even consider reversing that point and saying in a thread about "Paedophile Priests" that Islam was "rife" with terrorism? I somehow doubt it. As for this crap:
*sigh*

Apparently the sarcasm tag wasn't enough. I was making that blatantly discriminatory statement to point out how bad it sounds when we're not talking about blaming all Muslims for terrorism. The irony is lost...

And as far as im concerned the Terrorists who were behind the attacks are beneath my contempt, the whole philosophy that "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" is big pile of horse sh*t. A freedom fighter does not murder, rape, steal and enslave the people he claims to defend, nor does he hide in the homes of civilians, using families as shields, asuming that by doing so we wont use the necessary methods to exterminate them. Did Benedict Arnold burn canada to the ground when he invaded? did Washington revenge his defeat at New York by burning it to the ground and hanging the inhabitants? no! as they were freedom fighters, not terrorist filth who cant win fair as the majority dont support them, so they have to commit atrocities. I have nothing but contempt for the vermin who attacked London, we Brits have defeated the greatest tyrants of history from the Spannish Armada which wanted to exterminate us, to Adolf Hitlers Nazis who wanted to enslave us, all i say to them is bring it on as we'll never surrender, no matter what the cost in both financial and human life, all it will do is unite us, like the Blitz did 70 years ago and jutify our cause.
(sorry for my rant, and the large amount of flag waving and patriotic retoric, i had to get it of my chest).

A fundamentalist, by their very definition, holds to something's fundamentals. How can they be said to be "twisting" Islam by going by its fundamental principles?
I was SO hoping you'd try this argument.

I am using 'fundamentalism' in the sense that most people now use it. To mean religious extremism. Such as these Christian fundamentalists:

Jerry Falwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell)
Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps)

However, fundamentalism as a movement is not militant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Islam), or individual, radical sects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism). So, we are talking about different terms here. If you want to use the term fundamentalist, use it the SAME way you would when speaking of Christians, or Muslims.

Christian fundamentalists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity) andIslamic fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) do not use terror as a means to get what they want. RADICALS ON BOTH (http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/) SIDES (http://911digitalarchive.org/) DO.

So chose which version of fundamentalist you plan on using.

Actualy, what I was saying is "Pot, meet Kettle. I think you have something in common . . ."

What, because I'm a Catholic Spaniard? I had nothing to do with the conquistadors and neither does my (non-existant) faith. So what you say holds no water.

I was making that blatantly discriminatory statement to point out how bad it sounds when we're not talking about blaming all Muslims for terrorism. The irony is lost...

Don't flatter yourself, that barely even approaches "irony". What you were doing was saying "Yeah, well, I could say this about this other thing." But apparently you don't think that all Catholics are paedophiles, so your point is meaningless.

My point point that Islam breeds a disproportionate number of terrorists (demographic fact) on the other hand, still stands.

Actualy, what I was saying is "Pot, meet Kettle. I think you have something in common . . ."
Yes...and where did any of us call him a racist I wonder? Sounds like a case of 'poor me syndrome'. Everyone picks on 'us' so we should get to pick on 'them', and if anyone ever points out that this is hypocrisy, fall back on saying 'poor me, poor me!'

What, because I'm a Catholic Spaniard? I had nothing to do with the conquistadors and neither does my (non-existant) faith. So what you say holds no water. Missing the point deliberately are we? You said Jihad is a pillar of the Muslim faith. Here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), educate yourself. Jihad is much more complex that you seem to realise. It is not eternal, hateful war against all and every infidel, else Islam would have been using terror to try to kill us all for centuries. This new brand of fanaticism has roots in Wahhibism, and political agendas. EVERYONE can misinterpret, twist, and use a religion for their own means.

And as for the Crusades ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade), well they were sanctioned by the Church as holy wars too. You say, oh, but that happened in the past, who cares? Yet you feel free to discuss Islam in historical terms, speaking of its roots and how they impact the present. Do the same with Christianity.



Don't flatter yourself, that barely even approaches "irony".. Funny. Only you fail to see it.

What, because I'm a Catholic Spaniard? I had nothing to do with the conquistadors and neither does my (non-existant) faith. So what you say holds no water.

Way to compleatly ignore my point. You stated that Islam is a religion that was spread by soldiers not preachers, I simply pointed out that Christianity has also been spread by soldiers.

Agreed. Love and Peace. :fluffle: All trees have the same root; let the spirit blossom in a billion billion petals.

I was SO hoping you'd try this argument.

Kinda sad. Setting traps?

I am using 'fundamentalism' in the sense that most people now use it. To mean religious extremism.

Oh! So you didn’t actually mean what you said! Clearly it is my fault for taking your statement as it was written. I am defeated.

I hope I don’t need to add those stupid overused [/whatever] tags to better illuminate my sarcasm.


Yes...and where did any of us call him a racist I wonder?

[…some bullshit…more bullshit…]

'poor me, poor me!'

Yes. Because I’ve said that you called me a racist. That happened. No, for real.

…Okay, so that’s not true. You’re a liar. A liar talking crap.

Missing the point deliberately are we? You said Jihad is a pillar of the Muslim faith. Here, educate yourself.

LOL. Wikipedia? Tell you what, you educate your self, and pick up a qua’ran from a mosque somewhere. I got mine from one (official Saudi Arabian job), and it’s full of the types of passage (you want me to type them up? Because I will) I’ve been talking about and contradictions of your little Google search online encyclopedia entry.

And as for the Crusades, well they were sanctioned by the Church as holy wars too. You say, oh, but that happened in the past, who cares?

I say that? Really? Where? You’re attacking a straw man, Sinuhue. And you’re losing.

Oh, and about the Crusades: they were launched after the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the Vatican to canvas support for him among European nations to save Constantinople (greatest Christian city in the world and bulwark against the East) from the marauding Muslim armies that had been laying siege to it and invading his empire. In fact the reason they (the Crusades) were ultimately a failure is because they were reactionary.

Read some literature on the subject and stop pulling this wiki crap out of your backside.

you feel free to discuss Islam in historical terms, speaking of its roots and how they impact the present. Do the same with Christianity.

Why? No, seriously, why? Christian terrorism isn’t what’s being discussed and regardless, I’m not a Christian. I’ve rejected that ideology, same as I’ve rejected Islam. It’s okay that Islam did this or that thing because LOOK! Christianity also did a bad thing! Whatever. Why should I, not being a Christian, give a shit about what the Christians did? You’d be as well to point out the evils that resulted from Shinto and Emperor-worship in Japan to me, because they’ve got about the same relevance to my own belief system.

Besides, does any of this detract from the severity of what the Muslims did? No.

Way to compleatly ignore my point. You stated that Islam is a religion that was spread by soldiers not preachers, I simply pointed out that Christianity has also been spread by soldiers.

No, what you did was accuse me of being the pot to Mohammed’s kettle. Which would be fine and dandy if I was a Christian (“Your faith was FOUNDED by oppressive conquerors!” “Yeah, well yours did some similar stuff after it was founded.”) but I’m not and it isn’t. You have no point. In this instance you are, in fact, pointless.

No, what you did was accuse me of being the pot to Mohammed’s kettle.

No, I accused Christianity of being the pot to Islam's kettle. Neither you nor Mohammed entered into it.

Oh! So you didn’t actually mean what you said! Clearly it is my fault for taking your statement as it was written. I am defeated.
No, it is your fault for deliberately using a different definition of 'fundamentalism' than the one commonly used to mean 'religious fantatic'.






Yes. Because I’ve said that you called me a racist. That happened. No, for real.

…Okay, so that’s not true. You’re a liar. A liar talking crap. Again...nice hypocrisy. I'm a liar? How about you prove I called you a racist.




LOL. Wikipedia? Tell you what, you educate your self, and pick up a qua’ran from a mosque somewhere. I got mine from one (official Saudi Arabian job), and it’s full of the types of passage (you want me to type them up? Because I will) I’ve been talking about and contradictions of your little Google search online encyclopedia entry. And one could pick up the Bible and use all sorts of passages to justify cruelty to other humans. Do you read that little book literally too? (Yeah, I get you're not Christian...just pointing out that these writings can be interpreted and ARE interpreted in many ways. Do you deny this?)




I say that? Really? Where? You’re attacking a straw man, Sinuhue. And you’re losing. Straw man? So you DIDN'T say (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9209449&postcount=115) but you don't get the Inquisition burning you at the stake any more.

That seems to make my statement true, doesn't it? And as for the Crusades, well they were sanctioned by the Church as holy wars too. You say, oh, but that happened in the past, who cares?

Oh, and about the Crusades: they were launched after the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the Vatican to canvas support for him among European nations to save Constantinople (greatest Christian city in the world and bulwark against the East) from the marauding Muslim armies that had been laying siege to it and invading his empire. In fact the reason they (the Crusades) were ultimately a failure is because they were reactionary. Yes. They were fundamentalists, in the way we use that term now. Much as the current mess of Muslim terrorists are. So...your point is....?

Read some literature on the subject and stop pulling this wiki crap out of your backside. Way to go! You can flame!



Why? No, seriously, why? Christian terrorism isn’t what’s being discussed and regardless, I’m not a Christian. I’ve rejected that ideology, same as I’ve rejected Islam. It’s okay that Islam did this or that thing because LOOK! Christianity also did a bad thing! Whatever. Why should I, not being a Christian, give a shit about what the Christians did? You’d be as well to point out the evils that resulted from Shinto and Emperor-worship in Japan to me, because they’ve got about the same relevance to my own belief system.

Besides, does any of this detract from the severity of what the Muslims did? No.
You have said that the Muslim faith, in and of itself breeds hatred. I am trying to show you that NO religion in and of itself breeds hatred. Religion is neutral. Those that USE it use it for their own ends. ALL religions have been used for good, and bad...but the religion itself is not at fault, and those that practice it are not automatically full of hate for the west. Get the difference? THIS is why we should not be blaming all Muslims for terrorists, and this is why our governments remind people of this fact....so that vigilantes don't go out and take out their fear and anger on people who are NOT the perpetrators of these crimes.

Listen. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. So that we don't endlessly quote one another and go around the same issue, I'll just ask you one question to clarify your position.

1) Do you think all Muslims hate the West, and support terrorism?

No, I accused Christianity of being the pot to Islam's kettle. Neither you nor Mohammed entered into it.

Really. Let's examine the evidence:

It was a faith spread by soldiers, not preachers. That's the truth of it. Are you seriously telling me you can't draw some negative connotations from that?<thinks back to the Conquistadors . . .>

Okay, here we see you rather irrelevantly observing that whilst Mohammed forced Islam onto the Middle East at swordpoint, Catholic conquistadors did much the same thing (if less violently) for their religion in South America.

I could point out that the conquistadors doing this in the name of Christianity is not the same as Jesus doing it in founding Christianity in the first place (which was the case with Islam and the Prophet), but that isn't really the point and regardless it's true that both crimes came about as a result of those religions.

Still, I felt you were due a rebuttal.

And there it is again. You can point of Christianity's historical flaws and that's cool, but pointing out Islam's historical flaws is somehow racist.Actualy, what I was saying is "Pot, meet Kettle. I think you have something in common . . .

Here we see you directly aiming the "pot - kettle" thing at me. Who else could it possibly be aimed at? I say Islam was founded by oppressors, you say Christianity was spread by oppressors to confound me. Now what would be the point of your post if not to point out that I was being a hypocrite?

I found this irritating--I'm not a Christian and therefore I wasn't being a hypocrite. Christianity didn't even come into it. I was not a pot (Christian) calling a kettle (Islam) black (a bad idea and spread by militants), because I'm not a pot.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Stop wriggling.

Listen. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. So that we don't endlessly quote one another and go around the same issue, I'll just ask you one question to clarify your position.

1) Do you think all Muslims hate the West, and support terrorism?

Obviously not. What kind've absurd generalisation would that be?

What I do think is that Islam is poor as an ideology, and because its leaders have not modernised as the other (though equally useless) faiths have (on the whole) it seems to be breeding a disproportionate number of the world's terrorists. I think this is a problem which needs to be addressed, and that Islam should be more open to criticism from non-Muslims than it is at present without the critic having to fear for their life or their livelihood (the Dutch film-maker murdered for making a documentary about Muslim oppression of women, politicians losing jobs for not being "PC"...).

Demographics are on my side.

Really. Let's examine the evidence:



Okay, here we see you rather irrelevantly observing that whilst Mohammed forced Islam onto the Middle East at swordpoint, Catholic conquistadors did much the same thing (if less violently) for their religion in South America.
Huh? The Conquests were in South America? Wow. I missed that one!

Okay, here we see you rather irrelevantly observing that whilst Mohammed forced Islam onto the Middle East at swordpoint, Catholic conquistadors did much the same thing (if less violently) for their religion in South America. Huh? The Conquests were in South America? Wow. I missed that one!

Don't feel bad, it happened centuries ago. Chances are neither you nor your immediate family were around for it.

On a less smart-ass note: yes, the conquistadors' adventures did indeed take place in South America. Pay attention.

Really. Let's examine the evidence:



Okay, here we see you rather irrelevantly observing that whilst Mohammed forced Islam onto the Middle East at swordpoint, Catholic conquistadors did much the same thing (if less violently) for their religion in South America.
I could point out that the conquistadors doing this in the name of Christianity is not the same as Jesus doing it in founding Christianity in the first place (which was the case with Islam and the Prophet), but that isn't really the point and regardless it's true that both crimes came about as a result of those religions.


Here we see you directly aiming the "pot - kettle" thing at me.
Interesting theory, except for the fact that I wasn't.

Who else could it possibly be aimed at?

Islam and Christianity, as I have previously stated.

I say Islam was founded by oppressors,

You said spread by, not founded by.

you say Christianity was spread by oppressors to confound me.

I said that Christianity was spread by oppressors because . . .

1: It was.

B: The fact that it was spread by oppressors was your argument against Islam.

1: It was.

B: The fact that it was spread by oppressors was your argument against Islam.

do you not know your numbers?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of paedophilia, Mohammed's wife was fourteen. He was old enough to be the girl's grandfather.

actually his first wife was forty

Christianity, Jew's, Islam.. its all damn garbage spewed out thousands of years ago that in conflict with one another is keeping the human race stuck here.

RELIGION breeds fear
RELIGION breeds anger
RELIGION breeds war
RELIGION, ALL RELIGION is the cause of 95 percent of all problems on this earth, whether it be Christian, Islam, Jewish or fricking Satanism!

even if Islam was wiped out tomorrow, Christianity would still be here, and it would make bugger all difference (Catholics VS Protestants anyone?)

Here we see you directly aiming the "pot - kettle" thing at me.

Interesting theory, except for the fact that I wasn't.

-BZZT!- Wrong. You were. If I say something about a given group and then you suggest that I shouldn't because my group did the same thing, then it is directed at me. Chrsitanity did not coalesce into a single, NS General-posting entity and say that Islam was spread and/or founded by conquerors for you to call it a pot calling a kettle black. Do you not know how the phrase you are using works?

You said spread by, not founded by.

I was referring to Islam's founding. Be a bit more thorough. In any case, this is just nitpicking semantics.


1: It was.

B: The fact that it was spread by oppressors was your argument against Islam.

For me, this is where you stop being someone worth paying attention to. B does not follow one. 2 follows one. A preceeds B. At no point in the series does the alphabet decide to go crazy and start "mixin' it up" with numbers.

And it wasn't my "argument against Islam". Check again.

even if Islam was wiped out tomorrow, Christianity would still be here, and it would make bugger all difference (Catholics VS Protestants anyone?)

Yeah, true, I saw some Protestant priests burning an unrepentant Catholic just the other day.

It would make a massive difference. You're not taking into account scale. Yes, all three are bullshit, but Islam has toned down the least and is causing the lion's share of the modern world's religion-based problems.

Well, yes, I do recognise that we shouldn't blame all Islam for this; but nonetheless, I do agree that it is imperative that Islam does something very visible to counter these sort of extremists. If Islam is not able to redeem its reputation, by vigorously working to root out these people as far as possible, then Islam will be facing a major backlash in this country ans elsewhere within the next 20-30 years. People simply will not trust Islam or Muslims. Sure, the Mosque down the road may not recruit for $MuslimTerrorGroup, but have they done anything against them?

Yeah, true, I saw some Protestant priests burning an unrepentant Catholic just the other day.

It would make a massive difference. You're not taking into account scale. Yes, all three are bullshit, but Islam has toned down the least and is causing the lion's share of the modern world's religion-based problems.

It has toned down for the current period yes, but you can not just ignore history, Christianity has the HIGHEST by any scale of atrocities and massacres in human history.

Islam is worse currently, but my point is, ALL religion causes these freaking problems. Only when all people finally step out of the dark ages will we all begin to work together and realise we are ALL bloody human and on this same giant sphere called Earth!

No, it is your fault for deliberately using a different definition of 'fundamentalism' than the one commonly used to mean 'religious fantatic'.

A religious fanatic being one who follows their religion fanatically? One who follows its fundamentals fanatically? Is that what you're saying?

Next.

Yes. Because I’ve said that you called me a racist. That happened. No, for real.

…Okay, so that’s not true. You’re a liar. A liar talking crap.

Again...nice hypocrisy. I'm a liar? How about you prove I called you a racist.

Oh my God. You can't be that stupid. You can't.

What I am saying there, Sinuhue, is that I never said you called me a racist and complained about it.

You astound me. You really do.

And one could pick up the Bible and use all sorts of passages to justify cruelty to other humans. Do you read that little book literally too? (Yeah, I get you're not Christian...just pointing out that these writings can be interpreted and ARE interpreted in many ways. Do you deny this?)

If I'm not a Christian then what the hell is the point of saying that the Bible is full of the same stuff as the Qua'ran?!? Look, seriously, I don't agree with the teaching of the Bible. Turning people into salt, that business with poor 'ole Job and forsaking your son--I don't agree with that. I think it's bullshit. However, you don't get Crusades or the Inquisition or anything any more. Christians did not just murder a bunch of people in London and are thus not the subject of debate.

And the Qua'ran is far more blatantly militant than the other two religions, in any case. It's the worst of the lot.

Straw man? So you DIDN'T say

I said that. I didn't say that they happened in the past, who cares. You made that part, the part you rebutted, up. Therefore you were attacking (in the form of a post you made up) a straw man.

but you don't get the Inquisition burning you at the stake any more.

That seems to make my statement true, doesn't it?

No. It dosen't. I'm actually at a loss as to what statment you could possibly be referring to, too. Just what half-off-the-rails train of thought is chundering its way through your head, Sinuhue?

Yes. They were fundamentalists, in the way we use that term now. Much as the current mess of Muslim terrorists are. So...your point is....?

My point is that the Crusaders were originally Crusading to save the Byzantines from Muslim conquest. Kinda like the British and Americans landing at Normandy to liberate France from the Germans. Not the same as jihad.

Way to go! You can flame!

Way to go! You can't study the content of the posts!

You have said that the Muslim faith, in and of itself breeds hatred. I am trying to show you that NO religion in and of itself breeds hatred.

No religion breeds hatred? Are you trying to say that saying that those who fight for Allah will be rewarded with "victory and booty" and that Allah, the supreme being whom you must worship, will send unbelievers to Hell (realm of eternal torment) isn't breeding any sort of hatred? Why would Allah send someone to Hell if they weren't worthy of hate? Why did Mohammed urge the caliphs to spread Islam through war if he didn't think the pagans were beneath him and deserving of retribution and/or forcible conversion?

Religion is neutral.

Switzerland is neutral. Religion? Religion isn't neutral. Religion is generally pro-those who follow it and anti-those who are against it. If God didn't care either way, there would be no point.

Those that USE it use it for their own ends. ALL religions have been used for good, and bad...but the religion itself is not at fault,

Satanism? Voodoo? Emperor-worship? That Aztec business of hacking up virgins on top of pyramids? Various other religions established to the sole purpose of causing destruction or exerting control?

THIS is why we should not be blaming all Muslims for terrorists,

I don't blame all Muslims, but I do blame the ideology that is Islam for Islamic terrorism. Funnily enough.

Satanism? Voodoo? Emperor-worship? That Aztec business of hacking up virgins on top of pyramids? Various other religions established to the sole purpose of causing destruction or exerting control?


So, do you actualy KNOW anything about Satanism or Voodoo?

...but Islam has toned down the least and is causing the lion's share of the modern world's religion-based problems.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm


You can see here that a vast majority of the world's religious conflicts involve Islam.

Religion of Peace? Not even close.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm


You can see here that a vast majority of the world's religious conflicts involve Islam.

Religion of Peace? Not even close.

Person of bigotry on the other hand . . .

So, do you actualy KNOW anything about Satanism or Voodoo?

Heh heh, finally found something you actually have an answer for, eh? Do you have some knowledge of how Devil-worship and the practices of Witch-doctors are actually well intentioned or something?

I have a fairly decent general knowledge of them.

Off the top of my head; I know what a combination of Voodoo and Satanism did in Haiti. I know that for centuries Witch-doctors pulled the wool over the eyes of their patients and intimidated and inspired fear. True, most Satanists are just stupid middle-class teenagers, but at the same time I don't think that a desire to bring about the Apocalypse is a good thing generally, whether you're a character from Rosemary's Baby or just a quasi-Goth wannabe.

But hey, I guess there's a case to be made for Satan. I'm grateful to the 'ole boy for turning us onto the Tree of Knowledge (ignorance isn't the type of bliss I'm after), to be sure.

If me saying that a majority of the world's religious conflicts involve Muslims, which is true, and then implying that a religion that has much more violent conflict than others is NOT peaceful, which makes sense, makes me a bigot... then so be it.

I guess that "2 + 2 = 4" is also a bigoted statement.

Person of bigotry on the other hand . . .

Yeah, I like how you totally fail to address the issues raised by Valosia and don't even check out the link.

Baa. Baa.

Heh heh, finally found something you actually have an answer for, eh? Do you have some knowledge of how Devil-worship and the practices of Witch-doctors are actually well intentioned or something?

I have a fairly decent general knowledge of them.


Aparently not judging from the following.

Of the top of my head; I know what a combination of Voodoo and Satanism did in Haiti. I know that for centuries Witch-doctors pulled the wool over the eyes of their patients and intimidated and inspired fear. True, most Satanists are just stupid middle-class teenagers, but at the same time I don't think that a desire to bring about the Apocalypse is a good thing generally, whether you're a character from Rosemary's Baby or just a quasi-Goth wannabe.

But hey, I guess there's a case to be made for Satan. I'm grateful to the 'ole boy for turning us onto the Tree of Knowledge (ignorance isn't the type of bliss I'm after), to be sure.

I'll leave you with these for now, and maybe some of the boards Satanists (of the Levayan variety rather than the deluded teen variety) can correct you on your perception of Satanisim. As for voodoo, do we have anyone on here that actualy practices it or is it going to be up to the fruits of my research?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm

We need to focus on the fact that the people who are responsible are the minority and that they are misguided. There is also a strong possibility that those responsible are British.


This is not about religion, this is about politics.

You can see here that a vast majority of the world's religious conflicts involve Islam.


Looks to me more like proving that Muslims and Christians shouldn't live near each other ... heh.

Eris, after observing the pattern of your posts and responses in this topic I have come to the conclusion that you are Stone Deaf (http://gallery.rigachat.lv/flame/flame78.html) .

I will read your articles (however weary I am of yet more half-arsed Googling) and come back to you after doing the dishes and consulting some of my Dad's books on the subject matter.

In the meantime, be sure to scroll down when you click on that hyperlink. :p

Eris, after observing the pattern of your posts and responses in this topic I have come to the conclusion that you are Stone Deaf (http://gallery.rigachat.lv/flame/flame78.html) .


Nope, stone crazy.

I will read your articles (however weary I am of yet more half-arsed Googling) and come back to you after doing the dishes and consulting some of my Dad's books on the subject matter.

In the meantime, be sure to scroll down when you click on that hyperlink. :p

Don't realy have time for anything more in depth today, after you've done some reading on the subjects (hopefuly your fathers books are un-biased sources) I will be happy to go into more detail when I have the time. I am also hoping that someone who actualy practices one of those paths will come to the party (so to speak) so that you can get your info from the horses mouth instead of my research.

Oh, and about the Crusades: they were launched after the Byzantine Emperor appealed to the Vatican to canvas support for him among European nations to save Constantinople (greatest Christian city in the world and bulwark against the East) from the marauding Muslim armies that had been laying siege to it and invading his empire. In fact the reason they (the Crusades) were ultimately a failure is because they were reactionary.

The people who responded to the preaching of the crusade couldn't care less about the byzantines, whom they mostly regarded as decadent, effeminate heretics, so that reason doesn't stand very well by itself. The byzantine emperor originally appealed to the pope for assistance from the west in reconquering Asia Minor, and used economic and religious arguments to sweeten the deal.

Unfortunately for him, the pope latched onto the religious aspect and dreamed up some grandiose 'Holy War' which he began preaching, drawing up an army of fanatics, zealots, and the usual borderline-heretical rabble-rousers who would all be happy to take up the cross in return for absolution. This was the last thing the emperor wanted, as it meant a horde of what were essentially undisciplined brigands raping and looting their way accross his country, and demanding provisions and expecting preferential treatment because of their 'holy' mission.

The initial cause of the crusades might have been the emperor's appeal to the pope, but the movement that took shape because of it wasn't remotely geared to defending Byzantium, but was a fanatical movement to reclaim the holy land from the infidel and achieve absolution for its followers.

It was, basically, a hysterically fanatical holy war.

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.
You just gotta love these hidden threats towards Islam.

I wonder who the Islamic community "blames" for the bombing of Iraq?

We must not punish Islam for the London attack
Why the hell not?

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.

The apple never falls far from the tree.
You can call this paranoia, but it makes perfect sense. If you want to prevent further bombings happening by Islamic extremists, then you will remove the populations they hide in.
Enough of worry of non pc ideals offending other cultures, because its really getting beyond a joke.

Why the hell not?

My sentiments exactly, 'let slip loose the dogs of war,' as the great bard said, find all these Al Queda training camps, and other Muslim fanatic training camps world wide and kill everyone one inside of them, no more pussyfooting around, chase everyone of them down, and give no mercy, just instant death.

But Islam is easier to convert into radical militarism than other religions because of its historical nature. It provides a very sound and credible ideological base for terrorists.

My sentiments exactly, 'let slip loose the dogs of war,' as the great bard said, find all these Al Queda training camps, and other Muslim fanatic training camps world wide and kill everyone one inside of them, no more pussyfooting around, chase everyone of them down, and give no mercy, just instant death.
And just how are you going to accomplish such a monumental task? Four years ago, Bush declared that the US was going to "hunt down" Bin Laden and "smoke him out of his cave", and the results are?

it is difficult to find an army that is wordwide and wears no uniforms.

And just how are you going to accomplish such a monumental task? Four years ago, Bush declared that the US was going to "hunt down" Bin Laden and "smoke him out of his cave", and the results are?

it is difficult to find an army that is wordwide and wears no uniforms.
Let's hunt every single one of them down then. It's too big of a risk to let any of em' go on.

Let's hunt every single one of them down then. It's too big of a risk to let any of em' go on.
How do you propose to do that? Unless you can get them to wear tags that say "I am a terrorist", it will be next to damn well impossible to hunt them down.

How do you propose to do that? Unless you can get them to wear tags that say "I am a terrorist", it will be next to damn well impossible to hunt them down.
Complete genocide. Wipe out the Muslims.

And just how are you going to accomplish such a monumental task? Four years ago, Bush declared that the US was going to "hunt down" Bin Laden and "smoke him out of his cave", and the results are?
it is difficult to find an army that is wordwide and wears no uniforms.

I didn't say it would be easy, try to accept, that this may take longer to achieve than your own life span.

Complete genocide. Wipe out the Muslims.
After a statement such as that, your credibility collapses and there would be no need for further debate with you. Did you idolize Hitler when you were growing up?

After a statement such as that, your credibility collapses and there would be no need for further debate with you. Did you idolize Hitler when you were growing up?

Well it is starting to look like us or them, you know.

Well it is starting to look like us or them, you know.
Only if you buy into the propaganda and enjoy living in fear? Don't tell me that you are also proposing genocide?

Saying we should punish Muslims for the actions of Al Quaeda is like saying Detroit cops in the 60s should have punished blacks for the actions of the Black Panthers. Just because a group is doing something in your name doesn't mean you are liable for their actions. If a crazy guy I've never heard of yells 'Black Power' as he blows up a police precinct does that make me responsible? Nope. That's why I would never ask some random Iranian sheep farmer to atone for Osama. People are responsible solely for their own actions.

Everytime there's some terrorist attack involving Muslims, among the first things I hear is the old "don't blame Islam, we don't need another Crusade" line. Do the people saying this honestly believe that the West is just champing at the bit, waiting for an excuse to launch some kind of religious war? If your answer is yes, I guess the Pope has a lot more clout than I gave him credit for. Somehow, I can't conjure up the image of Benedict XVI giving an impassioned speech about fighting the heathen and receiving a response like "Dieu le veut!" from his audience.

Look. We didn't go on the warpath after Sept 11, or after the attacks in Bali and in Spain, nor when those protestors in Pakistan (I think) burned down our KFC. I don't think Muslims, either living abroad or in the West, need to worry about another Crusade. The last one was several centuries ago, and all the people I know seem perfectly happy to keep it that way.

Edit: I know that we attacked Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, and I know the US is in Iraq right now. Those are tempests in a teapot. Anyone who tries to equate those puny wars to a Crusade is clearly off their gourd.

Well it is starting to look like us or them, you know.
No I don't know. Why don't you clue us into your thought processes. Explain to everyone why the mass extermination of 2 billion people would be a reasonable aim. If you don't think we'd understand, you could always write a book. I think "My Struggle" would be a very catchy title.

Only if you buy into the propaganda and enjoy living in fear? Don't tell me that you are also proposing genocide?

Well theres all kind of propaganda isnt there, like your line for instance, of Islam being no threat to the west. :rolleyes:
Id rather live in fear and acknowlege the danger for what it is, than bury my head in the sand.

Complete genocide. Wipe out the Muslims.
You'll have to turn the West into Orwellian Oceania in order to carry out this. Are you ready to do it?

No I don't know. Why don't you clue us into your thought processes. Explain to everyone why the mass extermination of 2 billion people would be a reasonable aim. If you don't think we'd understand, you could always write a book. I think "My Struggle" would be a very catchy title.

I never meant killing every muslim on the face of the planet.
I read Mein Kampf,( some of it) it bored me to tears.

Saying we should punish Muslims for the actions of Al Quaeda is like saying Detroit cops in the 60s should have punished blacks for the actions of the Black Panthers. Just because a group is doing something in your name doesn't mean you are liable for their actions. If a crazy guy I've never heard of yells 'Black Power' as he blows up a police precinct does that make me responsible? Nope. That's why I would never ask some random Iranian sheep farmer to atone for Osama. People are responsible solely for their own actions.

What's your position on reparations for slavery? Not really on-topic, but your post brought it to mind.

Well theres all kind of propaganda isnt there, like your line for instance, of Islam being no threat to the west. :rolleyes:
Id rather live in fear and acknowlege the danger for what it is, than bury my head in the sand.
Right now, the greatest threat to the west, is the west itself. Once a government can instill fear in the people, then they have a greater ability to accomplish their agenda. Those that are living in fear are the ones that have buried their heads in the sand and are diligently waiting for their government to deliver them from evil.

Right now, the greatest threat to the west, is the west itself. Once a government can instill fear in the people, then they have a greater ability to accomplish their agenda. Those that are living in fear are the ones that have buried their heads in the sand and are diligently waiting for their government to deliver them from evil.

Heh, actually I'd say the West is far more dangerous to the rest of the world than it is to itself. If we were to effectively harness and unleash our strength, nobody could stand against us. :cool:

Heh, actually I'd say the West is far more dangerous to the rest of the world than it is to itself. If we were to effectively harness and unleash our strength, nobody could stand against us. :cool:
I would suggest that if it came down to that, then no one would be left standing.

At the present time, the west is abusing its' militaristic strength, and it is that abuse that results in unsolicited reprisals, and inevitably has resulted in an increase in terrorism.

Heh, actually I'd say the West is far more dangerous to the rest of the world than it is to itself. If we were to effectively harness and unleash our strength, nobody could stand against us. :cool:

Nuke Mecca! :)

Overall I agree. Islam itself is not at fault for this and should not be blamed. HOWEVER, if "Islam" does not start policing itself and doing more to prevent these kinds of incidents that are being planned by people within thier own communities, that's where the blame is going to fall.

When the Pope tells the IRA to stop bombing English targets...
When the Archbishop of Canterbury tells the Ulster Unionists to pipe down...
When the Dalai Lama tells Aum Shinri Kyo to knock it off...

Then you can expect the Muslims to try and "police themselves."

I would suggest that if it came down to that, then no one would be left standing.

At the present time, the west is abusing its' militaristic strength, and it is that abuse that results in unsolicited reprisals, and inevitably has resulted in an increase in terrorism.

No, you've got it the wrong way round. It sounds a lot like you're blaming the West, when in fact it was the terrorists who are at fault. Any (over)reaction on the part of the West is due to what they have done.

As an idle question, how do you suggest that "no one would be left standing"? The US alone spends more on its military than the next 17 countries in the world, and the West as a whole will be high up on that ladder. We could demolish anyone in the world except for China and India, and Russia too, I guess.

No, you've got it the wrong way round. It sounds a lot like you're blaming the West, when in fact it was the terrorists who are at fault. Any (over)reaction on the part of the West is due to what they have done.
No, I actually think I have the accounting straight. BOTH are to blame. The "over reaction" by the west, was to invade Iraq, which fuels the future hostilities. The viscious cycle continues.

As an idle question, how do you suggest that "no one would be left standing"? The US alone spends more on its military than the next 17 countries in the world, and the West as a whole will be high up on that ladder. We could demolish anyone in the world except for China and India, and Russia too, I guess.
Well, at first you stated that no one could stand against you and now you have included three that could (all who have nuclear weapons). I was suggesting that if the west tried to prove your theory, then the earth would end up experiencing quite a nuclear winter.

After a statement such as that, your credibility collapses and there would be no need for further debate with you. Did you idolize Hitler when you were growing up?
Yeah, I did.

On another note, I was just trying to make people's blood boil :p For the record, I'm Muslim myself.

No, you've got it the wrong way round. It sounds a lot like you're blaming the West, when in fact it was the terrorists who are at fault. Any (over)reaction on the part of the West is due to what they have done.

As an idle question, how do you suggest that "no one would be left standing"? The US alone spends more on its military than the next 17 countries in the world, and the West as a whole will be high up on that ladder. We could demolish anyone in the world except for China and India, and Russia too, I guess.
The west is hardly blameless in this whole matter. We've only been exploiting the rest of the world for the last, oh, four hundred years at least--there's bound to be some resentment as a result. It's called blowback, and apparently we haven't yet learned that when you keep people down long enough, some of them will fight back, and they will fight back in whatever way they can.

And as to your assertion that the west can take on the rest of the world and come out on top, I suggest you look at how the coalition forces are doing in their pacification of Iraq--the most advanced weapons technology in the world is barely holding its own--and in many cases, is having its ass handed to it--against a determined insurgency with weapons they've largely looted from unguarded military storage areas.