|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
In The Name Of God - scenes from the extreme
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: harddisk
I have just viewed this documentary on muslim suicide bombers and am deeply disturbed by the scenes of young children being indoctrinated to hate and sacrifice themselves as "shaheeds" or martyrs...... of people who believe that the only way to paradise where virgins await them, is to become martyrs in the name of jihad..... of chldren being systematically taught that non-believers specifically the US and Israel, are enemies....... of mothers who hope that their sons would become soldiers of jihad. If the communities shown in the documentary represents even just 0.5% of the muslim world, we have a huge problem on our hands. May God help us.
Posted by: Bishop
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harddisk
May God help us.
|
I'll try.
For starters, that same kind of fatalistic attitude is prevelant in more than 0.5% of the american population. Sure, they don't (usually) go around blowing stuff up, but they'd like to, or they find other ways to further the plot.
I guess the point here is that there are bad people and monsters in the closet and pedophiles under the bed, but they aren't limited to any one nationality or faith and you'll find worse people in your own neighborhood if you really look for them.
Posted by: redwench
all religions have these people, its nothing unique to islam. there are christian and jewish communities in the US like that. hindus in asia. every religion you care to name in europe. does the phrase "we should turn the middle east into a parking lot" ring any bells? and i think the vast majority of us of all religions agree that they are all nutcases. ever seen a program on JCD on pbs or other informative station? less than 50 people in the world have had that disease, but everyones heard of it, and there have been numerous short documentaries on it. because its interesting, not because its common.
if you want to stamp out religious extremism [i assume youre not going to be hypocritical and say that its ok for christians/jews/whatever you are to do this stuff], begin at home. dont make generalized statements about other religions when refering to individuals behavior. if a family member or friend makes them, correct them. if you hear something odd about a religion, make the effort to check and see if it is indeed a tenet of that religion, or someone making crap up/applying some extreme sects ideas to the entire religion, before you repeat it.
heres a start: most muslims dont have more than 1 wife, and dont want more.
now, im taking bets on when this will be moved to rants and raves. my bet is by noon pst.
Posted by: Ocean
my contribution:
yes, and other religions also have religious fundamentalists in the seat of power. just look at the united states and iran. our soldiers are over there (for the reason that the supporters are supporting) to die to replace the non-free nature of islam with something more christian such as freedom.
by 1pm 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
heres a start: most muslims dont have more than 1 wife, and dont want more.
|
most...
Posted by: redwench
yes, most. some are looney enough to think they can handle more than one 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes, most. some are looney enough to think they can handle more than one |
ah but that is irrelevant - they may be looney, but my point was: it's LEGAL, period.
And these "looneys" damn well know it http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/kaola.gif 
Posted by: redwench
depends on the country if its legal or not. not that it matters, that wasnt the point
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
depends on the country if its legal or not. not that it matters, that wasnt the point |
nor was it mine: when I said "legal", I wasn't talking about the country http://forum.hardware.fr/images/perso/spirousorus.gif
Posted by: marioze53
sounds like you two are married.
Posted by: Paul Limsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
sounds like you two are married.
|
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Posted by: elhior_manwe
So those of you that are terrified of the fanatic elements in the muslim world should force our politicians to help boost the moderates throughout the world. That is not what we are doing at this point. We are giving the extremists more power and influence by doing exactly what they say we will do, i.e. dropping bombs on them and acting like we are on some crusade. If any of the reactionaries in this country would study Islam they would understand it is certainly not a religion based on hatred, violence, and oppression. Most of the tactics that are employed to recruit suicide bombers is disturbing, but what allows them to do this. For example in Palestine they recruit mostly in refugee camps, were poverty and hunger are the major issues affecting the people there, they offer money to the families of the bombers and teach hate of the people that are in actuality oppressing them.
Posted by: marioze53
The same tactics were employed during the crusades. In an effort to unite Europe and its bickering churches, a few corrupted leaders devised a more "perdinant" enemy: Islam. Christianity, like Islam is not a religion of violence. But its relatively easy to play with a persons morals if a threat is determined, particularly a "threat" to ones relgion. People are willing to compromise their beliefs if they believe their beliefs have been infringed upon. The name of God applied to any conflict is a powerful weapon.
I think we have been advancing the cause of moderates abroad. But before we can establish governments that are more to our liking, we must first remove (or encourage the removal) of the governments or leaders we dont like (ie Alqueda, Osama Bin Laden). Osama Bin Laden is already very popular with many extremist factions of the muslim world and some that are not so extreme. Granted that we are playing into Alqueda's hands by doing what they say we will do. But throwing propoganda at the problem isnt going to solve anything. Military action is necessary.
Posted by: Bishop
Old/Young Link shota action is the only action EVAR necessary.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
we are playing into Alqueda's hands by doing what they say we will do. But throwing propoganda at the problem isnt going to solve anything. Military action is necessary.
|
interesting paradox there. i sure know that i would be inclined to welcome an invasion and occupation by china just to get rid of GWB 
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
The same tactics were employed during the crusades. In an effort to unite Europe and its bickering churches, a few corrupted leaders devised a more "perdinant" enemy: Islam. Christianity, like Islam is not a religion of violence. But its relatively easy to play with a persons morals if a threat is determined, particularly a "threat" to ones relgion. People are willing to compromise their beliefs if they believe their beliefs have been infringed upon. The name of God applied to any conflict is a powerful weapon.
I think we have been advancing the cause of moderates abroad. But before we can establish governments that are more to our liking, we must first remove (or encourage the removal) of the governments or leaders we dont like (ie Alqueda, Osama Bin Laden). Osama Bin Laden is already very popular with many extremist factions of the muslim world and some that are not so extreme. Granted that we are playing into Alqueda's hands by doing what they say we will do. But throwing propoganda at the problem isnt going to solve anything. Military action is necessary.
|
Establishing governments that are to our liking is not the same thing as advancing the cause of moderates in the islamic world. Musharif(sp?) Pakistans military dictator, who came to power in a coup, we like him alot. Karzai and Alawai are both looked upon as American puppets.
Osama Bin Laden became so popular during the Afghan war in the 80's, he was a mythic like figure then and now more even more so. America is creating more hatred and extreme views all of the world with talk of crusades and a endless war on terror (read war on islam). Military action is necessary? I agree that in some cases force would be necessary, but Iraq. Saddam was a secular leader who was shunned by Islamic extremists, such as Bin Laden. Bin Laden had thought Saudi Arabia would call on him to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, he thought he could unite the Arab world agaisnt Saddam. It wasn't until then that he became intent on doing America harm. So what military action do you speak of? Were could we invade next? Will it make us safer?
Posted by: Paul Limsk
There will always be a small percentage in every religion that we can label as extremists. However, in the case of islam, that percentage seems to be significantly high. Most if not all other religions have progressed and moved on from extremist doctrines except for islam which is inherently regressive (e.g. the quest to establish islamic states based on archaic islamic laws, women not being allowed outside their homes without the supervision of a male relative, requiring women to expose only their eyes when in public etc). Another point to note....... most if not all present day terrorists are muslims and commiting murder and suicide is almost second nature as far as these monsters are concerned. Would you subscribe to the doctrine that if you were to martyr yourself, you will go to paradise where 72 virgins with large eyes awaits you? Only if you were a sex-starved idiot I suppose.
Posted by: redwench
funny, ive met a lot of muslims, and dated a few. not one of them nor their families subscribed to such nonsense.
Quote:
|
most if not all present day terrorists are muslims and commiting murder and suicide is almost second nature as far as these monsters are concerned.
|
if you truly subscribe to those statements, you might want to review the news beyond the front page.
Posted by: Paul Limsk
Quote:
|
funny, ive met a lot of muslims, and dated a few. not one of them nor their families subscribed to such nonsense.
|
You've missed the point....... which is , in islam there are more extremists/terrorists than in most other religions. I am not saying all muslims are extremists/terrorists or subscribe to the mentioned doctrines but there are those that do and they are the ones who hold little if any regards for human lives. Incidentally, the ones who do subscribe to such "nonsense" won't be going around letting everybody know, would they?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
funny, ive met a lot of muslims, and dated a few. not one of them nor their families subscribed to such nonsense.
|
That explains it.. ^^
The last (and first) muslim girl I dated, a morocan...it lasted less than a week - because her entiry FAMILY (not moderates, apparently) didn't want her to have anything to do with a non-muslim 'disbeliever' who was too 'impure' (at least she had the courage to relay their own words). And she was not a minor, by the way.
Anyways, nowhere in their texts is "dating" mentionned ; )
Between dating and marriage lies one abysmal chasm. Would you dare take the leap?
Posted by: redwench
yes, most people that hold strong religious convictions have no trouble expounding on them at every conceivable opportunity. they arent ashamed of their beliefs, and see no reason to disemble about them.
sure. no problem marrying someone of any religion. provided im not expected to join in said religion, of course.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes, most people that hold strong religious convictions have no trouble expounding on them at every conceivable opportunity. they arent ashamed of their beliefs, and see no reason to disemble about them.
|
Deeming other cultures 'impure' - that's some conviction. In this case, it was more her parents' and brothers' convictions than her own. What a fine example they're setting for their kids - preaching intolerance instead of respect & understanding.
Sounds an awful lot like brainwashing...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
sure. no problem marrying someone of any religion. provided im not expected to join in said religion, of course. |
Hehe - in the present case, this might prove a bit tricky http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...es/devilish.gif
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwench
sure. no problem marrying someone of any religion. provided im not expected to join in said religion, of course.
|
You speak as if religion is something to be taken lightly. There is a fundamental difference between how one believes the budget should be balanced and how to go about worshipping God. Were dealing with God! The assumed creator and manager of the Universe (Alpha, Omega, etc.). He is the reason for our very existence (hypothetically of course  ). Who are we to take a being of such infinite power for granted unless he doesnt exist?
The point is, religion should be a defining characteristic of ones life. Take the Bible for instance. If a Christian holds true to their beliefs how can he/she marry a non-Christian without the intent of converting them? Does not the Bible say that a "non-believer" is condemned to eternal damnation? Isnt attempted conversion a sign of love? It is eternity after all. To say "believe whatever you want to believe" does one of two things. You are either taking someone elses beliefs for granted, or compromising your own.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
The point is, religion should be a defining characteristic of ones life.
|
sez who? for many people, religion is a mere "tag", and holds no more meaning than any other.
Quote:
|
If a Christian holds true to their beliefs how can he/she marry a non-Christian without the intent of converting them? Isnt attempted conversion a sign of love?
|
no, it is a sign of contempt for the person and their beliefs.
Quote:
|
To say "believe whatever you want to believe" does one of two things. You are either taking someone elses beliefs for granted, or compromising your own.
|
no, not even for "christians". even the pope, who is hardly a bastion of liberalism, has said that people of other faiths are also members of the flock, and should be respected. but you are correct in that many people do assume others will convert, or they compromise their own faith. but its is not a condition of accepting others' beliefs. what it boils down to is whether or not a person truly respects other peoples religious beliefs or not. and quite frankly, most people of any religion dont.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
no, it is a sign of contempt for the person and their beliefs.
|
At least you acknowledge that. Now we're getting somewhere -)
So now suppose one of your muslim friends were to request that you to convert to his religion as a sine qua non for marriage (one such example being the Queen of Jordan) - with all the constraints that it would imply - you would regard it as 'contempt for you and your beliefs', right?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I don't think there's a law in Christianity strictly requiring that you marry a fellow Christian ... so really, posting a condition like:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
one of your muslim friends were to request that you to convert to his religion as a sine qua non for marriage (one such example being the Queen of Jordan) - with all the constraints that it would imply
|
would not be an apt analogy for the premise. Marginally apples and oranges, in my honest opinion (there is a difference between "absolute requirement" and "imposing one's faith over the other")...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
At least you acknowledge that. Now we're getting somewhere -)
So now suppose one of your muslim friends were to request that you to convert to his religion as a sine qua non for marriage (one such example being the Queen of Jordan) - with all the constraints that it would imply - you would regard it as 'contempt for you and your beliefs', right?
|
yes i would.
Posted by: Bishop
God should nuke the site from orbit.
You know, just to be sure.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
I don't think there's a law in Christianity strictly requiring that you marry a fellow Christian
|
I wasn't talking about Christianism ; )
A Christian may be allowed to marry a Muslim, but how is it the other way round?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
so really, posting a condition like:
would not be an apt analogy for the premise. Marginally apples and oranges, in my honest opinion (there is a difference between "absolute requirement" and "imposing one's faith over the other")...
|
But what if 'imposing one's faith upon the other' IS the 'absolute requirement'? ; )
redwench>
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yes i would;
|
Good :|
Now that may be a personal question so feel free not to respond, but since you yourself spoke of dating: have you ever dated jews as well? And if so, what were your impressions?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
I wasn't talking about Christianism ; )
A Christian may be allowed to marry a Muslim, but how is it the other way round?
|
You were making a general statement about religion, just decided to show you that your premise isn't universal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But what if 'imposing one's faith upon the other' IS the 'absolute requirement'? ; )
|
Please stop mincing words Absolute requirement is absolute requirement. Whether it requires you to change your faith, or requires you to pay up or change your name, or change your political affiliation, a requirement is a requirement. Just because changing someone's faith happens to be a requirement for one religion's matrimonial customs, doesn't mean it's anything significant to this discussion. Both parties are aware of it if it's a "sine qua non" as you said in your example, so as I said, that analogy doesn't hold water
Posted by: redwench
actually, judaism is the one religion that has not occured in the people i have dated. not on purpose, mind you. theyre just scarce on the ground around here. we do have a large population of muslims, hindus and christians however. and ive dated all of those
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Please stop mincing words Absolute requirement is absolute requirement. [...] Just because changing someone's faith happens to be a requirement for one religion's matrimonial customs, doesn't mean it's anything significant to this discussion. |
http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...ge.php/1769.gif and stop twisting my words - I know this is insignificant to the topic, but I was only answering redwench:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Isnt attempted conversion a sign of love?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
no, it is a sign of contempt for the person and their beliefs.
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/155.gif
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
actually, judaism is the one religion that has not occured in the people i have dated. not on purpose, mind you. theyre just scarce on the ground around here. we do have a large population of muslims, hindus and christians however. and ive dated all of those |
I see - and your favourite...? http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/155.gif
Posted by: redwench
id probably have to go with the hindus for now. find me a few jews that are my type, and ill see if that requires modification.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
find me a few jews that are my type, and ill see if that requires modification.
|
?!! are they that scarce where you live?
What happened to them?
Posted by: redwench
theyre pretty scarce. theres 1 good sized JCC here, thats it. they never moved here, i live in the middle of the country i can count on one hand the people that i know of that are jewish. of course, i dont go around asking random people about their religious preferences.......
like in most countries, there are clusters of ethnic/religious groups in the US. jews are mostly in florida, desert southwest, and the east/west coasts. large islamic communities in chicago, detroit, and new york. indian and arab communities around university towns. asians tend to live on the coasts.
Posted by: macknight
not to sound too patriotic...but freedom is worth fighting for...in my opinion...the right to pursue life, liberty , and happiness, as long as said pursuit doesn't infringe on the freedom of another...that's why I served in the U.S. Navy...America is a country of opportunity. That is what these other countries lack. Find a way to empower the regular citizens of these third world countries and the world will change...and change is what their leaders fear because they are getting richer by the second at the expense of millions.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by macknight
not to sound too patriotic...but freedom is worth fighting for [...] and change is what their leaders fear because they are getting richer by the second at the expense of millions.
|
but this could apply to Bush as well, come to think of it
Posted by: macknight
I'm not a Bush fan...well...George that is...but he is our president...and as such...I stand behind him...ready to bear arms in defense of this country. I do not disagree with you...I have found much of the current administration to be a considerable conflict of interest...but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to undermine the nations credibility...everyone had their opportunity to vote...evidently the majority of voters saw something in Bush...or a lack thereof in Kerry...I found Kerry lacking personally. At any rate...it is discussions like these that could possibly affect the next election, and posssibly the future of the world...so post on!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Sometimes, there is a great difference between defending one's country and supporting its State. Sometimes, patriotism and obedience just don't mix http://forum.presence-pc.com/images...20le%20loup.gif
Posted by: macknight
hmmmmm.....I guess to relate in some way to the topic that Canis originally started and tie in my patriotic statements importance to this discussion...the essence of the constitution is that you can pursue whatever you want to as long as it doesn't infringe on another's pursuits...that includes the diversity of religion. Do I like religions??? i'm not religious. Do I believe I'm spiritual? I have faith that there is something greater than any one of us...that possibly when all of us work together we may come closer to something special. Do I believe that war is necessary? Yes. I believe that in order to defend what is good...one must stand up. Do I turn a blind eye to a child being abused??? no...Do I wait for someone else to help that child??? no. Will I stand by while evil men corrupt the minds of innocents??? no! I believe that any religion which supports violence is a false religion. I'm by no means a saint...far from it...but I've heard of men who faced persecution and didn't try to start a jihad...Ghandi...Jesus...that is an honorable path...they change the hearts of men by their love for their fellow men...and would die before harming another...I myself am more of a hands on believer...applying force against people who try to suppress the freewill of others. Freewill....it's a _______....ain't it!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by macknight
Freewill....it's a _______....ain't it!
|
An illusion? Or instead, a dent in the wheel of Fate perhaps...
One should not "turn a blind eye to a kid being abused" - fine, but this I ask you: what if those in command, those who wield the authority & are empowered with the means to enforce it, those whose duty is - is amongst other things - to protect these kids, are also those who abuse them?
You claim that war is "necessary" - but for what purpose: defensive? preemptive? punitive?
lucrative?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Mack
Just a question on your posts, if you please
Quote
everyone had their opportunity to vote...evidently the majority of voters saw something in Bush
'I heard that it was the highest turn out to vote in US history, that is 50%, so therefore the vote for Bush was shall we say, 25/26% of the US population?
Not really a majority, just a majority of those that bothered to vote! I must say my impression of the past was that it was compulsory to vote in the US, but I must have been mistaken?'
Quote
Do I believe that war is necessary? Yes. I believe that in order to defend what is good...one must stand up.
'I tend to agree, but the operative word must be, DEFEND, what happened was and still is, ATTACK another country, this to the rest of the world, as history has shown us is not acceptable.
The last person of note to do this was named Hitler!'
Just a few thoughts for comment, as usual.
Posted by: Paul Limsk
I am really amazed at the extent of apathy in the US...... only 50% bothered to vote. Can someone shed some light on this?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Either they didn't care because both canidates were saying much of the same bullshit or they didnt care because they didnt think there vote matters or they didnt care because it is too much of a hassle to vote or the just dont care. Sad, very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
