Slashdot Mirror
Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney
An anonymous reader send this link to a developing situation in Sydney, Australia, being reported on via live feed at the Guardian, and covered by various other news outlets as well. According to CNN's coverage, "CNN affiliate Seven Network said that at least 13 people are being held at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe. It published a photograph of people inside the cafe holding a black flag with Arabic writing on it. The flag reads: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God."
From The New York Times' coverage: The police have shut down parts of the city’s transport system, and closed off the mall area. They would not confirm how many people were being held hostage inside the cafe, nor whether those inside are armed.
Local media reports said that the airspace over Sydney had been closed and the famed Sydney Opera House evacuated. Television images showed heavily armed officers with their weapons trained on the cafe.
The airspace over Sydney isn't closed, nor is its airport. Flights are being diverted around the CBD (both by order from the authorities and voluntarily from the main domestic airlines agreeing to divert).
"There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God."
Well, they got the first 4 words right.
Sudden Jihad Syndrome, it could happen to anyone.
There is only a Spaghetti Monster! He is going to meat ball you!
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
To be perfectly honest, does anyone have statistics (recent) on the number of terrorist acts that are committed by Christians? I'd like to compare them with Islamic terrorist acts, because it seems to me that Islamic apologists need a wake-up call.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
...if the gunman turns out NOT being mentally deranged.
Too bad the major news networks are probably airing this from every angle, live. I bet the jihadis know how to use TVs too.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Once the western world abandons the middle east, then this shit will stop happening. Sigh, when will we ever learn.
at how media outlets can still be acting like it's unclear what happened in Fergueson (despite forensics) but hostage takers put up a flag that says: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God" but the prime minister & same media outlets say w/a straight face: "We don't know whether this is politically motivated"
it would be funny if the former didn't involve a death & the later certainly seems like even money at best...
Fundamentalists. They hate us for our chocolate.
"Lost time is not found again."
Perhaps it will stop happening here, but it will still happen in the middle east. It's not like the middle east is a peaceful place without the west butting in. The Muslims have still got plenty to do blowing each other up.
If you can get through, 2GB has excellent rolling coverage on their radio station. Ray Hadley (the presenter) has had various calls throughout the morning from one of the hostages who speaking on behalf of the terrorist wants to speak to Tony Abbott (Prime minister) live on air.
http://2gb.com/listen-live
Sorry that'd be muslims. Even here in Canada, half a dozen muslim groups came out stating muslims after the terrorist attacks. At least two groups posted something similar to this. Oh, of course they were attacked by...did you think muslims? Haha no, by elitists for putting "muslim" in there.
Om, nomnomnom...
Getting data on these issues is complicated. If one restricts to the US, then about 10% of all terrorist attacks are Islamic. See http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html. But not only is this restricted to the US, it uses a very broad notion of what counts as terrorism. If one weighs in the US by total deaths, then Islamic terrorism swamps everything else primarily due to 9/11. Worldwide, about 70% of all terrorist attacks are by Sunni Muslims but this varies from year to year. See for example the 2011 report NCTC report http://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf. Again, definitional issues can move this number up or down by a lot.
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this. And in Canada we had two terrorist attacks(one in Quebec), and another on Parliament Hill in two days.
By mentally ill Canadians who converted for all the wrong reasons.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The armed population of the US seems very easy to terrorise, so I don't see your point. We in Oz don't want the thousands of deaths a year you well armed morons have.
Some people consider it a "hate site" for some reason, but so far, nobody explained away the list.
Ezekiel 23:20
You dignify the human waste who perpetrate such idiocy by calling them "terrorists".
They are much more likely to be some loser who has no idea what else to do with
their miserable piece of shit lives, so they decide to do bad things.
Calling them an asshole is much more likely to be accurate. Calling them a terrorist
gives them more credit than all but a tiny fraction of such scum remotely deserve.
didn't expect that...
Learn? Learn? LEARN?
Crack open a book sometime. Islam has been trying to take over the rest of the world pretty much since the day it was founded. Liberal fantasies about Western colonialism are flatly contradicted by the entire rest of history. From Charlemange to Dracula the rest of the world was actively under siege.
This is just the next chapter in a very long history that's not pretty if you actually bother to pay attention to it.
Being able to ignore their oil really wouldn't change the situation all that much.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Take them out like the TERRORISTS that they are, least they get a foothold in YOUR country. I don't care which political party, religious affiliation or what their "cause" is, if they take hostages, once you get the hostages out, SQUASH THEM.
I know that sometimes on Slashdot, we get 'stuff that matters,' but can't we at least talk about the police drones involved in the situation? Or even that Uber is reportedly charging users a minimum $100 to get out of Sydney CBD. At least attempt to make it seem relevant please?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)
Absolutely! It's a fine line we have to walk because on one side we have Islam with significant human rights abuses and on the other intelligence agencies carrying out false flag operations and blaming it on them.
The enhancements to the National Security Act passed in October and was supposed to stop this sort of thing. It was passed on the back of a media shitstorm over some 15 alleged assailant who were all released without charge and one on minor charges. Meanwhile 99.99999% of the population bares the cost.
Best of luck getting out of there - looks like it's going to be a shitfight on the trains later.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nice of you to be able to speak for the adherents of other religions and to blindly through the "mentally ill" label around. I daresay that might earn you the label of orientalist.
Uber is reportedly charging its users in downtown Sydney a minimum $100, a result of surge pricing introduced in the midst of an armed hostage crisis, Mashable has learned.
http://mashable.com/2014/12/14...
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this. And in Canada we had two terrorist attacks(one in Quebec), and another on Parliament Hill in two days.
My interpretation is that Islam is just like any other religion. A bunch of people who think their religion wants them to be perfectly nice and peaceful, and a bunch of others who think it demands they cleanse the Earth of non-believers.
If you followed the attacks in Canada you noticed that the attackers were recent converts to Islam. Their attacks weren't motivated by Islam, they were motivated by ISIL's culture of terrorism and enabled by whatever personal demons caused them to jump headlong into a new religion. Islam is just the language that ISIL uses to communicate that culture.
I stole this Sig
Well, Christianity is a peaceful religion too. Perhaps that explains the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
Crusades are easy, that would be a response to 100 years of Muslim rape, slaughter, and forced conversion in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition gets interesting, because it was a direct result of that. Surprise right? You're dealing with an entire group of extremists that responded to extremists in kind. Then again, that's not what they teach in school anymore is it. Rather many paint it as "it was all the christians fault."
Om, nomnomnom...
I don't know what "hate site" means in general, but that's at minimum a source that has very much already decided on their bottom line http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/, which means one shoudl already take it pretty skeptically. But that list isn't very helpful for a simple reason that it just shows that there are a lot of Islamic terrorist events which isn't terribly helpful: we already know that. The question being asked is how common are they compared to terrorist events motivated by other ideologies or religious traditions.
Anyone who has seen the original Matrix movie will remember the water fountain with the woman in the red dress during the Agent Training Program.
That's part of Martin Place, fyi.
That's about the only "Slashdot" connection I can make from this incident.
I love it when people say Christians did things just as bad as the mooslims, and bring up the Crusades. The Crusades were IN RESPONSE to the mooslimmss terrorizing the entire middle east, northern Africa & southern Europe. The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE action. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot....
The Crusades were a backlash against Muslim invasion nitwit.
Does it impact your opinion at all to learn that Jews and Christians when speaking Arabic use the word "Allah" to talk about their deity?
As a former Muslim who lives in western country:
1. Islam is not a peaceful religion, and to believe so you must either be a Muslim or a very naive person. Peaceful Muslims exist of course, but simply because they do not follow Islam strictly enough.
2. Conservative western politicians who make use of terrorism to their own political benefit are not much better than the terrorists, in that both sides have no problem using people's safety to advance their own agenda. Typically they are also the ones that support wars worldwide.
Guns aren't allowed in coffee shops in Australia. News story must be fake.
They would likely rise if the Australian government was carrying out airstrikes on the Vatican
Some people consider it a "hate site" for some reason
It contains facts that doesn't fit with their world view.
Om, nomnomnom...
Look man, even Bush said, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.....Islam is peace." He was something of a warmonger, but even he realized that you shouldn't go to war against an entire religion. The enemies are easy to recognize, they're the ones who are trying to kill us, no matter what religion they profess.
Seriously, when you're more irrational than Bush, it's time to stop and think if you have a problem in your head.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Perp was religious? Fucking crazies.
How many Muslims had Canada and Australia bombed to death previous to that for undisclosed reasons?
There is nothing in attributed to the Christian god himself — nor any of his prophets — that required Crusades or the Inquisition.
On contrast, Koran — which purports to be the word of god verbatim — mandates that the faithful convert or kill the pagans and (tax the Christians and Jews). The prophet himself — whom Muslims world-wide adore — was an illiterate warlord, who used genocide centuries before it became cool.
Bible has plenty of warlords too, but none of them are His prophets. King David is described as a hero, but he killed too many people to found the Temple — the task was left to his son. Not the sort of quibbles, Muslims would consider...
The Crusades ended in the 14th century. Spanish Inquisition (a secular institution, BTW — ran by Spanish Crown) is also many centuries in the past. Since then the Western world has created the First Amendment, among other things. If you have nothing contemporary to contrast the ongoing craziness of the "religion of peace", you've lost your argument...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You can get enlightened here. I quote:
The First Crusade (1096–1099) ... ended as a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661), ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia.
Allah is an Arabic Translatiteration of the term Elohah or Elohim, a term used to describe Yahweh in the old testament. Its actually a title.
I've been coming to slashdot less and less these days.. stories like this are why. Incendiary comment-bait garbage that has nothing to do with technology.
The Cronulla race riot station? I suggest trying the ABC, channel 7, channel 9, channel 10, sky, any newspaper website, any other radio station etc etc first. It may be less entertaining from another source but you'll get more accuracy.
And in Canada we had two terrorist attacks
Those were hate crimes. Terrorism has a political message.
What in hell does Willy Wonka have to do with this?
And is EXACTLY the same as Christianity.
Both are religions that base their entire structure around "we are the one true correct path and all others are wrong". Both have been used to dominate other populations.
That said religion is just a tool to control the masses. It is no different to other ideologies in that case.
... back to some radical islamic mosque with some nutbar cleric preaching death against the people that built the society he intentionally decided to live in.
Ultimately, that should be the focus. Expose those guys. Hang them out so everyone knows who they are and what they're saying. If everyone knows, then we should see these guys coming.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
They certainly aren't terrorists if they don't terrorize anyone beyond their immediate victims. They may well die utterly failing at their objective.
If you're a religious fanatic in the Middle East and want to kill Christians you become a terrorist. ...
Or, you can join ISIS (the army killing and/or enslaving/raping everyone including Christians).
So there's an equal choice to be had, yet some are choosing to capture and harm non-military forces - those people doing so have been wholly Muslim.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
TL;DR no, it should not have been translated, but whomever decided to had some damned reason or another, so you'll have to ask that person to see if this was justified.
It's an interesting question, and I'm on both sides of the fence. God and Allah are both the God of Abraham, spiritual head of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
"God" in western Christianity seems to be nameless, with the generic "god" becoming a proper name. We capitalize the word because there is only one god, and that is the god to which we refer by "God". Same with the difference between "his grace" and "His grace", only "his" is not a name.
But you suggest God is a proper name. It's more of a convention than a proper proper name, but whatever.
Why is the Muslim god called Allah?
A better question is, why would a Muslim and a Jew worship differently, have different beliefs, and want to blow each other up?
It is not the same God. There is your answer.
The Muslim God spoke through Muhammad - and the followers are Muslim. The Christian God spoke through Jesus - and the followers are Christian. The Jewish God spoke through Moses, without further distillation.
The worship of Allah is not the worship of the Christian God. The worship of the Jewish Lord is not the worship of either one.
Yes, it is the same God, but not the same religion. All 3 refer to the same God of Abraham, but God is not Allah because the followers are not the same.
If you are a Copt, dominated by Arabic culture, the proper translation is probably "There is no God but God," because this is very definitely not Allah. But clearly the second half, "Mohammed is the prophet of God," tells us that this is Allah, not God.
"Allahu akbar" does, in fact, mean "God is great" to both people. That is, if I translate for you so you can understand, it means that my God, who is also your God, is great. The key is in how you use translation. Do you mean that you literally translate without regard for idiom? Because most people don't do that. If I translate as "Allah, who is the God of these people but also in many ways the god of Christians and Jews, is great" it gets wordy, leaves lots of holes for questions and disagreements, and generally is worthless.
It is much closer in meaning and sentiment to say "God is great." It is not "God who hates Jews is great" or "God who thinks America is the Great Satan is great." It means "God of our faith is great", and is more clearly translated as you said.
Now to the quote in question: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God." Should that mean Allah instead? As I read it, it does in fact exclude the Jewish God and the Christian God, specifically because it excludes other prophets. BahÃ'Ã is out because they recognize many other prophets in addition to the one claimed in the quote. Mormonism obviously as well.
So this is the God of Muhammad, which can be summed up easily by saying "Allah" instead of God. Of course, this is redundant since the quote says that directly.
Since the quote comes from CNN, which cites Seven Network, we must consider whether Seven Network was right in translating it the way it did. I'm not going to go into the complexities of deciding who your audience is and whether you want to slant the news or appear unbiased, or whether someone put this much thought into the translation. Because they probably didn't. And no one cares by this point. And unless you majored in another language in preparation to be a translator, with formal education, the subtleties would be lost.
The choice is always to color someone's perceptions or avoid coloring - there is rarely neutral ground. So finally your question: Should Allah be translated to God? The answer of course is sometimes. Not in this case.
Be sure to tell the Albigensians. I'm sure they'll be glad to know this.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
why every single major news organization is running garbage robo programming instead of covering this event?
fox is talking about the cia
cnn is talking about dinosaurs
msnbc is talking about pot
local news channels are talking about lions/vikings cowboys/eagles and who is tracking santa claus this year
i found one station - cnbc world - that is bothering to cover this finally after a few hours went by.
do we need half the planet to slide off into the sun before someone bothers to stop into the news station to push a live feed button?
Of FFS. Please stop spreading your ignorance.
You can easily obtain a firearm in Australia. In fact I own multiple. The thing is you have to be licensed and have a valid reason for owning one, and self defence is not a valid reason. You need to be a member of a club, pass a police check and have some character references. Then you need to wait a year after getting your license. It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is far from impossible.
I own multiple semi-automatic pistols for competition shoots and a bolt action rifle for bench rest shooting.
Whether you agree with the gun laws in Australia, and as a shooter I do, to say they are near impossible to own is complete crap. What I would say is that Australia is a very safe place to live and your chances of getting shot here is almost zero. You don't ever hear about kids getting shot cause the knocked on the wrong house door during Halloween.
It's not the World Trade Center, and it's not Bali. It's a single cafe and a maximum possible body count than your typical school shooting in the US (which can hardly hold the news media's attention for more than a week any more).
This news wouldn't have made it out of Australia (if even NSW) if it weren't for the Islamic bogeyman angle.
Nobody does.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "bottom line", but the list itself is backed by evidence; it's not an opinion piece, just a summary of facts. Comparing it to terrorist events motivated by other ideologies or religious traditions seems like a good idea, although the conclusion could easily be that pretty much any ideology or religious tradition is undesirable. I'd like to see a list like that for other religions, really.
Ezekiel 23:20
Might be referring to the numerous sting operations bordering on entrapment where the prime impetus for a group of would-be terrorists turns out to be an undercover federal agent encouraging them to cause trouble.
He is not speaking for the "adherents of other religions", nor is he "blindly throwing the mentally ill label around". Rather, he is speaking about two individuals known to be mentally unstable drug addicts.
What false flag operations?
If you weren't an AC I might tell you.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Clarifying question: To what degree do you fear that the Pope will declare a new Holy War and call upon Christendom to launch armies against some opponent?
Zero?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In at least one of those cases, Muslim friends had expressed concern that the new "convert" wasn't really a convert because he wasn't in his right mind. Pretty sure I saw this mentioned by the BBC.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Both of the people were mentally ill. Bibeau, the homeless Ottawa killer, had a history of violence, drug addiction, and mental instability, including 12 convictions in Quebec between 2001 and 2011 for crimes including drug possession, impaired driving, weapons offences, assault causing bodily harm, theft, and possession of break-in tools, which started long before he converted to islam.
Rouleau, the Quebec killer, had been taken to a psychiatric hospital by his father, but they couldn't keep him when he said he wanted to leave. He had drug problems, had to be in a special school for kids with discipline problems when he was younger, his personal life had fallen apart, his business had failed and last year at 24 he turned to islam, looking for something to cling to where he wouldn't feel like an inadequate failure, and was attracted to the extremists on the net and in the media.
Most people are able to make the distinction between a nutbar using a religion as a smokescreen to their using violence to escape their own failures or shortcomings, and the majority who peacefully practice that same religion. This applies equally to muslims, christians, atheists, or whatever your personal preference or poison.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
IRA and Russian speaking Ukrainians are fighting for political freedom, not for a "God" (BTW, in Ukraine we are supporting the bad guys). As for "Timmy", I'm not fluent enough in English to know what you're talking about.
Islam is becoming a serious problem.
An anecdote... One of my friend is Muslim. He's really not a fundamentalist. His wife is not wearing a hijab, he shave every morning (not sure about his wife) and he drinks alcohol from time to time (although he refuse to eat pork and he celebrate Ramadan). When there was the terrorist attacks because of Muhammad drawings, he said he was against violence. But... he also said he understood why people who were angry about those drawings decided to use violence. He consider our society do not respect Islam, so violence is a normal outcome.
This point of view is shared with the vast majority of Muslims. That's the problem.
Calling them an asshole is much more likely to be accurate. Calling them a terrorist gives them more credit than all but a tiny fraction of such scum remotely deserve.
I've often had that same thought. Calling them "terrorists" is really glorifying them, at least in the eyes of the impressionable. They are thinking "hey - I want to be a brave terrorist just like him!" All news headlines should refer to them literally as "assholes" or "losers". Then watch how many people now are going to say "hey - I want to be an asshole and a loser just like him!".I don't think quite so many would want to emulate that behaviour.
To which I answer the same degree that I am concerned that the leader of the largest sections of Islam will do. Zero.
The degree to which I fear that splinter section of the Christian faith will take up arms against Islam is about on the same level as my concern of splinter Islamic groups taking up arms against the west. Christian extremists are the ones that will fire bomb paediatrician offices remember. I would not want to be of Islamic faith in America at the moment because I think even walking down the street could put you at risk.
What degree of risk would you associate with the KKK, a predominately Christian organisation, may start targetting muslins? I would say it is non-zero.
Might be referring to the numerous sting operations bordering on entrapment where the prime impetus for a group of would-be terrorists turns out to be an undercover federal agent encouraging them to cause trouble.
The police here were using illegal spyware to infiltrate peoples computers to capture data, instead of using the legal processes available to them, to reveal some "potential" attacks.They then whipped up a media frenzy to garner support to pass new security legislation that would legalize the use of such methods. Of the 16 "suspects" 15 were released without charge and a 16th on a minor charge.
This sort of thing is what that legislation was supposed to prevent.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Because the social "everybody is allowed to wear guns" experiment is doing so great in the USA.
bash$
And here, mass shootings tend to only take place in areas that prohibit or have severely curtailed the carrying of firearms.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
And is EXACTLY the same as Christianity.
No, it really isn't.
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
For you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
Christianity advocates persuasion and being an example. "Fundamentalist" christianity is actually very peaceful. That doesn't prevent very unpeaceful people from trying to commandeer a philosophy's good reputation and use it for to try to conquer others, but those types of people will use anything they can get their hands on.
And is EXACTLY the same as Christianity.
One of these things is not like the other "Feed the hungry" "Heal the sick" "Put the apostate to the sword". The tenets of Christianity are to spread the faith with love and charity. Politicians and kings have used Christianity as a dressing for violent acts, but the tenets disavow violence. Islam's tenets are to spread the faith with love, charity, and failing that, kill the apostates and atheists. The violence is baked in to the religion.
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this. And in Canada we had two terrorist attacks(one in Quebec), and another on Parliament Hill in two days.
While it may be true that many Muslims have been terrorists, not all Muslims are terrorists and not all egregious crimes or even hostage-taking constitutes "terrorism".
Despite the fact that politicians have grossly mis-used the term, Terrorism has an actual definition. One essential part of that definition is that the terrorists are making (usually political) demands in exchange for ceasing their terror.
Unless and until they make demands, and especially political demands, they aren't "terrorists". If they do so, and they also meet the other qualifications, THEN they are terrorists. Not before.
Some crazy with a bomb is not a "terrorist" until he proves himself to be.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord
Me too! A religion founded by a warlord sounds like a terrible idea.
But are we talking about Islam(muhammad), Judaism(moses), or Christianity(constantine)?
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord
Are you referring to Catholicism, which was founded by Constantine?
Hey, I'm not a big fan of Judaism, but working to free your people from slavery does not make you a "warlord". Also, I don't remember anything in Exodus about Moses or his people resorting to violence; the story just has them fleeing the Egyptian army, and the Egyptians being swallowed by the Red Sea after they tried to follow the Jews through it. Of course, this story also claims the Red Sea was parted somehow so they could walk across, so it's highly questionable just how accurate this story is....
Also, I'm not sure how you give credit to Constantine for founding Christianity; I thought that honor went to Jesus, or perhaps Paul or even Peter.
What's a terrorist act?
Are we counting the US drone program when they blow the shit out of a civilian wedding? Do we count the ~1,000,000 people the US killed in Iraq? Or the hundreds of thousands of kids they killed with sanctions?
Liberty.
Christianity started out violent but eventually mellowed out for the most part. Islam is just several ticks behind the times.
Table-ized A.I.
One guy with a gun in a cafe equates to "followers" of "Islam"?
Since when did a guy or a couple guys creating havoc turn into terrorism? You're the result of the current state of media. Any lone person who self-associates with any muslim state or islamic religion and acts aggressively suddenly becomes a terrorist, rather than a run of the mill criminal.
Deport the lot and erect barriers around their enclaves. Ready the nukes and just carpet bomb the fuck out of them. Enough is enough.
Wasn't there some dude in Germany some decades ago who tried something similar with an entire religion's people? How'd that work out for him?
The leader of (one of) the largest sections of Islam? You mean the Ayatollah of Iran? In case you haven't noticed, hes actively seeking the nuclear bomb, is hated by his neighbors and let the spokesperson for his country talk about 'wiping Israel from the map' numerous times on the international stage.
Islam is a militant organization.
If that is what you believe then you believe a lot of nonsense.
Iran considers itself at war with the US, and you may recall that it is ruled by Shia Islam clerics.
Radical Islam has been at war with the West and Israel for decades. Invidual factions have had tens of thousands of members. Something on the order of 100,000 Jihadis are believed to have gone through al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan alone. You would think that by now if there was going to be a "Christian extremist" splinter group take up arms against Islam you would have seen that by now. Do you have any canidates?
The claim that "Christian extremists" are fire bombing paediatrician offices as a practical matter is nonsense. There are few incidents over decades, and one of the most prolific and dangerous attackers, Eric Rudolf, wasn't even a Christian, he was an atheist.
The KKK isn't a Christian organization despite its propaganda, and it is a tiny threat today that is still watched by law enforcement. I doubt it would go after Muslims since they both hate the Jews.
Your imagination is running away with you.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm hopeful that someday we all can learn to peacefully cohabit this planet, and maybe even stand up for and protect each other.
Some people use religion as an excuse to hurt or kill, while others use it as inspiration to improve their own and others' lives. I think it has more to do with the person than the religion.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
2GB is about the worst place you want to hear about this from. ABC news is a far better source.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Eternal damnation in the fires of hell was not mentioned in the old testament, it was introduced by gentle Jesus in the new testament.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's called running amok. It's caused by an evil tiger spirit that enters the body and causes us to commit evil acts.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
If you don't live in the Middle East, then it's not so much of a problem for you.
In the book of Numbers, chapter 31, Moses orders the murder of every man, woman, and child in a city that was promised to his own people. When his army came back with children prisoners of war, he rebuked them, ordered them to slay the male children on the spot, and allowed them to keep the female children for themselves as spoils of war (there are plenty of other stories similar to this about the OT, and involving Moses specifically).
So, yeah, warlord.
And about Constantine founding Christianity...
When the religion was illegal by Roman law, there were many separate Christianities with very different beliefs (and they quarreled with one another, as well as with the Jews that wanted to stay Jewish). Once Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome, he also picked the specific set of churches that he agreed with and established their representatives as the proper religious authorities. They promptly declared the other varieties of Christianity to all be heresy, had their books burned (some recently recovered in the Nag Hammadi library revealing just how different these Christianities were).
So, Christianity (or at least Catholicism) as we know it today was very much the work of Constantine.
Of course, this story also claims the Red Sea was parted somehow so they could walk across, so it's highly questionable just how accurate this story is....
Manbearpig.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are you refering to the Roman Catholic Church? The one the Romans rebuilt into their state religion?
Of FFS. Please stop spreading your ignorance.
You can easily obtain a firearm in Australia. In fact I own multiple. The thing is you have to be licensed and have a valid reason for owning one, and self defence is not a valid reason. You need to be a member of a club, pass a police check and have some character references. Then you need to wait a year after getting your license. It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is far from impossible.
This,
A thousand times this.
There's so much misinformation about firearms in Australia its not funny.
It's not hard to get guns in Australia unless you've got a criminal record. I used to have guns (I moved and it was just simpler to sell them) and my character reference was the administrator at my school (she was also a JP) and that was at age 18.
Only fully automatics and semi-automatics are banned here. That is a good thing because this tool walked into a cafe with a shotgun, not an AK47. At worst it's a double barrel sawn off.
You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than being shot in Australia.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Was Win8 the reason for their violence?
I don't remember anything in Exodus about Moses or his people resorting to violence
Have a look at the book of numbers. Here are some of the best parts: http://www.thebricktestament.c...
Also, I'm not sure how you give credit to Constantine for founding Christianity
Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually you will find Russia is supporting the bad guy terrorists in Ukraine. If you are Russian, then you are correct that " we" are supporting the terrorists in Russia.
Hostage situations happen far more frequently in the USA so reality is not on your side.
Go use a different situation to push your barrow.
What degree of risk would you associate with the KKK, a predominately Christian organisation, may start targetting muslins? I would say it is non-zero.
Well, maybe, but as long as they stick to targeting muslin and don't attack wool or polyester, I think we'll be OK.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Right. And Bush also said of Vladimir Putin "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." back in 2001.
Bush was many things, but certainly he's been known to say diplomatic BS if only to placate your advisory. Pussyfooting doesn't work too well in the long-run, does it?
Life is not for the lazy.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
I think you should get your facts right Muhammad was not a warlord in fact he was a merchant until he became a religious leader at age 26. Of course since it is very easy to interpret the Quran for personal reasons and many splinter groups of Islam have done just that so I can understand why many non-muslins would think Muhammad was a warlord.
The flag that is being shown is not associated with ISIS however it is what is called The Black Standard . The writing you can see on the flag is means "There is no god but the God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God", however this same writing does appear on many flags and some of those are associated with Muslim terrorist groups.
This incident is classified as a terrorist act however even the top Muslim Cleric in Australia has condemned this so it basically boils down to one or two extremists who have their own agenda. Basically this act will achieve nothing except to alienate Muslims from Australian society which I suppose is what the terrorists really want.
BTW. A simple search would have found the information I have given. I do live in Sydney as some of my previous posts have attested too however I am not a Muslim nor have I any intention of being one but lets get the "facts" correct.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
So you want to arm all those high school kids and see how it plays out? You've got to be joking or an utter sociopathic bastard.
We should give up more of our constitutional rights NOW, before it's too late.
“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” echoes a past in which Muhammad waged war against the polytheists of his birthplace. A cult that never died to this day.
Life is not for the lazy.
"If you are in Sydney, do NOT tweet or post news of what Police are doing around Martin Place. Assume jihadists follow social media"
In Sydney it has become a media circus since the start of the siege. Just that alone has pandered to the terrorist(s). It must be very frustrating for the police.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
It is actually.
I think, mayhaps, you need to do a little more learning on things you attempt to speak about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Some of the crusades came about from the Catholic churches desire to expand their empire, others came about because the Catholic church decided it needed to kill some Christians that weren't giving the church enough money.
Christianity and Islam are the same... the masses defer to the few leaders "interpretations" of massively convoluted texts, while the most radical use convoluted interpretations of those texts to justify their personal hatreds and bigotries. Your opinion of Christianity is warped because YOU claim to be Christian, and YOUR side can do no wrong. You want to claim anything THEY do is terrorism, when if YOUR side did the same thing, it's not terrorism. It's called fucking hypocrisy.
As for "their flag"... who's? There's all sorts of flags by all sorts of groups and countries that are predominantly Muslim... and they mean different things. Your logic is just stupid on this.... by your logic, everyone in Mississippi is an anti-American insurrectionist that needs to be hung because their state incorporates the confederate battle flag. See... stupid.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Its a lone gunman.
Police arent calling it a terrorism, it wasnt an IS flag being waved, airspace wasnt closed.
But hey, why not use criminal activity to drum commercial media activity.
If you want proper coverage journalism go to ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission), its govenment funded but independently operated.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Excuse me, sonic the hedgehog does not like being referred to as 'twit'. I am heretoforthwitheth offended by thy satanist viewpoint. I will post on my tumblr accordingly.
Actually, observant Jews would use a euphemism. They never use the word for G-d, but say, for example, "Hashem" (The Name), or "Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu" (The Holy One Blessed Be He).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
So what you're saying is... false flag! /s
I'm still talking about the list of attacks. That is a summary of facts. I've randomly sampled some of the attacks some time ago and none of them was made up; all of them happened. It's not a "soundbite" or a "pre-baked conclusion" "made to look factual" that a policeman was beheaded by Muslims for religious reasons on this December's first day, BBC reports on it. And if the authors of that web site indeed only "cherry-picked" some of them, as you insinuate, I'm not sure I want to see the rest.
At this point in history, arguing that perhaps religion doesn't make people utterly stupid really sounds almost like arguing that perhaps the Earth is hollow.
Ezekiel 23:20
The inquisition was over 4 centuries later, you can hardly equate that to the forced conversions. actually you had a forced conversion of all Jews and Muslims in spain as well between the crusades and the inquisition which is rather ironic as saving the Jews is one of the many excuses for the crusades, yet the crusades actually slaughtered many Jews as well.
Which is all well and good, except for the idiocy that goes along with it.
Both of the people were mentally ill. Bibeau, the homeless Ottawa killer, had a history of violence, drug addiction, and mental instability, including 12 convictions in Quebec between 2001 and 2011 for crimes including drug possession, impaired driving, weapons offences, assault causing bodily harm, theft, and possession of break-in tools, which started long before he converted to islam.
Mentally ill by what standards? You (or others) didn't like the way he acted? I can find no evidence of any clinical diagnosis of any mental illness for Bibeau-Zehaf, though he was a convert (though his father was Muslim and Libyan). Your claim is that despite his Islamic family heritage, despite the fact that he had converted to Islam for "all the wrong reasons" over decade ago, and despite the fact that he had family members fighting for jihad abroad, he was was just misguided due to some previously non-diagnosed mental illness or possible drug use? That does not seem logical to me.
Rouleau, the Quebec killer, had been taken to a psychiatric hospital by his father, but they couldn't keep him when he said he wanted to leave. He had drug problems, had to be in a special school for kids with discipline problems when he was younger, his personal life had fallen apart, his business had failed and last year at 24 he turned to islam, looking for something to cling to where he wouldn't feel like an inadequate failure, and was attracted to the extremists on the net and in the media.
Your argument for Rouleau is perhaps more apt, since you avoid the unverifiable claims of mental illness, but you make a huge error. You assume that converting to a new faith due to some kind of adversity is "all the wrong reasons" and implies (or infers) metal illness! I think you are perhaps not very clear on how religions tend to start and spread. Founders, missionaries, and other zealots always target the margins of society. Look at who Jesus hung out with--the disaffected. Look at who Muhammad hung out with--those whose power was distinct from the dominant tribal structures (and look at how he targeted the weaker Jewish clans after several military setbacks). Look at Buddha and his life as an ascetic. Look St Francis. Look at how both Christianity and Islam spread in South Asia--starting from the dalits--the disaffected. Almost universally, the most powerful religious symbols, figures, and acts, involve those who are somehow disaffected. To trivialize this is a huge mistake.
That brings us to today. Despite what you might want to believe, Muslim belief in what we in the West would call "militant Islamism" is pretty darn popular and pretty widespread. There are many opinion polls covering Islamicate countries across the world that back this up. There is a strong militant missionary movement. Giving the religion/ideology a pass and writing off incident after incident as "merely" a lone wolf makes absolutely no sense.
Most people are able to make the distinction between a nutbar using a religion as a smokescreen to their using violence to escape their own failures or shortcomings, and the majority who peacefully practice that same religion. This applies equally to muslims, christians, atheists, or whatever your personal preference or poison.
I disagree with this incredibly strongly. Religion, ideology, and violence are so tightly intertwined they almost cannot be decoupled. Today, Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society. You give the religion/ideology a complete pass. Have you not considered that the religion/ideology places a major role in motivating these individuals to commit their heinous actions?
As an areligious bastard, it seems to me that anybody who cares enough about religion to convert "isn't in his [or her!] right mind."
Sorry to hear this unfolding :(
An unarmed populous is easier to terrorize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... When being armed is illegal (or restricted to the point of being nearly that), only the bad guys will be armed in such situations. Waiting for the police to come save you is often an ineffective endeavor.
Australia's gun laws are what has prevented this person from having an assault rifle. He's armed with a small single barrelled shotgun. Having more armed people will ensure that more incidents like this will occur and a lot more often.
And I am an Australian. Our gun laws have prevented things like this as criminals cant get easy access to guns.
We are not terrorised here I can assure you.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oh, by the way, the Breivik argument is just hilarious. He's the one guy who tripled Norway's homicide statistics for one year. That alone should tell you something about Norway. And the fact that Breivik is even newsworthy after three years when something like six acts of Muslim religious violence on average end up with death daily really drives my point home. The same week that Breivik killed 77 people, Muslims around the world killed at least another 95 (just for religious reasons, mind you - that's what we're counting here). But one Breivik is newsworthy only because it's such a rare occurrence. Norway doesn't have low homicide rate because it's Christian - it really isn't, it has a low homicide rate because it's not chock-full of crazy brainwashed wackos.
Ezekiel 23:20
Australia doesn't have the 2nd Amendment.
Not true. The second amendment to the Australian Constitution in 1910 amended Section 105 so that it read
The Parliament may take over from the States their public debts, or a proportion thereof according to the respective numbers of their people as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert, renew, or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over, and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient, or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency or the whole amount shall be paid by the several States.
Where previously it had read
The Parliament may take over from the States their public debts as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth , or a proportion thereof according to the respective numbers of their people as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert, renew, or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over, and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient, or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency or the whole amount shall be paid by the several States.
That would be fine if the muslims were the only people they mass slaughtered during the crusades (well not really fine, mass slaughter is never fine) but the crusades slaughtered everyone that wasn't Christian, not just muslims.
Oh, by the way, the Breivik argument is just hilarious.
Actually it's not.
This just demonstrates you didn't understand the argument.
Norway doesn't have low homicide rate because it's Christian
You're the one arguing about religion, more specifically that one religion makes you unsafe.
I never said Norway was unsafe, I said Breivik was religiously motivated (he wrote a manifesto about it, his notion that the Christian church was being usurped was a big part of it).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In retrospect, I should not have posted the "brick testament" link. It was needlessly snarky.
Here are a few passages about Moses' military exploits, without the snarky lego commentary.
The slaughter of women and children at Midean: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...
The slaughter of women and children at Bashan: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...
The slaughter of women and children at Heshbon: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...
The Crusades were a backlash against Muslim invasion nitwit.
Which is why they started off with massacres of Jews. Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Same reason, Muslim invasion, started later crusades up north, against "pagans" (Prussians, Slavs, Estonians... basically non-catholics). Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Or those against Cathars in France. Muslims. Again. Nitwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It's almost as if religious goals were then, just as they are now, a pretext for validation of religious hatred against "them" and a carte blanche for looting.
You know... them. Others. Minorities. Those who are different.
Be they Jews, heretics, pagans, Muslims, black, Asian, gays, communists...
Nitwit.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
But that isn't your argument.
Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent (which is what the site you linked to is trying to say). Dont try to change the argument to all religions because you've been proven wrong (you want a list of attacks, the IRA did over 10,000 bombings on its own).
Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Only fully automatics and semi-automatics are banned here. That is a good thing because this tool walked into a cafe with a shotgun, not an AK47. At worst it's a double barrel sawn off
Just to clarify this as it is a little more fine grained that an outright ban. To own a semi-automatic rifle you need to be in a career which requires it. So culling from a helicopter is one of the few occupations which allows you to own a semi-auto rifle. Semi-auto pistols though are a standard item in IPSC and ISSF competitions so you are able to own them without a problem but the size of the magazine is restricted to 10 shots. There is however no restriction on the number of mags you carry (odd I know).
Pistol ownership also requires you to actually use the weapons rather than just say that you do. So if you own just 1 pistol you must do a minimum of 6 competitive shoots with that weapon each year. If you own 2 or more you must do a minimum of 4 with each. I own a .22 semi an air and a .32 semi so I need to do a minimum of 12 competition shoots per year.
Fully automatic rifles or pistols are outright banned. As are self-loading and pump action shotguns.
My argument is that theism increases the chance of a person turning violent where there wouldn't have been a reason otherwise. So your logic is that if we remove theism, the murders the list I quoted would have happened anyway, for a different, non-religious reason? As to the IRA, those bombings could have been either religiously or politically motivated. In the former case, it supports my argument, although I'm sort of dubious that this is the case for the majority of the bombings.
Ezekiel 23:20
... but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
There's a difference?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Are we going to consider every crackhead cracking to be a terrorist attack? Especially when they've been begging for help, even being thrown in jail.
Out of the terrorists I've actually met, most have been members of a Christian sect (mostly blew up train tracks, power lines, burnt stuff and took of their clothes) and Sikh (does blowing up a wedding because your daughter is marrying a christian count) including one of the accused in the Air India bombing.
Most of the victims of terrorism I've met have been terrorized by the government and church working together but being native it was considered acceptable to remove them from their families and terrorize them into being good Christians..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Moving the goal posts means you've lost the argument.
You said it yourself, this guy trippled Norways yearly homicide rate in 3 days. How many of the Muslim incidents you allude to occur in war zones or countries that have an open revolution? Most of them. It's like saying all Christian nations are unsafe by Colombia as an example. The difference between us is that I can recognise BS and you cant.
Norway is an extremely safe country and a rational one. The way Norway picked up and carried on After Breivik is a shining example to us all. No fear mongering or revenge wars.
But where are the extremist Islamic attacks in Norway... at least one per week please.
And this makes you a xenophobe.
Which was the point of my argument, you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in things that agree with you.
Now here's the kicker, I'm an Australian, I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do considering how biased and inaccurate your sources are.
This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Learn? Learn? LEARN? Liberal fantasies about Western colonialism are flatly contradicted by the entire rest of history.
Liberalism was pointing to Islam for human rights abuses that you didn't care about many years before it was attached to any terrorism threat. The issue is how legislators react to it and clamp down on civil rights for all citizens that achieve the goals for the terrorists.
This narrative unfolds because of a black flag with arabic writing in white. Instead of being handled by the normal criminal codes and all the things we learned from the UK forces interacting with the IRA as 'some loony holding people hostage', all of the new terrorism protocols are activated and it becomes a global news event.
If you stop playing politics for a moment you will see that this is the obvious outcome of how we deal with these situations and how easy it is to manipulate our feeble politicians into pushing our democracies into a full police state.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So it is no different to Islam then.
The core Islamic faith does not promote violence. It is co-opted to do so. There are a load of sections of the bible which when taken out of context sound like they promote violence. The Koran is the same.
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)
Taken out of context I could easily use this to show that the Christian god has told me to invade other cities and only leave them alive if they become my slaves. The biggest difference is that currently Christian dominated countries tend to make up the wealthier and more educated parts of the world (and this has nothing to do with Christianity it was just a fluke of history). People who are educated, comfortable and happy are less likely to want to kill other people. Simple proof is that no nation states that have a McDonalds have yet been to war with each other (and by that I mean a true war not supporting insurgents aka Ukraine).
If the people recruited into these organisations were happy, well fed, safe and educated we wouldn't be seeing this problem. But their infrastructure is destroyed, their life expectancy is low, their education is non-existent but they have access to arms and a finger pointed at the west that it is the wests fault that they are poor and miserable. Unfortunately in a lot of cases they have a good argument for that.
if the general plan to free "yourself from slavery" from the book is to pretty much utilize the same dogma as Ur Quan, then yeah, it sort of makes you a warlord if the preferred plan to deal with other tribes is to conquer them, kill them and put in slavery. actually the plan is even worse than the green ur quans plan of action, because according to the books(tm) you're not supposed to offer them the possibility of being a vassal/slave state.
Islam, as it spread wide originally, had provisions for slave tribes(who need pay tribute), turning the conquered into Islam(assimilating them) and such - you know, basic empire building provisions in the general plan. Judaism does not. this might explain why the other spread regionally fast and the other did not.
besides, historically speaking, who were they slaves to? I thought there was no evidence of them actually being in egypt to build the pyramids like claimed? and parting the seas and whatever.
so both Islam and Judaism are pretty much warlord religions.
anyhow, you should note that all religions can be used as tools for conquering, through terrorizing, war etc. even budhism. many of the budhist nations are strangely patriotic and militaristic and proud of their military prowess(even if it is mostly made up).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
All religion is false religion. Doesn't alter what I said, though.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Constantine did not found the RCC. He just changed Roman law so that it would be legal. The RCC predates Constantine, and was solidly entrenched in Roman society by the time Constantine made it a legal religion. Constantine's change in Roman law wasn't proactive; it was reactive.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Might be referring to the numerous sting operations bordering on entrapment where the prime impetus for a group of would-be terrorists turns out to be an undercover federal agent encouraging them to cause trouble.
How much "encouragement" would it take to convince you to:
- Walk into a building with a suicide bomb vest and attempt to detonate it
- Park a van full of explosives at a public event and push the detonator in the middle of the ceremony
The stings offered them the opportunity to engage in terrorism, nothing more. They had the intent.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
All indications are that Martin Couture Rouleau, who rammed his vehicle into two Canadian soldiers on Monday, killing one, and Michael Zehaf Bibeau, who is alleged to have shot dead a soldier guarding the National War Memorial on Wednesday, each acted on their own. They were also reportedly recent converts to an extremist fringe of Islam, and suffered from chronic psychological problems.
---
Gijseghem suggested that such behaviour might even be schizophrenic in nature, but Lafleur disputed that idea.
"People suffering from schizophrenia are very disorganized and they act in totally unexpected ways, and in extremist groups they are rarely tolerated," Lafleur said.
Rather, he contended, such individuals probably suffer from either borderline personality disorder or bipolar disorder (both of which can be characterized by impulsive, even psychotic behaviour), have grown isolated from their friends and families, and are suffering from an identity crisis.
When you write:
Today, Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society.
... you can switch Islam with anti-abortionists bombing clinics, the Branch Davidians at Waco, Timothy McVeigh against "the gubbermint" over Waco, Hindu Inderjit Singh Reyat bombing Air India flight 182, Protestants vs Catholics in Northern Ireland, and pretty much some members of any disaffected group will be attracted to violence. The recent violence in the US over police shooting blacks does not have its' roots in religion.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So doesn't "The Name" become, in a sense, the name for god? Or is the word 'hasem' also used in non-religious contexts (eg "the hasem of that fellow is Jim")?
I'd like to know where you got your information that the US had killed more than a million people in Iraq. Of all the surveys done for casualties in Iraq (including internal Iraq surveys) have placed the number closer to 120,000 for the entire war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
If you're getting your 1M+ number from the widely discredited Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll then you're just trying to sensationalize the numbers for some reason.
.
Troll. flamebait, or just plain stupid ? Gotta go with flamebait, to be followed with and endless stream of pavlovian programmed responses.
well, the parent did refer to islamic extremist as "mooslimmss". Why didn't you have the same response to his post? Troll. Flamebait, or just plain stupid? I think I'll go with "plain stupid" on you. Now, since I see no benefit on extending the use of my grey cells for the lots of you, this is good bye :)
Depends if you count the invasion of Iraq or not.
er, *hashem
Christians too.
Like the time the western church was on the way to palestine, took a wrong turn and conquered the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople. (4h crusade)
Try this on for size [montrealgazette.com] (there's more).
It appears that at least some of the information in this article is factually incorrect and has been superseded--notably regarding Bibeau-Zihaf's conversion. Beyond that, you have some theorists who never met--and have no firsthand knowledge of--the two terrorists (viz. "This is my hypothesis, as I am not saying with certainty that these two young men were seized by this pathology, but the theory that emerges the most strongly is that these two young men — the both of them — were suffering from a severe lack of identify"). They're engaging in pure speculation that doesn't really change any of the facts.
... you can switch Islam with anti-abortionists bombing clinics, the Branch Davidians at Waco, Timothy McVeigh against "the gubbermint" over Waco, Hindu Inderjit Singh Reyat bombing Air India flight 182, Protestants vs Catholics in Northern Ireland, and pretty much some members of any disaffected group will be attracted to violence. The recent violence in the US over police shooting blacks does not have its' roots in religion.
This is the best thing you've written! You're absolutely correct. I wholeheartedly and without any reservations condemn violent anti-abortion activists and ideology. I condemn the Branch Davidians and their ideology. I condemn Timothy McVeigh and his ideology. And so on. Why do you find it so hard to condemn militant Islam and instead pretend that it is merely an aberration bought into by a few mentally unwell individuals?
It's an extremely easy cop out to explain away unpopular behavior as merely being the result of mental illness. Most of the time it's also incorrect.
See the other discussion in this thread that I'm involved in. I see no evidence that either terrorist was ever diagnosed with a mental illness that would substantively change the facts. At least one was specifically cleared as competent. Merely being disaffected, unhappy, or down on your luck does not make you mentally ill. Likewise, neither does participating in unpopular behavior--in this case terrorism--necessitate mental illness.
It all depends on your definition of terrorist attack. You know the saying, war is the terror of the rich, terror the war of the poor. So, is it a terrorist attack when a smart bomb "accidentally" levels a civilian building and kills a few hundred because someone had a hunch that there might have been someone he wanted dead?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As far as I can tell, by definition, when supporting ANY side in the Ukrainian conflict, you're supporting the bad guys...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Can I just think that taking orders from your invisible imaginary friend is a case for a shrink, no matter what you call him?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just one question, do you slam Christianity, too, because some loonie fringe groups turn it into a tool of oppression?
Just asking, not that I'd want to defend any religions, far from it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's just it. The gov't and the media make sure EVERYBODY feels terrorized by some lone wack-job.
Here in Canada, where one of our wack-jobs was running around Ottawa killing one person, across the country in Edmonton, AB [3400 km away], schools were being locked down "just in case".
And of course there will be the "OMG. We just have to ram through a bunch of legislation making it easier for the police and the secret police to spy on everyone because we just have to catch every terrorist." Nevermind that it is either 100% likely we will find out about the wack job some other way [like say, the family calling the police saying "our son is a wack job"] or 0% likely to find the wack job in advance because they interact with nobody.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
As I read it, it does in fact exclude the Jewish God and the Christian God, specifically because it excludes other prophets.
Nope. Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus) and others are all prophets in Islam.
Same god. Different language.
In fact, had the popes been a little less dumb and less prosecuting of all flavors of Christianity other than Catholic and inclusive of others instead of constantly starting crusades against them - Islam could have easily been absorbed into Christianity.
It's no different than Mormonism or all those Evangelic flavors that would have been crusaded out had they sprouted when Islam did.
Just ask Cathars. Oh... wait... you can't.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A book which is filled with innuendos, deceits and lies, no matter how you look at it, should never be considered as " holy " !!
I agree, so I really have to wonder why you quote from it.
Snide comments aside, you do know that what you consider your "holy bible" today is nothing but a selection of scriptures that someone who happened to have been in power when they were selected wanted to be "holy" while considering what didn't further his agenda was tossed aside as "apokryphic", i.e. "not holy", yes? That the oh so holy bible is nothing but a collection of those stories that fit into someone's power plan.
Not to mention that you're quoting the translation (and let's be blunt here, a rather bad one), don't make me start on that one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's just a subset. Not every nutjob is with ISIS.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also, I'm not sure how you give credit to Constantine for founding Christianity; I thought that honor went to Jesus, or perhaps Paul or even Peter.
But none of them was a warlord so it kinda ruins the message. Stop ruining the party for anti-theists, parent! You're supposed to correct them by quoting some silly shit from The Old Testament, not by mentioning something they just don't pretend to know!
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Well I'm not, so speak on please ...
What false flag operations?
Why on earth would you say that? That's not a logical argument. If someone tells you some facts, and they happen to have already made up their mind on what those facts imply, that's still a perfectly valid source of knowledge to use.
You're not obliged to accept their conclusion, unless it logically follows from the facts. And if you don't accept their conclusion even when it follows logically from the facts, then you're a fool. So either way, whether someone else already followed the facts to some logical conclusion before you is irrelevant. You should accept the conclusion if and only if it follows from the facts.
We don't have mass shootings since we got sensible gun laws. It's not that complex man, more guns doesn't make anyone safer.
That is precisely the danger of Islam. The vile aspects of it appeal to the mentally ill and unstable and turn them into jihadis.
I'm not sure if BarbaraHudson is herself "t" in LGBTt, but perhaps she should study Islamic response to homosexuality and transgenderism before defending Islam.
Aside from the fact that Christians did exactly the same when they reconquered the Iberian peninsula, and aside from the fact that in that time Muslim societies were far more liberal than any Christian society (Jews usually fled to Muslim countries from Christian countries), would you mind explaining why no bloody crusade ever went west to Spain, but all East to Jerusalem?
The crusades were the product of a fanatical Christian society, with the motivation of paradise for the soldiers and spoils of war for the commanders. They sacked, plundered, raped anything between Europe and Jerusalem, and that includes Costantinople that at the time was Christian. Which was expected of any serious army at that time. The pretext for war was the "liberation" of Jerusalem, and the real drive was a combination of poverty, ignorance, greed and religion. So the crusades were pretty much the ISIS of the second millenium.
Do read up some history lest you spout more of such nonsense.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
the majority who peacefully practice that same religion
You cannot peacefully practice Islam. It is simply not possible. Islam divides the world into Muslims (dar al Islam) and non-Muslims (dar al harb, literally house of war) and Muslims are commanded to convert non-Muslims by force. This is a fundamental tenet of Islam.
Those millions of peacful Muslims we all hear about are simply choosing to ignore or rationalize away the parts of Islam they choose not to practice.
Bush was spinning; it was all PR to avoid fanning the flames. But he was wrong. Islam is not peace; it is war by definition, since Muslims are commanded to convert non-Muslims by force.
Yeh, I remember the history of one particularly nasty lot, genocide, rape, killing every last woman and child etc. it's called the bible.
someone tried claiming it's Islamic State, problem is it's not the IS flag and it's the wrong colour to be the Saudi flag.
So pardon the previous pun, but this is either a flase flag or just a nutjob with a shotgun.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The stings offered them the opportunity to engage in terrorism, nothing more. They had the intent.
You still have yet to ask why is it the job of law enforcement to offer the opportunity to engage in terrorism?
The christian church existed, but it was not catholic. Catholic means unified, which is what Constantine did. He unified all the different Roman religions and placed them all under the one umbrella which from then on was called the catholic church. The words Holy roman Catholic Church literally means Complete Roman Unified Church.
The word church or kirk, or kerk, goes back to the Greek wizard Circ who lived on an island and who had an impressive house. You can read about her in Homer's Illead and Odyssy.
A false flag would be something completely made up. In this case there was actual mal-intent but nothing of the criminal sort.
Crusades were bad. Same bad or worse than current muslim terrorism. But they were almost 1000 years ago!
I don't think that anybody defends 12th century christianity as being more 'enlightened' than islam. This comparison is especially bad if you compare it to islam back then, which was a lot more 'modern' than christianity.
But we have moved on since then. We have even moved on since XX century age of dictators. Compare muslims to IRA if you need to, but not to crusades.
You still have yet to ask why is it the job of law enforcement to offer the opportunity to engage in terrorism?
Because it's also their responsibility to be proactive in addition to being reactive, much the same as any other sting operation. What you're suggesting is tantamount to saying that law enforcement should never be allowed to place bait cars to catch car thieves. Much the same with bait cars, they never told the thief to go attempt to steal it, rather they simply placed the car there, hence providing the opportunity.
But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.
This is the sort of event the government needs to leverage if are to have a chance to re-float their electoral prospects.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
This is what you get when you're short-sighted with your immigration policy
When they have the numbers, they will be up to their mischief
Look around the world, you'll see that this is not a new phenomenon -
They will first DOMINATE - becoming a very vocal minority
Then they will INTIMIDATE - and call anyone who disagree with them "racist" or "hater" and everything their opponents do as "hate speech", "hateful acts"
... and ultimately...
They will SUBJUGATE - the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran, North Africa, and so on, used to be places where the number of non-Muslims were larger than Muslims
Now?
In Pakistan they burned two Christians alive in a kiln
In Iraq / Syria they cut off the heads of Christians
In Northern Nigeria they kidnapped over 200 young girls and forced them to converted into Islam and then married them to much older Muslims
... and so on, and so forth
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Calling them an asshole is much more likely to be accurate. Calling them a terrorist gives them more credit than all but a tiny fraction of such scum remotely deserve.
I've often had that same thought. Calling them "terrorists" is really glorifying them, at least in the eyes of the impressionable. They are thinking "hey - I want to be a brave terrorist just like him!" All news headlines should refer to them literally as "assholes" or "losers". Then watch how many people now are going to say "hey - I want to be an asshole and a loser just like him!".I don't think quite so many would want to emulate that behaviour.
Well, the problem with that is that the people involved don't call themselves "terrorists" in the first place, and they certainly don't care how the Western Media label them.
In their eyes, they are freedom fighters, holy warriors, God's Special Forces, or whatever.
A bit of name-calling really isn't going to stop them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You got the founder of Islam right, but Judaism is considered as founded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...">Abraham who precedes Moses by multiple centuries. And Christianity was founded by this guy named Jesus, called "the Christ". He predated Constantine by about 300 years or so... Abraham and Jesus were most assuredly NOT warlords.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Bullshit. The pope has started crusades on the (christian) Czechs for five bloody times.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Eh, never knew that Novgorod was muslim and in Spain. Or Prague, for that matter. Maybe Latvia? No?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
A few decades ago with the IRA and separatist activities in spain, the biggest terrorist threat in europe was "christian" of origin, and in the c ase of Ireland arguably religiously motivated (protestant versus catholic).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because these people with the intent to do terrorism might find someone who will supply them with actual bombs. It is much the same way people are caught hiring hit men when the hit man is actually a police officer.
"Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom." You can check the source link at encyclopedia or wiki , this is not a consensus. It was probably a mix of all. Plus how many crusade were they over how 2 hundred years ? It was not ONE crusade, it was like 7 or 8. And there is a huge political influx of the byzantine loss of land.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Really the crusades were just mass rape, pillage and murder with no regard or care for who they were killing. It is amusing when some try to justify it, people have always done shitty things in the names of the various religions and as long as religions continue to dominate a large proportion of the planet I am sure it will continue indefinitely.
A bunch of people who think their religion wants them to be perfectly nice and peaceful
People who haven't read the Koran. We'll call them Diet Islamic, or Islamic Zero.
and a bunch of others who think it demands they cleanse the Earth of non-believers.
People who have read the Koran.
What people do in the name of their God, and what their God commands them to do are two fundamentally different things. Most religions do horrendous things in the name of their God, most of which goes against the word of that God as written. Quite the opposite for Islam.
Bush has never uttered a coherent and correct thought during his entire presidency, why do you assume he's right in this case?
By the way he's not. He speaks in his usual ignorance knowing nothing about the topic and I guarantee he's read the Bible back to back but hasn't even read one page of the Koran. If he had he may find over 100 pages where their God literally orders their disciples to war against non-believers.
Personally I like this one the best, but I don't understand why you would cut off infidels fingers after beheading rather than before:
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
I'd just like to say that at 10hrs+ into the hostage situation here in metropolitan Australia facebook and twitter are in virtual meltdown
Calling them a terrorist gives them more credit than all but a tiny fraction of such scum remotely deserve.
Er, only if you think "terrorist" means anything other than "asshole".
Islam is merely a lens for losers to focus their rage through. The fact this is "terrorism" is only marginally relevant.
There will always be losers with a chip on their shoulder. There will always be people who are of below-average intelligence, or with poor judgement or impulse control, who will pull stuff like this. What makes Islam so incredibly dangerous, is that it allows this sub-human scum to wield their hate and anger like a weapon against other people.
With luck, this worthless drug-fucked piece of crap will be a piece of medial waste lying in a morgue somewhere. I shall not shed a single tear for him.
Wow, that's quite a rewrite of history you have there...
Does that mean we can describe the Muslim invasions as a backlash against the prior Roman occupations?
If you don't live in the Middle East and do not depend on supply of rotten dinosaurs in barrels, then it's not so much of a problem for you
Corrected it for you.
Why, they are the religion of peace man!!
Just look here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12...
I agree. "Armed robbers", "kidnappers", perhaps "gang-bangers" or some such.
Treat them like any other street thug committing a crime, and they'll be a lot less likely to do silly shit like this...taking a chocolate shop hostage, I mean really!
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That's true in general for speaking in common contexts among Orthodox Jews. But even then, Orthodox people will simply sometimes say "God" in English or whatever the equivalent is in that language. And that's aside from the many less religious Jews who don't strongly have that taboo.
And what happens when, not if, actually crime happens because of law enforcement involvement or because the sting contributed in some significant way to the crime? We already have an example of the latter with the "Fast and Furious" operation by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) contributing just over a couple thousand firearms (they assisted in getting those firearms smuggled over the US border to Mexico untraced and with who knows what else included in the package) to the Cartel wars in Mexico. Those firearms then showed up in numerous murder scenes (over 200 deaths by 2011, as I recall), including the death of a US border agent. The end result was that after two years, some minor characters in the smuggling operation were arrested, but not any important figures in a cartel.
The main problem here is that without the agency of the uncover agent, the crime might not have happened in the first place. But even when we know crime happens, the sting can actually make it worse in various ways (such as creating an easy, predictable route by which to commit additional crimes or enabling criminals to do worse than they could before).
Pakistan has the nuke (with a tenuous pro-western political regime and an anti-western Islamic population). Iran is in the midst of creating one. With regards to Iran, how much of their effort is religious zealotry? How much of it is pure political brinkmanship under the auspicious of Islam?
Sleep tight.
Life is not for the lazy.
Not ever idiot with a gun takes Australians hostage. Else it would be an exciting time in Australia.
I'm perfectly fine with calling him an "Islamofacist" or "Islamic fanatic". Whatever, tag Islam in with his movement per the flag he raised. If that won't be done, then we have a bunch of cowards who just assume turn a blind eye to the evil that's being forged in the hearts of men.
Life is not for the lazy.
If someone tells you some facts, and they happen to have already made up their mind on what those facts imply, that's still a perfectly valid source of knowledge to use.
If someone has made up his mind what the facts will show, then separates violent activities into those considers to be religiously motivated and those he considers simply criminal or mental-health related, then one should be suspicious that his list propagates a No-True-Scotsman fallacy. One should be suspicious that his bias prevents an impartial presentation of facts.
Many of the 'Islamic terrorist' attacks happen within conflict zones or occupied regions. Many Catholics violently opposed occupation by Nazi Germany: are their bombings terrorism?
Taken out of context I could easily use this to show that the Christian god has told me to invade other cities and only leave them alive if they become my slaves
Umm - no. Your quote is from the Old Testament. That is not about Christianity. Christianity is based on one thing - the teachings of Christ. He was a radical who's fundamental message was Love.
I think you should get your facts right Muhammad [wikipedia.org] was not a warlord in fact he was a merchant until he became a religious leader at age 26.
Exactly. He became the religious leader first, then the warlord, not the other way around.
"X happened" is a fact.
"All Muslims are evil, because X happened" is an opinion.
The difference is glaringly obvious.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I disagree with this incredibly strongly. Religion, ideology, and violence are so tightly intertwined they almost cannot be decoupled. Today, Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society. You give the religion/ideology a complete pass. Have you not considered that the religion/ideology places a major role in motivating these individuals to commit their heinous actions?
Let's take a poll here... Select from...
1.) I strongly agree
2.) I somewhat agree
3.) I neither agree nor disagree
4.) I strongly disagree
5.) I disagree incredibly strongly.
Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression. As to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand. However, saying that is not to deny that "Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society". I am compelled to agree with you.
I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists.
What does that have to do with the vast majority of muslims, who are not extremists?
You probably don't have any muslim friends. As an atheist, I treat all religions identically, which makes it easier to have friends of different religions, including christians, jews, and muslims. But I treat the individuals as individuals, not as stereotypes.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord;
So, then, would you consider it fair to be skeptical of the honesty of Australians, considering the nation was founded by criminals? Or are we promoting double standards today?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That is precisely the danger of Islam. The vile aspects of it appeal to the mentally ill and unstable and turn them into jihadis.
I would suggest that the number of jihadis who are mentally ill and unstable is no greater than what could be expected statistically within any group. I suspect the vast majority jihadis were raised up in a Madras type of upbringing, whether they were actually sent to a Madras when they were young or simply taught to hate from an early age.
Unless and until they make demands, and especially political demands, they aren't "terrorists".
From Google: "terrorist" - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Slightly different than "making demands". Perhaps merely making a political statement would fit the definition. In the specific instances, it is not clear there were making a political statement. I'm not sure they actually said anything, so you may well be right that they weren't terrorists. Good point.
I'm not sure if BarbaraHudson is herself "t" in LGBTt, but perhaps she should study Islamic response to homosexuality and transgenderism before defending Islam.
In 1983 Ayatolla Khomeini issued a fatwa declaring that transsexuals should be allowed to get surgery, live as their target gender, have their legal documents updated, and be allowed to marry as their new sex. Iran is now, depending on statistics, either #1 or #2 for sex change surgery in the world.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for other members of the LGBT.
BTW, I do not "defend Islam," or any religion. I'm an atheist. What I *will* defend is that most muslims are not extremists, any more than, say, most christians are not extremists, and people should get to know a few of them before casting rocks. Most muslims see the extremists as perverting Islam.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The IRA is a good point but you should not have listed only the number of bombings you should have the number of fatalities as well. The total number of bombings sounds much worse than the total number of fatalities, for a 40+ year conflict. I don't know the true number but I have seen accounts that put the deaths at somewhere between 1700 - 1800 over 40 years, 911 was 2900 in one day.
It's the Americans who created ISIS. See this...
ISIS was Formed in US Prison Camp in Iraq...
hallal chockies!
Respect is earned.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Of course, this story also claims the Red Sea was parted somehow so they could walk across, so it's highly questionable just how accurate this story is....
Nope, it doesn't make that claim. Somehow "Sea of Reeds" got turned into "Red Sea". If I remember correctly (I'd have to double-check the names on a map), the Israelites weren't even near the Red Sea at the time.
And then there's the difference between when a Christian commits some terror act for whatever political or personal motivation but not specific to Christianity vs a Muslim who commits a terror act specifically in the name of Islam. Motive does count for something when trying to determine and work with mediating root causes.
From what information the police have released since then, it looks like you're right on the mark. The guy is a violent nutjob that also happens to be an Iranian Muslem; and he has lived in Australia for almost 20 years now. I doubt he has much connection with Islamic State beyond their chat boards.
I read the internet for the articles.
the majority who peacefully practice that same religion
You cannot peacefully practice Islam. It is simply not possible. Islam divides the world into Muslims (dar al Islam) and non-Muslims (dar al harb, literally house of war) and Muslims are commanded to convert non-Muslims by force. This is a fundamental tenet of Islam.
And what about all those witch-burnings and forced conversions to "save your soul" even if it killed you? And the Crusades? Christianity has a long history of violence against non-christians.
Those millions of peacful Muslims we all hear about are simply choosing to ignore or rationalize away the parts of Islam they choose not to practice.
And how is that any different from the majority of christians who use birth control? And those christians who don't condemn those of other faiths. And those who are members of the LGBT or openly welcome them?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Consider this: These people are not muslims. They are total fuckwits who lost their minds and got their hands on some guns. If the religion that they claim to "support" is correct in what it teaches, then these guys will end up in hell for what they are doing. If other religions are correct in what they teach, they will end up in a slightly different but equally terrible place. That's one of the few negative aspects of being an atheist, knowing that these guys won't get the punishment they deserve.
IRA was as much about Nationalism as it was about religion, making it hard not to conflate the two. The fact that England is protestant and Ireland is Catholic makes it hard to distinguish between the motivations.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If you don't understand why Muslims are angry about drawings of Mohammed, then you are a big part of the problem.
The ones that are already rolled in you won't stop easily. It's about the impressionable ones that are not enrolled.
Why does the media seem shocked at what they have created? Want to get on TV? Just pull a horrific crime. Geez My solution? put it on the backpage of the newspaper, if at all. You know, like the information the government wants subdued or hard to find. Do not give the life story of the idiot pulling these crimes just call them "scumbags." And reassure people it is a rare action and we have nothing to be fearful of. Curse CNN and their "breaking news" coverage. They ought to be held accountable for the copy cat crimes. Make it shameful to cooperate with criminal coverage.
No, a false flag would be the intelligence agency itself going out and bombing a train or hijacking an airplane while masquerading as Islamic terrorists. ie: committing atrocities while waving a false flag. Intelligence agents badgering an otherwise unwilling suspect into meeting with someone selling a "bomb" is entrapment.
Thank you for explaining the details of the system.
I am curious, how do they track your participation in events? I understand the goal of the law but it seems like activity tracking could be a huge bureaucracy all by itself.
In the US, if we had a system like that there'd be a per-event and per-shot tax required to build a new block of office buildings full of a thousand Federal workers shuffling papers.
You probably don't have any muslim friends. As an atheist, I treat all religions identically, which makes it easier to have friends of different religions, including christians, jews, and muslims. But I treat the individuals as individuals, not as stereotypes.
This is the same canard you've been relying on since the beginning of the thread! You're again playing armchair psychiatrist (I've tried before--it's awfully difficult to diagnose people through Slashdot comments) and you seem to believe that since I disagree with you, it must not be an honest difference of opinion, but rather due to some deficiency in my character and experience. You don't need to make any excuses for me and my beliefs--I'm comfortable with myself!
For what it's worth, my undergraduate degree was in history with a focus on Islamic history. I speak Turkish, limited Persian (Farsi), and my Arabic has decayed to a point where I can just say I have a basic reading knowledge of the language. I also have a Master's degree in Middle Eastern studies. My primary areas of research were in the development of fiqh (Arabic for jurisprudence) in the 15th and 16th century Ottoman empire, and the interaction between colonial powers and Islamic nations/empires (again, primarily the Ottoman Empire) before 1900. I have many Muslim friends--some agree with me, some do not. I have--and would again--argue harder than anybody else that there is nothing inherent or unique in Islam that breeds violence and terrorism. Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Despite all this, I will condemn militant Islamism completely and without reservation. Why won't you?
Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression.
:-)
s to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand.
You said it better than I have. Humans by and by are a susceptible lot. That doesn't mean that militant Islamism should get a free pass!
Would only that the Muslim world advance to the 18th century—never mind the 21st!—that would be a huge improvement.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
This isn't about etymology. It's irrelevant how God and Allah were derived. What's relevant is how they're used today.
Louis in German is Louis, obviously.
As PT Barnum is reputed to have said (OK I know he didn't say it but roll with the anecdote): "There is no bad publicity."
I've thought for years that the news coverage ITSELF is the problem.
If these individuals didn't know that they'd suddenly gain the attention of millions this would be a far less appealing strategy for them.
Now, imagine for a moment that news services voluntarily refused to share (during OR AFTER the incident):
- the names/identities of the perpetrators
- their "cause"
- their demands
- any details extrinsic to the safety of the public.
This story would hit the news as: "A hostage-event is taking place at a location in Sydney's CBD; several people are believed to be held by an individual, and police are evacuating the CBD as a standard precaution."
I know, it's a utopian idea that news stations actually stop reveling in the carnage they get to cover, and there's no question that crazy-bad people would still do bad things, but it would certainly discourage attention-seekers.
-Styopa
Despite all this, I will condemn militant Islamism completely and without reservation. Why won't you?
What part of "I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists. " don't you understand?
Troll away, but you just look stupider with each post.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Christianity started out violent but eventually mellowed out for the most part. Islam is just several ticks behind the times.
Excuse me? Do you really mean that? Seriously?!? Christianity started out with a jewish rabbi who got nailed to a cross. Are you suggesting that he started a violent movement that needed "mellowing"? That strikes me as crossing well over the line of victim blaming.
There was that one time that Peter cut the High Priest's slave's ear off, and Jesus was all like "Peter, chill bro!" Although Christianity didn't start until after that.
No because I already knew that, as I indicated in my post ("Arabs can call God whatever they want in their own language, including Arab Christians who call the Christian god Allah.").
The words people use in Arabic are different than the words people use in English. If they want to use Allah to describe both concepts they can do that. I'm talking about how some people translate Allah into God when speaking English. That doesn't make sense. We don't translate other religious names like Jesus and Muhammed. We transliterate them, but we don't come up with completely different sounding new names based on people in our own culture who play a similar role in some respect. Like, oh Muhammed is a really common name for Muslims, so that's like the equivalent of John. Let's call him John! Or, Muhammed was a prophet, let's just call him Moses because he was a prophet too, and they both start with M! That's dumb, we don't do that with names.
Nearly all terrorism is nationalism. Seriously, if you look at the FBI numbers for terrorist incidents in the US and Europol's numbers for terrorist incidents in Europe, 90%+ of them are all about nationalism and seperatism. Basques in Spain, Puerto Ricans (seriously), white nationalists, etc. All the "terrorism" in the middle-east is really tribal conflicts. ISIL wouldn't exist if the Shia majority in Iraq hadn't decided they could just piss all over the Sunnis because they were dominating the government. Religion is just a uniform for tribes.
What part of "I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists. " don't you understand?
There's a huge difference. You might condemn individuals (who you also excuse by nature of their "mental illness"--thus the genesis of this conversation), but you seem to be very consciously avoiding condemning the IDEOLOGY. That's what I'm curious about--how hard is it to say "I condemn militant Islamism"?
Troll away, but you just look stupider with each post.
Come on, this conversation has been perfectly cordial, there's no need to resort to that kind of nonsense.
Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Just since you didn't reply to this part of my post, but I thought it was interesting, the culprit behind the creation of modern terrorism--
Russians.
In all seriousness, Russian nihilist revolutionaries really developed the concepts behind modern terrorism. They wanted to bring about revolution by any means necessary, including spectacular assassinations and usage of explosives. They employed tactics like walking into a room full of people, walking right up to the target, putting a gun to the target's head and shooting point blank. They wanted their enemies to know that they could never be safe. Like Horatio and Lars Porsena--if you know your enemies will do literally anything to kill (including burning off a limb!) you, your decision making process is necessarily altered!
You can see how these tactics have echoed down over the last 150 years--does the method of assassination of Archduke Ferdinand show any similarities with this?
These tactics today have almost entirely been adopted by militant Islamists around the world.
Simple proof is that no nation states that have a McDonalds have yet been to war with each other (and by that I mean a true war not supporting insurgents aka Ukraine).
Not true, there was the conflict between Russian and Georgia as well as the Israel and Lebanon conflict in 2006 all of whom had McDonalds at the time of fighting. Also in doing some digging it appears that there was the NATO bombing of Serbia (sure seems like war) that happened shortly after the book with that statement was published.
Time to offend someone
No, a "False Flag" does not mean completely fabricated (made up). False Flags relate to the Hegalian Dialectic, problem reaction solution. The problem does not have to be fabricated, and in fact these events work better when they are not. Stand down police to allow something to occur, then capitalize on the aftermath. In nearly all of the high profile FBI busts in the US in the last decade, the FBI acted as facilitators to recruit "terrorists", provided plans and direction for bombings, and even the fake bombs. They did not do the dirty work themselves, it would be too easy to trace. The term "patsy" should suffice for the normal.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Wrong, see the comment above. Read and understand Hegal before trying to correct people.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.
Like it or not, there are different types of extremism.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6ccC...
That's half a joke, and half true. In some circles, you are considered an extremist if you are rude to others while addressing whatever the issue is. In other circles, you're not an extremist if you kill people over the issue, only if, say, they were children.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is just a gunman who happens to be Muslim. A troubled one at that.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Many of the "Islamic terrorist" groups are also formed around nationalism or tribal disputes, whether it be Palestinian nationalism, Pakistani nationalism, Afghan tribes, Iraqi Sunnis, etc. How many "Islamic" attacks are completely independent of any geographical or tribal conflict? Not Afghanistan or Iraq, or the backlash attacks those conflicts inspired. Not 9/11, which bin Laden himself said was motivated by US troops being deployed to Saudi Arabia to prop up the dictatorship there. Is there any real difference between an Iraqi Sunni planting a bomb in Baghdad, and an Irish Catholic planting a bomb in London?
Palestinian nationalism is a disguised attempt at claiming Arab/Islamic hegemony over Israel. Note that before 1967, the term Palestinian, did not exist, and before 1948, it referred to Jews. Until 1967, the perception around the world was that the conflict was between Israel and Arabs, which was correct, since while all of Israel's neighbors were at war with it, the rest of the Arab League backed Israel's enemies. As a result, world opinion (outside dar al Islam) was with Israel. In 1967, the PLO started using the term 'Palestinians' to describe Arabs from the region, and managed to shift world perception to their side, even though the ground facts remained unchanged.
Pakistan too - historically, there was no such country, and it was purely a separatist demand by Muslims, who couldn't stand the thought of co-existing with Hindus as a minority. So they forced - through riots - the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Otherwise, there is no difference between Pakistanis and Muslims in India, and ethnically, little difference between Sindis and Panjabis vs Gujratis, Punjabis, Rajputs, Marathas and so on.
I don't support IRA terrorism, but at least in their case, they were fighting to get the Protestand Brits out of Northern Ireland. Whereas in Israel, the Arabs wanted to subjugate or expel the Jews, while in Pakistan, the Muslims wanted to expel all Hindus out of parts where they had a majority. Difference? The English/Scots didn't belong in Ulster, but the Jews & Hindus were native to Palestine, Sind, Panjab and Bengal.
You have to go back to WWII to even make, much less prove, a point about 'Christians' (even though Hitler did nothing in the name of Catholicism) whereas the GP was making his point using current events - events since 2000!!! Can we stick to this millenium? If you want to go back before that, how about we start in 1AD?
There is a difference between saying 'all Muslims are evil' vs 'all evil people are Muslims'.
As an atheist, all religions have no basis. However, as long as the people following a religion behave civilly, where's the beef? And my blanket statement, that I condemn extremists who resort to violence, including muslims, christians, and political extremists, obviously includes condemning militant Islamism. Same as condemning militant christianity, etc. Your purposefully and continuously ignoring the obvious is trolling.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm not up to date on which religion has actually killed more people. Christianity ran up a pretty impressive body count during the middle ages. Then there was the witch burnings and inquisitions, as well as was happened in the new world with the church there.
Muslims seem to have a more blood thirsty run lately though.
One would think that by the 21 century we would have at least stopped killing each other because we all don't want to believe in the same fairy tales.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists.
is inclusive, not exclusive. Go troll elsewhere.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've heard that so often, it's time to burn the strawman.
In "such situations" (red flag right there - vague specification), only the pre-planned, very bad guys with proper resources and connections are armed like the military.
Most bad guys are lacking either the resources or the connections or the patience to jump through all the hoops that you need to jump through to acquire, say, an assault rifle illegally. In my country, which has strict gun controls, very few crimes involve weapons of any kind, and in those that do the weapon is almost always either a knife or a pistol. That means regular police can engage the criminal.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I am not an apologist for any group. But can ask what we call it when the US Gov't (CIA especially) pulls off a coup or destabilizes a country fostering civil war.
I ask that as a serious question because if it is state sanctioned it appears as acceptable. If not state sanctioned then it is terrorism.
Remember the US Constitution clearly has avenues to redress the government up to and including overthrowing it. But if you choose to overthrow the government you'll likely spend a lot of time in jail or be dead.
You make it sound like countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al have no armies
As an atheist, all religions have no basis. However, as long as the people following a religion behave civilly, where's the beef? And my blanket statement, that I condemn extremists who resort to violence, including muslims, christians, and political extremists, obviously includes condemning militant Islamism. Same as condemning militant christianity, etc.
No, there is a very large difference between condemning an individual (and that individual's actions) and condemning an ideology. Condemning an individual is not condemning the whole. Believe me, your perspective here is not unique to me. Over the years, I've discussed similar issues (most frequently the topic comes up with Palestine) with many people who say they condemn suicide bombers, killing of innocents, etc.--and rightfully so!--but who just can't quite bring themselves to condemn the organization/ideology behind it all. As I said earlier, it's stupid to try to be an armchair psychiatrist on Slashdot, and I have no particular interest in trying. I don't know what you believe, I can only read what you write.
Your purposefully and continuously ignoring the obvious is trolling.
I'm of the general opinion that calling an ideological opponent a troll is a cheap and easy cop out. Seems that way to me now. If you're not interested in discussing the topic in a respectful way, you can just stop replying. I don't really know that much is left unsaid at this point.
We definitely don't translate names like "Abdullah" to "Abdugod."
Because that would be translating only half the name. If you want to be correct, Abdullah would translate to "servant of God". You wouldn't translate the last name "Godwin" to "Allahwin", would you?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It's come out that the gunman was a refugee from Iran, who converted from Shiite to Sunni Islam. Question - why did he get refuge in Australia? If he was just unhappy about following Shiite Islam, he could have moved to Afghanistan or Pakistan and happily converted to Sunni Islam. And had only Muslims around him, instead of having to live amongst so many Infidels
is inclusive, not exclusive. Go troll elsewhere.
That's just the problem, though, it's really not inclusive. Ideologies and their adherents are not simple structures. Just to be clear--I'm not asking for your opinion of the following, just take it as an example--Hamas. Hamas builds hospitals. Hamas provides social services in many areas where there are no other social services. Hamas also targets civilians and kills children with suicide bombings. I have talked to many people who will condemn at least some of the suicide attacks on civilians, but refuse to condemn Hamas. The part is not the whole. Even if one was to say "I condemn the violent extremists in Hamas" you give the ideology and the belief a free pass. You ignore the elders who incite and rabble rouse while eschewing violence themselves--they act through proxies. You know the trite quote about evil triumphing when good people do nothing? Well, a lot of good people are willing to ignore an awful lot.
I would definitely characterize Eric Rudolf as a christian religious bigot. From wikipedia...
Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda". He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth".[6] After Rudolph's arrest for the bombings, The Washington Post reported that the FBI considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the Christian Identity movement, which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people."[24] Christian Identity is a white nationalist sect that holds that those who are not white Christians can not be saved.[25] In the same article, the Post reported that some FBI investigators believed Rudolph may have written letters that claimed responsibility for the nightclub and abortion clinic bombings on behalf of the Army of God, a group that sanctions the use of force to combat abortions and is associated with Christian Identity.[26] In a statement released after he entered a guilty plea, Rudolph denied being a supporter of the Christian Identity movement, claiming that his involvement amounted to a brief association with the daughter of a Christian Identity adherent, later identified as Pastor Daniel Gayman. When asked about his religion he said, "I was born a Catholic, and with forgiveness I hope to die one."[27][28] In other written statements, Rudolph has cited biblical passages and offered religious motives for his militant opposition to abortion.[6] Some books and media outlets have portrayed Rudolph as a "Christian Identity extremist"; Harper's Magazine referred to him as a "Christian terrorist."[29] The NPR radio program On Point referred to him as a "Christian Identity extremist."[30] The Voice of America reported that Rudolph could be seen as part of an "attempt to try to use a Christian faith to try to forge a kind of racial and social purity."[31] Writing in 2004, authors Michael Shermer and Dennis McFarland saw Rudolph's story as an example of "religious extremism in America," warning that the phenomenon he represented was "particularly potent when gathered together under the umbrella of militia groups,"[32] whom they believe to have protected Rudolph while he was a fugitive. In a letter to his mother from prison, Rudolph has written, "Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."[33]
Nullius in verba
That's almost the exact opposite argument than you made in your post. You really don't seem to have a coherent point here. Apparently Christians who speak Arabic are perfectly ok using the same word. If they thought that the words had different meanings then they'd try to use different words in Arabic. The fact that they don't shows that your entire claim doesn't work. You seem to be confused about whether "Allah" is a proper noun or a generic. Like the word "God" in English it is both.
Obviously you didn't read it either.
Jews have never fought wars to convert a populace. All the wars in Deuteronomy are over revenge or simply territory. Such was life in the ANE. The ancient Jews were nomads who wanted to settle. Whether an escape from Egypt ever happened or not is irrelevant.
Timmy I believe is supposed to be Timothy McVeigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think causing harm to others who are doing you none is a definite sign of mental illness.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's the solution for anyone planning to shoot up the mall as a cry for attention, but worrying it would only get local news coverage...
Nullius in verba
You may be right, but just b'cos you don't respect any religion doesn't mean that they're all equally evil. Some are good, some are bad and some are quite evil.
Seriously? What do you call the gunning down of a civilian airliner carrying 270+ passengers from the flag carrier of a muslim country? Are you telling me that if muslim rebels in the middle east not attached to a government gunned down an Israeli El Al aircraft and then some claimed that they thought it was an American military Hercules or something, we would not be calling it terrorism. Can you even imagine a single media outlet in the west, anyone, who would not call that terrorism and the biggest terrorist incident since 9/11, 9/11 part II etc. You really think excuses of 'accidentally' shooting down a civilian airliner would wash in that situation?
Stop thinking with that blinkered attitude where terrorism is defined according to your cultural or social background, yet you consider that definition to be universal, sui generis, and a binary classification. A lone gunman is a lone gunman until he unfurls a muslim flag and then suddenly it's terrorism. I am not saying this isn't terrorism. But how much you identify this incident with lone gunmen going nuts posting hate online and then going on a shooting spree, and how much you identify it with a distant conflict in Syria that this guy was influenced by but had no direct affiliation with, is down to perspective. At least try to understand there is some fucking nuance involved.
To all the 'insightful' commenters about how Islam is inherently evil, and it is impossible to practice it without being violent, fuck you, Sydney will get through this, just stay the fuck away from my city. I am not going to tell the Turkish muslim lady who I get my lunch from, 100m (~110 yards) from Lindt cafe in Martin Place that her religion is inherently violent because some posters on a forum said so, that she is not practising it correctly by waking up at 5 am every day, getting her family to work and running a little hole in the wall shop all on her own that sells the cheapest and best lunch I can find, and that she needs to either un-convert (whatever the fuck that is meant to be) or leave this country. Or by sending her daughter to the best school she can afford and soon to university. No, she's doing it all wrong, this fucking nutcase is the one who is doing it right, and she needs to hand in her muslim card. Slashdot told me so.
I am not a fan of twitter, but I will gladly stand with the #illridewithyou crowd than be identified with you lot. There is a lot that needs to be figured out, and the way the IS ideology has appealed to hundreds of muslims in Sydney is clearly a serious issue. But no solution involve a suspension of basic human rights or officially classifying hundreds of thousands of residents of this city as inherently suspicious. Call it a cliche if you want, but that would be un-Australian.
" Christianity ran up a pretty impressive body count during the middle ages. "
I think you meant to say Catholicism.
I am a christian but not a catholic.
in a related note, I also never killed anyone in the middle ages, maybe we should just consider the acts of violence rather than the justifications of those who commit the acts, as the justifications are rather moot.
I would care less about why someone is killed my family than the actual act, and if i took revenge on that act it would have less to do with my hatred of their reasoning and more about the act they committed against me.
"If you don't understand why Muslims are angry about drawings of Mohammed, then you are a big part of the problem."
I disagree, it is the observer of a belief that is charged with upholding that belief, people who are not muslim have NO OBLIGATION to uphold the teachings of islam.
If they are angry that is fine but misguided, if the think violence is a just response to that anger then they are wrong.
If you can't see where the road obviously leads when you expect other people who don't hold your beliefs to live a life that obeys your beliefs, then you are the problem.
Really the crusades were just mass rape, pillage and murder with no regard or care for who they were killing. It is amusing when some try to justify it, people have always done shitty things in the names of the various religions and as long as religions continue to dominate a large proportion of the planet I am sure it will continue indefinitely.
wish i could mod you up but i got swept up in the commenting :)
so jesus was imaginary and invisible?
Only problem - yours is what is a tu-quoque argument that attempts to change the subject when the subject is Muslims. A Muslim gunman takes hostages in Sydney, and you climb on to a soapbox condemning Muslims AND Christians/Jews/Buddhists/Zoroastrians/Conficians/Hindus/Taoists/Sikhs/Pagans
How about only condemning the offending group in this case - Muslims? Since we don't currently have Christian or Taoist terrorists on the loose, without going back to the Crusades.
Depends entirely on who you ask. The "proof" for his existence is flimsy at best, and recent research suggests that the stories about him are more likely a collection of various things and "miracles" that were performed by various people considered prophets by their contemporaries. It's entirely possible that there has been a crucifixion of someone by this or a similar name in the area of Jerusalem around the year 30, actually, it would be a rather odd coincidence if one could just for this regioun NOT find some indication that various people were crucified around that time. It was a rather common form of capital punishment back then. But being crucified doesn't make the story in any way special either, it's like trying to create a religion about someone who gets executed in a contemporary US prison. Has there been such a person? By far more than one! Is he something special? Well... not really.
I would even go as far as say that it's not too unlikely that there has been someone who fought with wit and charm against the Roman occupation and the complacent religious and aristocratic elite that arranged itself with the occupying force for their own gains, oppressing the population. It's very likely that such a man would gather followers, and that he would be fought by the powers that are as someone who tries to upset the "order of things".
But that doesn't make such a man a God. Was Gandhi a God?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You cannot remain a member of a club unless you do the minimum number of shoots and you cannot own pistols without being a member of the club.
Given the shoots have to be at a competition level the clubs records the scores anyway and so at the end of March they have to supply a list of all members marked with those who comply with the clubs requirements and what they shot. It is all electronic and tied to your license no. so it will flag it straight away if you fall short. When you go in for your shoot you sign in to the book with your range pass and licenses number. Complete your shoot, record your score and have it signed by the range officer.
So I guess requirements fall back on the club to a large degree. Also people accept the laws here and are generally happy to work to comply. We are actually seeing a big increase in the number of sporting shooters at the moment, enough that a couple of full scale ranges are being constructed to meet demand.
Weapons licensing is also handled directly by the police. All weapon sales are registered and you are only allowed to sell weapons via a licensed broker. So even private sales between individuals are tracked via a broker.
I think the biggest problem instituting something like this in the states is the sheer quantity of weapons floating around (leaving out the rabid pro gun stance). I have seen photos of people collections where they have 50+ weapons. There is no real way you could own that amount here as you wouldn't be able to comply with the competition requirements.
For rifles hunting as a sport is another acceptable option. To do that you need to have a letter from someone who owns a compliant property to own the weapon AND be a member of SSAA (Sporting Shooters Association Australia). Rifles don't require minimum shoots. Pistols are not permitted when hunting.
I don't like it, but there are certain fundamental truths of life; one of them being that "the world is governed by the aggressive use of force". Always has been. Always will be.
What side are you on?? Oh yes...there are sides. There are always sides. If you don't pick one, one will be chosen for you. Yeah, another undeniable truth of life.
Again. I'm not telling you what you want to know. I'm telling you what you NEED to know.
Life is not for the lazy.
So why is Leviticus used as the reason homosexuals are bad?
While I agree with you that the New Testament is much nicer than the Old they seem to be taken as a combined "Word of God" and lots of groups pull sections they want for the goal they want.
Islam(muhammad), Judaism(moses), or Christianity(constantine)?
No, in fact the founders of those religions were: Muhammad, Abraham and Jesus respectively.
Judaism existed prior to Moses. Christianity as an organised religion existed prior to Constantine (albeit under other names). Islam did *not* exist prior to Muhammad. Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords. Please get your facts right.
Given I have a large number of friends who are Iranian (there are a lot of Iranian migrants in Australia) I would say that it is the actions of a smaller nation that is being pressured by a much larger one. Iran is one of the few reasons ISIS has failed to over-run Syria and hence a larger section of the middle-east.
I agree with that assessment; Sunni vs Shia and all that. In the end, doesn't really matter? They're only at each others throat insomuch as vying (ostensibly) for world domination via Islamic caliphate. The best thing that could happen is that Iran dominates the Islamic community. This would theoretically contain the Islamic threat to a specific region of the world vs the global Sunni. Shia believe in following the line of Ali (Muhammad's son-in-law), so that leaves them more philosophically vulnerable whereas Sunni believe in predestination. I mean, if you believe that God already knows the outcome and that Islam isn't going anywhere, you really have nothing to fear.
I'm not taking sides, but as a Christian, as least there's a point of convergence with Shia (and Judaism) that could finally put all this BS behind us. May take another thousand year or so...but...
Life is not for the lazy.
It's harder to live for a cause than die for one.
It's especially easy to die for a cause if you've never amounted to anything.. You can take some comfort in believing that you'll be remembered as a hero, and you don't have to take any responsibility for your actions.
I would also add to this that people in power are nothing if not pragmatic. Iran is working hard at modernising its economy and increasing the standard of living of its people. Unfortunately for it it ended up on the wrong side of an argument with the US. The US then went on to support its bitterest rival in the form of Iraq for a long time and, then when that went bad, the two Iraq invasions destabilised the region.
If I was running Iran I would want as modern a military as I could manage and I would want to have as advanced an economy as possible.
The problem with nukes in Iran is not so much whether they are pursuing building a bomb or not. It is more about the fact that they want complete internal power security. Iran has no coal but lots of oil, it makes sense to build nuclear power stations to free up more oil for export. The problem with the deals being offered to Iran so far have been that they cannot have a full internal nuclear fuel cycle. It has always been that someone would supply them with the fuel and given Iran has seen the winds of support and geo-politics change dramatically in their region can you blame them for saying no thanks
It wasn't that long ago that Saddam was the poster child of the West. Even more recently Assad. Both of those two did some dodgy things but their western support disappeared overnight and there is no way you would build your economy around something that could be taken away on a whim.
Judaism is considered as founded byAbraham who precedes Moses by multiple centuries.
You can argue that either way. Your link is too garbled to discuss your source, but if it's the wikipedia article on Judasism that reads "Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people ..." Whereas "God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai" for which reason it is Moses that is usually considered the legendary "founder" of Judaism.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
How about only condemning the offending group in this case - Muslims? Since we don't currently have Christian or Taoist terrorists on the loose, without going back to the Crusades.
Really? Since the crusades, we haven't had Christians killing abortion doctors or bombing abortion clinics. Waco never happened? Every Sunday some pulpit somewhere preaching about how wrong it is to be LGBT, and that the Bible teaches that these people deserve to die, but that's not preaching hate?
People who want to limit the subject to just Muslim extremists don't want the inconvenient truth - that their belief system is equally flawed, and continues to produce extremists. The KKK is a good case in point - they use the Bible to justify their hate.
A list of just some of the contemporary incidents of non-muslim violence in the USA from 1984 to 2012, mostly committed by christians and/or white supremists:
Frank Silva Roque. Four days after 9/11, murdered Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona. Roque, a racist, mistook him for a Muslim.
On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented (do you consider white supremists who kill as "non-terrorists")
On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder , was a victim of Christian Right terrorism.
On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays.
July 29, 1994. The murder of Dr. John Britton. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.
Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. His bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye, and bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997.
Oct. 23, 1998 Charles Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later.
1994, John C. Salvi attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others.
Feb. 18, 2010,Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), killing IRS employee Vernon Hunter.
June 18, 1984, Alan Berg killed with an automatic, Berg, a liberal Denver-based talk show host, was a critic of white supremacists. Members The Order (a white supremist group) members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.
April 19, 1995. Timothy McVeigh an
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Again you confuse Christianity with the Old Testament. The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah (or Pentateuch). It has nothing to do with Christianity. If lots of groups pull sections from the Old Testament for the goal they want, for evil ends, they are not Christians. Christians believe in Love Thy Neighbour and Do Unto Others, etc. If you have a problem with that kind of philosophy, then you have a problem. Please don't equate Christianity with Islam. It is a radical new philosophy that parts with the older philosophies. How could anybody not have respect for his teachings? He was a humble man who taught about love. He wouldn't have hurt a flee. Now I don't buy into miracles and sky daddies and all that paraphernalia, and I am not religiously trained. I am an ordinary person with no religious affiliation. But when I read what he said, I have no choice but to respect what he said. It is that simple.
btw: I am not a Christian, but I have the greatest respect for the teachings of Jesus. I also respect Mahatma Gandhi and the Deli Lama, among many others. That doesn't mean I am a Hindu or a Buddhist either.
For sure there are a lot of Bible thumping assholes out there, but that is a statement about what kind of person they are, not what kind of person Christ was.
Judaism existed prior to Moses.
Balderdash. Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon. Prior to the days of Moses, yhvh was likely unknown to the Hebrew people.
During the monarchy there was worship of yhvh, and of Elohim (aka El Shadday ... El *) (possibly even the notion central to Judaism that the two were identical) and clearly also other deities. Judaism, as we would understand it, needed to to wait till after the composition of the Torah, which didn't really coalesce until exilic/post-exilic times.
Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords.
Jesus certainly not. As far as Abram/Abraham is concerned, he is clearly described as a warlord in Gen 14.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon
To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about. Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
he is clearly described as a warlord
You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?
To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about.
Solomon at least (and most likely David too) was (were) clearly polytheistic. Judaism, as opposed to ancient Hebrew religion, requires monotheism and it requires the Torah, which did not exist at that time.
You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?
No trolling no, I'm quite serious about biblical scholarship.
Abram is said to have "called out the 318 trained men born in his household." That makes him a warlord. Elsewhere the figure of Abram/Abraham that emerges from the text appears at times like a defenceless refugee, however, in Gen 14 he is explicitly described as a warlord (i.e. having a retinue of trained men).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
So why is Leviticus used as the reason homosexuals are bad?
The reason Leviticus is used as an excuse to persecute homosexuals is because people are inherently uncomfortable with sexual concepts, and being homosexual is the current taboo. The bible repeatedly makes it clear that any whitelist/blacklist of rights/wrongs (slashdot should understand those words) is not the intent of the laws or any acceptable standard of behavior. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent people from saying "hah! look there! that's not ok!" or "well nothing says I'm not allowed to do this..." as if somehow the authors of the books were trying to present some kind of uncaring legalistic code of conduct. For example:
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
You can go your whole life without killing someone, and still be guilty of murder according to biblical philosophy. Basically, anyone who tries to use the bible as a way to slander homosexuals is only airing their own prejudices and has misunderstood the entire biblical presentation of what makes a person decent, which is your intentions and caring (not as easy a standard as you might think though), but nothing like "do X and you'll be a good/bad person".
I'm not sure what the word however is doing in that sentence. Doesn't the top Muslim Cleric in Australia consistently condemn every terror attack performed in the false name of his religion, like top Muslim Clerics all around the world?
The Australian muslim hierarchy will need to police their member really strictly now or face a backlash. I am proud of the tolerance shown by the "I'll ride with you" response on social media. This appears to be a nutjob who should have been in gaol in a psych ward, they are tightening the bail laws now.
Sorry, here's the link. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
The First Ecumenical Council was not about uniting the RCC. It was about reducing divisions between the Apostolic Sees—Rome (the RCC), Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Except for the Roman Catholic Church, the others on that list are Orthodox churches, which are autocephalous, and thus have their own popes that are separate and distinct from the Catholic pope. More to the point, although they were part of the Roman Empire at the time, they were not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of one branch of the Church of Alexandria that joined the RCC in 1442 (a thousand years after Constantine), none of those other churches have joined with the RCC in the nearly two thousand years since.
More to the point, out of the two or three hundred bishops at that council, as I understand it, only about five were from the Latin rite (Roman Catholic) Church. That council had a far more significant impact on the Orthodox churches than the RCC. Its main achievement was disavowing the teachings of Arius (from the Alexandria Church, not the RCC).
Further, even if you were correct, the first Roman Catholic Pope was still the pope of the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of years before Constantine was even born, which means it clearly was, in fact, founded long before Constantine. Certainly, Constantine strengthened the Roman Catholic Church—particularly by recognizing it as a legal religion—but he most certainly did not found it, and any suggestion to the contrary is utterly absurd.
To put it another way, saying that Constantine founded the RCC is roughly like saying that FDR, by uniting the country with other nations against a common enemy, founded the United States of America.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That's a total crock of shit! Where do you get such malarkey? The Iranian government is a corrupt theocracy. Their main interest is domination of the part of the world they are in, not modernizing their economy and increasing the standard of living of its people. They couldn't give a shit about their people. All they care about is subsidizing their proxies. They are trying to close a circle around Israel, with their proxies Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, though lately they have become discouraged with Hamas. It doesn't make any sense to develop nuclear technology when they are awash in oil, of which they have enough for both domestic use and exports to last a hundred years. There are endless option to modernize their economy without sinking all their eggs into one basket - the nuclear technology. And for nuclear energy, they certainly don't need breeder reactors that happen to make materials for nuclear bombs as a byproduct. They could use the same technology Canada employs and exports around the world, for example. Canadian-invented, pressurized heavy water reactors cannot make material for bombs.
There is no known founder of Judaism - Moses and Abraham are in the realm of mythology.
Christianity as a religion was founded by St Paul. Jesus is the prophet and god. Christianity as we know it today was created by Constantine.
Mohammed, we know a lot more about. And what we know is not pretty.
Can I just think that taking orders from your invisible imaginary friend is a case for a shrink, no matter what you call him?
My headmate is Dr. Freud, and for some strange reason he tells me I like cigars. Your move.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
As long as you smoke them in your home and don't pester anyone with it, have fun.
I don't mind people having a mental condition. I mind people trying to force their mental illness on others. I.e. religious fanatics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Much as I despise the so-called Islamic State, I think in the interest of truthfulness, it bears mentioning, that this incident is almost certainly not organised by them. By all accounts - including the official statements from the police - this is a mentally disturbed individual acting alone. Make no mistake - I would happily vote in favour of capturing the IS fighters, flaying them alive and rolling them in stale manure, but we only play into their hands if we refuse to know the facts.
but it addressed the "I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do" malarkey
Not knowing a simple widely reported and easily verifiable fact that hostages escaped out the front door, not the back, puts into question any claim of superior local knowledge
...to original poster's style of presenting an "argument".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Wow! You really are riding that fallacy train.
I mean, you cover no true Scotsman, ignoratio elenchi, tu quoque AND you finish off with an ad hominem, per your custom. Nitwit.
You know what? You should sit down on the floor when talking.
That way, you won't fall down on your face as much. Cause your "arguments" don't have a leg to stand on.
I mean... It's not only that you ignore that the sentiment which led ALL crusades was religious hatred of "others".
You are trying to weasel out of Catholics putting Nazis to shame cause "pope and king condemned it"? Riiiiight...
Which is why the pogroms and crusades kept continuing and why Inquisition was established.
Totally unexpectedly. I know, right?
And I just LOVE... no...
I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEE!!!! how you've just justified jihad and terrorist activities and every single act of war or killing EVER because... let me get that in original stupid... "don't [they] wage war either?"
Beautiful! What it lacks in grarnrnar it makes up in stupid.
You know what?
You should print a large sandwich sign saying "NUKE NYC!" on one side and "BOMB USA!" on the other and parade with it in front of ground zero.
Followed by similar presentations at various war memorials and military bases.
Please record that for posterity when you do that.
There's never enough good laughs.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Thanks for the explanation!
But this is what I am trying to get at. The teachings of Jesus in the bible are great. However the organised religion that is Christianity, in its many forms, does not only push the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
Religion and the books that are its foundations are able to be twisted to pursue the goals of whoever is doing the twisting. When I referenced Leviticus it was to show that the Old Testament is used by people all the time to justify actions under Christianity. The fact that that doesn't sit with what you think Christianity should be, just based on the New Testament, doesn't change that people will use which ever part of the bible they want to support their position and call it Christianity.
No, I explicitly differentiated between language customs in English and other languages. English has a tradition of adopting foreign words, many other languages do not and are more resistant to it.
The fact that Christian Arabs use the word Allah to name the Christian god and the Muslim god has *absolutely no bearing* on what the Christian god and the Muslim god are called in English.
The fact that you think my argument is "incoherent" when it's just pointing out some fairly obvious attributes of our shared language is very odd.
I get what you are saying, and it is absolutely true that people will use which ever part of the bible they want to support their position and call it Christianity. What I am saying is that you still can't compare Christianity with Islam. Even if there is a bunch of crap in the Old Testament, it still doesn't compare with the violent, sexist crap in the Quran. The fundamental difference is, people with a corrupted view of Christianity really have to stretch to find a rationalization for their behaviour. They have to reach beyond the teachings of Christ into the Old Testament that was composed several thousands of years ago and carried all that time by oral tradition before finally being written down. They also need to ignore the New Testament's spirit and meaning, which is the book they should be reading instead of the Old Testament. On the other hand, for Muslims, that violent, sexist Quran is their principle book. They don't have to stretch because the violence is right there waiting for them in the text.
This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.
I'm also Australian and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.
As you'll no doubt have now heard from the ongoing media coverage, this man also sent a number of offensive letters to the families of killed Australian armed service personnel, using rhetoric such as "A Jewish man who kills innocent Muslim civilians is not a pig, he is a thousand times worse".
He was an active participant in Muslim protests during the recent anti-terror raids in Sydney and Brisbane. At the time, he said: "Islam is the religion of peace, that’s why Muslims fight against the oppression and terrorism of USA and its allies including UK and Australia"
You can read a good summary of his progress to radicalisation here: http://www.theaustralian.com.a...
You'll note I've specifically excluded his alleged sex crimes, the charges of being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife and other elements of his sordid past. He certainly seems to be mentally disturbed, but equally there is no doubt that the Muslim faith, his belief in it, the recent rise of Islamic extremism internationally (he specifically asked for an ISIL flag to be delivered to the cafe) and his willingness to act on its behalf materially contributed to these events.
I think it's fair to say that he was vulnerable to the influence of potentially radicalising agents due to his mental health and that radical Islam acted on that vulnerability. It's not reasonable to say that radical Islam had no influence or played no part in this man's actions.
Matthew, Chapter 10 (NIV), Jesus commanding the Twelve Apostles to spread the word about the Kingdom of Heaven:
Sure, these days Fundamentalist Christians are relatively peaceful, having found that social pressure and legislation is easier and safer than violence, but any who want to can easily find verses to support their own holy war, some from Jesus himself.
There is nothing in attributed to the Christian god himself — nor any of his prophets — that required Crusades or the Inquisition.
And here, you've arrived at the very heart of the issue. There are many authorities around the world and throughout history which motivate action from human beings - it is a combination of the intent of the authority, the desires of humans and resulting interpretations that are the issue here. You say there is nothing attributed to the Christian god that required Crusades or the Inquisition - and yet they happened, in his name, under authority of the highest power in Christendom (the Pope).
Equally, there are Muslims who will say that Islam is the religion of peace and who will quote the Quoran and Mohammed in support of this position. And yet terrorism and other atrocities are being committed in the name of Islam, with the support of some Islamic leaders.
Rather than arguing which religion is less damaging today or which was more damaging yesterday, I feel we should subject all religions equally to scrutiny and subjugate all religious authority to the cause of bettering all mankind.
Perhaps then, we can begin sensibly to actively support stem-cell research as truly the most remarkable and promising area of medical research in decades, offering potential cures to our most deadly diseases. Perhaps then, we can agree that condoms are a sensible approach to combating the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Perhaps then, we can agree that "God told me to" was not a good reason for Bush to invade Iraq.
Actually, the media were very responsible in their handling and coverage of the siege - working very closely with police.
The Guardian did some analysis which provided some insights into the maturity of the networks and broadcasters during the crisis: http://www.theguardian.com/aus...
What measure would you consider to be a reasonable indicator of a population terrorized by gun violence?
Number of armed hostage incidents per year?
Number of fatal shootings per year?
Number of shooting incidents per capita?
Just any other statistic whatsoever relating to gun crime in any way, shape or form?
Go ahead, pick one - anything that you think indicates that gun crime is rife in countries where there are gun controls. Take your time, think it through.
Now, go and check the statistics for whatever measure you have picked. Check Australia, where we have tight gun controls. Now check America, where you have laws and political pressure preventing gun control.
See how wrong you are?
I just had another conversation with someone about this topic and I wanted to add this because it came up.
You seem to be confused about whether "Allah" is a proper noun or a generic. Like the word "God" in English it is both.
I think it is a confusing concept, but one way to think of it is one word with two meanings. God can mean "the one monotheistic god" or it can mean "a deity." But when translating a word to another language, it's not true that every meaning gets translated the same way. As a concrete example, the word "set" has tons of English definitions. One translation of "set" to German is "Satz." That encompasses several of the same definitions as "set" including "a collection of things" and "a series of tennis games."
But another definition of "set" in English is equipment, like a TV set. In German that gets translated as "Gerat."
So even if it's true that one form of Allah (the generic form) should be translated as God, that doesn't hold that all meanings of Allah should be translated as God.
You want a blow by blow? This NOT apparent just Muslims, the butchers, it is them. It's on the 6 o'clock news asshole EVERY DAY. Don't try to compare this with any other battle. Let's reason together we say. Meanwhile they are planning how to kill more of us. Are you a soldier? Ready to stand on the wall? you fag. I'll head south to my Atlanta friends. Just start thinking how you will answer, recant Christ and be Muslim OR die. Rebut? shit, kind of hard with an AK pointed at your sergeants head. Do I lie? The whole squad dies? If you, or anyone on this forum has the balls to protect his family and country, STAND THE FUCK UP. The rest of you sheep fatten up now... My email is here.
There is no ambiguity in Matthew 10. It is clearly stating that the violence will be directed against the disciples, not encouraging the disciples promote violence. It is absolutely crystal clear. Just read it for yourself.
The actual fundamentals of christianity are peaceful. It is a 100% peaceful religion. The fact that some people can lie about the writings of christianity doesn't change it into a violent religion. Since when has lying about a subject been acceptable grounds for recharacterizing the subject? Would you apply this same standard to anything else?
And as far as legislation goes, legislation is never peaceful. It is always violently enforced. It was a nation of protestants that wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- that is, preventing legislation. Modern day crusaders who try to enforce their own beliefs through legislation know nothing of christianity.
I was thinking Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, vicious fights between Catholics and Protestants, Galileo, etc. True, that's more of a mid-point than a "start".
Christianity "matured". Islam seems to still be in the middle stage.
Table-ized A.I.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
How many killings of abortionists doctors and buildings blown up did you have in the USA by Right Wing Militias, the KKK, etc?
Well, these are all Christians.
Recall Rwanda? That was a civil war among the Catholic and Protestant Hutus and the Tutsie based on the assumption that these were left wing socialists and both the CAtholic and Protestant churches were main instigators. The conflict broke a few historical records of people murdered in less time. This alone leaves even ISIS look like a friendly bunch.
Right now there is a conflict in de Central African Republic were Christians are doing some very nasty things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And in the way things are developing in your country everybody is expecting that there will be an outbreak of violence from ultra-Christian groups such as the Hutaree or similar.
I think that all you religious apologists need a wake-up call.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
You will find as much consistency in the Islamic world as in the Christian or Jewish worlds. If you look at the Monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, it is the Christian sects that, by and large, are the most deviated from the Old Testament norms; in particular as far as the Trinity goes. The Jewish and Muslim view of God is far closer to a pure monotheism.
It's Ludwig, not Louis. Both names have their origins in Old Franconian; in which the name was Chlodowig. They are equivalent, but with various pronunciation changes over the last 1500 or so years. You see, a funny thing happens to words, they evolve in pronunciation and in meaning.
But the word "allah" is merely the Arabic word for "god", and etymologically is related to similar words in other Semitic languages, including the Hebrew "el". If you're an Arabic Christian, you will use the word "allah" for the same reason. For goodness sakes, mate, the Aramaic word for God is "elah".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
THANKYOU!
I'm glad someone said it. Breivik was a rare occurrence. 9/11 was a rare occurrence. Fort Hood was a rare occurrence. The random nutter with a gun in Sydney is a rare occurrence. All crimes of this nature are rare occurrences. That is why they are remarkable, and that is why we take note of them.
When drones take out a whole street in Pakistan, nobody pays attention, because this is not a rare occurrence.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I'm glad someone said it. Breivik was a rare occurrence. 9/11 was a rare occurrence. Fort Hood was a rare occurrence. The random nutter with a gun in Sydney is a rare occurrence. All crimes of this nature are rare occurrences. That is why they are remarkable, and that is why we take note of them.
That's actually not correct, several such crimes happen every. But as you say, that's why few people notice them: It's been like that for a very long time, and people become desensitized.
Ezekiel 23:20
I think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... would DILUTE every type of terrorism world wide.
Casteism
Everybody has right to live Happy and Comfortable life on Earth.
Never do anything against conscience even if the state/politics/religion demands it.
Casteism
I read somewhere in a blog.
Are Muslims responsible for 37 million casualities in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Are Muslims responsible for 60 million casualities in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Casteism