RE: Islam Religion of Peace???

RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 8:30:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If true democracy entails expropriating, ie stealing assets financed, developed and organised by someone else then I am not keen on it either.! Another point MsJ, I hope you dont believe that Al Queda want to reimpose democracy wickedly removed by the west ? No Al Queda was formed by one Osama Bin Laden, who was "made" by the USA during the Afghanistan Russia conflict to fight the Russians for us. So again we were the ones that created the force that would fight a type of government that does not square with capitalism. It is not about democracy, it is about capitalism. For example Venezuela has a democracy, but we do not like their leader and he is not pro-free trade, so we want him gone almost anyway we can get him gone.. so talking about democracy is a little disingenuous.

philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 8:51:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Maybe GlassGuitar can provide a link to something similar happening in an Irish pub to an English civilian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombing ...not an Irish pub, but civilians were killed. The link has sublinks to other pub bombings. Two points need to be made here. Firstly christians are just as capable as atrocity as muslims if their extremists are motivated enough, secondly the way to stop such atrocity is through negotiation not more violence.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 9:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Please name one country that is an example of your point. I can name one, Iran... here is a link to explain what we did there and why those Iranian college students took hostages when Iran had in the 1950s been heading toward democracy, the Shah that replaced Mossadegh, was ruthless and murdered 100s and 1000s of his own people... more brutal than Saddam ever thought of being, but because of the oil the USA supported his reign of terror... you see we hate the idea of true democracy in oil rich countries. It is hard to buy off an entire nation of people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php http://www.irvl.net/USMI.htm julia, Stopping history at any one point for a snapshot never tells the story. Why stop at 1953? The installation of the Shah was a reestablishment of history rule over the country going back to The "royal" family was returned to power by the CIA lead coup, not installed unilaterally. Reza Shah Pahlavi, or "Reza Khan" deposed Ahmad Mirza in 1925, who was ruling the area now know as Iran as part of the Qajar Dynasty to become the first "shah of Iran. The Qajare were Turks that held the land at least as far back as the early 18th Century. In effect, by installing the Shah, the CIA returned the first ruling government of the area. Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq, a descendant of the aforementioned Qajar Kings, was actually the Prime Minister under the Shah. Only when he sought control of Iran's armed forces was he out of favor with the reigning Shah. He then sought to dissolve Iran's Parliament. The oil in Iran was already nationalized in 1951. As the normal course in those days, the west picked a candidate, the Royal Family of the Shah, and the communists picked a candidate, Dr. Mosaddeq. The decision had some basis in historical context. The current comparison would be if the Russia was still a 'Superpower' and backed a Native American coup to run the US. Eisenhower didn't want Iran, and its oil, to be in the hands of the dreaded communists so we backed the Shah. Although Dr. Mosaddeq's followers took to the streets and made the Shah run for the first time, his administration lacked "legs". His support of communism was only for the money, his party saw him as being too close to the US. He was, but only in contrast to British imperialism. He saw the capitalism of the US as a potential boom for an independent Iran. History is fun and a source of knowledge but isn't this as most all a smoke-screen? Where does power resides now in the countries of Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon? Are any of these "puppet governments" of the west? Why isn't there one open, "liberal", democratic government anywhere in the middle east? Correction there is one - Israel. Meanwhile, look how well Islam expansion into the Sudan is working for that country. quote: The Crime of Our New Century... The Sudanese Government, using Arab "Janjaweed" militias, its air force, and organized starvation, is systematically killing the black Sudanese of Darfur. Source: http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

juliaoceania -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 10:11:12 AM)
I do not see Israel as an open liberal government. They allow very little private ownership of land, they do not allow due process to all people living within the borders that they control. Not everyone that lives in Israel is allowed to vote, even though they were born there. This is designed to keep Palestinians from reclaiming Palestine by acquisition of land through ownership and to keep Israel a mostly Jewish state based on ethnicity, and not naturalization. These are attributes that are foreign to my American sensibilities... But on to the other matters at hand. When there was a colonization process underway in the Middle East the European continent was undergoing violence on a scale that has not since been revisted. Millions died in the first and second world wars, and yet we talk about how barbarous the Middle East is. It is quite amusing to me really, when you think about it, because foriegn powers have impacted the culture of the Middle East greatly, and perhaps caused more violence there then would have ordinarily have happened without this input? We are all connected after all. Yet government sanctioned violence that kills 100s of 1000s at one time (like bombing Japan) is different than a beheading or a hijacking? Our weapons of mass destruction are somehow preferable to another person's weapons? Note I am not saying we are worse than any other people, it is you that are saying we are better... we who historically committed genocide, who control people remotely, undermining them economically for our purposes are somehow superior? If state sanctioned violence is ok because a government approved it that would mean what Stalin did was ok and what Hitler did was ok... dead is dead.. it really does not matter if it is due to an atomic bomb, a gas chamber, or flying planes into buildings... it is still dead, it is still violent, it is still the same shit different day. We are no better than anyone else, and if your self esteem is wrapped up in believing this is so there is really nothing me typing this to you that is going to change your opinion... I strongly disagree with your opinion, I strongly disagree with it because it is illogical, we can sling examples all day and all night, which just furthers my position.. our culture is not superior to theirs.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 11:20:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not see Israel as an open liberal government. They allow very little private ownership of land, they do not allow due process to all people living within the borders that they control. Not everyone that lives in Israel is allowed to vote, even though they were born there. This is designed to keep Palestinians from reclaiming Palestine by acquisition of land through ownership and to keep Israel a mostly Jewish state based on ethnicity, and not naturalization. "very little" is more than none. "Not everyone" means many/most can. Who is a "Palestinian"? The term was created by the Arab states who told these people to leave in 1947 because in a few weeks they'd destroy Israel. Why haven't these same Arab states welcomed in their compatriots? These are attributes that are foreign to my American sensibilities... How does woman's ability to drive a car fair with your "American sensibilities"? I won't even address the other requires of woman in Muslim society. quote: Yet government sanctioned violence that kills 100s of 1000s at one time (like bombing Japan) is different than a beheading or a hijacking? Our weapons of mass destruction are somehow preferable to another person's weapons? Note I am not saying we are worse than any other people, it is you that are saying we are better... Great example. What to know what illustrates we ARE better? We don't occupy Japan. We don't require them to live under any religious doctrine. Again - where is that in the Muslim middle east? quote: We are no better than anyone else, and if your self esteem is wrapped up in believing this is so there is really nothing me typing this to you that is going to change your opinion... I strongly disagree with your opinion, I strongly disagree with it because it is illogical, we can sling examples all day and all night, which just furthers my position.. our culture is not superior to theirs. No better? Try living there and posting this publicly. You may have first hand reference. Make sure you wear your burka.

philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 11:48:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth These are attributes that are foreign to my American sensibilities... ........................... quote: No better? Try living there and posting this publicly. You may have first hand reference. Make sure you wear your burka. ........i appreciate you owning your sensibilities as being cultural based Merc........this is the core, it seems to me, of Julia's argument. Our attitudes are culturally based. i have heard women argue the case for the birkha, it's not an argument that convinces me, but i'm clear they are convinced of their argument and ultimately isn't that the only person who needs to be so convinced? The debate over US gun laws is a similar type of cultural argument in my opinion. i'm not sold on the pro-gun arguments for my own life, but i'm not American so it isn't necessary to convince me. The problem here is recognising there are multiple, contradictory cultural values in the world.......and many of them are valid even we don't agree with them.

meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 11:49:03 AM)
It's not a case of what muslims do in their own society or how they choose to live, that should be up to them and not up to us which is the whole root of the problem, we keep choosing for them while espousing democracy. What we really mean is democracy on our terms ie. capitalism. There are parts of capitalism that are fundementally against Islamic traditions such as interest on money or usuary as it used to be called. We in the west make assumptions that exploiting people is fine and then force other societies to exploit people in the way we desire them to exploit people. Now maybe you are right is saying from a western perspective they too are exploiting people in a worse way but from their perspective maybe they are right in saying the west exploits people in a worse way. At the end of the day it is the west that imposes its views on Islam and not the other way round.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 11:55:19 AM)
quote: The problem here is recognizing there are multiple, contradictory cultural values in the world.......and many of them are valid even we don't agree with them. Agreed and a reason why the examples of Islam are my proof contrary to the position that Islam is a religion of peace. "Peace" should not require death to any disagreement. Show me one example of an Islamic State where any contradictory culture is accepted and you will convert me. I don't own a gun, but don't feel the need to stop anyone else from doing so. quote: i appreciate you owning your sensibilities as being cultural based Merc If it appears "culturally based" I apologize for not being clear. My sensibilities are reciprocity based, or pragmatically based upon published examples.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 12:06:41 PM)
1. I am not a politician - you characterizing me as one is either your way of obfuscating in the discussion and transferance of your disdain by calling me "names" - or - you do not know me well enough and do not understand that there is no way I could be a politician as I tend to call things black, when black 2. You are not comprehending that a different question has been asked because you are like a TV Set tuned in to CNN HL - all you are apparently capable of doing is a repetition of the news every 15 minutes - and, I turned it off an 'hour ago" 3. In this misunderstanding of the thread about you, you cannot get off that one theme... consider this something which borders on obsessive when it inhibits communication and, this definitively is. The rest of what you said is a repeat and regurgitation without consideration of what is being asked (you never did go back to read it like I asked - did you?) - and, therefore is still outside of the parameters of the question I asked (not that the thread is about.... *Once again: RTFQS.* This is amusing... and, I am wondering exactly when you will wake up, have a cup of tea/coffee and start thinking beyond what you read and thus far are capable of repeating. (is there parrot in your family>?) ~J quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *This is not "splitting hairs" at all - and the characterization of it in such a way is really demonstrating your "lack of" in regard to the current issue on the table.* No. I fully comprehend you, you are doing what every politician does. Reduce the scope of the argument to a specific point as though there are no contributing issues beyond that point. In this case 99% of the issue is beyond your point and shouldn't be ignored. Why and how many people are being killed is the point. Is Islam a religion of violence? No more and no less than Christian. Thomas Aquinas defined the just war and Christians have been discussing it ever since. It just depends on how you justify war which is very subjective and usually in favour of ones own perception of the world. I see no difference in that than what Islam does.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 12:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Show me one example of an Islamic State where any contradictory culture is accepted and you will convert me. If you had used any word except Islamic (Muslim and/or Arabic, Persian or Middle Eastern), I would say Lebanon - but, an "Islamic" state - by nature of it's definition and how it is created in a society denys hte existence of other religions and therefore rejects other cultures. There are very few "Islamic" States (religion based)... many Arab ones a few Persian ones and quite a few Muslim ones... I would compare a modern "Islamic State" to the Shinto Buddist government of Japan 1942-1945 - except they have the capabitlity of cropping up over 1/3rd of the globe (unlike Japan's single island chain and small spotty places). ~J

Sinergy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 1:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Islam Religion of Peace??? Hmmmm. Well, if musilims are so peacefull, then why aren't the Sheites, Curds, and Suni, getting along? Shite is not spelled with an e. I am not sure what curdled milk has to do with anything, and if you are talking about the State University of New York, that would be SUNY. Perhaps you mean the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunni muslims? I wonder if they are not getting along because they live in a violent and war torn country and have hated each other for centuries, regardless of their religion. If I remember correctly, the Sunni muslims follow the Quran and it's teachings as espoused by Mohammed. The Shiite muslims follow a more rigid interpretation that was allegedly aspoused by one of his Imams. The Kurds follow Sunni beliefs generally, although they combined these with pre-Islamic teachings of their own. Believe what you want, but I think the situation over there is not just religious differences causing their bloodshed, in the same sense that Northern Ireland was not strictly a religious problem between Christians. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 1:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Agreed and a reason why the examples of Islam are my proof contrary to the position that Islam is a religion of peace. "Peace" should not require death to any disagreement. Show me one example of an Islamic State where any contradictory culture is accepted and you will convert me. Back at you, Merc. Show me one example of a culture anywhere on the planet where a contradictory culture, religion, or difference of opinion was accepted for any length of time. The problem is not religion, it is not culture, it is not weapons, it is the fact that people in groups tend to find people to ostracize. As I stated before, same game, different varsity letter jacket. Sinergy

dorsaisgirl1 -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 1:37:31 PM)
i agree with julia No Al Queda was formed by one Osama Bin Laden, who was "made" by the USA during the Afghanistan Russia conflict to fight the Russians for us. So again we were the ones that created the force that would fight a type of government that does not square with capitalism. It is not about democracy, it is about capitalism. For example Venezuela has a democracy, but we do not like their leader and he is not pro-free trade, so we want him gone almost anyway we can get him gone.. so talking about democracy is a little disingenuous. makeing this into a mater of religion .was a ploy by bush to get religous leaders to back him up i meen look at all the brain dead morons who think george bush is doing gods work

Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 1:43:58 PM)
quote: Back at you, Merc. Show me one example of a culture anywhere on the planet where a contradictory culture, religion, or difference of opinion was accepted for any length of time. The USA. That was too easy. If you baited me - good job! But last I checked no religion was outlawed, no bible or other religious dogma banned. Walking down a street in NYC I can view 100's of different, and contradictory cultures interacting. A woman, or a man for that matter, can wear a bikini or a burka on the promenade in Venice Beach without raising an eyebrow. Wouldn't claim to be a resident of Canada, but I think the same is possible there. I don't think the UK requires exclusion of any religion although they do have a "state" religion. Does Australia have any such prohibitions? Now if your religion requires a 'virgin sacrifice' or animal sacrifice you may have to get a permit; there are laws prohibiting some activities. But I am not seeing any legitimate comparison. quote: MC: It's not a case of what Muslims do in their own society or how they choose to live, that should be up to them and not up to us which is the whole root of the problem, we keep choosing for them while espousing democracy Edited to include... MC, I'll then reduce the question to this, in 2006, or even on September 10, 2001; what were we "choosing for them"? Did/do we require them to sell us oil, or set the price? Did we influence their dress, their elections, their policies regarding woman's rights? Did we keep them from attending our schools? Did we inhibit their ability to obtain a US visa? Did we require that they allow Christian missionaries in their countries? We are on the same page if you say that the invasion of Iraq was a fool's mission to stop Saddam from killing his own people or his neighbors; even if another point was made regarding the yet seen, WMD's. Here's a simpler question. All things equal, we leave Iraq tomorrow. Go back to our existence of an expanding economy based upon a globalization policies as we had under President Clinton. Offer no assistance or intervention regardless of what occurs in the middle east. This would be similar to what we are doing in Dufar. Do you think the west, in particular the USA, would be subject to Islamic/Muslim terrorism from the religion of peace? Personally, I'm not sure, but I would lean toward thinking that Europe would be the first battlefield. Raising another question, should the US involve themselves if, say France, became a battlefield for Islamic expansion?

meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 2:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline 1. I am not a politician - you characterizing me as one is either your way of obfuscating in the discussion and transferance of your disdain by calling me "names" - or - you do not know me well enough and do not understand that there is no way I could be a politician as I tend to call things black, when black I think if you read the threads you were the first who repeatedly showed disdain for people opposed to your view. If you want me to admit that Islam is a religion of violence YES IT IS. So is Christianity and and Budhism etc. etc. etc. For the record however, it was the USA with its British lapdog that started an illegal war which has caused an estimated 600,000 - 1,000,000 deaths, depending on what you want to believe. The last I heard, the USA and Britain were Christian nations (give or take a few minorities). Now you can keep up your Perry Mason act and keep telling the witness to stick to the specifics in hope of proving your point on a technicality but you can't get away from the fact that the USA and its lapdog started the Iraq war illegally and lied to their respective citizens to justify a gross criminal and violent act that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. So much for Christians. The irony being, Blair is the first modern Prime Minister to openly flaunt and boast about being a Christian and he is the one that has told the biggest lies knowing those lies would cost countless innocent people their lives. So much for fucking peaceful Christians!

meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 2:41:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth MC, I'll then reduce the question to this, in 2006, or even on September 10, 2001; what were we "choosing for them"? Did/do we require them to sell us oil, or set the price? Did we influence their dress, their elections, their policies regarding woman's rights? Did we keep them from attending our schools? Did we inhibit their ability to obtain a US visa? Did we require that they allow Christian missionaries in their countries? The west chose the Saudi government way back, the people of Saudi Arabia were not asked and of course those that were given power will hold onto it. The irony being that when it is in the interests of the Saudi ruling clan to help the US or the enemies of the US it will because that is the nature of illigitimate governments that don't have popular support. They'll do anything to retain power. The US turns a blind eye to Saudi double dealing because it understands it has to play both ends against the middle and its a price worth paying for the US as long as Saudi oil keeps flowing. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Here's a simpler question. All things equal, we leave Iraq tomorrow. Go back to our existence of an expanding economy based upon a globalization policies as we had under President Clinton. Offer no assistance or intervention regardless of what occurs in the middle east. This would be similar to what we are doing in Dufar. Do you think the west, in particular the USA, would be subject to Islamic/Muslim terrorism from the religion of peace? Well now the terrorists are out of the bag and pandora's box has been opened. There is no way the terrorist problem is going to be easily solved. The British government has already admitted that it will be with us for a generation. The best thing the US could do is force Israel into a meaningful negotiation with Palestine to get a peace agreement where there is no face lost all round (it could do this any time it wants since the USA bank rolls Israel.). This will help detach the host population from the terrorists which is the first thing that needs to be done in any war against terrorists and all successful anti-terrorist campaigns have done this. Then you can go after the terrorists because they will have nowhere to hide because the host population will have too much to lose. Now, the host population perceive they have everything to gain from hosting terrorists. Once the Palestinian probelem has been solved, this will prevent other regimes like Syria from throwing all the blame on Israel for all the problems in their own country. Iran could be diplomatically pressured but the US is in a weak position because of its involvement in the middle east and Russia and China like it that way. With a more diplomatically vigorous and astute USA, they could bring Russia and China more into line with their thinking. As it is at the moment, Bush has shot the US in the foot. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Personally, I'm not sure, but I would lean toward thinking that Europe would be the first battlefield. Raising another question, should the US involve themselves if, say France, became a battlefield for Islamic expansion? There are no worries here about an Islamic expansion. We are already considering Turkey for membership of the EU so that will be an additional 70 million muslims within Europe. France has a 10% muslim population so it is sensitive to its muslim neighbours but that is not out of fear, its because the middle east is our back yard. The majority of French muslims see themselves as 100% French. But there isn't a muslim country with the power to attack Europe. Despite Europe's reluctance to fight wars for anything but its own defence (the legacy of two world wars fought on its soil), it is more than capable of defending itself if called to do so.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 3:04:36 PM)
MC, Nothing but common agreement with your last post, especially the Saudi comment and including the Israeli reference. My statement of providing no intervention in the middle east included consideration to Israel. However, I doubt the US will ever stop selling them military goods. But we also sell to some of Israel's enemies too. Is that considered intervention or an example of wicked capitalism? I believe the key to the "Palestinian Problem" rests with the Arab nations as much as it does for Israel. Egypt had as much a hand in creating "Palestinians" as did Israel. As you point out, "face" is very important to these cultures. The problem is for many, their agenda isn't served by peace. Could Yasser Arafat have ever become a multi-millionaire if there were peace in the region? I hope Turkey gets a handle on its economic issues and gains acceptance to the EU. I still have a few Turkish 1,000,000 dollar notes from my travels there. I'll say this - those people know how to party, and no other military or police officers looked as intimidating. I kept hearing the theme to the movie "Midnight Express" play in my brain making sure I didn't do anything foolish while there. I only hope the terrorist problem only lasts a generation. Thanks for your insights.

meatcleaver -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 3:14:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I hope Turkey gets a handle on its economic issues and gains acceptance to the EU. I still have a few Turkish 1,000,000 dollar notes from my travels there. I'll say this - those people know how to party, and no other military or police officers looked as intimidating. I kept hearing the theme to the movie "Midnight Express" play in my brain making sure I didn't do anything foolish while there. Turkey has reformed a whole lot on human rights issues under pressure from the EU and the enticement of membership. I admit it is the only truely secular muslim state but it shows that if the consditions are right, there is really no difference between Christian and Muslim nations. I just hope that France doesn't try to scuttle the Turkish membership. I don't trust the French. At least you are a millionaire in one country Merc but I think it will be a long time before you'll be able to party in Turkey with them and probably by then you'll need euros but I'm hoping for you.[;)]

seeksfemslave -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 3:23:08 PM)
Synergy said...(over there = Iraq) Believe what you want, but I think the situation over there is not just religious differences causing their bloodshed, in the same sense that Northern Ireland was not strictly a religious problem between Christians. If the murder and mayhem Iraqui on Iraqui is not religiously based then what is the cause ? I realise the invasion allowed the hatred to rise to the surface but why didn't it, the invasion, cause the Muslims to UNITE to attack the invaders ? Meatcleaver said The majority of French muslims see themselves as 100% French. I guess that is why there is so much trouble in the big Muslim ghettoes in Marseille ?

philosophy -> RE: Islam Religion of Peace??? (12/6/2006 3:26:09 PM)
"But last I checked no religion was outlawed, no bible or other religious dogma banned. Walking down a street in NYC I can view 100's of different, and contradictory cultures interacting. A woman, or a man for that matter, can wear a bikini or a burka on the promenade in Venice Beach without raising an eyebrow." ....absolutely true...that's the cultural background in which US opinion is formed. Except that historically this has had a few exceptions, racism at times, but pehaps more interestingly the McCarthy era intolerance of left wing politics was just as repressive as the Islamic states you point to now. i know you'd accept Merc that all observers bring with them a cultural bias.........this is also true of America......and the melting pot as an ideal is part of that. There is nothing that says this has to be true of all peaceful cultures. Culture bias is a bit like accents....only other people have them generally.......lol

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625