NationStates Jolt Archive

It is not a war with Islam but rather a war with jihadis. The fact that some Lefties can't tell the difference is the Left's problem rather than anyone else's. And in case you didn't know it...kamekaze attacks on trade centers, firebombings on nightclubs in Bali and attempts to censor the press that come from Tehran do not qualify as friendly acts so I would count the war as having already started. Good of you to finally notice that something's going on. :rolleyes:

ummm
ok...sign me up..not against muslims,but jihadists..you outta see how good i can shoot...i hit within 2 inches at 300 yards...i will happily send them to see allah or the virgins.
will i get in trouble for stealing said virgins?

they are waiting aroung in heaven for murderers(oxymoron)so i may as well have some fun...or can only jihadists have afterlife fun?

if you dont know by now..it is ok to murder innocent people...in the name of allah..so you can get laid in the afterlife..the virgin thingy..my theory..i will be the ugly american...kick the door in heaven..bitch slap allah/muhamud...and fuck his virgins...j/k...but then an infadel has put his thingy in the virgins reserved for the martyrs..so i guess ...my bad...what a retarded belief..go ahead...flame me...if i said this to you at a bar.....i would be wearing your drink...no....if not...call me.

No, radical Islam is out to destroy civilization as the west knows it and impose a "Holy Islamic Empire" form of government everywhere. If they can't achieve this goal, then they are quite happy to kill everyone, everywhere. Radical Islam needs no reason to kill you. Keruvalia - the minute you try to stick a flower in the muzzle of your radical Islamic brother's gun he'll blow your ass away in the name of the same Allah you worship with him.

At one time I thought that was crazy, but it's not. Every person they kill, every one they kidnap and execute, every building they destroy, ever maniac that Blows himself up, has made me stop giving a damn about these Radicals beliefs. It's become, "Get them before they get you." And I'm about at the point to thinking, that instead of trying to stop these Radicals, that we just kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

I don't feel right. I feel disgusted with myself now. It's a horrible feeling, to want to kill people, especially so many. But they would do the same to me, because of where I'm from, the religion I worship, or even the Color of my Skin. They would kill everyone I know and love, smile and expect to go to Heaven to Rape Virgins. They can all die. I don't care anymore.

Towards all Fundimentalists that commit evils in the name of 'god'. They can all **** themselves. (I'm including those Pro-Life bombers in the process)

I have no doubt that if Iran develops a nuke weapon, they will use it on the U.S. or Israel if they can in a first strike mode.

I almost responded to this by pointing out that no one would ever attack the United States with nuclear weapons for this reason: upon being struck by a nuclear weapon, the US claims the right to retaliate in kind without a second thought. No person would condemn their nation to annihalation in nuclear warfare with the US. And let's face that, that is the ONLY result of nuclear warfare with the US. However, I believe a truly fundamentalist leader would, given the ability. We do have this going for us: a nuclear weapon does not equate to a tactical nuclear weapon. Sure, build a bomb. Now get it to a stretegically advantageous area of the US and detonate it. THAT'S difficult.

I depends what form the war would take. I know that muslims could be deported from Britain and other European countries without resorting to war. The advantage about living in a country where hardly anybody owns a weapon is that they wouldn't be able to fight. They'd be a few of them who illegally own weapons, but they could easily be picked off by the army and the deportations could be achieved without major bloodshed and chaos.

After that, we would have to think about how to deal with the islamic world in the Middle East and South Asia. I certainly don't see why we should be giving any aid to muslim countries, I don't see why they would want food and medicine from the infidels. So leave them to it. If muslim countries then fancy trying to hurt us, it needn't be a particular problem. The technological superiority of the west means that we are perfectly capable to annihalating an entire country without even having a troop set foot on their soil.

Islam has made repeated offenses against Christianity, it is a miracle that a jihad or Crusade hasn't been declared yet. I, for one, am tired of their racism and hatred of Jews, as well as their proclaimed love of Allah. In my opinion, Muhammed was a selfish, opwer hungry, arab who knew that he could play o of the peoples love of material things and war. So, he created Islam, a religion that supports genocide and secular pleasures. More importantly, it promotes mindless racism against non-muslims. The Koran openly calls as non-muslims infidels, and nothing but death and destruction has come out af any Islamic nation in the past 500 years. Another Crusade WILL occur, and this time, Mecca will burn.

So you deal with anti-semitism by anti-semitism....great stuff. You should join one of those "think tanks" the Amerikans are fond of.

Jews are friends of Christianity, and have proved that many times. Islam has only assaulted Christendom, it is that simple

Take a look at this and tell me we're not already at war w/ extremist muslims.

http://www.tkb.org/documents/Downloads/NCTC_Report.pdf

Christianity and Islam have been at war since the founding of Islam

Basically, Islam seems to be a corporate faith. Judaism is the founding father of Christianity, and supposedly of Islam. Although the Jews must have screwed up pretty bad to come up with Islam. I just wish every Muslim would leave Britain and go somewhere else. We don't need Muslims here! Go to america and buy a McDonalds Bacon sandwich!

Basically, Islam seems to be a corporate faith. Judaism is the founding father of Christianity, and supposedly of Islam. Although the Jews must have screwed up pretty bad to come up with Islam. I just wish every Muslim would leave Britain and go somewhere else. We don't need Muslims here! Go to america and buy a McDonalds Bacon sandwich!
AHHHH!
We don't want em here either! Go to Arabia!

A muslim told me today that jihad doesn't mean holy war. It means 'suffering for Allah'. Jihad can be war, but it can also be fasting; or enduring the ethnocentric opression that many muslims endure at the hands of western culture.

A muslim told me today that jihad doesn't mean holy war. It means 'suffering for Allah'. Jihad can be war, but it can also be fasting; or enduring the ethnocentric opression that many muslims endure at the hands of western culture.
Haha. What about the ethnocentric opression many non-muslims endure at the hands of Islamic countries? Please...notions such as opressing women won't fly very far in the West.

Basically, Islam seems to be a corporate faith.ya, that makes sense.
Judaism is the founding father of Christianity, and supposedly of Islam. Although the Jews must have screwed up pretty bad to come up with Islam. Jews didn't come up with Islam. Abraham, was the founder of both islam and the judao-christian tradition. Besides the prophets, the pork (and some other everyday laws), the nature of god and the creation, islam and judaism don't have all that much in common. I just wish every Muslim would leave Britain and go somewhere else. We don't need Muslims here! Go to america and buy a McDonalds Bacon sandwich!
This attitude is what's wrong with the world. I wish this type of ignorance and unfounded hatred did not exist

This attitude is what's wrong with the world. I wish this type of ignorance and unfounded hatred did not exist
Yet, if Muslims do reach a majority in British society, and they do decide to extend notions such as Dhimittude to it, I would like to see what people would say then. Also people seem to passively accept sexism and other such notions inherent within Islam which they were not willing to put up with in Christianity. How odd.

Haha. What about the ethnocentric opression many non-muslims endure at the hands of Islamic countries? Please...notions such as opressing women won't fly very far in the West.
point humbly taken. Obviously islam's treatment of women is terrible and needs to be ended, however that doesn't make the west's militant anti-islamic sentiments any more justified. Anyway, as far as I understand it, jihad probably could include women's suffering at the hands of their misguided muslim husbands. I understand mohammad's wife is pretty improtant in the Koran.

point humbly taken. Obviously islam's treatment of women is terrible and needs to be ended, however that doesn't make the west's militant anti-islamic sentiments any more justified. Anyway, as far as I understand it, jihad probably could include women's suffering at the hands of their misguided muslim husbands. I understand mohammad's wife is pretty improtant in the Koran.
I would have no problem with Muslims if they adhered to Western ideals should they choose to reside in Western countries. If their goal is to spread Islam and nothing more, then I do have a problem though. Most of the militant attitude in the West is based on the wrong reasons, indeed.

troll = 1337

Melkor lol

Yet, if Muslims do reach a majority in British society, and they do decide to extend notions such as Dhimittude to it, I would like to see what people would say thenMy (unfounded) opinion is that the majority of muslims who have moved to britan are more progressive than the ones in countries today who legislate Dhimittude. I see your point however. I also wish the muslims would stop hating on non-muslims. Its wishful thinking. Also people seem to passively accept sexism and other such notions inherent within Islam which they were not willing to put up with in Christianity. How odd. You don't think western countries are sexist? You don't think christianity is sexist (excepting some extremly progressive protestant churches [ex. the united church of Canada{which is made up mostly of old ladies}]).

I would have no problem with Muslims if they adhered to Western ideals should they choose to reside in Western countries. If their goal is to spread Islam and nothing more, then I do have a problem though.
lol I'm not sure, but I don't think most muslims move to the west just to facilitate the spread of islam.

muslims deserve to be war targets. so do christians in fact.

A muslim told me today that jihad doesn't mean holy war. It means 'suffering for Allah'. Jihad can be war, but it can also be fasting; or enduring the ethnocentric opression that many muslims endure at the hands of western culture.

As I understand it there is Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad. Greater Jihad is a spiritual battle within oneself, Lesser Jihad is meant to be a war against an attacker which must cease as soon as an opportunity for negotiation and peace appears.

Of course I could be totally wrong but that's what I remember.

My (unfounded) opinion is that the majority of muslims who have moved to britan are more progressive than the ones in countries today who legislate Dhimittude. I see your point however. I also wish the muslims would stop hating on non-muslims. Its wishful thinking.
Agreed.

You don't think western countries are sexist? You don't think christianity is sexist (excepting some extremly progressive protestant churches [ex. the united church of Canada{which is made up mostly of old ladies}]).
Not in principle. They are committed to advancing greater genderial equality. In some Western nations women consist 50% of the national Parliaments. Christianity is sexist depending on how you interpret it, like Islam, yet to be honest, as most Western countries are secular, this doesn't factor in. The EU's proposed Constitution refused to even factor in Europe's Christian origins.

lol I'm not sure, but I don't think most muslims move to the west just to facilitate the spread of christianity.
Assuming Christianity is the de facto religion of a country. Europe is secular, and many of its nations are now mostly atheist. Christianity /= West. In a few decades it is said most Christians will in fact be Latin Americans and Africans. We got rid of governments principled on conservative Christian notions. So there is little desire to extend an invitation to anyone who would attempt to establish a form of Dhimmitude.

<SNIP>
I bow to your expertise

I bow to your expertise

It appears that I was only half right, while there is Greater and Lesser Jihad it is further divided into five catergories:

Muslims generally classify jihad into two forms,jihad al-akbar, the greater jihad, is said to be the struggle against one's soul (nafs), while jihad al-asgar, the lesser jihad, is external and is in reference to physical effort and/or fighting .

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God). [3]

Jihad of the heart/soul also called jihad bin nafs/qalb is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.

Jihad by the tongue refers to jihad bil lisan. This is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), and the exposing of political or military propaganda.

Jihad by the pen and knowledge refers to jihad bil qalam/ilm. This struggle includes through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as military and medical sciences).

Jihad by the hand refers to jihad bil yad, which is a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.

Jihad by the sword refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Classification_of_Jihad)

Wikipedia has spoken...

Just a question -

For those 65 people that voted "Yes", do they realize the consequences AT ALL if there was a massive war waged against 1.2 billion people on Earth, not to mention a religion that is so well known that a war waged against it is like a huge stain on the history of humans? Not to mention how barbaric it will look.

Waging war on a religion/1.2 billion people for what few do is utterly ridiculous.

So for those who voted 'yes', I have a simple question, Why did you vote yes? Did you think about the consequences? The image humans and the West/other countries will protray? What history teachers/textbooks will say to our future generation about the barbaric practice? What about the fact that humans are now too civilized for that? Did you think about the bloodshed? The violence? The outcome? The circumstances? Did you think about anything when voting for that choice?

So for those who voted 'yes', I have a simple question, Why did you vote yes? Did you think about the consequences? The image humans and the West/other countries will protray? What history teachers/textbooks will say to our future generation about the barbaric practice? What about the fact that humans are now too civilized for that? Did you think about the bloodshed? The violence? The outcome? The circumstances? Did you think about anything when voting for that choice?
Perhaps they just got bored of all the polls here and are not taking any poll seriously now. But I'm sure there's still that insane minority... :eek:

The non insane, non radical muslim population of the world had better get off their asses soon and do something to purge the radicals out of their religion and be vocal in their condemnation of the radical element because if they don't the radicals are going to try and purge them along with the rest of western civilization. I realize the non radicals may be afraid of being targeted for attacks if they denounce the radicals, but since the radicals are already killing them anyway its time to take a stand. If they don't and the west swoops in with a "kill them all" attitude it will be something they brought on themselves.

Muslims of the world, prove to the rest of us that you're not all crazy, radical, jihadist, homicide bombers. Make your voice heard in the Muslim world! All it takes for evil to win is for the good to stand by and do nothing. Standing by is what I see much of Islam doing as their faith is hijacked.

edit: duh, how could I miss that? o_O

Could you believe it's the first time I hear this?
Do you have any other source or witness?

Post 275, Wikipedia has spoken.

Do I particularly want one? No. Do I think think that it's becoming more and more of an inevitability? Yes.

A mass genocide of muslims... would be good for humanity. I say if Europe, Asia, and the U.S. joined forces and marched on the middle east we could crush the Muslim threat before it has a chance to rise. Join me my white and asian brothers together we can combat the muslim hoards and create a brighter future for our children. After we take care of the muslims we Abolish Christianity and create a World Wide Atheist Government.

That is my goal for the future. Im studying politics :D.

No. I'd prefer to leave the Islamic countries alone, not do business with them anymore. Any person or business that visits the countries from the U.S. does so with the knowledge that, regardless of what happens to them, it's their problem.
If we are attacked by Islamics again they will be annihilated. Period. End of story.

What's more dangerous, the anti-Americans who want to see America get attacked, or the supposedly pro-Americans who want the exact same thing? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469317)

A mass invasion of them would unify the world under one cause creating an opportunity for a FWG (federal world government) Which is about the best thing that can happen to humanity. And if the FWG could abolish religion in general think about how many lives would be saved in the future from holy wars and such. An FWG would also create world peace and end world hunger quite effectivly.

But we have to act quickly before Iran goes nuclear. Im not against Nuking Mecca during the Ramandan and Nuking Tehran Tommorow for all I care as long as we strike many deadly blows and kill as many of them as we can War with the Middle East Arab Nations would be a great thing.

A mass invasion of them would unify the world under one cause creating an opportunity for a FWG (federal world government) Which is about the best thing that can happen to humanity. And if the FWG could abolish religion in general think about how many lives would be saved in the future from holy wars and such. An FWG would also create world peace and end world hunger quite effectivly.

Quite. The fact that the western, develped states would be, I may suppose, denied their pre-eminence, yet compelled to develop the third world due to the ineptitude therein notwithstanding.

And an Invasion force made up of Europes armies, Americas army, and CHINAS army? God the battle wouldnt last longer then a month. Then we can proceed to rounding them up and eliminating them.

war hasnt been really nessacary for years and years. the us is just starting to get a repuation as jumping the gun. every seen loose change? tell me we needed our most recent war after watching that.

Arabs are the scum of humanity. Im sorry to say but they have proven themselves worthy of being eliminated.

Not a war... a cleansing of earth.

Arabs are the scum of humanity. Im sorry to say but they have proven themselves worthy of being eliminated.

It's good that you're one of the few "yes" folks who had the balls to post something in the thread....

...unfortunately those balls seem to be dangling in your mouth.

What a brilliant plan, a world government that will outlaw all religion...

Has it occured to you that Atheists are in a minority with just over 1 million members? How do you expect a government to be elected when it's views are outnumbered by more than 5:1 (especially as many Atheists, myself included, wouldn't vote to ban religion)?

Go back under your bridge little troll and take your genocide fantasies with you.

I wonder what your oppinion would be if you were in Isreali who had 3 members of his family killed by Muslims.

At least outlaw Islam then. I agree outlawing religion would never work. But hell the ACLU has been making progress. How ever I doubt any one would disagree with the fact that Theocrasys are terrible things.

I wonder what your oppinion would be if you were in Isreali who had 3 members of his family killed by Muslims.

Vindictive pogroms and a distinct lack of magnanimity are hardly the sentiments of one sufficiently endowed to direct world politics, whilst have you considered the situation of those Arabs whom Israel killed out of vengeance, or do they deserve it?

At least outlaw Islam then. I agree outlawing religion would never work. But hell the ACLU has been making progress. How ever I doubt any one would disagree with the fact that Theocrasys are terrible things.

You expect the American Civil Liberties Union to support the removal of freedom of religion?

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara

But the line between them [extremists] and Muslims seems to be drawn increasingly thinner by many people, in general.


the problem about the fine line between extremists and normal muslims is that the extremists get the press

if muslims could unite and then maybe do something for the greater good then the difference between ordinary muslims and extremists could become more obvious

no offense is meant to anyone

by the way - maybe there's no connection, but melkor is an evil god in middle-earth (where the lord of the rings is set)

I wonder what your oppinion would be if you were in Isreali who had 3 members of his family killed by Muslims.

Okay, i'm not an Israeli, but is was in afghanistan and lost there four friends, because they got bombed away on the way to the Airport by an suicide-attack of two taliban. But there's a difference between Muslims and fanatic lunatics, who claim, that they do it in the name of their religion, so i don't have any grudge against muslims.
On 100 muslims, which are people like you and me there are 2 Assholes,which cry "Jihad,Jihad" and don't even know the meaning of this word. By the way: Jihad against Jews and Christ is clearly fobidden in the Coran. Jews and Christ are, following the coran, "people of the Book" and "Sons of Abraham", like the muslims.

the problem about the fine line between extremists and normal muslims is that the extremists get the press


Exactly right. It's NO NEWS at all if there's a nice, friendly Muslim who doesn't want to hurt anyone and just wants to live a normal fucking life. No cameras, no headlines, nothing. No interest.

Because the news only concentrates on bad, disasterous, extreme, "shocking," "riveting," "entertaining," "dramatic" events and "tragedies" or "scandals." Naturally, everyone who gets their brainwaves from the news, thinks every gun owner is a killer, every Muslim an Islamo-Fascist.


if muslims could unite and then maybe do something for the greater good then the difference between ordinary muslims and extremists could become more obvious

Maybe. But see above. Even protesting, like protesting for peace, wouldn't get much news.


by the way - maybe there's no connection, but melkor is an evil god in middle-earth (where the lord of the rings is set)

Yeah he's also a moderator on this forum. Coincidence? I think not!

You expect the American Civil Liberties Union to support the removal of freedom of religion?
They support taking it out of the government 100%. www.aclu.com

Exactly right. It's NO NEWS at all if there's a nice, friendly Muslim who doesn't want to hurt anyone and just wants to live a normal fucking life. No cameras, no headlines, nothing. No interest.

Because the news only concentrates on bad, disasterous, extreme, "shocking," "riveting," "entertaining," "dramatic" events and "tragedies" or "scandals." Naturally, everyone who gets their brainwaves from the news, thinks every gun owner is a killer, every Muslim an Islamo-Fascist.



Maybe. But see above. Even protesting, like protesting for peace, wouldn't get much news.




Yeah he's also a moderator on this forum. Coincidence? I think not!

EXCUSE ME YOU CALL THROWING MALTOV COCKTAILS AT THE DANISH EMBASSY PEACEFUL PROTESTS?

They support taking it out of the government 100%. www.aclu.com

They support the separation of church and state, that is completely different to opposing religous freedoms in general.

They support taking it out of the government 100%. www.aclu.com
Are'nt the ACLU-People those, who say "let people in Koma suffer, because it's the will of God"?
What i want to say is, that ther at least as much christian-fundamentalists like Islamic-fundamentalists

Are'nt the ACLU-People those, who say "let people in Koma suffer, because it's the will of God"?
What i want to say is, that ther at least as much christian-fundamentalists like Islamic-fundamentalists
Religion breeds suffering. A world free of it would be paradise.

EXCUSE ME YOU CALL THROWING MALTOV COCKTAILS AT THE DANISH EMBASSY PEACEFUL PROTESTS?You missed all the peaceful protests? What have you been watching?

Religion breeds suffering. A world free of it would be paradise.

Do support such an assertion, since I would contend that religion, for the most part, allays and ameliorates suffering in the west, and, to a lesser extent, in the second and third world.

Religion breeds suffering. A world free of it would be paradise.

You cannot have paradise without basic freedom, religous freedom is one of those.

Religion breeds suffering. A world free of it would be paradise.
In your first sentence you're getting my point: I don't think, that people like Jesus and Mohammend wanted the people to suffer.
Did you know the movie "Dogma"? There is an intelligent Sentence: "Religion is a wonderful thing, as long as the People don't do theological ballast on it"

The easiest excuse too start a war with some one is that "They are sinners" Now tell me how many lives would have been spared if the first idiot didnt start preaching his drug induced hallucinations to the masses. The roman christian persecution never would have happened, Science would have flourished, "witches" wouldnt have been burned, People wouldnt have a problem with muslims right now. If theists are right then God is a cruel and evil being for doing this too humanity. I only hope that the human brain evolves past its need for a God and looks to science for the answers in the future.

The easiest excuse too start a war with some one is that "They are sinners" Now tell me how many lives would have been spared if the first idiot didnt start preaching his drug induced hallucinations to the masses. The roman christian persecution never would have happened, Science would have flourished, "witches" wouldnt have been burned, People wouldnt have a problem with muslims right now. If theists are right then God is a cruel and evil being for doing this too humanity. I only hope that the human brain evolves past its need for a God and looks to science for the answers in the future.

That is the worst logic I've ever seen since I skimmed through Lewis's 'Mere Christianity'. So you're basically saying: "It's their fault, if they stopped being Muslims then I wouldn't hate them as much".

That is the worst logic I've ever seen since I skimmed through Lewis's 'Mere Christianity'. So you're basically saying: "It's their fault, if they stopped being Muslims then I wouldn't hate them as much".
I hate humanities need for a God. It only shows how undeveloped and underpowered our minds are. Ever notice how people who go into science are Atheists alot of the time? Doesnt that say something like that their minds are becoming more developed while the theists are still confined to their imaginary worlds.

The easiest excuse too start a war with some one is that "They are sinners" Now tell me how many lives would have been spared if the first idiot didnt start preaching his drug induced hallucinations to the masses. The roman christian persecution never would have happened, Science would have flourished, "witches" wouldnt have been burned, People wouldnt have a problem with muslims right now. If theists are right then God is a cruel and evil being for doing this too humanity. I only hope that the human brain evolves past its need for a God and looks to science for the answers in the future.
You're an Atheist, aren't you?
I'm not the one, who rushes every sunday in church, but i believe, that there is a supreme power, which we can't understand.
To your postings: church was the institution that saved the knowledge of the Antique Times, at least in Europe.
By the way: You're right, that PEOPLE made the wars and burned people. People, which believed, resulting on writings of other PEOPLE, that it was the will of God. Not God made these violence. In the Bible, there is the Sentence "Forgive your next"...I can't remember one passage in which jesus said "slaughter the Romans". He said "Give the emperor, which belongs to the emperor, but give God, what belongs to God"
And by the way: Pure science isn't the right way either...barbarism was also done in the name of science, i just remember Joseph Mengele

I hate humanities need for a God. It only shows how undeveloped and underpowered our minds are. Ever notice how people who go into science are Atheists alot of the time? Doesnt that say something like that their minds are becoming more developed while the theists are still confined to their imaginary worlds.

Not to be pedantic, but what doe the word "alot" mean?

More pertinently, a plethora of pre-eminent scientists are religious, indeed, the Vatican observatory at Gandolfo is an eminent centre of astronomical progression. Moreover, one could similarly contend that the sparcity of atheists who assume doctorates in theology and philosophy are testament to the limited mental range of atheism.

Oh, you did not just use Michelle Malkin to back up your point!

The Rights version of Michael Moore.

Ahem. I don't doubt that you do not like her point of view. But are you saying that the photographs were falsified? Her only commentary on them was three words, directly related to the very last photograph. The photos were real, as is the very real anger in the Islamic community that they illustrate. To ignore it and them is the moral equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la, la, la." very loudly to drown out someone attempting to ram some sense into your head.

But since you will only accept your news from a liberal trough......

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399499,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/international/asia/16pakistan.html?_r=1

Exactly right. It's NO NEWS at all if there's a nice, friendly Muslim who doesn't want to hurt anyone and just wants to live a normal fucking life. No cameras, no headlines, nothing. No interest.

Because the news only concentrates on bad, disasterous, extreme, "shocking," "riveting," "entertaining," "dramatic" events and "tragedies" or "scandals." Naturally, everyone who gets their brainwaves from the news, thinks every gun owner is a killer, every Muslim an Islamo-Fascist.

Maybe. But see above. Even protesting, like protesting for peace, wouldn't get much news.



Firstly, ever time a terrorist attack occurs, the media bends over backwards to say that the attacks are not representative of the views of mainstream Islam, they'll almost always get a quote from an iman or "community leader" who condemns the attacks or something to that effect.

Perhaps in editing the news you would prefer an impassive list of all the things that have happened in the day. Maybe instead of focusing on the July 7th bombings a more suitable headline on that day would have been "Muslim helps old lady carry her shopping" or "4348 London buses make it safely to their destinations".

The reason why there is no news if a Muslim wants to live a quiet and normal life is precisely because that is not newsworthy.

Not to be pedantic, but what doe the word "alot" mean?

More pertinently, a plethora of pre-eminent scientists are religious, indeed, the Vatican observatory at Gandolfo is an eminent centre of astronomical progression. Moreover, one could similarly contend that the sparcity of atheists who assume doctorates in theology and philosophy are testament to the limited mental range of atheism.
Philosophy and Theology are sciences far more complicated then math and chemistry. Philosophy is a very honorable profession and the fact that they assume a DOCTORATE in it seems to contradict your statement about our "limited mental range" Theology professors who are athiests are just as curious to know why you believe as you are to why we dont. They also seek to know why the human mind believes in god. While many scientists happen to be Christians many more are Atheists, Secular, or Agonostic.

and yeah I meant to say "A lot"

Philosophy and Theology are sciences far more complicated then math and chemistry. Philosophy is a very honorable profession and the fact that they assume a DOCTRATE in it seems to contradict your statement about our "limited mental range" Theology professors who are athiests are just as curious to know why you believe as you are to why we dont. They also seek to know why the human mind believes in god. While many scientists happen to be Christians many more are Atheists, Secular, or Agonostic.

Whilst the significant majority of theologists are religious, and yet, due to their reticence to enter a science, are in possession of limited minds, if one refers to your original assertion, whilst concurrently being adherents to a subject that surpasses such sciences, once more, in accordance with yuor assertion. Well done, inspired. You have contrived to contradict yourself within less than 500 words, and 20 lines of written text.

Whilst the significant majority of theologists are religious, and yet, due to their reticence to enter a science, are in possession of limited minds, if one refers to your original assertion, whilst concurrently being adherents to a subject that surpasses such sciences, once more, in accordance with yuor assertion. Well done, inspired. You have contrived to contradict yourself within less than 500 words, and 20 lines of written text.
So tell me why do you think that an Atheist shouldnt study theology while a Chrisitan or Muslim can study Mathmatics?

So tell me why do you think that an Atheist shouldnt study theology while a Chrisitan or Muslim can study Mathmatics?

Actually, I never asserted that, I am not the anti-religious bigot. Nor, for that matter, was it implicit in my post.

Actually, I never asserted that, I am not the anti-religious bigot. Nor, for that matter, was it implicit in my post.
Just shut up. Weve gona far off topic. For all we know we could both be wrong and be plugged into a giant computer controlled by machines as we speak.

Just shut up. Weve gona far off topic. For all we know we could both be wrong and be plugged into a giant computer controlled by machines as we speak.

No, please do elaborate as to howyou made such an assertion.

Not to be pedantic, but what doe the word "alot" mean?

More pertinently, a plethora of pre-eminent scientists are religious, indeed, the Vatican observatory at Gandolfo is an eminent centre of astronomical progression. Moreover, one could similarly contend that the sparcity of atheists who assume doctorates in theology and philosophy are testament to the limited mental range of atheism.

Speaking as a philosophy student at sixth form college the vast majority of my class are atheists. However I do agree with your point.

Just shut up. Weve gona far off topic. For all we know we could both be wrong and be plugged into a giant computer controlled by machines as we speak.Ooh! We can use Occam's Razor on this one! It's the perfect nonreligious tautological arguement!

No, please do elaborate as to howyou made such an assertion.

Sounds like Descartes 'Evil Demon Doubt' to me.

Ooh! We can use Occam's Razor on this one! It's the perfect nonreligious tautological arguement!

'Fraid not, Occam's Razor could have been applied if he said 'we are in a giant computer' but the statement that 'we could be' is true and is a central tenet of Cartesian philosophy.

'Fraid not, Occam's Razor could have been applied if he said 'we are in a giant computer' but the statement that 'we could be' is true and is a central tenet of Cartesian philosophy.Yet, it cannot be proven or falsified whether or not it is true, since any evidence to the contrary would just be fabrications of the illusion. Hence the argument is irrelevant and off-topic.

Yet, it cannot be proven or falsified whether or not it is true, since any evidence to the contrary would just be fabrications of the illusion. Hence the argument is irrelevant and off-topic.

Well it is certainly irrelevant and off topic but I'm currently studying Descartes and skepticism at college so I thought I'd join in.:)

-snip-

I don't see how you feel that we should wipe out "All Arabs".

if you look into their culture and the religion that they follow, not all of them are the radicals that are killing people. What YOU are doing is taking the actions of a FEW people, and then creating a stereotype of a whole group of people and their religion. Read a few books, then come back and give us some better reasons for us to start your "Jihad".

A mass genocide of muslims... would be good for humanity. I say if Europe, Asia, and the U.S. joined forces and marched on the middle east we could crush the Muslim threat before it has a chance to rise. Join me my white and asian brothers together we can combat the muslim hoards and create a brighter future for our children. After we take care of the muslims we Abolish Christianity and create a World Wide Atheist Government.

Yes, yes, as if all 1.2 billion Muslims live in the Middle East. If you do crush the Middle East, it doesn't stop the Muslim threat, but makes it get WORSE.

And you said that out of what type of logic? Oh right, NONE, you're just talking crap, ruining the ability you have a mouth for.

This entire thing is utterly silly. I don't quite know how to express myself, but I don't see how anyone could deal with the lack of religion, considering religion is the foundation of laws. Without religion, there would be no laws, and without laws, there would be anarchy. I don't see how anarchy would lead to everlasting peace. Religion is meant to be a guiding point, a basis in which you seek to model your life after. It is only through overanalyzing these religions that problems occur. It's not the system, it's the people. You cannot blame islam for all the problems in the world, just as you cannot blame christianity, judaism, or even pagan beliefs. None of these religions tell its members to actually go out and kill/torture/oppress another person; in fact, most, if not all, of these religions teach kindness to neighbors.

It is only when people start to analyze that things get misconstrued. So like I said before, if you remove religion from the world, you will get a world that lacks moral guidance. Even atheists or secular people have their moral foundations in religion, either based off what they were taught by their parents or by what they gained from the world. Morality isn't an inate concept and is gained by interaction with the world. Religion is one of the ways that people learn morality.

This entire thing is utterly silly. I don't quite know how to express myself, but I don't see how anyone could deal with the lack of religion, considering religion is the foundation of laws. Without religion, there would be no laws, and without laws, there would be anarchy. I don't see how anarchy would lead to everlasting peace. Religion is meant to be a guiding point, a basis in which you seek to model your life after. It is only through overanalyzing these religions that problems occur. It's not the system, it's the people. You cannot blame islam for all the problems in the world, just as you cannot blame christianity, judaism, or even pagan beliefs. None of these religions tell its members to actually go out and kill/torture/oppress another person; in fact, most, if not all, of these religions teach kindness to neighbors.

It is only when people start to analyze that things get misconstrued. So like I said before, if you remove religion from the world, you will get a world that lacks moral guidance. Even atheists or secular people have their moral foundations in religion, either based off what they were taught by their parents or by what they gained from the world. Morality isn't an inate concept and is gained by interaction with the world. Religion is one of the ways that people learn morality.

Guess what? I'm an atheist!
Guess what? I don't go around murdering, robbing and raping whenever the urge takes me.

There are any number of secular moral philosophies such as Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Theory to help you determine what is right and wrong without the aid of religion. What's more Catholic morality draws on Aristotle's Virtue Theory, not the other way around.

No. No war, please. See? I said the magic word even! ;)

And you know there is a song commin' on...

War - Huh!
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

So say the Iraqis who recently voted!

hehe

A mass genocide of muslims... would be good for humanity. I say if Europe, Asia, and the U.S. joined forces and marched on the middle east we could crush the Muslim threat before it has a chance to rise. Join me my white and asian brothers together we can combat the muslim hoards and create a brighter future for our children. After we take care of the muslims we Abolish Christianity and create a World Wide Atheist Government.
We don't take kindly to calls for genocide, for whatever reason. Your nation has been removed from the game.

We don't take kindly to calls for genocide, for whatever reason. Your nation has been removed from the game.

As much as I value freedom of speech, I can't really complain. That was getting nowhere, and obnoxious.

A war on Islam is impossible. It is a generally respectable religion that has become mainstream in far too many cultures. But the very nature of the War on Terror is morphing into a clash of civilizations: the West versus the Middle East. There is a great historic animosity between the two, and Arab and Turkic civilizations have posed the only mortal threat to European civilization. Now, this cartoon fiasco proves once and for all that the two civilzations are incompatible, even though they are interacting in ways that were never known before. A clash is inevitable. I'm not sure if we'll see a Sept. 11th style attack, and we may not even see an attack on the US. However, there will definitly be more attacks on Europe, and the possibility of full-blown terrorist states in the Middle East that'd make al-Qaeda look tame in comparison.
But make no mistake about this: the West will win. It has far more money, a far better military (if need be), but most importantly, far better ideas. Those living in the Middle East that know of free speech and enterprise are endeared to it more strongly than a policy of dictatorship and Islamofascism. Lebannon is a country that's already governed by these principles, and Jordan, Morrocco, and Iraq are not far behind. We will win.

Absolutely not.

None of these religions tell its members to actually go out and kill/torture/oppress another person; in fact, most, if not all, of these religions teach kindness to neighbors.
Correction: The holy scriptures upon which these religions are based preach love. However, the religious establishment consistently manipulates holy scripture in order to acheive military, political, economic or other secular goals which have nothing to do with, and often even contradict religious scripture. Which is why religion must be practised on an individual basis; no establishment empowered with divine authority, no (astounding) corruption.

There are any number of secular moral philosophies such as Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Theory to help you determine what is right and wrong without the aid of religion. Yes, but the point is that religious morality is so deeply ingrained in society that any secular moral theories draw their essence from religion
What's more Catholic morality draws on Aristotle's Virtue Theory, not the other way around. You think jesus read aristotle?

You think jesus read aristotle?
Given that in the time he lived Aristotle was a major intellectual influence, it is possible. There is nothing to say Jesus couldn't have had read his works.

Yes, but the point is that religious morality is so deeply ingrained in society that any secular moral theories draw their essence from religion

That might be true for Deontology as it was written by Kant but Utilitarianism merely states that you should do what it good for the greatest number of people and virtue theory supports the development of a virtuous character.

You think jesus read aristotle?

No, Jesus's teachings mainly came from Socrates and Plato, their works were quite widespread at the time and if Jesus had visited the nearest large town he would have been able to study them to his heart's content.

However, I was refering to ideas such as the seven deadly sins which were lifted directly from Aristotle's virtue theory. This is one of my problems with Christianity, there's nothing new in it.

Ok, so I saw yet more headlines about the cartoon rioting today, and it got me thinking. I came up with what I think is a very good analogy for this whole situation.
A family(representing muslims within the countries where the riots are going on) is visiting in the home another family(representing the nations themselves. The children of the visiting family(which represent the extreme rioting/terrorist types) start breaking things in the home. Their parents for the most part ignore it, claiming that they shouldn't be held liable for the actions of their children (boys will be boys, as it were). Perhaps they have a point, but either way, if they can't or won't apply some disipline, the owners of the house are going to have had enough and do it for them. Even the most tollerent people have their limits.
The downside of this is that far too many of the parents are likely to side with the unruly children in response to what they will see as persecution of fellow muslims.
Far better for everyone if the muslim community at large will make it clear to their children that continued violence is not acceptable. I think that public distain and scorn from the vast majority of muslims towards these protesters would go a long ways towards ending this thing peacefully. It might also make suicide bomber recruitment a little harder.
It seems to me that if this "peacefull majority of muslims" that I keep reading about on this thread don't step up and do something about controling those who would use their religion as an excuse for violence and hatred, then the seemingly inevitable result will be much bloodier. Nobody wants that.

It seems to me that if this "peacefull majority of muslims" that I keep reading about on this thread don't step up and do something about controling those who would use their religion as an excuse for violence and hatred, then the seemingly inevitable result will be much bloodier. Nobody wants that.

Exactly!! Where is this so called "peaceful majority?" I've heard they are afraid to step up since they'll be targeted for attack as well if they do. However, since they are already targeted for attacks (look at the number of them killed in suicide bombings, the school take over in Russia, etc.) they should be ready to take a stand against the radicals. For the life of me I don't understand why they are still sitting around with their thumbs up their a** unless they secretly approve of what the radicals are doing, but are just too chicken sh** to step up and admit it or participate actively with the radicals.

Exactly!! Where is this so called "peaceful majority?"

Hint: they're not on the news. Because they're living in peace. Peace does not make news.

For the life of me I don't understand why they are still sitting around with their thumbs up their a** unless they secretly approve of what the radicals are doing, but are just too chicken sh** to step up and admit it or participate actively with the radicals.

You know how come is it when Fred Phelps does some bullshit, no one uses him as an example of how corrupt, barbaric and evil an idealogy Christianity is? Sure, people get outraged at his antics - but not the majority of people, Christian or otherwise. So what are they doing, standing around with their thumbs up their ass?

No, they're living a normal, peaceful life and they don't believe that just cuz some asshole uses religion as an excuse for hate, that the religion needs to be defended. Because no one ATTACKS the religion just cuz of that asshole.

Because the only ones who believe Fred Phelps is actually doing what he does for Christianity, are those who believe Christianity is already evil. Same with Islam. The only ones who believe "radicals" are actually doing what they do because of Islam, are those who hate and fear Islam. Period.

With Muslims, where every crime committed by any Muslim is used as a justification for sweeping generalizations about the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.

With Muslims, where every crime committed by any Muslim is used as a justification for sweeping generalizations about the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.

Fred Phelps and his ilk constitute a tiny fraction of Christians. He's lucky to get 20 people together to back him in a single protest.

Millions of people are rioting over the cartoons - and kiling and burning over it.

While I can't say that ALL Muslims think that way, a substantial number DO think that way, and many more SYMPATHIZE with the ones who are actually being violent.

That's MILLIONS with an M.

Fred Phelps and his ilk constitute a tiny fraction of Christians. He's lucky to get 20 people together to back him in a single protest.

Millions of people are rioting over the cartoons - and kiling and burning over it.


The principle is the same. It's a tiny fraction of the overall population in question. Even if your number is correct - let's be generous and say there are 5 million murdering Muslims - that's 0.38% of the total Islamic population. If it was an election, those guys wouldn't even be a major party.

And I really doubt that the number of rioters is equal to the number of people who are killing.

While I can't say that ALL Muslims think that way, a substantial number DO think that way, and many more SYMPATHIZE with the ones who are actually being violent.

Well, one would expect members of a religion to have "sympathy" no? Sympathy is one of those things religious people of all brands tend to have. When they're not asserting the supremacy of their chosen religion, that is.

But I'm glad you don't make the generalization leap into saying ALL Muslims are such and such.

But I'm glad you don't make the generalization leap into saying ALL Muslims are such and such.
Something to note:

In some parts of the world, being unwilling to pay the jizya tax will get you killed.

Millions of people living in those countries.

Right now, the world seems to be sliding towards war, whether anyone likes it or not.

Just look at the continuing riots over the cartoons, and you'll see the momentum increasing. Which will generate an opposing backlash - already, many people in Europe are starting to believe that Muslims who live there are a problem.

What started as an attack in the US has blossomed into war in several countries, and blossomed further into feelings of antipathy in Europe - in fact, there's a lot of demand for Muslims to drop their culture and assimilate - or leave.

It's only a matter of time now. The avalanche has begun - it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Yes I do, thank you for asking

Why you ask? I feel that unless something is done about increasing Islamic violence against other communities, WW3 will arise, and we will not be prepared.

Stockpile all weapons now. Biological, Chemical and Nuclear warfare must remain open options as long as there is a threat.

It's only a matter of time now. The avalanche has begun - it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

You've said that exact phrase before, and it's starting to sound like the pebbles CAN vote and you're one of 'em. As is Imperiux here. The difference is you vote pro-war, and other pebbles vote against. But I think there's still an election.

You've said that exact phrase before, and it's starting to sound like the pebbles CAN vote and you're one of 'em. As is Imperiux here. The difference is you vote pro-war, and other pebbles vote against. But I think there's still an election.
Not anymore.

I don't vote pro-war - and I believe that the ball is in their court.

Right now, the West is showing remarkable restraint - I even consider the invasion of Iraq restraint. We could have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11, but we didn't.

I don't foresee any restraint of that kind out of them - I expect that as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons (and they already have the missiles) they will use them.

Not anymore.

I don't vote pro-war - and I believe that the ball is in their court.

Right now, the West is showing remarkable restraint - I even consider the invasion of Iraq restraint. We could have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11, but we didn't.

I don't foresee any restraint of that kind out of them - I expect that as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons (and they already have the missiles) they will use them.

Nuking Afghanistan after 9-11 would have been tantamount to inviting the Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths to visit the Roman Gift Shops. Even if Bin Ladin didn't survive in Tora Bora, the sheer callous display of taking out an oppressed populace just to get at one man would have had the entire Muslim world turn against the United States.

Millions committing violence is nothing compared to billions.

Nuking Afghanistan after 9-11 would have been tantamount to inviting the Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths to visit the Roman Gift Shops. Even if Bin Ladin didn't survive in Tora Bora, the sheer callous display of taking out an oppressed populace just to get at one man would have had the entire Muslim world turn against the United States.

Millions committing violence is nothing compared to billions.

You have to admit that was restraint.

Do you honestly believe that Iran will show the same restraint?

You have to admit that was restraint.



No, that was not restraint, that was just common sense. You'd have to be out of your mind to nuke an entire country to kill just a relativly few people. That would have been the worst war crime in the history of humanity. Wow, get some perspective.

The principle is the same. It's a tiny fraction of the overall population in question. Even if your number is correct - let's be generous and say there are 5 million murdering Muslims - that's 0.38% of the total Islamic population. If it was an election, those guys wouldn't even be a major party.


You're right, in an election they wouldn't have a chance, unless the rest of the muslim world doesn't care enough to vote.
Sure, they probably are insignificant as a percentage, but people are still getting killed because of their actions.
Imagine this, if the next time some radical muslim leader type organised a riot, instead of just the radicals showing up, All the local muslims came to the party. If your claims are correct, the trouble makers would be outnumbered more than 100 to 1 by people willing to help restrain those inclined to violence. Seems like that would quiet things down a little.

Right now, the West is showing remarkable restraint - I even consider the invasion of Iraq restraint. We could have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11, but we didn't.

Someone tried this argument on me recently, that restraining from killing when one can just push the little red button means you ascribe to some higher plane of morality.

Bullshit. Even if there WAS cause to use a real warhead, what do you think would happen when any other nuclear country watch a Peacekeeper rocket blipping across the radar?

They sure as hell won't wait to ask where it's going.

No, that was not restraint, that was just common sense. You'd have to be out of your mind to nuke an entire country to kill just a relativly few people. That would have been the worst war crime in the history of humanity. Wow, get some perspective.
He has perspective alright. Even though he states that he is not pro war, he appears to be pro annihilation. In an earlier thread, he advocated the obliteration of Afghanistan and North Korea.

The Middle East....it is ALL about OIL!!

For the U.S., maybe (though I have a few doubts about the blanket nature of your claim) for the radical Islamics, however, it is about the destruction of Israel and her western allies and the imposition of a world wide theocracy under Sharia Law. Speaking of which, I have yet to hear any of the few moderate Muslims I have heard denounce violence in the Islamic world agree that Israel has a right to exist. Even the most "peaceful" among them seemingly go along with the idea that Israel should be destroyed, or at least that it has no right to exist as a nation.

If any one can point me to a Muslim who agrees that Israel has a right to exist as a country, I'd appreciate it. It would be a first for me (btw, anyone think there is a chance in hell that Hammas will back off their call for the destruction of Israel? I don't think they will, the U.S. will cut off the $$ and the violence will escalate - just my guess).

For the U.S., maybe (though I have a few doubts about the blanket nature of your claim) for the radical Islamics, however, it is about the destruction of Israel and her western allies and the imposition of a world wide theocracy under Sharia Law. Speaking of which, I have yet to hear any of the few moderate Muslims I have heard denounce violence in the Islamic world agree that Israel has a right to exist. Even the most "peaceful" among them seemingly go along with the idea that Israel should be destroyed, or at least that it has no right to exist as a nation.

If any one can point me to a Muslim who agrees that Israel has a right to exist as a country, I'd appreciate it. It would be a first for me (btw, anyone think there is a chance in hell that Hammas will back off their call for the destruction of Israel? I don't think they will, the U.S. will cut off the $$ and the violence will escalate - just my guess).
If the world wasn't extremely dependent on oil, and if most of the world's oil reserves weren't in the Middle East, there wouldn't be hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments in this region. There also wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of troops in the area. Most of the western world wouldn't even know where Iraq or Iran were and certainly would never of heard of places such as Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Mosul, Takrit, or Basra.

Yes, without the oil, the Middle East is just one giant sandbox, and the only practical items you can make with sand is glass and concrete.

And as long as the world thirsts for oil, there will be wars, death, and destruction in the Middle East. The Muslims and Arabs that inhabit the ME are fully aware that the west will do whatever is necessary to ensure that an abundant supply of oil will be there to meet their needs.

Iran is asking to be invaded, Christians will rise up to defend their jewish brothers, as I said before, another Crusade IS coming, and this time, Mecca will burn.

Everyone who's read my posts knows my answer

Iran is asking to be invaded, Christians will rise up to defend their jewish brothers, as I said before, another Crusade IS coming, and this time, Mecca will burn.

...did you have an erection when you typed that? Be honest now.

Everyone who's read my posts knows there answers. And with Musli blood

YES

Musli? The German breakfast cereal?

The second Iran Jihads its way across Israeli soil, Mecca is a free target for Christendom! Islam is NOT A VALID RELIGION, Muhammed did NOT see an angel, he wanted power, so he manipulated the poeple by saying "You can kill the infedels, and rape their women, and in Heaven, you get more women to rape." It is that simple, they are NOT a faith, just a bunch of angry A-rabs

The second Iran Jihads its way across Israeli soil, Mecca is a free target for Christendom! Islam is NOT A VALID RELIGION, Muhammed did NOT see an angel, he wanted power, so he manipulated the poeple by saying "You can kill the infedels, and rape their women, and in Heaven, you get more women to rape." It is that simple, they are NOT a faith, just a bunch of angry A-rabs

Isn't one of the bible's teachings love thy neighbour?

Everyone who's read my posts knows there answers. And with Musli blood

YES
I just wanted to say goodbye......I don't think I will miss your posts too much.

And turn the other cheek, attacking Israel would be the other cheek. After that, CRUSADE!

The second Iran Jihads its way across Israeli soil, Mecca is a free target for Christendom! Islam is NOT A VALID RELIGION, Muhammed did NOT see an angel, he wanted power, so he manipulated the poeple by saying "You can kill the infedels, and rape their women, and in Heaven, you get more women to rape." It is that simple, they are NOT a faith, just a bunch of angry A-rabs

You didn't answer my question.

That leads me to guess that the answer was "Yes."

You're one sick little pervert.

Of course not, the Islams need to be silenced (again) and Iran is the prime target.