I'll tell you what... discussing religion is the one thing that should be outlawed on this forum... accept each others' differences and move on.
I don't understand people believing in a god and heaven and all that but I wouldn't knowingly criticize them for it. However I do reserve the right to criticize people that kill for the sake of a "cartoon" - regardless of what that "cartoon" is about... it's pathetic.
Bin laden
by The Manhattan Project » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:26 pm
In his text "The End Of History?", the American sociologist Francis Fukayama argued that history consisted of conflicts between ideologies and that liberal modern western democracy has proven itself clearly to be the best way of organising a society. It's the system that provides the most flexible and efficient form of government, the most liberated society where new ideas can be formulated and aired, and where free opinions and views can be exchanged, discussed and debated with little risk of reprisals. It's the system that has defeated communism, fascism and nazism, all dead systems that have been solidly debunked as practical alternatives to the western model.
I agree with him. The only problem I saw with the theory is that Fukuyama believed that the "end of history" (IE: the end of the competition between ideologies) occured at the end of the Cold War. I would say that since 1979 and the Islamic regime taking power in Iran, that a new conflict has arisen. The cultural war between Western liberal democracy and Islamic-based extremism.
This is what we find ourselves in at the moment.
Now, don't think that this means that Muslims cannot live peacefully amongst Westerners in Western nations. They can. But it requires flexibility in their personal faith. They have to adapt their faith to make it practical in the West. Religion, when it comes down to fundamentals is all about interpretation. There are some Christians who can read their Bible and see it as a doctrine that they must be kind, compassionate and charitable. There are also some Christians who can read their Bible and see it as an instruction to lynch some blacks and blow up a federal building. So clearly there are shades of grey. If you are a Muslim living in the West, you cannot expect that Sharia law will be adopted, or that forced marriages and honour killings are acceptable, or that suicide bombing and martyrdom is acceptable, or that (some other radical Islamic view) is acceptable. You must adapt to the society you live in if that society's principals and values are polar opposites to the doctrine your religion can be viewed as espousing. If you do not wish to do this, then by all means feel free to emigrate to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Northern Nigera.
I don't believe in "Multi-Culturalism" which essentially means that you have a nation comprised of many different cultures which could be radically different to A) each other and B) the fundamental principals of the nation they live in. I do believe in the "Melting-Pot" concept where you have many different kinds of people of all different kinds (colour, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc....) but they ALL believe in certain common principles like freedom, democracy, free speech etc...and have a common loyalty not to their "faction" but to their nation and what it stands for, above all else. The "multi-cultural" model emphasises difference. The "melting pot" model emphasises commonality.
Don't for one second believe radical Muslims when they talk about "our brothers" in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran etc. Muslims are as sectarian as Christians. They hate each others guts. The "Sunni-Shia" war in Iraq is a clear sign that the Muslim world is not a solid bloc and in reality they would kill each other as quickly as they would kill an "infidel" from the West.
Now it doesn't really matter whether Bin Laden is dead or not because "Al-Qaeda" has become more of an "idea" than a simple terrorist network. It appeals like a cause to rally behind. This idea of a "war of cultures" has taken root in the UK because like I said earlier, the British government believes in this multi-cultural idea and I'm afraid to say that many elements of the Muslim community in this nation have failed to integrate into wider British society. As such many Muslims feel no allegience to the UK because their primary loyalty is to their particular interpretation of their faith. This has created an entire generation of mainly young Muslim men who are disaffected. Not entirely considered "Muslim" by the older generations of their community (because they were born here in the West) and not entirely considered "British" because of the isolationism that I believe multi-culturalism causes among communities in a single nation. This leaves these angry, impressionable and naive young men in search of an identity and makes them vunerable to fall under the sway of hatemongers like Abu Hamza and his ilk. There's nothing more dangerous than a man in search of an identity and purpose. It's the same kind of thing that led Lee Harvey Oswald to introduce a bullet to JFK's skull.
When Salman Rushdie wrote "The Satanic Verses" he was given a death threat by the Iranian regime. He was (rightly) placed under protection. That was the warning sign that certain elements of Islam were intolerant of criticism. Then Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker) produced a movie that criticised the way women were treated in Islam and was murdered for doing so. Another sign of intolerance. Then the Danish newspaper decided to do an experiment. They claimed that many Muslims had become so intolerant that they would react violently to criticism or ridicule of their founder Muhammed. Predictably, when the cartoons were released many Muslims reacted violently, which essentially proved the Danish newspaper correct. Now the Pope recently conducted a lecture where he compared how the older Islamic teachings which state that forcing people to do anything is not part of religion (meaning that forced conversion to Islam is wrong) is different to the newer teachings that Islam can be spread through violence. Indeed Al-Qaeda recently stated that Americans should convert to Islam or face violent consequences. The intent was the demonstrate that radical Muslims themselves are espousing acts of violence and oppression that their own faith contradicts.
Now I don't expect that radical Muslims will understand the finer points of academic intellectual debate. No more than a member of the KKK would. Their arguments of "the pope called us violent, so we should kill him" are as ludicrous as can be. It reminds me of when Eddie Murphy answered a criticism of his comedy as being too foul-mouthed by saying "Me? Foul-Mouthed? Get the f*ck outta here!". These radical Muslims don't understand the nuances of their OWN religion, so it's not surprising that they don't understand any other culture either. They come from a society where ANY criticism of Islam is considered unacceptable and deserving of a violent response, so there you have the reason why there is a war of cultures occuring. These hatemongers say that the cause of terrorism is "Western foreign policy" when in fact the greater cause is their own intolerance and unwillingness and inability to coexist with other societies.
One thing that occurs to Manhattan, that while the West is not entirely free of blame (which I'll come to in a moment), the cause of this conflict in the world (which I define as World War IV, following WWI (against Germany imperialism), WWII (against Nazism and Japanese expansionism), WWIII (the Cold War against Communism), isn't so much "Western Foreign Policy" but rather it's "Muslim Domestic Policy". The Arab world is largely resource rich. Oil in particular of course. The people of the Arab world should in theory be wealthy. But they aren't. Why? One only needs to look at the various sheikhs buying racehorses to find the answer. Instead of oil revenue being distributed among the population of Arab nations (such as providing world class health and education services) it is concentrated at the highest levels among the wealthy ruling elite. As such the population lives in relative poverty which creates a bitterness that can be exploited by ideological hatemongers. Instead of saying "you are poor because your own government is neglecting you" they say "you are poor because of the Jews and Americans". If you have a wide population of poor uneducated masses who don't understand the real arguments and realities of their world, you have an almost never ending supply of potential jihadists. Ironically, were it not for the West actually buying Arab oil, the Muslim people would be even poorer.
Let's not fook around. The west engages with the Arab world for one reason and one reason only. Natural resources, particularly oil. It's the only thing of value in the Arab world. As such we often have to delve into murky affairs such as removing and supporting regimes and governments and this gives ammunition to the anti-Western factions who can claim that western values are corrupting or polluting the Islamic societies. Another problem we face is Israel, not because they cause the problems in the Near East, but rather their location makes it necessary to be involved in that region (they are surrounded by Muslim nations, which is like dropping a slab of meat into a shark tank). Because Israel are right in the center of the fire, we have to be there too. This could have been avoided after WWII. We should have simply given the Jews a strip of North America to build their state, but of course religion entered into the equation (the Jews have a connection to that particular piece of land on the Eastern Med. shore) and when religion enters a discussion, logic and reason go out the window.
The way forward in this whole situation is as follows:
1- Iraq must be broken into three states. One Sunni, one Shia and one Kurdish state. They will NEVER be able to coexist inside a single nation and trying to get them to do so is a waste of time. When those nations are established, we should withdraw.
2- The concept of Multi-Culturalism should be abandoned in favour of integration into a western culture. Those who do not wish to participate are free to leave. The UK has many sea and airports available.
3- We should begin to disengage from the Arab world as far as possible. Until they come around to Western liberal democratic ideals and principles on their own. We must open up our own oil reserves and make use of new energy sources like nuclear power. The west and it's efficient economy encourages innovation. We will find new revolutionary energy sources while the Muslim world continues to use oil until it runs out. Then I believe you'll see change occur in Muslim societies (they will have to liberalise their economies to fill the gap that oil leaves). Our presence in Arab nations will be kept to a minimum. We will continue to buy oil from Arab nations, but that will be done from a distance. We would offer incentives by offering to trade freely only with Arab nations that liberalise their society, establish democracy and social programs, and publically advocate peaceful coexistence with the West.
I agree with him. The only problem I saw with the theory is that Fukuyama believed that the "end of history" (IE: the end of the competition between ideologies) occured at the end of the Cold War. I would say that since 1979 and the Islamic regime taking power in Iran, that a new conflict has arisen. The cultural war between Western liberal democracy and Islamic-based extremism.
This is what we find ourselves in at the moment.
Now, don't think that this means that Muslims cannot live peacefully amongst Westerners in Western nations. They can. But it requires flexibility in their personal faith. They have to adapt their faith to make it practical in the West. Religion, when it comes down to fundamentals is all about interpretation. There are some Christians who can read their Bible and see it as a doctrine that they must be kind, compassionate and charitable. There are also some Christians who can read their Bible and see it as an instruction to lynch some blacks and blow up a federal building. So clearly there are shades of grey. If you are a Muslim living in the West, you cannot expect that Sharia law will be adopted, or that forced marriages and honour killings are acceptable, or that suicide bombing and martyrdom is acceptable, or that (some other radical Islamic view) is acceptable. You must adapt to the society you live in if that society's principals and values are polar opposites to the doctrine your religion can be viewed as espousing. If you do not wish to do this, then by all means feel free to emigrate to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Northern Nigera.
I don't believe in "Multi-Culturalism" which essentially means that you have a nation comprised of many different cultures which could be radically different to A) each other and B) the fundamental principals of the nation they live in. I do believe in the "Melting-Pot" concept where you have many different kinds of people of all different kinds (colour, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc....) but they ALL believe in certain common principles like freedom, democracy, free speech etc...and have a common loyalty not to their "faction" but to their nation and what it stands for, above all else. The "multi-cultural" model emphasises difference. The "melting pot" model emphasises commonality.
Don't for one second believe radical Muslims when they talk about "our brothers" in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran etc. Muslims are as sectarian as Christians. They hate each others guts. The "Sunni-Shia" war in Iraq is a clear sign that the Muslim world is not a solid bloc and in reality they would kill each other as quickly as they would kill an "infidel" from the West.
Now it doesn't really matter whether Bin Laden is dead or not because "Al-Qaeda" has become more of an "idea" than a simple terrorist network. It appeals like a cause to rally behind. This idea of a "war of cultures" has taken root in the UK because like I said earlier, the British government believes in this multi-cultural idea and I'm afraid to say that many elements of the Muslim community in this nation have failed to integrate into wider British society. As such many Muslims feel no allegience to the UK because their primary loyalty is to their particular interpretation of their faith. This has created an entire generation of mainly young Muslim men who are disaffected. Not entirely considered "Muslim" by the older generations of their community (because they were born here in the West) and not entirely considered "British" because of the isolationism that I believe multi-culturalism causes among communities in a single nation. This leaves these angry, impressionable and naive young men in search of an identity and makes them vunerable to fall under the sway of hatemongers like Abu Hamza and his ilk. There's nothing more dangerous than a man in search of an identity and purpose. It's the same kind of thing that led Lee Harvey Oswald to introduce a bullet to JFK's skull.
When Salman Rushdie wrote "The Satanic Verses" he was given a death threat by the Iranian regime. He was (rightly) placed under protection. That was the warning sign that certain elements of Islam were intolerant of criticism. Then Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker) produced a movie that criticised the way women were treated in Islam and was murdered for doing so. Another sign of intolerance. Then the Danish newspaper decided to do an experiment. They claimed that many Muslims had become so intolerant that they would react violently to criticism or ridicule of their founder Muhammed. Predictably, when the cartoons were released many Muslims reacted violently, which essentially proved the Danish newspaper correct. Now the Pope recently conducted a lecture where he compared how the older Islamic teachings which state that forcing people to do anything is not part of religion (meaning that forced conversion to Islam is wrong) is different to the newer teachings that Islam can be spread through violence. Indeed Al-Qaeda recently stated that Americans should convert to Islam or face violent consequences. The intent was the demonstrate that radical Muslims themselves are espousing acts of violence and oppression that their own faith contradicts.
Now I don't expect that radical Muslims will understand the finer points of academic intellectual debate. No more than a member of the KKK would. Their arguments of "the pope called us violent, so we should kill him" are as ludicrous as can be. It reminds me of when Eddie Murphy answered a criticism of his comedy as being too foul-mouthed by saying "Me? Foul-Mouthed? Get the f*ck outta here!". These radical Muslims don't understand the nuances of their OWN religion, so it's not surprising that they don't understand any other culture either. They come from a society where ANY criticism of Islam is considered unacceptable and deserving of a violent response, so there you have the reason why there is a war of cultures occuring. These hatemongers say that the cause of terrorism is "Western foreign policy" when in fact the greater cause is their own intolerance and unwillingness and inability to coexist with other societies.
One thing that occurs to Manhattan, that while the West is not entirely free of blame (which I'll come to in a moment), the cause of this conflict in the world (which I define as World War IV, following WWI (against Germany imperialism), WWII (against Nazism and Japanese expansionism), WWIII (the Cold War against Communism), isn't so much "Western Foreign Policy" but rather it's "Muslim Domestic Policy". The Arab world is largely resource rich. Oil in particular of course. The people of the Arab world should in theory be wealthy. But they aren't. Why? One only needs to look at the various sheikhs buying racehorses to find the answer. Instead of oil revenue being distributed among the population of Arab nations (such as providing world class health and education services) it is concentrated at the highest levels among the wealthy ruling elite. As such the population lives in relative poverty which creates a bitterness that can be exploited by ideological hatemongers. Instead of saying "you are poor because your own government is neglecting you" they say "you are poor because of the Jews and Americans". If you have a wide population of poor uneducated masses who don't understand the real arguments and realities of their world, you have an almost never ending supply of potential jihadists. Ironically, were it not for the West actually buying Arab oil, the Muslim people would be even poorer.
Let's not fook around. The west engages with the Arab world for one reason and one reason only. Natural resources, particularly oil. It's the only thing of value in the Arab world. As such we often have to delve into murky affairs such as removing and supporting regimes and governments and this gives ammunition to the anti-Western factions who can claim that western values are corrupting or polluting the Islamic societies. Another problem we face is Israel, not because they cause the problems in the Near East, but rather their location makes it necessary to be involved in that region (they are surrounded by Muslim nations, which is like dropping a slab of meat into a shark tank). Because Israel are right in the center of the fire, we have to be there too. This could have been avoided after WWII. We should have simply given the Jews a strip of North America to build their state, but of course religion entered into the equation (the Jews have a connection to that particular piece of land on the Eastern Med. shore) and when religion enters a discussion, logic and reason go out the window.
The way forward in this whole situation is as follows:
1- Iraq must be broken into three states. One Sunni, one Shia and one Kurdish state. They will NEVER be able to coexist inside a single nation and trying to get them to do so is a waste of time. When those nations are established, we should withdraw.
2- The concept of Multi-Culturalism should be abandoned in favour of integration into a western culture. Those who do not wish to participate are free to leave. The UK has many sea and airports available.
3- We should begin to disengage from the Arab world as far as possible. Until they come around to Western liberal democratic ideals and principles on their own. We must open up our own oil reserves and make use of new energy sources like nuclear power. The west and it's efficient economy encourages innovation. We will find new revolutionary energy sources while the Muslim world continues to use oil until it runs out. Then I believe you'll see change occur in Muslim societies (they will have to liberalise their economies to fill the gap that oil leaves). Our presence in Arab nations will be kept to a minimum. We will continue to buy oil from Arab nations, but that will be done from a distance. We would offer incentives by offering to trade freely only with Arab nations that liberalise their society, establish democracy and social programs, and publically advocate peaceful coexistence with the West.
china syndrome 80512640 reactor meltdown fusion element
no uniquely indefinable one 5918 identification unknown 113
source transmission 421 general panic hysteria 02 outbreak
foreign mutation 001505 maximum code destruction nuclear
reflection 01044 power plutonium helix atomic energy wave
no uniquely indefinable one 5918 identification unknown 113
source transmission 421 general panic hysteria 02 outbreak
foreign mutation 001505 maximum code destruction nuclear
reflection 01044 power plutonium helix atomic energy wave
-
The Manhattan Project - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 5416
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:22 am
- Location: Reactor Number Four
by Lando_Griffin » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:39 am
Right.
I've read enough sh*t in this thread to fertilize the farmland of f*cking Wales 10 times over.
Without naming names or religions (to save any dumb b*stards complaining to the mods, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.), someone needs to get a f*cking brain stem and realise that it doesn't matter what anyone says about any religion.
If I said "Oh, so and so religion is a pile of W*nk, and anyone who follows it is a complete tw*t", would that justify followers of said religion burning a f*cking Church?
No - ofcourse it bloody well wouldn't.
Similarly, if a newspaper prints something that was intended for it's purchaser's eyes only, why the f*cking f*ck should the Government (who had nothing to do with it) have to apologise, to appease a bunch of precious thicko's with no power of thought strong enough to sustain the incredibly simple premise of choice?
It's all B*LLOCKS.
"Someone" in this thread said we don't owe a certain religion anything, and I agree with everything that "someone" has said.
I also think "someone else" in this thread should wake up and realise that they follow something that only causes the World trouble.
If I am wrong - prove it. What good does that religion do? WHat resons are there for it's f*cking existance?
Because some misguided tw*ts believe in it?
Wake-up time, folks - no religion/belief/trail of thought that promotes violence/murder is worth a sh*t.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who encourages people to kill others needs irradicating.
Simple as that.
I've read enough sh*t in this thread to fertilize the farmland of f*cking Wales 10 times over.
Without naming names or religions (to save any dumb b*stards complaining to the mods, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.), someone needs to get a f*cking brain stem and realise that it doesn't matter what anyone says about any religion.
If I said "Oh, so and so religion is a pile of W*nk, and anyone who follows it is a complete tw*t", would that justify followers of said religion burning a f*cking Church?
No - ofcourse it bloody well wouldn't.
Similarly, if a newspaper prints something that was intended for it's purchaser's eyes only, why the f*cking f*ck should the Government (who had nothing to do with it) have to apologise, to appease a bunch of precious thicko's with no power of thought strong enough to sustain the incredibly simple premise of choice?
It's all B*LLOCKS.
"Someone" in this thread said we don't owe a certain religion anything, and I agree with everything that "someone" has said.
I also think "someone else" in this thread should wake up and realise that they follow something that only causes the World trouble.
If I am wrong - prove it. What good does that religion do? WHat resons are there for it's f*cking existance?
Because some misguided tw*ts believe in it?
Wake-up time, folks - no religion/belief/trail of thought that promotes violence/murder is worth a sh*t.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who encourages people to kill others needs irradicating.
Simple as that.
Last edited by Lando_Griffin on Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rafa Benitez - An unfinished Legend.
-
Lando_Griffin - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 10633
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:19 pm
by LFC #1 » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:41 am
Lando_Griffin wrote:As far as I'm concerned, anyone who encourages people to kill others needs irradicating.
Just having a laugh Lando but surely you are contradicting yourself there mate. If I was being a smart@rse i could say that you are effectively saying you yourself should be eradicated!
oh and it's spelt eradicating
Last edited by LFC #1 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
LFC #1 - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:53 am
by Lando_Griffin » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:24 am
LFC #1 wrote:Lando_Griffin wrote:As far as I'm concerned, anyone who encourages people to kill others needs irradicating.
Just having a laugh Lando but surely you are contradicting yourself there mate. If I was being a smart@rse i could say that you are effectively saying you yourself should be eradicated!
oh and it's spelt eradicating
Sorry, I should have phrased it better - "They are the ones needing eradicating."
Besides - I'm not actually encouraging anyone to murder - just go away.
Wine - it's a good thing.
Last edited by Lando_Griffin on Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rafa Benitez - An unfinished Legend.
-
Lando_Griffin - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 10633
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:19 pm
by afs66 » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:55 am
Sabre wrote:
You tell me. In Saudi Arabia there are still women that are killed with stones in year 2006. Those muslims are from the "Wahabi" interpretation of Coran, and they say it's a tradition. And I ask, well in the tradition they used horses to travel, and now they use private jets, don't they? It's not demagogia, it's that some muslims see what they want!
I ask aswell wether Mahoma said or not if Muslims and Christians should be brothers, as their religions are alike. Yet, many muslims call us infidels, on the contrary of what Mahoma says.
I think you start every of your prayers talking about mercy and compassion, and this is what I see lacking most when you deal with other religions.
Whereas you asked, i'll answer.
But i dont want to argue with anyone, i'll just answer. If someone want to argue and knows Turkish, i would argue. I cant understand clearly your complicated words. Same you cant understand my thoughts clearly. So i'll just answer, I wont write my own comments.
your 1st quoted paragraph:
There are 4 TRUE religious sect in Islam. I wont tell details. And "Wahabi" sect is superstitious. Saudi Royality believe "Wahabi" sect. But majority of Arabs aren't Wahabi. So royality conduct the country and people are under obligation to accept Royality's laws. For ex. Saudi Royality(Wahabies) dont want tombstones and they eradicated many people's tombs who are religion's historied persons. But this doesnt prove that all of the Muslims eradicate tombs.
Wahabies' actions arent in main Islam.
Your 2nd quoted paragraph:
I couldn't understand why you get angry the word "infidel". As you couldn't understand why we get angry that cartoons.
I'll answer the word "Infidel". A Christian, a Jewish or budist... is Infidel for Muslims. Likewise A Muslim is infidel for Christians.
This is extremely natural. Because it means "opposite" I did read many articles(EDIT:not in forum,i meant newspapers, books,..) which were wroten by Christians calling Muslims as infidels. And i didnt take offence at this. I took it natural.
Your 3rd quoted paragraph:
Yes every of our prayers start talking about mercy and compassion. But sometimes people cant control theirselves and can beheave impulsive. But is it true to make this behaaviors general??
For ex. you wrote about compassion in your writing . Do you think you were complaisant in your first message which addressed me?? Must i think all of British are like you?? Of course not...
Last edited by afs66 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
afs66 - Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Turkiye
by bunglemark2 » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:16 am
I don't think I have ever read such a pile of 
in my entire life....As resident on an island that has been torn apart for centuries over "religion" and "ideologies" however, I feel compelled to post some comments.
1. I defy anybody here - incl. you afs66 - to cite one example where a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith labeled a Muslim as an infidel ?
2. Does a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith feel obliged, or that it is their moral right and duty, to impose their non-Muslim ideologies on a so-called disbeliever ?
3. If I am not a Muslim, am I by default your mortal enemy ?
4. Does anything you have said make any sense at all, other than what you are blinkered to believe ?
Millions worldwide, and more importantly to me (call it selfish if you will, I couldn't give a toss) thousands here, have died because of their beliefs....because some fascist next door believes "My God is better than YOUR God"....You know what, I couldn't give a toss what religion my next door neighbour believes. But, if he tries to force his beliefs on me, or tell me I am wrong, or attempt to impose Sharia law on me, in a democratic state, I take exception. And I will resist. The Koran does not recognise the concept of democracy - did you know that ?
I can't believe I posted a response to this pile of, but there you have it....
in my entire life....As resident on an island that has been torn apart for centuries over "religion" and "ideologies" however, I feel compelled to post some comments.1. I defy anybody here - incl. you afs66 - to cite one example where a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith labeled a Muslim as an infidel ?
2. Does a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith feel obliged, or that it is their moral right and duty, to impose their non-Muslim ideologies on a so-called disbeliever ?
3. If I am not a Muslim, am I by default your mortal enemy ?
4. Does anything you have said make any sense at all, other than what you are blinkered to believe ?
Millions worldwide, and more importantly to me (call it selfish if you will, I couldn't give a toss) thousands here, have died because of their beliefs....because some fascist next door believes "My God is better than YOUR God"....You know what, I couldn't give a toss what religion my next door neighbour believes. But, if he tries to force his beliefs on me, or tell me I am wrong, or attempt to impose Sharia law on me, in a democratic state, I take exception. And I will resist. The Koran does not recognise the concept of democracy - did you know that ?
I can't believe I posted a response to this pile of
, but there you have it....http://s2.tinypic.com/30ldif7_th.jpg
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
-
bunglemark2 - Posts: 7473
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:05 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
by EddieC » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:16 am
bunglemark2 wrote:2. Does a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith feel obliged, or that it is their moral right and duty, to impose their non-Muslim ideologies on a so-called disbeliever ?
Jehova's witnesses do
But at least they do so in a non-violent manner, and generally they leave you alone when you tell them to p!ss off.
-
EddieC - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 832
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:39 pm
- Location: Watford
by Woollyback » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:35 am
When was the last time a Christian blew himself up in a crowded public train to get his point across?
When was the last time a Sikh flew a passenger jet into an office building?
When was the last time a Buddhist burnt down a mosque?
When was the last time a Hindu murdered a nun doing humanitarian work?
When was the last time an Jew destroyed an embassy over a cartoon?
When was the last time an atheist passed a death sentence on one of his own citizens for not conforming to his belief system?
Does Howard Kendall blame the middle east crisis on Liverpool FC?
When was the last time a Sikh flew a passenger jet into an office building?
When was the last time a Buddhist burnt down a mosque?
When was the last time a Hindu murdered a nun doing humanitarian work?
When was the last time an Jew destroyed an embassy over a cartoon?
When was the last time an atheist passed a death sentence on one of his own citizens for not conforming to his belief system?
Does Howard Kendall blame the middle east crisis on Liverpool FC?
b*ll*c*ks and s*i*e
-
Woollyback - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 12400
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:11 pm
- Location: Manchester
by bunglemark2 » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:30 pm
EddieC wrote:bunglemark2 wrote:2. Does a follower of ANY non-Muslim faith feel obliged, or that it is their moral right and duty, to impose their non-Muslim ideologies on a so-called disbeliever ?
Jehova's witnesses do
But at least they do so in a non-violent manner, and generally they leave you alone when you tell them to p!ss off.
Yeah, but they're not as much fun as the Scientologists.....now THERE'S a bunch of f.uck'd up weirdos !!!
http://s2.tinypic.com/30ldif7_th.jpg
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
-
bunglemark2 - Posts: 7473
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:05 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
by EddieC » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:56 pm
Woollyback wrote:When was the last time a Christian blew himself up in a crowded public train to get his point across?
When was the last time a Sikh flew a passenger jet into an office building?
When was the last time a Buddhist burnt down a mosque?
When was the last time a Hindu murdered a nun doing humanitarian work?
When was the last time an Jew destroyed an embassy over a cartoon?
When was the last time an atheist passed a death sentence on one of his own citizens for not conforming to his belief system?
Does Howard Kendall blame the middle east crisis on Liverpool FC?
I couldn't agree more mate.
Personally, I'm sick & tired of hearing people on the TV saying this isn't a muslim problem.
IT FUCKING IS!
The points you made sum it up perfectly, if it's not a muslim problem why are muslims the only ones doing it?
Now before anyone starts calling me racist I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't believe all muslims act in this way, but that all people who act in this way are muslims. The sooner we stop denying the fact that these atrocities are being carried out in the name of Islam, the sooner the muslim community will do something to help us out on this one. At the moment they don't feel they need to help as we keep telling them it's not a muslim problem.
-
EddieC - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 832
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:39 pm
- Location: Watford
by metalhead » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Woollyback wrote:6When was the last time a Christian blew himself up in a crowded public train to get his point across?
When was the last time a Sikh flew a passenger jet into an office building?
When was the last time a Buddhist burnt down a mosque?
When was the last time a Hindu murdered a nun doing humanitarian work?
When was the last time an Jew destroyed an embassy over a cartoon?
When was the last time an atheist passed a death sentence on one of his own citizens for not conforming to his belief system?
Does Howard Kendall blame the middle east crisis on Liverpool FC?
1. long time ago
2. um..never?
3. Buddhists and Hindus, well mostly hindus still fight with muslims in Pakistan and India, I saw a picture not long ago of a hindu Indian burning the Koran.. so this is also a problem
4.same answer...but not to christians
5. They never did..but they did destroy a whole f*cking country for other reasons!(well..the zionist jews).
6. I don't think he should... The Middle East Loves Liverpool FC
Pewee, I understand your opinion on the cartoons, that it is freedom of speech, but don't you think in a Liberal society there should be a limit of using this freedom of speech? I'm a muslim, a Shi3a muslim to be exact and I was offended with the cartoons I saw that the Danish press drew. I think they went over the limit and offended maybe all muslims in the world. I mean drawing a carecature of the prophet Mohammad with a bomb hat is something really horrible and it gives really bad taste to muslims like me and others. I agree that the reaction was also overboard! and they shouldn't go burn churches or embassies (actually many muslims Shiekhs tried to stop this violence because they knew they are doing something wrong) and instead they should have done a peaceful protest to ask the danish press not to offend them again, but that is what you have to expect to Muslims who aren't living in a good conditioned country or living a happy life!Muslims, from the begginging of the 80's have been suffering from different western regimes, the most important one is the American regime. These Extremist groups, Like Al-Quada were formed to fight these regimes and then grew to become a more violent and murderous group. Did you Know that the U.S did supply Bin Ladin with weaponry to fight the Russians? Recently Muslims are still suffering and as an example is the reaction of most Americans on Sept. 11 2001 attacks, some American Lunatics burned mosques and attacked muslims.
I was talking to my grandfather the other day about Islam and asked him about Al-Quada and similar groups and he told me that our prophet Mohammad told us that there is a line or a limit in Islam. These groups became very extremists and crossed this line which created chaos in this world. Also the Koran states that if a person attacks and kills a believer or a non-believer, this person will be sent to hell! Also, Suicide leads to the gates of hell. It shows that many extreme muslim groups are interpreting the Koran wrong and doing immoral things. Islam is a very humaniterian religion its just those bloody f*cking outrageous extremists who aren't showing the good side of it.
Oh and the pope Sabre, why did he have to read the text?
-
metalhead - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 17476
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:15 pm
- Location: Milan, Italy
by 112-1077774096 » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:04 pm
metalhead you hit the nail on the head mate and i am glad you understand.
the part that annoys me is the 'going overboard', but in all fairness mate we do have freedom and part of humour is character assasination, scousers get it, the irish get it, but we dont start screaming in the street and setting fire to buildings.
humour is humour mate, what i am trying to get across is that we are under no obligation to respect islam despite muslims irrational demands that we do, i can turn this round and ask how many muslims respect christianity? why are we called filthy and infidels? maybe if muslims started practicing what they preach in relation to tolerance then we can move ahead, however it seems ok for muslims to be offensive about other religions but when someone makes a joke about islam all hell breaks loose, the cartoon in question was a joke, you do know what a joke is?
the problem is not with the 'rank and file' muslims, like i say i know many. when i lived in england my view of islam was tainted by the british muslims and their behaviour in the area where i policed and later where i studied. however when i moved to malaysia it was an eye opener that people are nice and not once did anyone try to force their religion on me, they even had a sense of humour in relation to religion. the problem however is the extremists who are trying to stir up hatred against the west. i read in intersting article about religion an beliefs, some muslims truly believe that if the commit an act of terrorism as a suicide bomber then they can spend the rest of their days in heaven being looked after by virgins, the problem is they truly believe this and this seems a better option than the life they have on earth so they are happy to go down that avenue. these people need to educated against such extremism.
listen i just want to make clear that i am not anti islam, just anti extremist no matter what religion they claim to represent, but most conflicts in the world at the moment involve islam and there has to be something in that, the extremists need reigning in but as far as i can see islam does not have a figurhead to do this.
the part that annoys me is the 'going overboard', but in all fairness mate we do have freedom and part of humour is character assasination, scousers get it, the irish get it, but we dont start screaming in the street and setting fire to buildings.
humour is humour mate, what i am trying to get across is that we are under no obligation to respect islam despite muslims irrational demands that we do, i can turn this round and ask how many muslims respect christianity? why are we called filthy and infidels? maybe if muslims started practicing what they preach in relation to tolerance then we can move ahead, however it seems ok for muslims to be offensive about other religions but when someone makes a joke about islam all hell breaks loose, the cartoon in question was a joke, you do know what a joke is?
the problem is not with the 'rank and file' muslims, like i say i know many. when i lived in england my view of islam was tainted by the british muslims and their behaviour in the area where i policed and later where i studied. however when i moved to malaysia it was an eye opener that people are nice and not once did anyone try to force their religion on me, they even had a sense of humour in relation to religion. the problem however is the extremists who are trying to stir up hatred against the west. i read in intersting article about religion an beliefs, some muslims truly believe that if the commit an act of terrorism as a suicide bomber then they can spend the rest of their days in heaven being looked after by virgins, the problem is they truly believe this and this seems a better option than the life they have on earth so they are happy to go down that avenue. these people need to educated against such extremism.
listen i just want to make clear that i am not anti islam, just anti extremist no matter what religion they claim to represent, but most conflicts in the world at the moment involve islam and there has to be something in that, the extremists need reigning in but as far as i can see islam does not have a figurhead to do this.
- 112-1077774096
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Bin laden at old trafford - Where did this come from?
by The Ace1983 » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:18 pm - 0 Replies
- 554 Views
- Last post by The Ace1983
Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:18 pm
- Bin laden at old trafford - Where did this come from?
-
- Family guy - Bin laden
1, 2by Dundalk » Mon May 29, 2006 12:46 am - 16 Replies
- 2105 Views
- Last post by Gaunt
Wed May 31, 2006 8:31 pm
- Family guy - Bin laden
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests
-
- Advertisement