Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 211 of 313 (223058)
07-11-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Meeb
07-09-2005 2:47 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
here's an articel on it, with quotes:
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
Quoe of bin Laden's withurl to follow:
The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam
"How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that his nation was created to stand at the center of leadership, at the center of hegemony and rule, at the center of ability and sacrifice? How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that the [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah - not to the East, not to the West - to no ideology and to no path except for the path of Allah? . "
"As long as this Muslim knows and believes in these facts, he will not - even for a single moment - stop striving to achieve it, even if it costs him his soul . his time, his property, and his son, as it is said, 'Say [to the believers]: If your fathers and your sons and your brethren and your wives and your kinsfolk and the worth you have acquired and the trade, the dullness of which you apprehend, and the dwellings that you fancy are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah issues His judgment. Allah guides not the disobedient people . '" [2]
'Why We Fight America': Al-Qa'ida Spokesman Explains September 11 and Declares Intentions to Kill 4 Million Americans with Weapons of Mass Destruction | MEMRI
This is typical islamist thinking: Mankind is to be muslim, and converted by teh sword as need be, and ruled according to Sharia Law (Koran), under a Muslim caliphate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Meeb, posted 07-09-2005 2:47 PM Meeb has not replied

Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 212 of 313 (223061)
07-11-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 12:35 AM


Evil Muslims
Steve,
You certainly paint paint a grim picture of all those violent Muslims out to kill everybody. Given that there are around 1,600,000 Muslims in Britain, I guess I'm lucky to get out alive. Any thoughts on why this is the first major attack by Islamic terrorists in Britain's history? Compared to, say, the 1,700 deaths (in total)caused by the the (Christian, Catholic) IRA?
We tend these days to see all cultures, faiths and societies as equal
Count me as an exception, within the scope of terrorism. The only person I know personally to be injured by terrorism is a mate of mine called Andy, who needed 3 pieces of glass digging out of him when the (Cristian, Catholic) IRA blew up a shopping mall in Manchester some years back. Funded by Americans, but that's a moot point.
Out of interest, how many Muslins do you actually know? (I don't mean met, I mean really talked to). Just Curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 12:35 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Harrism, posted 07-11-2005 8:36 AM Dead Parrot has not replied
 Message 224 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 11:02 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 213 of 313 (223069)
07-11-2005 3:57 AM


I think that whatever our take on the issue, our first reaction was not to think "Ohh..I can make money out of this.."
But then we are not neo-con shitheads.
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Meeb, posted 07-11-2005 4:45 AM CK has not replied

Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 313 (223074)
07-11-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by CK
07-11-2005 3:57 AM


Limbaugh's quote is still my favorite:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080004

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by CK, posted 07-11-2005 3:57 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Wounded King, posted 07-11-2005 6:15 AM Meeb has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 215 of 313 (223075)
07-11-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
07-08-2005 7:10 PM


You don't think owning things is a civil freedom?
I don't think owning guns is a civil freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2005 7:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by CK, posted 07-11-2005 5:10 AM Dr Jack has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 216 of 313 (223076)
07-11-2005 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dr Jack
07-11-2005 4:54 AM


Before we get too far down this sideroad, our american chums will just have to accept that for various historical reasons and for more recent events - us brits have never had a love affair with the gun (I think it's because we lack a "west"). We don't like them, we don't want them*. Expect for a very small group of people such as farmers and target-shooters, a vote to totally outlaw the use of firearms would have no problem at all passing.
* There is an argument about freedom that can be made but we as a society have decided it's not want we want to have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dr Jack, posted 07-11-2005 4:54 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 3:51 PM CK has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5814 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 217 of 313 (223077)
07-11-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 12:35 AM


A few comments:
Truly, even a minimally objective reading of the OT vs. the Koran makes this evident. That may be ugly, but that doesn't make it untrue. It is the ugly truth. However, there is much that is good in the Koran as well. Muslims will eventually take to democracy, and, in the process, they will go into collective denial as to the ugly side of the faith.....
.....the truth is in the texts. To read them is to see it.
Well, I have taken a good look at both and come the same conclusion: they are both political documents which need to be taken in historical and cultural context.
Both have objectionable things in them, and both have some pretty good stuff too. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I have come to a conclusion about faiths not by comparing aged holy texts but by the actions and attitudes of their followers. Some people who class themselves as Christians do horrific things, some people who view themsleves as Islamic commit dreadful crimes. Most followers of both faiths live in peace with everybody else.
Prattling on about how 'Islamists' want to bring about an Islamic world means nothing when the vast majority of muslims DO NOT. Likewise, insisting that democracy is un-Islamic flies in the face of the evidence:
And yet, it very heartening that iraqis defied the Islamists and Saddamites to vote in huge numbers
Could any of these Iraqis have classified themselves as Muslims? Why do Muslim people turn out to vote at all? Why is there a push (by Muslims) in Iran for more democracy that was present before the Iraq war?
The muslim world clearly doesn't have to change it's interpretation of the Koran in the future - it already has!
And, BTW, the concept of separation of Church and state is American. It does not exist in other democracies. Hence, for example, why there is a Church of England, with the Queen as its head.
Go back and read what I actually wrote. The key word is practical. I am well aware that there is a Church of England with a Monarch at it's head - living in England you notice things like that - but to all intents and purposes the whole thing is for show. The Kirk in Scotland separated some time ago.
There are still some links in England but they are fairly minor and are in the process of being disposed of (Charles, for example has declared that he wants to be known as 'Defender of all Faiths' when made king). It's a messy business, but that's what you get when you don't have a clearly written constitution.
On the other hand, I'm sure the French will be amazed to hear you assert that the USA is the only democracy to officially draw a line between church and state. They are almost fanatical about keeping them separate, and I'm fairly certain they are not alone in Europe.
The important part about democracy in the 'Christian' world is that when Church and state were tied together (IOW laws were passed down according to the Bible) then there was no democracy. Only when certain things in the Bible were re-interpretted was this possible. How is this different to Muslims re-interpreting the Koran in accordance with democracy?
And as a general point: I've noticed that when challenged by others to back up your statements (Jar, Crashfrog, Holmes) you turn tail and flee. I think it is time to answer their questions or admit you don't want to debate.
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 11-07-2005 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 12:35 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 11:19 AM Ooook! has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 218 of 313 (223083)
07-11-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Meeb
07-11-2005 4:45 AM


I'm sure Red Ken will be overjoyed by Rush's support.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Meeb, posted 07-11-2005 4:45 AM Meeb has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 219 of 313 (223085)
07-11-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Chiroptera
07-09-2005 9:25 PM


Re: Fred Phelps: a good Christian
Wow! He sounds like a bundle of laughs! I guess for him to hold that position, he must believe all Londoners are sympathetic to the satanic doings of fags. Would that that were so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2005 9:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Chiroptera, posted 07-11-2005 9:26 AM Tusko has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 220 of 313 (223089)
07-11-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 12:08 AM


Re: Someone famous once said...
What I did way was democracy evolved in the Christian world. Yes, its precursors were ancient rome and greece, and that should neither be forgotten nor lost sight of. But in the modern world, and in the sense that we're speaking of modern day, all inclusive, everyone votes, liberal democracy, democracy is much evolved over what existed so long before. And the key point remains: In the modern world, it developed in the Christian world
Here is what you are leaving out:
1) It DID exist, until Xians wiped it out.
2) One of the first documents which made Kings also equal to law, as the people were and so not infallible hands of God... was from an Islamic nation. It was what helped shape things like the magna carta, which in turn helped shape the US Constitution.
3) Democracy formed within Xian nations as a reaction to those Xian govts.
I am unsure what your argument is that Islamic nations somehow resisted it any more fiercely than the Xian nations did. As it stands most of Europe is still monarchical at its base and so has not given up all its Xian model fascinations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you do have a queen don't you? Who vested her power?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 12:08 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 11:22 AM Silent H has replied

Harrism
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 313 (223100)
07-11-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dead Parrot
07-11-2005 2:49 AM


Re: Evil Muslims
quote:
(I don't mean met, I mean really talked to)
I know a converted one pretty well; and based upon that which I know of him, it's hard to convience him other than anything that Allah is G-d and always will be. His path is right and only his path, but I must say; he will allow me to question his faith and G-d.
I only wanted to say, if Im ever travelling though london, its always king's cross on a thursday. However I want it to be said, Im still using the underground. Kill me if you wish, I'd have lived my life. :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-11-2005 2:49 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 313 (223104)
07-11-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 12:00 AM


Re: War in the Qur'an
I agree, there is no interpretation -- what the Qur'an states is quite clear -- protect yourself against aggressors, but stop once the agression stops -- that's pretty explicit in Surah 2 (the part that you not only misquoted but left stuff out).
It is not in dispute that there are fanatics who will interpret these verses as saying that they have a duty to kill infidels. What is being disputed is that these verses put a clear duty on Muslims to impose their religion on other people. They do not, and it is clear when they are actually read in context.
I spent three years in a country that was divided evenly between Christians and Muslims. There was absolutely no religious strife whatsoever. My next door neighbor was Muslim, was were many of my other neighbors. No one tried to kill me or harm me, hell, no one even attempted to proselytize me to their faith -- despite that I fully admitted that I am an atheist. Clearly they never saw a duty to force their religion on other people. In fact, they were advocates for religious toleration.
The fact is, CanadianSteve, that the Qur'an does not lay a duty on Muslims to forcibly convert others to their faith. That some choose to interpret the Qur'an in this manner is no different than the Christians who have intepreted similar verses in the Bible to do the same. You can deny the fact if you want. If you want you can take a few verses, ignore the other verses around them, ignore the historical context of the writings, ignore what Muslims actually say about those verses, but you are just going to look like a fool when people actually read the Qur'an themselves, and especially as more and more people get to know real Muslims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 12:00 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 11:29 AM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 313 (223105)
07-11-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Tusko
07-11-2005 6:15 AM


Re: Fred Phelps: a good Christian
Do you want him? You can have him cheap, and we'll even include free shipping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Tusko, posted 07-11-2005 6:15 AM Tusko has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 224 of 313 (223116)
07-11-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dead Parrot
07-11-2005 2:49 AM


Re: Evil Muslims
i don't believe Muslims as individuals are a bad people, not at all. Assuredly, they are no different than ourselves, mostly just trying to get by in life and do well by their families. Nor do i believe that most are in any way violent. I'd also wager that the majority are embarassed by Islamist terror. And yet, at the same time, i'd say they, overall, can't help but support the principle Islamist aim of seeing the world islamicized. That is a consequence of the faith and the civilization, which were born of the imperative and mission to displace the judeo-Christian worlds that preceded Islam. Even Stephen SChwartz, an American Muslim, passionate democrat, bitter enemy of the Islamists, has said: "Islam is the answer to America's moral problems." That implies that he believes America must be substantially Islamicized in order to resolve its "moral problems."
As for how many I know...not many. But my son't best friend growing up was Muslim, and my younger daughter has been going to a Muslim family home after school. An uncle of mine maintained close friendships with a number of Muslims while he was doing business in the Middle East. He said nothign about being Jewish, adn they pretended they didn't know, despite visiting him at his home in Montreal ona few occasions. There is nothing personal in my view of things.
And, as I've said often, I do believe democracy will come to the Islamic world, and, in so doing, it will moderate Islamdom as it moderated Christendom before. However, it remains the case that democracy was compatible with Christianity, whereas it is not with Islam - as the Islamists have repeatedly said. That means that Muslims will have to go into collective denial as to certains key aspects of the faith, as they will.
Why have there been no previous attacks in GB? The islamists do not strike randomly; they have specific intent and strategy. Because the US stands in the way of their taking over Arabia, they have struck at US interests several times. That was why they attacked the barracks in lebanon, to good effect: The US packed and went home. They struck the USS Cole, not to good effect. Nor did the attack on the US embassies in Afrcia work. That may be why they tried 09/11. They thought the US would leave the ME after that. Instead their worst nightmare became reality: The US went after them in their homelands, and injected their worst ideological nightmare, democracy.
They struck Spain effectively, got Spaniards to vote the governmetn that had put troops into iraq out of power, and vote for a new government that withdrew them. It hoped for similar results from london. According to military doctrine in the Koran, Muslims living as a minority in non Islamic lands are to accept the authority of those lands, until they are strong enough to assert themselves. Then they are to do that until they takeover. Hence, the islamists in most western nations preach their hate and superiority and ultimate aims, convert with zeal whomever (prisoners are a favourite target), patiently building 5th columns, but also lay back awaiting the right time to strike. That is why, unless the Islamic world demcoratizes fully and absolutely, Europe will, soon enough, be awash in horrendous islamist terror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-11-2005 2:49 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 225 of 313 (223117)
07-11-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Ooook!
07-11-2005 5:16 AM


One can hardly compare the small minority of Christians today who do horrioble things in the name of the faith with Islamic governments, huge demonstrations of joy when terrorist attacks are carried off on the west, and worldwide jihadist groups. If you truly judge on actions, then your answer is rather clear.
And, there is simply no way one can even begin to rationally suggest that Islam is comparable with Christianity. One simply cannot be objective and say that. Their essential messages are different. And, as I said, how different would Christyianity be if Jesus was a polygamist, slave owner, pedophile and warrior who personally killed. Deny this if you will, but that will mean you miss the real motivation for the strike against London: part of the war to displace Christendon (and its liberal democracy) with Islamdon (with Sharia Law).
You mention the iraqis and imply that they prove Musims are amenable to democracy. I said exactly the same. I also said that Muslims need to be in collective denial as their faith in order to democratize, but that they will because democracy is so innately appealing to human anture. That. however, doesn't change the fact that there will be for a long time a great amny Muslims - even if a minority - who will take their faith accurately and battle to the very end against peace with others, tolerance of others, and democracy. We see that, too, in iraq, where much of the insurgency is jihadis desperately fighting off democracy.
france does not constitutionally have a separation of Church and state - and i never suggested that in reality that is not practised outside the US. Obviously it is, including in my country.
I also wrote several times now that democracy tamed Christendom, but that democracy evolved in Christendom because the faith is not unamneable to it. So, yes, i agree with you that at one time Christendon was a barbaric civlization, run putatively according to the faith. But it was not. And it is not a matter of interpretation. Not everything is subjective. There can be no question that much was done contrary to the faith. Likewise, there can be no question that much of what is ill in the islamic world is due to, not in opposition to, the faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Ooook!, posted 07-11-2005 5:16 AM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 07-11-2005 1:00 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024