Get Some
General => General Chat => Topic started by: Xsannz on December 03, 2014, 07:34:13 am
-
Interesting topic starter, an eye for an eye and all that, although Jesus who she quotes at the bottom did say do unto other as you would unto yourself, and turn the other cheek so to speak, but then one could argue that since they do not believe in this at all that it isn't beholding to do so in treatment of them.
anyway there are always polarising views on either side of the topic, me I am for the knock em off strategy, but then i want rapists and heinous local criminals shot and given death penalty rather than tax funded holidays and free accommodation and food and their debts wiped.
One Pissed off Canadian Housewife
This is very good PLEASE read....
Thought you might like to read this letter
to the editor. Ever notice how some people
just seem to know how to write a letter?
This one surely does!
This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how
it also applies to the U.S.A., U.K. and Australia .
THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH
Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to
her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady...
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was
it or was it not, started by Islamic people who
brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001
and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered
that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from
the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
Do you think I care about four U. S. Marines urinating on some dead Taliban insurgents?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were
claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a
nation they are fighting against in a brutal Insurgency.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle
East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief
of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are
sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head, while Berg
screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called insurgents
in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men,
instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in Mosques and behind women and children.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow
themselves up in search of Nirvana, care about the
innocent children within range of their suicide Bombs.
I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that
their freedom of Speech on stories, is more important than
the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting
at home, to hear about them when something happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a
CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent
terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the
head when he is told not to move because he
might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care. Shoot him again.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes
it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.'
Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it.
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to
all your E-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to
the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete
button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't
complain when more atrocities committed by radical
Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if
during their life on earth, they made a difference in
the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.
I have another quote that I would like to
share AND...I hope you forward All this.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul,
the other four, for you and your children's Freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON,
AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET!
AMEN! GOD BLESS CANADA AND AMERICA
-
Whoever penned that missive has made no valid points.
I could apply similar populist nonsense to support the very opposite cause:
we're fighting a war on terror aren't we? It started with colonial intervention and progressed right through the cold war, desert storm and gulf 2.0.
Should I care about some Afghanis blowing up some New Yorkers? Maybe I will care when western forces stop bombing us decade after decade?
Even though people can rightfully feel upset about these things, when it comes to foreign policy we need more empathy and less polarisation.
-
Whoever penned that missive has made no valid points.
I could apply similar populist nonsense to support the very opposite cause:
we're fighting a war on terror aren't we? It started with colonial intervention and progressed right through the cold war, desert storm and gulf 2.0.
Should I care about some Afghanis blowing up some New Yorkers? Maybe I will care when western forces stop bombing us decade after decade?
Even though people can rightfully feel upset about these things, when it comes to foreign policy we need more empathy and less polarisation.
finally engaging conversation, welcome back tandoori..
yes there are arguments both sides, but it is this attitude above that seems to be seething in the american public recently, and i am starting to feel similar, although i agree, look at the Palestine conflict which was cause by "britain" promises both parties access to the holy land in promise for assistance during the war, and then basically pulled out after the war and left both parties to fight it out essentially.
but extremist prejudice being passed generation to generation on both sides is definitely not helping things.
of course in summary here i am gliding over each topic in brief as otherwise this thread would soon be larger than the forums discussing merits / failures of each western historic involvement / cause in modern conflicts
-
Whoever penned that missive has made no valid points.
I could apply similar populist nonsense to support the very opposite cause:
Thank you.
I was about to post "who is this, why should I bring credence to what he/she has said" before reading.
-
yes there are arguments both sides, but it is this attitude above that seems to be seething in the american public recently, and i am starting to feel similar, although i agree, look at the Palestine conflict which was cause by "britain" promises both parties access to the holy land in promise for assistance during the war, and then basically pulled out after the war and left both parties to fight it out essentially.
Whoever wrote that was a biggot. Not even veiled.
The text is laced with "I don't care" so heavily it's trying to drive home a point contradicted by the entirety of the rest of it, and it's very essence of existing.
It's broadly generalising, xenophobic, and about every kind of 'ist' in existence
It is in fact, the very anthisis of not caring.
It is the very perpetuation of war.
Mongering and absolute rhetoric at it's worst.
I didn't even read it all it was that retarded.
It is not a recent development by the Americas' public. It has always been this way, you've just been sucked into the repetitive phrase used as a poorly executed straw man to re-enforce racisim, hatred of all muslims, and the perpetuation of the conflict in the mid-east.
I vote the author gets a bullet through the brain to attempt to prevent further nonsense of this kind.
-
Ooooo this is going to be interesting - because I somewhat hold similar views to the Author.
(I could expand, but I will leave it at this and see where the conversation goes)
-
Ooooo this is going to be interesting - because I somewhat hold similar views to the Author.
(I could expand, but I will leave it at this and see where the conversation goes)
I'm of a similar feeling.
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society - even Maajid Nawaz (ex Islamist, extremist) believes this. It is not racist or bigoted to feel this way in my opinion (a white non-muslim male's opinion at that) as at the end of the day it's not the entire abolishment of Islam, it's simply the reformation of Islam's more dark-age inclined ideologies.
This has been less a war on Terror than it has a war on Political correctness. It's almost impossible nowadays to hold an opinion without being shot, tweeted about, accused of some sort of victimization or offence.
But yes, interesting topic, I too am interested in seeing this progress.
-
as at the end of the day
Winter is secretly John Key!
He raises some good points too.
-
as at the end of the day
Winter is secretly John Key!
Yes, for I'm sure he is the only one to ever use that term, ever.
ever.
Now I'm gonna go sell your land to some rich Chinese guys to convert it into a power plant. 8)
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Kudos on making the world a safer, more peaceful place
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
You see that's where you're wrong.
People didn't die in Iraq/Afghanistan (other than of course allied casualties), only enemy combatants and collateral damage died. No people mate.
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
You see that's where you're wrong.
People didn't die in Iraq/Afghanistan (other than of course allied casualties), only enemy combatants and collateral damage died. No people mate.
Ahh yes. My mistake.
Being shot in the back or unarmed makes you a terrorist as long as you are the prerequisite 1km radius from the nearest terrorist.
-
Being shot in the back or unarmed makes you a terrorist as long as you are the prerequisite 1km radius from the nearest terrorist.
Remember any brown person not living in 'murica (and half the ones living there!) are the enemies of freedom!
-
Being shot in the back or unarmed makes you a terrorist as long as you are the prerequisite 1km radius from the nearest terrorist.
Remember any brown person not living in 'murica (and half the ones living there!) are the enemies of freedom!
Unidentified Terrorists are always Terrorists.
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Kudos on making the world a safer, more peaceful place
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
Why not? Seems like a very head in the sand comment.
Should people continue to be put to death for apostasy? Women to be left as second class citizens in almost every possible facet of life? I hope for the worlds sake you're wrong and maajid and his crew are successful.
On another note. I knew it was only a matter of time before someone chimed in with the 'murica' comment... and do you really think the 'merica' military targeted brown people?? Let alone civilians at all, intentionally???
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Where did you make up those numbers from?
According to Wikipedia, the number is in the tens of thousands.
And as I understand, the majority of civilian deaths are caused by terrorists.
-
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Where did you make up those numbers from?
According to Wikipedia, the number is in the tens of thousands.
And as I understand, the majority of civilian deaths are caused by terrorists.
^this, and to cite 'millions' of civilians deaths as entirely intentional is really sad. I hope to never see the world through such eyes.
-
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
Why not? Seems like a very head in the sand comment.[/quote]
Not a head in the sand comment. Depending on how you count (if you include the Thirty Years War vs not including the Thirty Years War) the death toll for the Protestant Reformation is either 50,000 (England Only) or 1 - 3 million.
If we were to ignore the fact that the two major branches of Islam can (and probably would) wipe each other off the face of the earth and just use the low end of the death toll, then the number of people who would die during an Islamic Reformation would be about:
Number of Muslims x Death Toll
1600000000 * 0.0125 = 20000000
This is about 2/3rds the population of the country of Iraq
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Where did you make up those numbers from?
According to Wikipedia, the number is in the tens of thousands.
And as I understand, the majority of civilian deaths are caused by terrorists.
I read an interesting article recenrtly in the paper, it pointed out that something like 3000 americans had died due to 9/11 + iraq, it then pointed out that this is roughly how many americans are killed on american roads monthly
The current number of US casaulties in Iraq are double the number of people who died in 9/11.
And the current number of Iraqi civilians who have died? One hundred TIMES that number(officially)
Of course, the Americans have long stopped counting the dead so the probably number is closer to 800,000 dead than the 600,000 they project
This was from 2007. Unless both Wikipedia and Wikileaks have changed since then, the numbers should be about right
-
do you really think the 'merica' military targeted brown people?? Let alone civilians at all, intentionally???
In some cases, yes I absolutely do. I don't think that's an official policy, as much as it's a by-product of the way "conventional" military forces are being deployed against a non conventional enemy. Soldiers are generally trained to dehumanise their opponents, it's very hard to focus on killing someone if your thinking "what about his wife and kids". You take conventional forces like that, throw them into a meat finder of partisan hit and run and suicide tactics, and yeah your going to get plenty of people simply treating every "arab" they see as a target. Much like as a motorcyclist I treat every car on the road as if it's actively trying to kill me.
So yeah.. deliberate "lets kill civilians?" no, but utter callous disregard? Absolutely.
Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#)
-
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
Why not? Seems like a very head in the sand comment.
Not a head in the sand comment. Depending on how you count (if you include the Thirty Years War vs not including the Thirty Years War) the death toll for the Protestant Reformation is either 50,000 (England Only) or 1 - 3 million.
If we were to ignore the fact that the two major branches of Islam can (and probably would) wipe each other off the face of the earth and just use the low end of the death toll, then the number of people who would die during an Islamic Reformation would be about:
Number of Muslims x Death Toll
1600000000 * 0.0125 = 20000000
This is about 2/3rds the population of the country of Iraq
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And then more than a million people were killed in retaliation.
Where did you make up those numbers from?
According to Wikipedia, the number is in the tens of thousands.
And as I understand, the majority of civilian deaths are caused by terrorists.
I read an interesting article recenrtly in the paper, it pointed out that something like 3000 americans had died due to 9/11 + iraq, it then pointed out that this is roughly how many americans are killed on american roads monthly
The current number of US casaulties in Iraq are double the number of people who died in 9/11.
And the current number of Iraqi civilians who have died? One hundred TIMES that number(officially)
Of course, the Americans have long stopped counting the dead so the probably number is closer to 800,000 dead than the 600,000 they project
This was from 2007. Unless both Wikipedia and Wikileaks have changed since then, the numbers should be about right
[/quote]
So you're saying if some of the more dark age, violent, sexist and horribly disgusting ideologies of Islam were to be reformed there would be a massive murderous protest??
Religions of peace eh..
-
I read an interesting article recenrtly in the paper, it pointed out that something like 3000 americans had died due to 9/11 + iraq, it then pointed out that this is roughly how many americans are killed on american roads monthly
The current number of US casaulties in Iraq are double the number of people who died in 9/11.
And the current number of Iraqi civilians who have died? One hundred TIMES that number(officially)
Of course, the Americans have long stopped counting the dead so the probably number is closer to 800,000 dead than the 600,000 they project
This was from 2007. Unless both Wikipedia and Wikileaks have changed since then, the numbers should be about right
Your quotes is regarding the Iraq War, which was not, at least not directly, a retaliation for the 9/11
From the first line of Wikipedia.
The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has resulted in between 18,000 and 20,000 Afghan civilians being killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present))
20,000 is still a horrible amount.
But it's not 800,000
If you add the Iraq war deaths, it's another 100,000. Although I don't know how many are a result of western militarily forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties)
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Islam is not inherently incompatible with modern life.
To say so is to also say that christianity is, because you're taking the testiment as law to the letter.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Show me one.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Show me one.
Check your privilige, before you wreck your rights.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Show me one.
Check your privilige.
Check your spelling.
-
y, umad?
-
y, umad?
You wish, sweetheart.
-
oh you.
-
Get a room.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Islam is not inherently incompatible with modern life.
To say so is to also say that christianity is, because you're taking the testiment as law to the letter.
Islam isn't entirely incompatible, no. However a large portion of it's ideologies DO require real and immediate reformation.. FGM, Death for Apostasy, Women's rights etc etc just to name a few.
I've also not said that all other religions are flawless, Islam was raised purely because of the OP.
For the record, I'm against all forms of theocracy.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
Islam is not inherently incompatible with modern life.
To say so is to also say that christianity is, because you're taking the testiment as law to the letter.
I would argue all religion is incompatible with modern life, and that's why its rapidly dying out in the western world. As our understanding of science improves, and our educational systems improve, fewer and fewer people feel the need to believe in fairy tales.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
So I haven't posted in here, mainly because others have been voicing my sentiments - but I will talk on this point:
When Lee Rigby was murdered in the UK (and I was on holiday in the UK at the time) The entire nation rallied in condemnation - however one party was not as vocal as they should be in condemning the Murder - which was the Muslim community.
Those that should have been loudest were soft spoken - and this it the real core of the issue - they were soft spoken because:
1: they on some level agreed with the murder or at least had a level of respect for the killers, believing them to be righteous.
2: They were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal/retaliation of their fellow muslim (like Al-Shabaab)
These are also the same reasons why perfectly good young men and women become extremists - Islam is a culture of of fear or reprisal and at best doesn't speak out against terrorism and at worse actively promotes it.
Typically while they are all enjoying the perks and comforts of modern western living.
IMHO if they wish to act like dark age savages, then we should treat them as such
-
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
Why not? Seems like a very head in the sand comment.
Not a head in the sand comment. Depending on how you count (if you include the Thirty Years War vs not including the Thirty Years War) the death toll for the Protestant Reformation is either 50,000 (England Only) or 1 - 3 million.
If we were to ignore the fact that the two major branches of Islam can (and probably would) wipe each other off the face of the earth and just use the low end of the death toll, then the number of people who would die during an Islamic Reformation would be about:
Number of Muslims x Death Toll
1600000000 * 0.0125 = 20000000
This is about 2/3rds the population of the country of Iraq
So you're saying if some of the more dark age, violent, sexist and horribly disgusting ideologies of Islam were to be reformed there would be a massive murderous protest??
Religions of peace eh..
The death toll for the Reformation was huge. The fallout is still felt today, what with the Catholics declaring everyone else as Heretics. Everyone gets along today because of the number of sacrifices made e.g 1/3rd of Germany was killed.
If we were to have the Christian Reformation today, there would be no way it could take place. Too many people would die. No one would consider such barbaric acts as necessary.
If there were an Islamic Reformation it would be completely different from the Christian Reformation because both sides arent fighting for their own survival, they're fighting to completely eliminate the other.
-
Islam is in need of serious reformation to bring it up to par with secular society
Christianity had a reformation. It was catastrophic.
Islam cannot be reformed.
Any questions?
Why not? Seems like a very head in the sand comment.
Not a head in the sand comment. Depending on how you count (if you include the Thirty Years War vs not including the Thirty Years War) the death toll for the Protestant Reformation is either 50,000 (England Only) or 1 - 3 million.
If we were to ignore the fact that the two major branches of Islam can (and probably would) wipe each other off the face of the earth and just use the low end of the death toll, then the number of people who would die during an Islamic Reformation would be about:
Number of Muslims x Death Toll
1600000000 * 0.0125 = 20000000
This is about 2/3rds the population of the country of Iraq
So you're saying if some of the more dark age, violent, sexist and horribly disgusting ideologies of Islam were to be reformed there would be a massive murderous protest??
Religions of peace eh..
The death toll for the Reformation was huge. The fallout is still felt today, what with the Catholics declaring everyone else as Heretics. Everyone gets along today because of the number of sacrifices made e.g 1/3rd of Germany was killed.
If we were to have the Christian Reformation today, there would be no way it could take place. Too many people would die. No one would consider such barbaric acts as necessary.
If there were an Islamic Reformation it would be completely different from the Christian Reformation because both sides arent fighting for their own survival, they're fighting to completely eliminate the other.
So, is that a yes? if Islam was made to drop say, one thing? Female genital mutilation, there'd be a massive massive protest with countless death? really?! fucking really?
Are we living in a world where people feel that strongly for something so fucking absurd that they'd kill someone wanting to maintain their religious ties at the cost of reformation of even one thing??
I don't believe that's entirely true.. I at least hope not - I think you're coming at this from a very negative and strangely statistical angle.
Look at homosexuality and how it has been embraced, in part, by some sects of Christianity - how many Christians revolted against other Christians resulting in widespread death? I'm sure you have a statistic?
-
Look at homosexuality and how it has been embraced, in part, by some sects of Christianity - how many Christians revolted against other Christians resulting in widespread death? I'm sure you have a statistic?
Christian groups moving to accepting homosexuality is a good example on how religions can reform in modern times. I don't see any reason why other religions can't do the same in modern times.
I don't understand why Tiwa is going on about stuff that happened in the 1600s, we are not in the 1600s anymore.
I'm sure it will happened eventually.
-
So, is that a yes? if Islam was made to drop say, one thing? Female genital mutilation, there'd be a massive massive protest with countless death? really?! fucking really?
Not just Islam. Haredi Jews hate on normal Jews en masse. Any attempt to change Haredi Jews lead to violent protests.
When Christians break off and do their own thing, the only thing that usually happens is condemnation but not violence. There is a Church (just a single building) not far from where I live that is "Presbyterian" but turned Happy Clap. The Presbyterian council legally forced them to remove all references to the Presbyterian name from sign posts, literature, and advertisements.
Back in the day, they would have burnt it to the ground.
Are we living in a world where people feel that strongly for something so fucking absurd that they'd kill someone wanting to maintain their religious ties at the cost of reformation of even one thing??
I don't believe that's entirely true.. I at least hope not - I think you're coming at this from a very negative and strangely statistical angle.
I dont care what you believe. It is time for you to wake up
Armenian & Greek Orthodox Monks Fight Jerusalem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcMBjiILTRk#)
This is a mild fight. There are fights all over the world based entirely on religion. Jerusalem is famous for them. Because it is the focal point for so many religions.
Orthodox and Catholics fight all the time. The difference between the two is: One has a Pope and one doesnt.
The real difference between the two is that one believes in Transubstantiation and the other doesnt. Transubstantiation is the idea that the eucharist (the bread and wine that is consumed during holy communion) becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
And the real, REAL difference between the two is: One believes the bread should be leavened and the other believes the bread should be unleavened.
Did you ever see Monty Python's "Life of Brian" when he loses his shoe and everyone trys to figure out what the lost shoe means? Imagine that, but replace disagreement with AK47's.
Look at homosexuality and how it has been embraced, in part, by some sects of Christianity - how many Christians revolted against other Christians resulting in widespread death? I'm sure you have a statistic?
You're missing the point.
Christianity has already had its Reformation. It cost a lot of lives, but it was probably worth it. The Christian Reformation gave people freedom, religions freedom, to believe whatever they want. Thats why we can have homo's, married priests, and female Bishops.
Islam cant have a Reformation because it requires an Islamic Authority. Christianity had a Pope. Islam doesnt. Islam just has an unchangeable, infallible book. Two books actually (Koran and Hadith). The main half of Islam (Sunni) believes in pretty much what was originally taught. The other major group (Shia) are messianic and believe that the last imam was spirited away and will return one day.
Personally I think you should hug your kid for having a dad who is going to make the right decisions for them.
edit:
I don't understand why Tiwa is going on about stuff that happened in the 1600s, we are not in the 1600s anymore.
I'm sure it will happened eventually.
As long as we have a Pope, we are still in the 1600's
-
Loving this debate, i myself see the OP's point of view but i can see the other arguments, not fence sitting but i can see some valid points and why this causes so much conflict.
summary: religions fuck up everything..
-
uuuhhh Super lame post here with no backing up or citation, it's before work, I'm tired and haven't had a coffee yet. BUT:
Someone, somewhere on the internet said that for some reason Christianity was about 1000 years ahead of Islam in terms of modernisation. They cited a fairly good explanation too. But I can't remember.
winter, I think if Islam reformed female genital mutilation there would fully legit be civil war, in fact I bet the reason it hasn't is because someone has suggested it and been killed for suggesting it. I genuinely think Islam is that far behind, yes in theory it can reform and modernise, but in practise I don't think it can today.
Also OP's letter was a POS and should be in the HOS.
-
POS it may be but it still raises all the points we are discussing in this thread,
on the topic of gentital mutilation, the jewish force the same thing, except that it doesn't scar and remove the erogenous pleasure zones they way the islamists do, but it still brings me back to the point religion is the bane of the modern world.
-
The death toll for the Reformation was huge. The fallout is still felt today, what with the Catholics declaring everyone else as Heretics. Everyone gets along today because of the number of sacrifices made e.g 1/3rd of Germany was killed.
If we were to have the Christian Reformation today, there would be no way it could take place. Too many people would die. No one would consider such barbaric acts as necessary.
If there were an Islamic Reformation it would be completely different from the Christian Reformation because both sides arent fighting for their own survival, they're fighting to completely eliminate the other.
If Islam thinking about making a change results in a mass Civil war and death - how is this not re-confirming that it is a violent cult that needs to be either eradicated or severely chastised?
-
"For no reason suddenly you are told to 'Go home', 'you are horrible, you're a killer or a murderer or to get our of here' or to 'be careful because we are going to take care of you.'"
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/260967/muslims-facing-discrimination-in-nz (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/260967/muslims-facing-discrimination-in-nz)
-
Maybe they should get off their arses and do something about the Radical clerics teaching in their mosques or maybe they should be much more vocal and public with their condemnation IS/ISIS/Islamic Terrorism.
Its easy to play the victim card, but not one wants to admit that while they sit idly by are complicit in raising the next generation of Terrorists
-
Maybe they should get off their arses and do something about the Radical clerics teaching in their mosques or maybe they should be much more vocal and public with their condemnation IS/ISIS/Islamic Terrorism.
Its easy to play the victim card, but not one wants to admit that while they sit idly by are complicit in raising the next generation of Terrorists
So I think that your comments are testament to the ignorance that Dame Susan comments on in that article.
Maybe that's presumptuous of me. But I'm guessing you've had little to no interaction with the Muslim community nor have attended mosque? What qualification do you have to make generalisations about 89,000 people, apart from the Government saying they've got ~80 assorted persons on watchlists (albeit without stating whether that 80 are Muslims or not)?
In any case...
The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims are not extremists and seem to be vocal in opposing that sort of behaviour (as referenced in the article). Your accusations that these people 'sit idly by' is germane to the sort of prejudice and vile actions that in my estimation push vulnerable people towards extremist views and actions. It's just like the New Brunswick housewife who advocates unethical treatment towards Muslim people. That same type of treatment is the genesis of the problem. Other than making statements which condemn extremism (which they have done) what is fairly expected of these people? Should I reasonably expect you to make statements condemning gamers who do bad stuff just because you share some common behaviour? And isn't part of the problem that their statements of condemnation don't get picked up on by the media because it's not conducive to selling papers or adspace? I'm not saying that papers actively choose not to publish these things, it's just that there's no particular demand to see that type of content.
Muslims who face discrimination spurred by the actions of extremists ARE victims. They're not 'playing the victim card'. That logic would be like saying I can treat you like shit on the basis that you bear some resemblance to other 'bad guys' and then accuse you of playing the victim card when you protest!
e.g.
Punk rock fans need to hurry up and condemn extremists due to the fact that 100% of New Zealand suicide bombing are carried out by punk rock fans! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Roberts_%28anarchist%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Roberts_%28anarchist%29)
I recognise these exact same dynamics playing out with respect to Maori issues in the media as well.
A useful resource might be to peruse the following: http://trc.org.nz/theme-7-ignorance-and-insensitivity (http://trc.org.nz/theme-7-ignorance-and-insensitivity)
And see if you can't identify some similar trends in Muslim coverage.
-
Someone, somewhere on the internet said that for some reason Christianity was about 1000 years ahead of Islam in terms of modernisation.
This is the weird thing about Christian Apologists
To say that Christianity is "1000 years ahead of Islam" admits that Christianity has had 1000 years of improvement. What it also says, and what Apologists always like to cover up, is that if you went back 1000 years then Christianity is the same as Islam. This is compounded by the fact that Biblical Authority (the book that is infallible and unchangeable) was all the rage back then.
The conclusion is that Christianity is based on a lie. Christianity usurps the idea that mutual respect and cooperation could appear because of humanities innate need to communicate and survive, and replaces it with a psychopathic schizophrenic mythical bearded sky man willing to kill himself and bring himself back to life as the cure all for "all of the sins that the world has done, will do, and always do because they dont believe"
If Islam thinking about making a change results in a mass Civil war and death - how is this not re-confirming that it is a violent cult that needs to be either eradicated or severely chastised?
The difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.
Islam cannot be changed
Anyone who attempts to reform Islam will be executed for Apostasy
Eradicating Islam is impossible because Christianity and most religions forbid murder (1000 years of improvement!)
Severely chastising Muslims is impossible because it punishes a religion for being a religion
-
That's some interesting discussion (although I didn't read the OP's quoted letter as it seemed pretty racist).
I agree that some of the tenets of Islam are problematic, converting by sword being the main one (everything else can probably be sorted out over time).
But (to take an example closer to home), we can see it's perfectly possible to be a fundamentalist Christian tea-bagger and still not turn the other cheek, or support universal healthcare (things that Jesus was a fan of). Moreover, religiosity in the Western world has been going down on average for some time.
So it is possible for people to become less religious, or at least act less religious. What we need to do is reduce the average religiosity of the Middle East. Please try and think of this on a population level, rather than an individual level. Some people can get more Islamic, as long as more become less Islamic.
I think that what is often ignored is the environment in which Islam exists. You have a largely uneducated populace with very little social mobility (largely thanks to the West pumping ridiculous amounts of money into the ruling class who fritter it away in non-functional exorbitant displays of wealth; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa)).
Now if there's one thing that makes people put their faith in religion, it's being ill-educated. So lets educate them, right? I'm not even talking about going in saying "this is why Islam is wrong", just giving them the basic education that we access to, and maybe throwing in there that a secular life is possible. Is that practical? Maybe, it would probably take concerted international pressure over a long period to achieve though, and everyone's a bit too bent over the barrel for that kind of thing ;)
Another factor that we might look at (putting on my psychologist hat) is the effect of fear. If it's not apprent to everyone that it's all but impossible to beat the religion out of someone, here are the theoretical underpinnings.
The effect of fear is predicted by the reasonably well-supported terror management theory (TMT; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)). Essentially this theory asserts that religion is a worldview meant to alleviate our fear of death, because we go to heaven/get reincarnated/whatever, so we don't actually die. TMT also predicts (and this has been empirically supported) is that the more imminent death is (higher mortality salience, technically), the more religious we get. Now imagine the effect on mortality salience of near constant war on religiosity. Now imagine the effect of the uncertainty about whether an armed drone is hovering beyond sight in the clear blue sky about to reduce you to a gurgling mess of entrails.
Not perfect, by any means, but these are some ideas for helping with the whole extremist problem. Unfortunately these solutions would take a while to have an effect, and probably won't have people waving little American flags in one election cycle (much less advance the agenda of the military-industrial complex). Easier to just say "duh doi, let's kill a quarter of the world's population"
-
Maybe they should get off their arses and do something about the Radical clerics teaching in their mosques or maybe they should be much more vocal and public with their condemnation IS/ISIS/Islamic Terrorism.
Its easy to play the victim card, but not one wants to admit that while they sit idly by are complicit in raising the next generation of Terrorists
So I think that your comments are testament to the ignorance that Dame Susan comments on in that article.
Maybe that's presumptuous of me. But I'm guessing you've had little to no interaction with the Muslim community nor have attended mosque? What qualification do you have to make generalisations about 89,000 people, apart from the Government saying they've got ~80 assorted persons on watchlists (albeit without stating whether that 80 are Muslims or not)?
It would be very presumptuous of you - I have had a fair amount of interaction with NZ born Muslims, and have attended a Mosque (I will admit I have yet to read the Qur'an cover to cover - but then I haven't read the Bible cover to cover either)
There is a phrase which I think is pertinent - all that is needed for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.
I think it should also be made clear that my objections are not solely leveled at Islam - Christianity is just as guilty, the only difference is, While the silence from the moderate side of Christianity is deafening - When was the last time Destiny church Beheaded someone?
In any case...
The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims are not extremists and seem to be vocal in opposing that sort of behaviour (as referenced in the article).
When was the last time an extreme cleric was handed over to the Authorities by the Muslim community?
When was the last time the Muslim community reported someone they were concerned about to the police?
When was the last time the perpetrator of an Honour killing or some other Barbaric practice was given up by the community?
Can't remember? Neither can I... and by NOT doing those things - They are complicit and IMO just as guilty.
Your accusations that these people 'sit idly by' is germane to the sort of prejudice and vile actions that in my estimation push vulnerable people towards extremist views and actions. It's just like the New Brunswick housewife who advocates unethical treatment towards Muslim people. That same type of treatment is the genesis of the problem.
No, I think the genesis of the problem is people engaging in barbaric behaviors and practices that might have been acceptable in the 16th century but are certainly not acceptable now
Other than making statements which condemn extremism (which they have done) what is fairly expected of these people?
Maybe stop the wall of silence that the guilty hide behind? that would be a start....
Should I reasonably expect you to make statements condemning gamers who do bad stuff just because you share some common behaviour?
If some Gamers were seriously advocating (so not actually doing) the decapitation of innocent people to make a statement - I would be the first to kick in their door and drag their asses to the police station.
And isn't part of the problem that their statements of condemnation don't get picked up on by the media because it's not conducive to selling papers or adspace? I'm not saying that papers actively choose not to publish these things, it's just that there's no particular demand to see that type of content.
Sure, I will concede that there will be media bias - but does that give them the right to say 'Oh well, we made our statement, we are okay, I see that little Ahmed had signed up for a holiday camp in Syria - looks like it will be fun!'
Muslims who face discrimination spurred by the actions of extremists ARE victims. They're not 'playing the victim card'. That logic would be like saying I can treat you like shit on the basis that you bear some resemblance to other 'bad guys' and then accuse you of playing the victim card when you protest!
If I had a choice between having people say a few rude words to me and being publicly decapitated on video - I think I know which I would choose. Again, there is so much more they could be doing to STOP extremism, which they are NOT doing - and by not doing so, they are complicit.
e.g.
Punk rock fans need to hurry up and condemn extremists due to the fact that 100% of New Zealand suicide bombing are carried out by punk rock fans! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Roberts_%28anarchist%29[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Roberts_%28anarchist%29[/url])
What do you expect from Punk fans? ;D
I recognise these exact same dynamics playing out with respect to Maori issues in the media as well.
A useful resource might be to peruse the following: [url]http://trc.org.nz/theme-7-ignorance-and-insensitivity[/url] ([url]http://trc.org.nz/theme-7-ignorance-and-insensitivity[/url])
And see if you can't identify some similar trends in Muslim coverage.
Could Maori also be guilty of not helping themselves? possibly... Especially if you look at the Ethnic makeup of our prison population - I get that crime is higher in low socio-economic groups and in groups that don't have high education, but given the prevelance of Maori centric scholarships/education programs - one has to ask, at what point do we stop and simply say 'if you want help, help yourself'
-
If Islam thinking about making a change results in a mass Civil war and death - how is this not re-confirming that it is a violent cult that needs to be either eradicated or severely chastised?
The difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.
Islam cannot be changed
Anyone who attempts to reform Islam will be executed for Apostasy
Eradicating Islam is impossible because Christianity and most religions forbid murder (1000 years of improvement!)
Severely chastising Muslims is impossible because it punishes a religion for being a religion
My point exactly - all religons are Cults and deserving of scorn.
Islam CAN be change - just the people who follow it don't WANT it to change - they are happy with their 16th century ideals (and who wouldn't be - men get a pretty sweet deal)
Again - really selling me on the positives of Islam
Who said anything about christianity? I will happily Judge Islam By the same tenants that it judges everything.
No, it punishes it for being barbaric, backwards, Mysoginist, Violent, and dangerous.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
So I haven't posted in here, mainly because others have been voicing my sentiments - but I will talk on this point:
When Lee Rigby was murdered in the UK (and I was on holiday in the UK at the time) The entire nation rallied in condemnation - however one party was not as vocal as they should be in condemning the Murder - which was the Muslim community.
Those that should have been loudest were soft spoken - and this it the real core of the issue - they were soft spoken because:
1: they on some level agreed with the murder or at least had a level of respect for the killers, believing them to be righteous.
2: They were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal/retaliation of their fellow muslim (like Al-Shabaab)
These are also the same reasons why perfectly good young men and women become extremists - Islam is a culture of of fear or reprisal and at best doesn't speak out against terrorism and at worse actively promotes it.
Typically while they are all enjoying the perks and comforts of modern western living.
IMHO if they wish to act like dark age savages, then we should treat them as such
Or, y'know, 3 and 4.
3. When most of the country wants your blood indiscriminately, probably best not to make yourself an easy target.
4. Or the news media actively ignores said community's voice in order to spin the furor.
Point 3 all the more pertinent if point 4 happens, which in turn turns into a bit of a feedback loop.
-
Again all pro war comments are conveniently clumping all muslims into the extremist bad guy bucket.
So I haven't posted in here, mainly because others have been voicing my sentiments - but I will talk on this point:
When Lee Rigby was murdered in the UK (and I was on holiday in the UK at the time) The entire nation rallied in condemnation - however one party was not as vocal as they should be in condemning the Murder - which was the Muslim community.
Those that should have been loudest were soft spoken - and this it the real core of the issue - they were soft spoken because:
1: they on some level agreed with the murder or at least had a level of respect for the killers, believing them to be righteous.
2: They were afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal/retaliation of their fellow muslim (like Al-Shabaab)
These are also the same reasons why perfectly good young men and women become extremists - Islam is a culture of of fear or reprisal and at best doesn't speak out against terrorism and at worse actively promotes it.
Typically while they are all enjoying the perks and comforts of modern western living.
IMHO if they wish to act like dark age savages, then we should treat them as such
Or, y'know, 3 and 4.
3. When most of the country wants your blood indiscriminately, probably best not to make yourself an easy target.
4. Or the news media actively ignores said community's voice in order to spin the furor.
Point 3 all the more pertinent if point 4 happens, which in turn turns into a bit of a feedback loop.
Yeah, Nah.
Sure, I will give you point 4 that some Media is going to pick a side (ie The Sun for example) however some Media will be a little less biased (the BBC)
Not to mention that If there were mass outcry from the Muslim community - we would also have Al Jazeera as they have a dedicated English side.
Then there is Point 3 - If the Islamic community of the UK came out with horror and disgust at the crimes and handed over the numerous radical and extremist clerics to the Police or provided testimony against them/confirming they are inciting terrorism, then Maybe (and I am going out on a limb here) Maybe the rest of the country wouldn't be so eager for Islamic blood (as you claim).
As it stands, the community puts up a wall of silence (like most ethnic minority communities I might add) that protects these individuals.
-
like most ethnic minority communities I might add
And then you have to ask, why is that? What is causing this exclusion & solidarity?
If you meet 100 people and one is an arsehole, then they're probably just an arsehole.
If you meet 100 people and they're all arseholes, then it is probably you that is an arsehole.
If all people that come to live in your country are solidary and quiet, perhaps you're not as welcoming as you might think.
Meanwhile in the UK, government backed xenophobia is being introduced and the papers are blaming Facebook for Mr. Rigby's most horrific murder.
-
on the Xenophobia subject , you have many cultures in South Africa, but what is worse is that South Africa is descending now into reverse apartheid and xenophobic wars where the majority party is killing off any other ""ethnic"" group, in this case the zulus are knocking of the European, Swahili , the Xhosa, the list goes on and on, all because they are different, yet there is no public media outrage, why because South Africa has a moratorium on its news.
Again apart from the political motivations that drive the Xenophobia, the biggest cause is religion.
-
And then you have to ask, why is that? What is causing this exclusion & solidarity?
That is probably the most interesting question:
Most migrants from a refugee/3rd world/lower socio-economic groups - Typically they have come from either a semi-tribal back ground, small rural background or areas where the government/police are highly corrupt.
As a result there is a mindset of not talking to officials, not wanting to have problems (particularly those that might bring shame to the family) dealt with in the public domain and an inherint distrust of those outside of their community:
'This is a Muslim issue - not anyone else business'
And so a culture of trying to deal with everything internally and sweeping it all under the rug develops - which only exponentially increases the problem.
I am not saying that the opposition groups in the UK are lilly white (in fact many of them are just racist groups with a thin veneer on top) but the islamic community by its inaction, and insular behaviour have had a massive part to play in the problems that they face, and until they pull finger and start behaving like 1st world citizens, the issues shall continue
-
On the other hand, I could just call that pragmatism. Cops can't do shit in this country.
It's almost to the point where folks would have more faith in well run militia groups (as opposed to street justice).
But it is a valid point. However I disagree the slight overtone of racism, on the very grounds of it. Muslims are first world citizens.
But then on the other hand again I guess you meant more in terms of developing nations vs scumbag white pig fat cat run by a clueless wanker domains.
But you raise a more respectable debate on customs and such.
-
on the Xenophobia subject , you have many cultures in South Africa, but what is worse is that South Africa is descending now into reverse apartheid and xenophobic wars where the majority party is killing off any other ""ethnic"" group, in this case the zulus are knocking of the European, Swahili , the Xhosa, the list goes on and on, all because they are different, yet there is no public media outrage, why because South Africa has a moratorium on its news.
Again apart from the political motivations that drive the Xenophobia, the biggest cause is religion.
You gotta problem, m8?
-
on the Xenophobia subject , you have many cultures in South Africa, but what is worse is that South Africa is descending now into reverse apartheid and xenophobic wars where the majority party is killing off any other ""ethnic"" group, in this case the zulus are knocking of the European, Swahili , the Xhosa, the list goes on and on, all because they are different, yet there is no public media outrage, why because South Africa has a moratorium on its news.
Again apart from the political motivations that drive the Xenophobia, the biggest cause is religion.
You gotta problem, m8?
I got a YOU PHOBIA, lol
-
On the other hand, I could just call that pragmatism. Cops can't do shit in this country.
It's almost to the point where folks would have more faith in well run militia groups (as opposed to street justice).
But it is a valid point. However I disagree the slight overtone of racism, on the very grounds of it. Muslims are first world citizens.
But then on the other hand again I guess you meant more in terms of developing nations vs scumbag white pig fat cat run by a clueless wanker domains.
But you raise a more respectable debate on customs and such.
Certainly the police can be ineffective, but it is still the right way to do things - other options should only be tried when all other avenues of redress have been exhausted.
The overtone of Racism, was not so much implied as more an observation, that small ethnic communities display very similar behaviors that we see in the 3rd world - in particular small tribal/village communities - despite living in modern population centers, compared with others who live in the same area.
most of us who grew up in a first world country don't exhibit these same behaviors - some could argue that it is something we have lost (ie concern for ones immediate neighbor, loss of a sense of community) but I would add that it has enabled us to rid ourselves of some of the more dangerous and insular habits that comes with the small community mindset.
And in that sense - it is what I mean by being a first world citizen. Someone can live in the first world, but by their actions and mannerism still be IMO a 3rd world citizen
-
http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/jail-for-mum-who-promoted-terror-on-facebook/ar-BBgEPeA?ocid=iehp (http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/jail-for-mum-who-promoted-terror-on-facebook/ar-BBgEPeA?ocid=iehp)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.