Originally posted by Peremees
Racial abuse? So my refusal to board a bus or an airplane with muslims is abusive to them? Should I have to sacrifice my life on the altar of Political Correctness!? I think not. If indeed we are dealing with just a few thousand bitter enders and criminals here, then how do you explain that there is no outcry in the muslim communities to weed out the ba ...[text shortened]... eart of darkness here. We are talking pure islam. To be mildly saddened about it is not enough.
You don't have to "appear" Muslim to be a terrorist. Islam also does not fundamentally teach terrorism. I have a lot of Muslim friends, and none of them deep down justify all the bombings and carnage. It is comments like this that fuel racial hatrid.
This is not political correctness, it is common sense. The people that commit these acts do not do it with Islam's blessing. It is like saying the "British National Front" is representative of the British.
Originally posted by lauseyI think the point here is that the vast majority of British people vocally disavow the BNP/NF...
You don't have to "appear" Muslim to be a terrorist. Islam also does not fundamentally teach terrorism. I have a lot of Muslim friends, and none of them deep down justify all the bombings and carnage. It is comments like this that fuel racial hatrid.
This is not political correctness, it is common sense. The people that commit these acts do not do it ...[text shortened]... s blessing. It is like saying the "British National Front" is representative of the British.
Originally posted by wucky3In fact a lot is being done. Turkey will never join the EU. Free immigration will be curtailed. People will be deported, accounts frozen, headscarves removed, etc, etc. This is something you already know. Not pretty, sure. Because is not the world we imagined we'll be living in by now, but here we are. We are all waking up to cruelty and get really stiff upper lips. Sorry if it hurts somebodys feelings. The whole world has been turned into a bloody fight in a tosspot. Now it is not the one who offers tea and bisquits who will win, but the one who pushes his thumbs deeper in the eyesockets. Alhtough, I cannot imagine what the winning will be like. It' all too effed up. That's waht I am talking about and sorry for your muslim friends. But on the second thought - scratch that, that's too soft.
what the eff are you talking about?? ... that infact nothing is being done ...
Originally posted by PeremeesWould that be 'Tea and broken biscuits'? 😕
In fact a lot is being done. Turkey will never join the EU. Free immigration will be curtailed. People will be deported, accounts frozen, headscarves removed, etc, etc. This is something you already know. Not pretty, sure. Because is not the world we imagined we'll be living in by now, but here we are. We are all waking up to cruelty and get really ...[text shortened]... orry for your muslim friends. But on the second thought - scratch that, that's too soft.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyUnfortunately, Islam DOES teach terrorism.
You don't have to "appear" Muslim to be a terrorist. Islam also does not fundamentally teach terrorism. I have a lot of Muslim friends, and none of them deep down justify all the bombings and carnage. It is comments like this that fuel ...[text shortened]... the "British National Front" is representative of the British.
How else can you describe Muslim Clerics issuing Fatwahs against people like Salman Rusdie?
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeThat is down to the interpretation and sentencing of those particular muslim clerics and is not representative of all muslims. A Fatwa is a legal pronouncement on someone in Islamic law. It does not necessarily mean a sentence to death (as far as I understand, correct me if I am wrong).
Unfortunately, Islam DOES teach terrorism.
How else can you describe Muslim Clerics issuing Fatwahs against people like Salman Rusdie?
The Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who issued the Fatwa against Salman Rusdie, in this case stating that he should be sentenced to death, was a terrorist. Followers of him invaded the US embassy in Tehran and was also involved with the Iran-Iraq war with Saddam Hussain.
People like Khomeini and Bin Laden commit terrorism in the name of Islam, which the Qur'an does not teach.
Here is a link I have found on the Islamic view on terrorism:
http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html
Personally, I am not muslim and do not believe in what the Qur'an teaches, but I also do not believe that Islam sanctions terrorism. Anyone could commit acts of violence and claim it is in the name of a particular religion (e.g. christianity).
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyI suppose it all depends on how the the Qu'ran is interpreted. I mean look at the Bible. We have two separate but very opposed religions formed out of that. You also have people looking at the Bible in the literal sense, believing that all the miracles were really performed then those that take a more metaphorical view of it. Then there are those that just use it for guidance occasionall, whilst others base their entire lives on it. There are many grey areas in religion.
That is down to the interpretation and sentencing of those particular muslim clerics and is not representative of all muslims. A Fatwa is a legal pronouncement on someone in Islamic law. It does not necessarily mean a sentence to death (as ...[text shortened]... it is in the name of a particular religion (e.g. christianity).
I am pretty sure that these extremists believe what they are doing really is in the name of God or Allah. Maybe some are just going along for the ride and have no true belief in Islam, just murder. And maybe some are completely brain washed from child hood into commiting these attrocities. Whichever way, they believe what they are doing is right. That's scary.
Originally posted by lauseyThat's all very well and good, but the fact is that Khomeni WAS the leader of an islamic state at the time, and all those likely to obey his words of murder would be Muslims.
That is down to the interpretation and sentencing of those particular muslim clerics and is not representative of all muslims. A Fatwa is a legal pronouncement on someone in Islamic law. It does not necessarily mean a sentence to death (as far as I understand, correct me if I am wrong).
The Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who issued the Fatwa against S ...[text shortened]... mit acts of violence and claim it is in the name of a particular religion (e.g. christianity).
All religions have promoted and encouraged murder.
Just remember the words of a much loved Christian Hymn:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the Cross of Jesus,
Going on before".
Of course this refers to the crusades, whereby the genocide of Arabs (Muslims) was justified by being done in Jesus' name!
These days Muslims have taken over as the most murderous bunch of religious nuts, closely followed by the Israelies.
Originally posted by howardgeeWhy don't you say Jewish, since you were generalizing about religions?
That's all very well and good, but the fact is that Khomeni WAS the leader of an islamic state at the time, and all those likely to obey his words of murder would be Muslims.
All religions have promoted and encouraged murder.
Just remember the words of a much loved Christian Hymn:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the Cross o ...[text shortened]... ave taken over as the most murderous bunch of religious nuts, closely followed by the Israelies.
Christians, Muslims, Jewish. Not all Christians, not all Muslims, not all Jewish.
Originally posted by howardgeei'm not so sure yours is the only or best interpretation. it says 'marching AS to war', ie 'as if', or in 'in the same manner as'. the war/soldier motif is likely to be metaphorical in nature. so the soldiers of Christ, ie those carrying out his program of spreading the word, are enjoined to march in step, in the manner of soldiers going to war - in unison, lockstep, together - in doing so.
Just remember the words of a much loved Christian Hymn:
"Onward Christian Soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the Cross of Jesus,
Going on before".
Of course this refers to the crusades, whereby the genocide of Arabs (Muslims) was justified by being done in Jesus' name!
while probably all religions have condoned/tolerated war, there is the question of to what degree this is supported by their respective holy texts.
as far as i know, there is no concession to war in the teachings of the Buddha. Islam, Judaism and Christianity share the Old Testament as a holy text, and there are of course many concessions to war therein. the Israelites conquer the tribes occupying their land of milk and honey with Yahweh's active help in the form of the ark of the covenant for example.
i don't know enough about the contents of the Talmud to comment.
The Koran apparently condones jihad under certain conditions. jihad has many interpretations, but war in the name of Allah seems to be among them. While 'Islam' apparently means 'surrender', this means 'surrender to the will of Allah'.
The New Testament emphasises love, forgiveness, and 'turning the other cheek' - it is difficult to find a pro-war or even war-tolerant message in it i think.
In summary, i think some holy texts are more apt to be interpreted as condoning violence than others.
All this is complete nonsense.
People always find differences upon which to go to war. Anything that separates "us" from "them" can be used for war.
When people are living miserably, it's very easy for a group to start fanning the flames against another until both groups hate each other. It only needs a few incidents to get the snowball going...
Look at Rwanda, there is hardly any ethnical difference between Tutsis and Hutus but it was still enough to provoke such a horrific genocide.
1 edit
Any thoughts/comments on the fact that the "terrorists" seem to be actually british born and bred and not at all linked to the middle east?
Does it go to show that the governments were quick to try and link it to al qaeda and even sadam/iraq in order to gain more popularity for a flailing war effort? Is this just simply further exploitation of innocent peoples death for foreign gain and/or ulterior motives of the governments?
It is easier to control and manipulate a scared population... And i feel there is a certain amount of "spin doctor" and scare mongering going on....
1 edit
Originally posted by ShonkytonkI did not expect the bombers to be british, it was quite a suprize. Earth is always full of nutcases and sadly not all can be stopped, the oklohama city bombing is like this actualy, crazy ameracan blows up fellow americans. What has this world come to. Why can't everyone just resolve their diffrences over a game of chess...........
Any thoughts/comments on the fact that the "terrorists" seem to be actually british born and bred and not at all linked to the middle east?
Does it go to show that the governments were quick to try and link it to al qaeda and even s ...[text shortened]... certain amount of "spin doctor" and scare mongering going on....
P.S. Wouldent it be great to see osama and bush go at it in a game of chess...........
Originally posted by ShonkytonkThey are British in the sense that they are British citizens, born here. But they are of Pakistani origin (listen to the BBC try to bend over backwards to describe them in a PC manner), at least one of whom visited Afghanistan and Pakistan recently.
Any thoughts/comments on the fact that the "terrorists" seem to be actually british born and bred and not at all linked to the middle east?
Does it go to show that the governments were quick to try and link it to al qaeda and even sadam/iraq in order to gain more popularity for a flailing war effort? Is this just simply further exploitation of innoce ...[text shortened]... tion... And i feel there is a certain amount of "spin doctor" and scare mongering going on....
Did you think they were going to be Joe Bloggs the nice Christian boy?
You say the governments are quick to link it to al Qaeda, but it seems they were right (although I think the al Qaeda thing is a bit of a red herring anyway...).
And, as per others comments, the Koran does actually preach war and submission of non-believers (as of course does the Old Testament of the Bible...). The ones who take it literally are dangerous, the ones who more liberal should make every effort for the growth of extremism to stop.