These places you speak of have very poor infastructure, a poor economy and as a result, politics dictated largely by religion. These places are not exempt or special.
So you admit that Islam playes the role in those killings? Then explain to me why would Muslims from Somalia venture to Ethiopia actively kill Christians from other country? There's no economical gain here, nor it would improve somalian infrastructure. But like you said Agressive Islam plays a valid role here.
Just because something happened in the past does not invalidate its implications today. The world does not simply progress forever on. The Middle East has regressed due to things like the Mujahideen, Western interference and political fuck ups
Again cruseders were pushed out of there so long ago that it doesn't matter by now. For the wester screw ups I agree. Killing all those dictators was a bad idea since they held that rabble in.
The majority does not have that agenda you speak of. That was part of my point, but it appears to have passed you by. There are isolated instances in Europe of people wanting that, yes. But these are NOT THE MAJORITY - contrary to what Pegida would have you believe.
The problem is that the minority you speak about consist of Imams( watch what Mohammad Fouad al-Barazi have to say about muslim immigration) While I agree that common Muslim have no agenda they are directed like a sheep and are used by the ones who have such agenda.
And so do radical Christians like with the WBC and KKK get their ideas from a holy text. Your point?
How many people got killed because of it? Also KKK was more racial issue not religious one. There were targeting fellow christians just for being black. My point is the scale.
Then why for example in Nigeria or other places Muslims seclect Christians and kill them while letting other Muslims go? What kind of econom… moreical ground you see here? Political climates?
These places you speak of have very poor infastructure, a poor economy and as a result, politics dictated largely by religion. These places are not exempt or special.
seriously you're going to drag out somehting that happended almost a millenium ago? People were primitive and limited them. Now they have all the information in the reach of their hands.
Just because something happened in the past does not invalidate its implications today. The world does not simply progress forever on. The Middle East has regressed due to things like the Mujahideen, Western interference and political fuck ups.
Awfuly lot of that minority I see...but is the MAJORITY that much better with their SHARIA4WORLD agenda?
The majority does not have tha… [view original content]
For all those that crossed the borders illegaly? Yes. Murderes, rapist, thievs Yes. There should be no tolerance for that sort of behavior no matter where you came from or what do you belive. Muslims are not excempt from following the rules.
When you're in Rome you act like a Roman, So if Muslims want to live with us they should follow our rules not theirs, if they don't like it they can always go from where they came from, not demand that we adjust to them.
It's a ground and foundation of their culture. For you it may be a work of fiction but for a lot of them it is somehting to die for...It seems that you don't understand that.
You seem to think I don't understand the premise of one dying for their beliefs. That's just a nonsensical accusation. I was just saying that it's fictional since we both agreed it was fictional (since you said you agreed no religious beliefs were worthy of respect).
True but let's don't forget that Saudi Arabia's interpretation which is borderline ISIS hold a great value since the Court of Mecca is the closest thing to the universal Muslim court.
Yep, Saudi Arabia has some pretty shit interpretations of the Quran that they hold the civilian population accountable to. Borderline Daesh? Not sure if I would go that far, but they are certainly not good.
Why did you bring other religions into the discussion? They irrelevant to it.
Quilt of the same cloth. They are most definitely not irrelevant and offer important allegory.
Also what moral standards are you talking about? Because beheading people just because they belive in something else is pretty amoral to me...
I take it you've not read the Quran? I've only recently started dredging my way through it (which has been more of a struggle than I would have imagined, the fact that it doesn't follow any chronological path really irritates me). I believe you meant immoral, not amoral? In any case would you find it immorally to kill the people consistently attacking and killing your people in order to save the lives of your people? In the context of the book the "infidels" Muhammed is justifying the killing of are those from ancient Mecca (it had a different name at the time, I believe) whom were doing exactly that. It wasn't "just because they believed something else." (BigBlindMax (my link to Max isn't working) make sure I'm not spready disinformation here.)
Actually there's a lot of reason Muslims don't rationalize it, first and foremost the very structure of the religion that is basically anti-change and clearly states to kill everyone who dares to critisize it...
Yep, that explains all the Muslims not doing that. The other abrahamic religions were also anti-change (diversion from the prevalent interpretation meant diversion from God) and look at them. The culture more determines interpretation of religious texts than the religious texts shape culture. This is evident by the various spectrum of interpretation of Islam as well as the diversion away from the older Christian and Jewish interpretations of their books. Sorry, but repeating this concept is growing stale and you're not adding anything to refute it.
That last section was just. . . wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Read through our conversation in regards to Nazi and Daesh terminology. What you just said was. . . unintelligent.
You honestly think that a book alone will determine how a person acts and thinks? If that's the case then why don't all Muslims adhere to th… moree same Islam, and why is it that we cannot just drop pamphlets onto Daesh territory that state "don't stone ya'lls gals"? Because it's the culture they've been raised in and the interpretation of Islam they have been indoctrinated into that determines how they view the world, not a lonesome book and their thought-provoked personal interpretation of it irrespective of the people around them. The spectrum of types of worshipers alone should be proof enough of that. A holy text is as benign as any other work of fiction such as Cinderella or The Witcher unless the impressionable are told otherwise.
It's a ground and foundation of their culture. For you it may be a work of fiction but for a lot of them it is somehting to die for...It seems that you don't understand that.
They are related, sure. T… [view original content]
You seem to think I don't understand the premise of one dying for their beliefs. That's just a nonsensical accusation. I was just saying that it's fictional since we both agreed it was fictional (since you said you agreed no religious beliefs were worthy of respect).
Yes for us not them.
I take it you've not read the Quran? I've only recently started dredging my way through it (which has been more of a struggle than I would have imagined, the fact that it doesn't follow any chronological path really irritates me). I believe you meant immoral, not amoral? In any case would you find it immorally to kill the people consistently attacking and killing your people in order to save the lives of your people? In the context of the book the "infidels" Muhammed is justifying the killing of are those from ancient Mecca (it had a different name at the time, I believe) whom were doing exactly that. It wasn't "just because they believed something else." (BigBlindMax (my link to Max isn't working) make sure I'm not spready disinformation here.)
Yes I meant immoral, mistake on my part. I have read Quran, yeah it's been a pain, true he used it towards those guyes in Mecca but now they're using it against the rest. So yeah he was at was then but thanks to that he payed the way for the war oriented interpretaion of it.
Yep, that explains all the Muslims not doing that. The other abrahamic religions were also anti-change (diversion from the prevalent interpretation meant diversion from God) anr look at them. The culture more determines interpretation of religious texts than the religious texts shape culture. This is evident by the various spectrum of interpretation of Islam as well as the diversion away from the older Christian and Jewish interpretations of thwir books. Sorry, but repeating this concept is growing stale and you're not adding anything to refute it.
Then it seems we're reached and impasse here.
That last section was just. . . wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Read through our conversation in regards to Nazi and Daesh terminology. What you just said was. . . unintelligent.
I wasn't referring to our conversation but the general things that is happening. Cameron said to use only Deash to not offend Muslims. There are multiple example across the world that people are unable to even name Nazi nationality due to the lack of context and weak knowledge of history. That's why I'm adamant about proper terminology.
Just so that everyone is absolutely certain of the fact that they are German? Does "Nazi" not reflect that characteristic? I don't get it. (And, funnily, not all Nazis were/are German. Just look at the neo-nazi groups of today and at how Hitler looked at groups such as the British.)
Yes precisely for that fact. For people without proper education Nazi mean evil guys that's all. No nationality or anything Also again I'm not talking about the present but the past.
It's a ground and foundation of their culture. For you it may be a work of fiction but for a lot of them it is somehting to die for...It see… morems that you don't understand that.
You seem to think I don't understand the premise of one dying for their beliefs. That's just a nonsensical accusation. I was just saying that it's fictional since we both agreed it was fictional (since you said you agreed no religious beliefs were worthy of respect).
True but let's don't forget that Saudi Arabia's interpretation which is borderline ISIS hold a great value since the Court of Mecca is the closest thing to the universal Muslim court.
Yep, Saudi Arabia has some pretty shit interpretations of the Quran that they hold the civilian population accountable to. Borderline Daesh? Not sure if I would go that far, but they are certainly not good.
Why did you bring other religions into the discussion? They irrelevant to it.
Quilt of… [view original content]
The point I'm making is simply that people prove what they are by what they do.
And that if a person's actions don't line up with their words, their words are hollow, and therefore they are hypocrites.
I've see those kinds of people my whole life, and no matter what their skin color, racial, social, or religiosity background is, they're behavioral patterns are pretty much the same.
So no matter what the Koran may teach - even if it were a religion that preaches peace - the actions of its members say otherwise.
Now, before this goes any further, it is quite obvious that neither one of us is going to change the other's viewpoint on this issue. So with that said I believe that the best thing to do here would be to end things here, and that's we leave it on a peaceful note.
Kindly miss me with the biblical stuff and stop hiding behind quotes. I'm having a conversation with you, not Jesus or Elvis.
What point are you even trying to make here?
For all those that crossed the borders illegaly? Yes. Murderes, rapist, thievs Yes. There should be no tolerance for that sort of behavior n… moreo matter where you came from or what do you belive. Muslims are not excempt from following the rules.
When you're in Rome you act like a Roman, So if Muslims want to live with us they should follow our rules not theirs, if they don't like it they can always go from where they came from, not demand that we adjust to them.
I'm happy to hear it. If I were to live in your country I would follow your rules. It's common etiquette for guest to follow host rules. I fail to see why people do not grasp that.
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
Yes I meant immoral, mistake on my part. I have read Quran, yeah it's been a pain, true he used it towards those guyes in Mecca but now they're using it against the rest. So yeah he was at was then but thanks to that he payed the way for the war oriented interpretaion of it.
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
Then it seems we're reached and impasse here.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is inherently bad, but that's another conversation, and one that we would likely see eye to eye on.)
I wasn't referring to our conversation but the general things that is happening. Cameron said to use only Deash to not offend Muslims. There are multiple example across the world that people are unable to even name Nazi nationality due to the lack of context and weak knowledge of history. That's why I'm adamant about proper terminology.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Anyone interested in a real conversation regarding Nazis knew they were predominantly German, just as anyone looking for a real conversation about Daesh know they are Islamic terrorists. It's redundant and unnecessary. Daesh is a spit in the face to ISIS, the least we can do is belittle them. I don't understand your infatuation with repeating blatantly obvious information. (Well, I have a theory or two). Proper terminology is a word that describes them correctly, which Daesh does perfectly.
You seem to think I don't understand the premise of one dying for their beliefs. That's just a nonsensical accusation. I was just saying tha… moret it's fictional since we both agreed it was fictional (since you said you agreed no religious beliefs were worthy of respect).
Yes for us not them.
I take it you've not read the Quran? I've only recently started dredging my way through it (which has been more of a struggle than I would have imagined, the fact that it doesn't follow any chronological path really irritates me). I believe you meant immoral, not amoral? In any case would you find it immorally to kill the people consistently attacking and killing your people in order to save the lives of your people? In the context of the book the "infidels" Muhammed is justifying the killing of are those from ancient Mecca (it had a different name at the time, I believe) whom were doing exactly that. It wasn't "just because they believed someth… [view original content]
I'm happy to hear it. If I were to live in your country I would follow your rules. It's common etiquette for guest to follow host rules. I fail to see why people do not grasp that.
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
I think that we missed each other points here. So let's stop and clarify. You and I agree that no religious beliefs are worth a damn. But that's our opinion here and there are people that are willing to die or worse kill for it. That's the problem here. They are willing to commint crimes because some dude bazilion years ago wrote so.
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
But you have to agree that that way is indicated.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is inherently bad, but that's another conversation, and one that we would likely see eye to eye on.)
Probably. An example of a knife or gun would be a good one. It can kill but on it's own it can't do much. It just give the possibility to be used in wrong way.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Anyone interested in a real conversation regarding Nazis knew they were predominantly German, just as anyone looking for a real conversation about Daesh know they are Islamic terrorists. It's redundant and unnecessary. Daesh is a spit in the face to ISIS, the least we can do is belittle them. I don't understand your infatuation with repeating blatantly obvious information. (Well, I have a theory or two). Proper terminology is a word that describes them correctly, which Daesh does perfectly.
The problem lies within people who aren't. Many people do not do proper research and make statements based on incomplete or fragmentary info that leads to misunderstandings. That is why proper terminology is important. Forbidding to say Islamic State on air so the muslims won't get offended in nothing more than PC censorship. Yes Daesh is offensive but it shouldn't be used exclusively.
I don't understand your infatuation with repeating blatantly obvious information. (Well, I have a theory or two). Proper terminology is a word that describes them correctly, which Daesh does perfectly.
You would be suprised how the balantly obvious information can be manipulated...
Yes for us not them.
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
Yes I meant im… moremoral, mistake on my part. I have read Quran, yeah it's been a pain, true he used it towards those guyes in Mecca but now they're using it against the rest. So yeah he was at was then but thanks to that he payed the way for the war oriented interpretaion of it.
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
Then it seems we're reached and impasse here.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is inherently bad, but that's another c… [view original content]
I think that we missed each other points here. So let's stop and clarify. You and I agree that no religious beliefs are worth a damn. But that's our opinion here and there are people that are willing to die or worse kill for it. That's the problem here. They are willing to commint crimes because some dude bazilion years ago wrote so.
Yes, they believe their book is fact. Now read this with the knowledge that we both know they believe it was fact:
"You honestly think that a book alone will determine how a person acts and thinks? If that's the case then why don't all Muslims adhere to the same Islam, and why is it that we cannot just drop pamphlets onto Daesh territory that state "don't stone ya'lls gals"? Because it's the culture they've been raised in and the interpretation of Islam they have been indoctrinated into that determines how they view the world, not a lonesome book and their thought-provoked personal interpretation of it irrespective of the people around them. The spectrum of types of worshipers alone should be proof enough of that. A holy text is as benign as any other work of fiction such as Cinderella or The Witcher unless the impressionable are told otherwise."
I'm not sure why you focused on me noting the book as fiction. I noted it was fiction because we both believe it's fiction and to highlight that without someone to convince the impressionable that it's anything but fiction it's just that, another fiction. If it were just a book that they picked up without their peers telling them "yes it's true" then it would have only as much influence as the pamphlet bombs.
But you have to agree that that way is indicated.
Indicated? That it is indeed interpreted in that way? Of course it is.
Probably. An example of a knife or gun would be a good one. It can kill but on it's own it can't do much. It just give the possibility to be used in wrong way.
Now imagine you have two houses. In house one you have a child who's knowledgeable parents tell him the gun is a tool that must only be used under dire and specific circumstances. In house two you have a child who's "knowledgeable parents" tell him that anyone that doesn't own a gun is evil and must not be tolerated. The gun hasn't changed, but one of these kids is far more dangerous than the other. Now we can talk about removing the gun from the house completely, making the child even less dangerous, but this would be analogous to removing religion, and dogma larger scale, completely, and this just isn't feasible.
The problem lies within people who aren't. Many people do not do proper research and make statements based on incomplete or fragmentary info that leads to misunderstandings.
I would be more worried about people making the mistake of thinking Muslims in general are terrorists than I would people making the mistake of not knowing Daesh are Islamic terrorists. This is common knowledge, and even if someone doesn't know the term it isn't that hard to figure out in pretty much any context it's brought up in.
That is why proper terminology is important. Forbidding to say Islamic State on air so the muslims won't get offended in nothing more than PC censorship. Yes Daesh is offensive but it shouldn't be used exclusively.
Did someone actually ban the words Islamic State from air? That would be idiotic. I wouldn't mind Daesh being used exclusively, but I would Islamic State being forbidden.
You would be suprised how the balantly obvious information can be manipulated...
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
I think that we missed each other points … morehere. So let's stop and clarify. You and I agree that no religious beliefs are worth a damn. But that's our opinion here and there are people that are willing to die or worse kill for it. That's the problem here. They are willing to commint crimes because some dude bazilion years ago wrote so.
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
But you have to agree that that way is indicated.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is i… [view original content]
There was some strife in the Nationalist era, mostly tribal and political rivalries. You can largely thank Sykes-Picot and the hubris of the colonial powers for that. Still, it was pretty standard "developing country" stuff, nothing like today. Arab Nationalism had its problems, but it largely kept the sectarian shit under control.
The humiliating military defeats against Israel is where the train began to jump the tracks.
Believe it, modern Islamic terror rose from the ashes of pan-Arabism. Perhaps 'secular' was too strong of a word though. social conservatism… more had its role and most of the dictators of the time knew how to pander to the religious crowd. Still, most middle eastern countries (with a few notable exceptions) were quite cosmopolitan and modern. The seeds of future prospers had already been planted in the colonial era, but the 50's to 70's were largely a stable and productive time for the Arab world. Political instability and war largely ended this era of Arab history and the Arab Spring was its death rattle.
Weird. I had always assumed strife was pretty much constant in the Middle East since the dissolution of the gunpowder empires.
There was some strife in the Nationalist era, mostly tribal and political rivalries. You can largely thank Sykes-Picot and the hubris of th… moree colonial powers for that. Still, it was pretty standard "developing country" stuff, nothing like today. Arab Nationalism had its problems, but it largely kept the sectarian shit under control.
The humiliating military defeats against Israel is where the train began to jump the tracks.
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
I think that we missed each other points … morehere. So let's stop and clarify. You and I agree that no religious beliefs are worth a damn. But that's our opinion here and there are people that are willing to die or worse kill for it. That's the problem here. They are willing to commint crimes because some dude bazilion years ago wrote so.
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
But you have to agree that that way is indicated.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is i… [view original content]
1967, the Six Day War. Arab League land and air forces were thoroughly crushed by an Israeli pre-emptive attack. It was a huge embarrassment. The Arabs lost a lot of territory (Sinai, Golan and the West Bank) and prestige. The Yon Kippur War followed in 1973, which similarly ended poorly (but slightly better than the last one, in that it allowed the Egypt and Syria to sue for peace with dignity intact). All of this was a huge blow to Arab pride and unity as it basically invalidated the idea that a union of Arab states could band together and form a geopolitical powerhouse. Not to mention the impact on their economies and militaries was pretty dramatic.
There's were many other factors in play, but this is the most important IMO.
For all those that crossed the borders illegaly? Yes. Murderes, rapist, thievs Yes. There should be no tolerance for that sort of behavior n… moreo matter where you came from or what do you belive. Muslims are not excempt from following the rules.
When you're in Rome you act like a Roman, So if Muslims want to live with us they should follow our rules not theirs, if they don't like it they can always go from where they came from, not demand that we adjust to them.
So you admit that Islam playes the role in those killings? Then explain to me why would Muslims from Somalia venture to Ethiopia actively kill Christians from other country? There's no economical gain here, nor it would improve somalian infrastructure. But like you said Agressive Islam plays a valid role here.
This is a straw man. You see, the religion plays a role, but it is not the ONLY factor, nor (as was my original point in that arguement you refer to me contradicting) is the problem with the religion itself. A lack of infrastructure, proper education and poor economical climates lead these people to turn to extreme measures. In such scenarios, the radicals take advantage of this and go on these killings. And again, as you say, this involves the overtly aggressive interpetations of Islam. So while the religion itself was a factor, it was not the catalyst.
Again cruseders were pushed out of there so long ago that it doesn't matter by now. For the wester screw ups I agree. Killing all those dictators was a bad idea since they held that rabble in.
The Christian radicalism that formed in those times happened not directly of the religion itself, but rather the Political climate. To dismiss this because of how long ago it happened is fallacious and holds no actual reason behind it.
The problem is that the minority you speak about consist of Imams( watch what Mohammad Fouad al-Barazi have to say about muslim immigration) While I agree that common Muslim have no agenda they are directed like a sheep and are used by the ones who have such agenda.
The "common Muslim" is "directed like a sheep and used by ones who have such agenda"? You will need to explain this in greater depth. Because, the last time I checked, to say a "common" something encompasses the majority.
How many people got killed because of it? Also KKK was more racial issue not religious one. There were targeting fellow christians just for being black. My point is the scale.
You have a point there, and I do acknowledge that no one has died as a result of the WBC. but it overlooks the main point I made: how Islam is not the only religion used as a pretext for horrible things.
Furthermore, you also have other grouos like Terrorist Christian militias that operated during the Lebanese Civil War, the National Liberation front of Tripura and there are indeed a great many groups of Christian Extremists in Africa, as it turns out from a search of Christian Extremists.
And as for the point in scale, it is not Islam that allowed it to grow so large, but rather a series of chain events that led to the to the political climate and socio-economic conditions for the extremism to spread. I have iterated this time and time again, yet it does not seem to get across.
These places you speak of have very poor infastructure, a poor economy and as a result, politics dictated largely by religion. These places … moreare not exempt or special.
So you admit that Islam playes the role in those killings? Then explain to me why would Muslims from Somalia venture to Ethiopia actively kill Christians from other country? There's no economical gain here, nor it would improve somalian infrastructure. But like you said Agressive Islam plays a valid role here.
Just because something happened in the past does not invalidate its implications today. The world does not simply progress forever on. The Middle East has regressed due to things like the Mujahideen, Western interference and political fuck ups
Again cruseders were pushed out of there so long ago that it doesn't matter by now. For the wester screw ups I agree. Killing all those dictators was a bad idea since they held that rabble in.
The majority… [view original content]
This is a straw man. You see, the religion plays a role, but it is not the ONLY factor, nor (as was my original point in that arguement you refer to me contradicting) is the problem with the religion itself. A lack of infrastructure, proper education and poor economical climates lead these people to turn to extreme measures. In such scenarios, the radicals take advantage of this and go on these killings. And again, as you say, this involves the overtly aggressive interpetations of Islam. So while the religion itself was a factor, it was not the catalyst
Then why for example Copts do not organise terroris attacks? They are opressed, poor ect ect. Or Wietnamise, why Muslims are always the most numerous everywhere and cause problems? Why other minorities can adapt way better than them?
The Christian radicalism that formed in those times happened not directly of the religion itself, but rather the Political climate. To dismiss this because of how long ago it happened is fallacious and holds no actual reason behind it.
Yes because the people were different then and you can't judge them in the same ways you can judge gues who have access to internet and every other achievement of modern time yet still kill people for somehting written 14 centuries ago.
The "common Muslim" is "directed like a sheep and used by ones who have such agenda"? You will need to explain this in greater depth. Because, the last time I checked, to say a "common" something encompasses the majority.
While normal Muslim do not necessarily have to have agenda the ruling minority (Imams) can lead them to fulfill their goal as if to not assimilate with host's society and have a family as large as possible ect.
You have a point there, and I do acknowledge that no one has died as a result of the WBC. but it overlooks the main point I made: how Islam is not the only religion used as a pretext for horrible things.
Furthermore, you also have other grouos like Terrorist Christian militias that operated during the Lebanese Civil War, the National Liberation front of Tripura and there are indeed a great many groups of Christian Extremists in Africa, as it turns out from a search of Christian Extremists.
And as for the point in scale, it is not Islam that allowed it to grow so large, but rather a series of chain events that led to the to the political climate and socio-economic conditions for the extremism to spread. I have iterated this time and time again, yet it does not seem to get across.
Lebanese civil war was jsut that war, both sides commnited war crimes both Christians and Muslims. Also I know I just disagree with it. There are many parts of the words where poverty is horrible but you don't see activity of radical movement that come even close to the muslim inhabitated area....
So you admit that Islam playes the role in those killings? Then explain to me why would Muslims from Somalia venture to Ethiopia actively ki… morell Christians from other country? There's no economical gain here, nor it would improve somalian infrastructure. But like you said Agressive Islam plays a valid role here.
This is a straw man. You see, the religion plays a role, but it is not the ONLY factor, nor (as was my original point in that arguement you refer to me contradicting) is the problem with the religion itself. A lack of infrastructure, proper education and poor economical climates lead these people to turn to extreme measures. In such scenarios, the radicals take advantage of this and go on these killings. And again, as you say, this involves the overtly aggressive interpetations of Islam. So while the religion itself was a factor, it was not the catalyst.
Again cruseders were pushed out of there so long ago that it doesn't … [view original content]
This is a straw man. You see, the religion plays a role, but it is not the ONLY factor, nor (as was my original point in that arguement you … morerefer to me contradicting) is the problem with the religion itself. A lack of infrastructure, proper education and poor economical climates lead these people to turn to extreme measures. In such scenarios, the radicals take advantage of this and go on these killings. And again, as you say, this involves the overtly aggressive interpetations of Islam. So while the religion itself was a factor, it was not the catalyst
Then why for example Copts do not organise terroris attacks? They are opressed, poor ect ect. Or Wietnamise, why Muslims are always the most numerous everywhere and cause problems? Why other minorities can adapt way better than them?
The Christian radicalism that formed in those times happened not directly of the religion itself, but rather the Political climate. To dismiss this … [view original content]
The cat in the corner. Even with the knife in its skin it thrashes and scratches.
EDIT: I like how the Belgians react in the picture you posted. Fear is the enemy of reason. They are stronger than Daesh. What would you have them do? Run around screaming, rioting, and shooting guns in the air? To show just what ISIS wants from them? Na.
The cat in the corner. Even with the knife in its skin it thrashes and scratches.
EDIT: I like how the Belgians react in the picture you … moreposted. Fear is the enemy of reason. They are stronger than Daesh. What would you have them do? Run around screaming, rioting, and shooting guns in the air? To show just what ISIS wants from them? Na.
I've only just realised: we seem to be regurgutating the same points over and over. I think we shall need to agree to disagree here.
And yes, I have heard the news out of Brussels; a truly unfortunate and disgusting occurrence
Again, these are not the majority. How many times must I explain this to you?
Sweden:
enter link description here
Uk
enter … morelink description here
France:
enter link description here
And my personal favorite:
enter link description here
Funny how numerous the evil minnority is...but you're right those is still minority. But history proved that what's matter is not a passive Majorty but an active minority...
Na, emotional responses, especially those based in aggression, anger, and fear, do more harm than good. A calm and rational mind is far better at determining the best course of action.
What action would you have preferred to see them doing?
Na, emotional responses, especially those based in aggression, anger, and fear, do more harm than good. A calm and rational mind is far better at determining the best course of action.
What action would you have preferred to see them doing?
Not my area of expertise. For the country itself there probably isn't much that can be done. Mourn the dead, which you apparently have a problem with. Perhaps some sort of increase in security, but I find it hard to believe security could be ramped up much more than it already is. As for the Islamic State, keep knocking them down. Why do you think they're attacking the west so much? It isn't because they're doing well, that's for certain.
Again, I ask what you wish to see happening in the picture from Belgium? What better alternative do you see those people enacting?
For the country itself there probably isn't much that can be done. Mourn the dead, which you apparently have a problem with. Perhaps some sort of increase in security, but I find it hard to believe security could be ramped up much more than it already is. As for the Islamic State, keep knocking them down. Why do you think they're attacking the west so much? It isn't because they're doing well, that's for certain.
I do morurn the dead, it's the living that disgust me. Belagians became so pathetic that it isn't even funny.
What Belgium should do is to shut down all Mosques for the time being, seal them and then thoroughly for any links to terrists. If found Imams get arrested instatly while those that attended should have their property searched. That's the calm and rational way.
Option two is that the Men of Belgium( If there are any left) should take the matters in their own hands since the state is unwilling and so incomeptent that this happened in the middle of the anti-terrist opperation.
Not my area of expertise. For the country itself there probably isn't much that can be done. Mourn the dead, which you apparently have a pro… moreblem with. Perhaps some sort of increase in security, but I find it hard to believe security could be ramped up much more than it already is. As for the Islamic State, keep knocking them down. Why do you think they're attacking the west so much? It isn't because they're doing well, that's for certain.
Again, I ask what you wish to see happening in the picture from Belgium? What better alternative do you see those people enacting?
Not my area of expertise.
How convenient...
For the country itself there probably isn't much that can be done. Mourn the dead,… more which you apparently have a problem with. Perhaps some sort of increase in security, but I find it hard to believe security could be ramped up much more than it already is. As for the Islamic State, keep knocking them down. Why do you think they're attacking the west so much? It isn't because they're doing well, that's for certain.
I do morurn the dead, it's the living that disgust me. Belagians became so pathetic that it isn't even funny.
What Belgium should do is to shut down all Mosques for the time being, seal them and then thoroughly for any links to terrists. If found Imams get arrested instatly while those that attended should have their property searched. That's the calm and rational way.
Option two is that the Men of Belgium( If there are any left) should take the matters in their … [view original content]
Comments
So you admit that Islam playes the role in those killings? Then explain to me why would Muslims from Somalia venture to Ethiopia actively kill Christians from other country? There's no economical gain here, nor it would improve somalian infrastructure. But like you said Agressive Islam plays a valid role here.
Again cruseders were pushed out of there so long ago that it doesn't matter by now. For the wester screw ups I agree. Killing all those dictators was a bad idea since they held that rabble in.
The problem is that the minority you speak about consist of Imams( watch what Mohammad Fouad al-Barazi have to say about muslim immigration) While I agree that common Muslim have no agenda they are directed like a sheep and are used by the ones who have such agenda.
How many people got killed because of it? Also KKK was more racial issue not religious one. There were targeting fellow christians just for being black. My point is the scale.
For all those that crossed the borders illegaly? Yes. Murderes, rapist, thievs Yes. There should be no tolerance for that sort of behavior no matter where you came from or what do you belive. Muslims are not excempt from following the rules.
When you're in Rome you act like a Roman, So if Muslims want to live with us they should follow our rules not theirs, if they don't like it they can always go from where they came from, not demand that we adjust to them.
Here I'm refering to ISIS strictly.
Oh ok.
You seem to think I don't understand the premise of one dying for their beliefs. That's just a nonsensical accusation. I was just saying that it's fictional since we both agreed it was fictional (since you said you agreed no religious beliefs were worthy of respect).
Yep, Saudi Arabia has some pretty shit interpretations of the Quran that they hold the civilian population accountable to. Borderline Daesh? Not sure if I would go that far, but they are certainly not good.
Quilt of the same cloth. They are most definitely not irrelevant and offer important allegory.
I take it you've not read the Quran? I've only recently started dredging my way through it (which has been more of a struggle than I would have imagined, the fact that it doesn't follow any chronological path really irritates me). I believe you meant immoral, not amoral? In any case would you find it immorally to kill the people consistently attacking and killing your people in order to save the lives of your people? In the context of the book the "infidels" Muhammed is justifying the killing of are those from ancient Mecca (it had a different name at the time, I believe) whom were doing exactly that. It wasn't "just because they believed something else." (BigBlindMax (my link to Max isn't working) make sure I'm not spready disinformation here.)
Yep, that explains all the Muslims not doing that. The other abrahamic religions were also anti-change (diversion from the prevalent interpretation meant diversion from God) and look at them. The culture more determines interpretation of religious texts than the religious texts shape culture. This is evident by the various spectrum of interpretation of Islam as well as the diversion away from the older Christian and Jewish interpretations of their books. Sorry, but repeating this concept is growing stale and you're not adding anything to refute it.
That last section was just. . . wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Read through our conversation in regards to Nazi and Daesh terminology. What you just said was. . . unintelligent.
Yes for us not them.
Yes I meant immoral, mistake on my part. I have read Quran, yeah it's been a pain, true he used it towards those guyes in Mecca but now they're using it against the rest. So yeah he was at was then but thanks to that he payed the way for the war oriented interpretaion of it.
Then it seems we're reached and impasse here.
I wasn't referring to our conversation but the general things that is happening. Cameron said to use only Deash to not offend Muslims. There are multiple example across the world that people are unable to even name Nazi nationality due to the lack of context and weak knowledge of history. That's why I'm adamant about proper terminology.
Yes precisely for that fact. For people without proper education Nazi mean evil guys that's all. No nationality or anything Also again I'm not talking about the present but the past.
The point I'm making is simply that people prove what they are by what they do.
And that if a person's actions don't line up with their words, their words are hollow, and therefore they are hypocrites.
I've see those kinds of people my whole life, and no matter what their skin color, racial, social, or religiosity background is, they're behavioral patterns are pretty much the same.
So no matter what the Koran may teach - even if it were a religion that preaches peace - the actions of its members say otherwise.
Now, before this goes any further, it is quite obvious that neither one of us is going to change the other's viewpoint on this issue. So with that said I believe that the best thing to do here would be to end things here, and that's we leave it on a peaceful note.
We have disagreed in the past, but on this, we're of one mind.
I'm happy to hear it. If I were to live in your country I would follow your rules. It's common etiquette for guest to follow host rules. I fail to see why people do not grasp that.
. . . That's what you're taking away from my post? The fact they don't think it's fiction?
Then you understand how it could be taken as a moral quotation, or at least not as immoral as "just kill any nonbelievers". It's sad that many have interpreted it with such vile consequences, sure, but it's not like that is the only way to interpret it.
Until you can demonstrate that Islam and the Quran are inherently bad, we are. Since that is not possible, it shall remain that way. (Obviously the argument could be made that dogma in general is inherently bad, but that's another conversation, and one that we would likely see eye to eye on.)
That's absolutely ridiculous. Anyone interested in a real conversation regarding Nazis knew they were predominantly German, just as anyone looking for a real conversation about Daesh know they are Islamic terrorists. It's redundant and unnecessary. Daesh is a spit in the face to ISIS, the least we can do is belittle them. I don't understand your infatuation with repeating blatantly obvious information. (Well, I have a theory or two). Proper terminology is a word that describes them correctly, which Daesh does perfectly.
Just as I would were I to be in your country. I also fail to see how this simple bit of etiquette goes ungrasped.
I think that we missed each other points here. So let's stop and clarify. You and I agree that no religious beliefs are worth a damn. But that's our opinion here and there are people that are willing to die or worse kill for it. That's the problem here. They are willing to commint crimes because some dude bazilion years ago wrote so.
But you have to agree that that way is indicated.
Probably. An example of a knife or gun would be a good one. It can kill but on it's own it can't do much. It just give the possibility to be used in wrong way.
The problem lies within people who aren't. Many people do not do proper research and make statements based on incomplete or fragmentary info that leads to misunderstandings. That is why proper terminology is important. Forbidding to say Islamic State on air so the muslims won't get offended in nothing more than PC censorship. Yes Daesh is offensive but it shouldn't be used exclusively.
You would be suprised how the balantly obvious information can be manipulated...
Yes, they believe their book is fact. Now read this with the knowledge that we both know they believe it was fact:
"You honestly think that a book alone will determine how a person acts and thinks? If that's the case then why don't all Muslims adhere to the same Islam, and why is it that we cannot just drop pamphlets onto Daesh territory that state "don't stone ya'lls gals"? Because it's the culture they've been raised in and the interpretation of Islam they have been indoctrinated into that determines how they view the world, not a lonesome book and their thought-provoked personal interpretation of it irrespective of the people around them. The spectrum of types of worshipers alone should be proof enough of that. A holy text is as benign as any other work of fiction such as Cinderella or The Witcher unless the impressionable are told otherwise."
I'm not sure why you focused on me noting the book as fiction. I noted it was fiction because we both believe it's fiction and to highlight that without someone to convince the impressionable that it's anything but fiction it's just that, another fiction. If it were just a book that they picked up without their peers telling them "yes it's true" then it would have only as much influence as the pamphlet bombs.
Indicated? That it is indeed interpreted in that way? Of course it is.
Now imagine you have two houses. In house one you have a child who's knowledgeable parents tell him the gun is a tool that must only be used under dire and specific circumstances. In house two you have a child who's "knowledgeable parents" tell him that anyone that doesn't own a gun is evil and must not be tolerated. The gun hasn't changed, but one of these kids is far more dangerous than the other. Now we can talk about removing the gun from the house completely, making the child even less dangerous, but this would be analogous to removing religion, and dogma larger scale, completely, and this just isn't feasible.
I would be more worried about people making the mistake of thinking Muslims in general are terrorists than I would people making the mistake of not knowing Daesh are Islamic terrorists. This is common knowledge, and even if someone doesn't know the term it isn't that hard to figure out in pretty much any context it's brought up in.
Did someone actually ban the words Islamic State from air? That would be idiotic. I wouldn't mind Daesh being used exclusively, but I would Islamic State being forbidden.
Perhaps you're right.
There was some strife in the Nationalist era, mostly tribal and political rivalries. You can largely thank Sykes-Picot and the hubris of the colonial powers for that. Still, it was pretty standard "developing country" stuff, nothing like today. Arab Nationalism had its problems, but it largely kept the sectarian shit under control.
The humiliating military defeats against Israel is where the train began to jump the tracks.
When did these humiliating defeats take place, and how did they set "this shit" into motion?
Got my message corrected.
1967, the Six Day War. Arab League land and air forces were thoroughly crushed by an Israeli pre-emptive attack. It was a huge embarrassment. The Arabs lost a lot of territory (Sinai, Golan and the West Bank) and prestige. The Yon Kippur War followed in 1973, which similarly ended poorly (but slightly better than the last one, in that it allowed the Egypt and Syria to sue for peace with dignity intact). All of this was a huge blow to Arab pride and unity as it basically invalidated the idea that a union of Arab states could band together and form a geopolitical powerhouse. Not to mention the impact on their economies and militaries was pretty dramatic.
There's were many other factors in play, but this is the most important IMO.
I see. Forgive me, for in that, I thought you meant all Muslims. My apologies.
This is a straw man. You see, the religion plays a role, but it is not the ONLY factor, nor (as was my original point in that arguement you refer to me contradicting) is the problem with the religion itself. A lack of infrastructure, proper education and poor economical climates lead these people to turn to extreme measures. In such scenarios, the radicals take advantage of this and go on these killings. And again, as you say, this involves the overtly aggressive interpetations of Islam. So while the religion itself was a factor, it was not the catalyst.
The Christian radicalism that formed in those times happened not directly of the religion itself, but rather the Political climate. To dismiss this because of how long ago it happened is fallacious and holds no actual reason behind it.
The "common Muslim" is "directed like a sheep and used by ones who have such agenda"? You will need to explain this in greater depth. Because, the last time I checked, to say a "common" something encompasses the majority.
You have a point there, and I do acknowledge that no one has died as a result of the WBC. but it overlooks the main point I made: how Islam is not the only religion used as a pretext for horrible things.
Furthermore, you also have other grouos like Terrorist Christian militias that operated during the Lebanese Civil War, the National Liberation front of Tripura and there are indeed a great many groups of Christian Extremists in Africa, as it turns out from a search of Christian Extremists.
And as for the point in scale, it is not Islam that allowed it to grow so large, but rather a series of chain events that led to the to the political climate and socio-economic conditions for the extremism to spread. I have iterated this time and time again, yet it does not seem to get across.
Then why for example Copts do not organise terroris attacks? They are opressed, poor ect ect. Or Wietnamise, why Muslims are always the most numerous everywhere and cause problems? Why other minorities can adapt way better than them?
Yes because the people were different then and you can't judge them in the same ways you can judge gues who have access to internet and every other achievement of modern time yet still kill people for somehting written 14 centuries ago.
While normal Muslim do not necessarily have to have agenda the ruling minority (Imams) can lead them to fulfill their goal as if to not assimilate with host's society and have a family as large as possible ect.
Lebanese civil war was jsut that war, both sides commnited war crimes both Christians and Muslims. Also I know I just disagree with it. There are many parts of the words where poverty is horrible but you don't see activity of radical movement that come even close to the muslim inhabitated area....
Also have you heard the news from Belgium?
[removed]
Nothing prevents terrorism like drawing graffiti on public property.
[removed]
There is one thing....you have to put the attacked country flag on your avatar heard that it works like charm
I wanted to respond with something serious, but then I saw the edit and just lol'd.
You go, Belgians! That graffiti will make ISIS cower in fear!
Cower in fear*
But think about it, do you ever see terrorists hitting the hood with these attacks? The hood is coated in graffiti. It might work.
Hmm, never thought about it. We need to ask some of 'em brothas if it would.
So?
Peace and justice 100% guaranteed!
I've only just realised: we seem to be regurgutating the same points over and over. I think we shall need to agree to disagree here.
And yes, I have heard the news out of Brussels; a truly unfortunate and disgusting occurrence
The cat in the corner. Even with the knife in its skin it thrashes and scratches.
EDIT: I like how the Belgians react in the picture you posted. Fear is the enemy of reason. They are stronger than Daesh. What would you have them do? Run around screaming, rioting, and shooting guns in the air? To show just what ISIS wants from them? Na.
Spare me that, they lost their balls, they are so disgustingly docile that it makes me want to puke my guts out.
Agreed.
Germany isn't France mate.
Look at how Hungarian's reacted it's gold!
Na, emotional responses, especially those based in aggression, anger, and fear, do more harm than good. A calm and rational mind is far better at determining the best course of action.
What action would you have preferred to see them doing?
And pray tell what calm and rational action should be taken?
Not my area of expertise. For the country itself there probably isn't much that can be done. Mourn the dead, which you apparently have a problem with. Perhaps some sort of increase in security, but I find it hard to believe security could be ramped up much more than it already is. As for the Islamic State, keep knocking them down. Why do you think they're attacking the west so much? It isn't because they're doing well, that's for certain.
Again, I ask what you wish to see happening in the picture from Belgium? What better alternative do you see those people enacting?
How convenient...
I do morurn the dead, it's the living that disgust me. Belagians became so pathetic that it isn't even funny.
What Belgium should do is to shut down all Mosques for the time being, seal them and then thoroughly for any links to terrists. If found Imams get arrested instatly while those that attended should have their property searched. That's the calm and rational way.
Option two is that the Men of Belgium( If there are any left) should take the matters in their own hands since the state is unwilling and so incomeptent that this happened in the middle of the anti-terrist opperation.
Wouldn't the more calm and rational choice be to just do nothing so that it can keep happening?