Pray For France

FK,
Iraq is just one of many examples...Oil just one of many reasons...

Introducing or rather imposing "democracy" through coup d etate, bombing/going to war or enflaming civil wars in their chosen target countries is just a paravan for having $$$'a own man in power there.

It's about control.

Wherever they go - they leave death and destruction.
Serbia is a strong Ortodox Christian country and look what they did there - bombed it nearly 100 days with depleted uranium bombs - cancer there rocketed  300% since then.
My best childhood friend now weighs 100kgs of retained water because her glands are gone due to radiation.
Why did they bomb Serbia?
To actually protect Muslims (Kosovo) - the biggest drug barons and people traffickers in the region.

Did you know why war in Bosnia went on?

Just so the first Muslim republic could be established in Europe.

The whole world is one big tragedy.

FK probably doesn't know that Sadam was also a US ally maintained in power to fight Iran who got rid of his own UK/US agent the Shah who in turn was placed in power to defeat the Iranian democratically elected president who wanted to take control of it's natural resources..etc..etc....

As said earlier, One needs 2 to tango.....but it's fair to say one has been looking long and hard for a partner. They found it and it's called ISIS, the result of decades of messing in the middle east.

And I am pretty convinced that ISIS and western secret services are 2 faces of the same coin. They just tango so well those 2.

Tenez wrote:FK probably doesn't know that Sadam was also a US ally maintained in power to fight Iran who got rid of his own UK/US agent the Shah who in turn was placed in power to defeat the Iranian democratically elected president who wanted to take control of it's natural resources..etc..etc....

As said earlier, One needs 2 to tango.....but it's fair to say one has been looking long and hard for a partner. They found it and it's called ISIS, the result of decades of messing in the middle east.

And I am pretty convinced that ISIS and western secret services are 2 faces of the same coin. They just tango so well those 2.

And those who have spiritual understanding know why this is happening.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
And I am pretty convinced that ISIS and western secret services are 2 faces of the same coin. They just tango so well those 2.

And those who have spiritual understanding know why this is happening.

Well it must be spiritual understanding, because it sure isn't based on evidence.

Evidence is staring you in the face but you can't see it.

Tenez wrote:From the horse's mouth

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis

And I don;t read the Guardian, nor the times or any other mainstream papers.

I read the article when it came out, the phrase 'dumb obvious' comes to mind.

Obviously without the specific western intervention in Iraq, the dictator would not have been removed, and it is very unlikely ISIS would have flowered as it has now.
That is pretty obvious, but:

1/ It doesn't mean that there weren't other critical factors too. I could also write an article saying that without certain religions existing we also wouldn't have ISIS; somehow the fact these problems may be multi-factoral doesn't seem to occur to you Tenez.
2/ Iraq would probably be in a better state now if West hadn't intervened, but it still may have been pretty bad. Who knows who Saddam could have killed; he could have been replaced by another dictator who was even more murderous and ruthless.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:From the horse's mouth

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis

And I don;t read the Guardian, nor the times or any other mainstream papers.

I read the article when it came out, the phrase 'dumb obvious' comes to mind.

Obviously without the specific western intervention in Iraq, the dictator would not have been removed, and it is very unlikely ISIS would have flowered as it has now.
That is pretty obvious, but:

1/ It doesn't mean that there weren't other critical factors too. I could also write an article saying that without certain religions existing we also wouldn't have ISIS; somehow the fact these problems may be multi-factoral doesn't seem to occur to you Tenez.
2/ Iraq would probably be in a better state now if West hadn't intervened, but it still may have been pretty bad. Who knows who Saddam could have killed; he could have been replaced by another dictator who was even more murderous and ruthless.

And who is more ruthless Saddam or Blair?

FedererKing wrote:Yes, Iraq was a beacon of freedom and democracy before we went there. No gassing of Kurds or anything else.

Islam has been a problem since it was formed and will continue to be until you stop appeasing it.  And, by the way, going into Iraq as an occupation force WAS a mistake - but not for the reasons you think, Tenez.  The reason it was a mistake is that idealists like Blair actually believed they could create a democratic society there (which helps the oil flow).  They failed to factor in Islam.

And they are still failing to.  Already they are all going on about bombing Isis as if another MUSLIM group won't just pop up to replace them.

Also, the real problem in the Middle East is Saudi.  It funds all the crazy mosques in Europe and has a huge hand in funding terror as well (weren't the 9/11 terror attacks Saudi caused?).  But the West won't say it because they need the oil.

Indeed; I doubt the invasion of Iraq was for altruistic reasons; I think self interest of the West played a big part in it. It is in the interests of the UK and US to ensure Iraq is a stable democracy with strong trading relations with the West. The claim as Tenez says that the West secretly support ISIS, is as illogical as it is devoid of evidence; currently ISIS is stealing the oil and using it for their own wealth.
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst nations on earth, yet the western leaders cowardly treat them like royalty due to their huge wealth and power.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:From the horse's mouth

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis

And I don;t read the Guardian, nor the times or any other mainstream papers.

I read the article when it came out, the phrase 'dumb obvious' comes to mind.

Obviously without the specific western intervention in Iraq, the dictator would not have been removed, and it is very unlikely ISIS would have flowered as it has now.
That is pretty obvious, but:

1/ It doesn't mean that there weren't other critical factors too. I could also write an article saying that without certain religions existing we also wouldn't have ISIS; somehow the fact these problems may be multi-factoral doesn't seem to occur to you Tenez.
2/ Iraq would probably be in a better state now if West hadn't intervened, but it still may have been pretty bad. Who knows who Saddam could have killed; he could have been replaced by another dictator who was even more murderous and ruthless.

The extermination of Indians, slavery at grand scale and colonisation are also multi-factoral for you? It's both sides fault?

I on the other hand don't blame anyone for past actions. It was so and I cannot criticise it in retrospect as I was not there...it woudl be nonconstructive and useless anyway....but I am not fooled about the intentions of all this.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Indeed; I doubt the invasion of Iraq was for altruistic reasons; I think self interest of the West played a big part in it. It is in the interests of the UK and US to ensure Iraq is a stable democracy with strong trading relations with the West.

I should not say that cause it's going to polarise you and the debate here.....but nevermind: You really are credulous. But what to expect from the poster who thought Nadal had OCD?

The claim as Tenez says that the West secretly support ISIS, is as illogical as it is devoid of evidence; currently ISIS is stealing the oil and using it for their own wealth.
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst nations on earth, yet the western leaders cowardly treat them like royalty due to their huge wealth and power.

Who buys this petrol...how come those people who did not even have enough money to buy sugar and flower (which is what started those "spring revolutions") had enough power to attack those "well looked after" petrol wells?

Again, I don';t wish to polarise the discussion....it's just a discussion here but investigate and you might come to the same conclusions.

Tenez wrote:
The extermination of Indians, slavery at grand scale and colonisation are also multi-factoral for you? It's both sides fault?

The situaton in the Middle East is not parallel to slavery and colonisation.

Tenez wrote:Who buys this petrol...how come those people who did not even have enough money to buy sugar and flower (which is what started those "spring revolutions") had enough power to attack those "well looked after" petrol wells?

Very rich individuals in Saudi Arabia and Qatar founded ISIS. I'm really glad I can give you this history as well as foreign affairs lesson for free. Now they have control of the oil fields, and have taken a lot of weapons from the ineffective Iraqi army.

Tenez wrote:

self interest of the West played a big part in it. It is in the interests of the UK and US to ensure Iraq is a stable democracy with strong trading relations with the West.

I should not say that cause it's going to polarise you and the debate here.....but nevermind: You really are credulous. But what to expect from the poster who thought Nadal had OCD?

Even if you look at it from a purely cynical standpoint, I am right.
The west would want a government who is sympathetic to the west (so not hardline Islamist radical), who readily wants to trade with the west. They don't want the population of these countries to get killed, corporations would want as large a population as possible to market and sell goods too. Stable peaceful countries are easier to set up realiable trade deals, and easier for Western countries to go in and set up there.

They do not want to cause chaos, or want IS to commit terrorism in the West as you bizarrely claim. Western foreign policy has been based more on self interest than altruism; but the reason for chaos is incompetence rather than intention. They remove a dictator who is turning against the West, but then radical Islamists take over the baton. As long as hardline religion is common place and quasi-theorcacy is more popular in the populaton than democracy; there is not much hope for the region.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

Tenez wrote:
The extermination of Indians, slavery at grand scale and colonisation are also multi-factoral for you? It's both sides fault?

The situaton in the Middle East is not parallel to slavery and colonisation.

That's not the point....you are implying in your logic that there needs to be 2 to tango...while clearly history shows that one side alone can force the dance.

Very rich individuals in Saudi Arabia and Qatar founded ISIS. I'm really glad I can give you this history as well as foreign affairs lesson for free. Now they have control of the oil fields, and have taken a lot of weapons from the ineffective Iraqi army.  

And you think the US/UK/France have no power over a fat arabs family? You really are credulous.

No point discussing this any further...just keep observing and reading.

Tenez wrote:
That's not the point....you are implying in your logic that there needs to be 2 to tango...while clearly history shows that one side alone can force the dance.

Yes but in this case the issues are clearly multi-factorial. And the main underlying problem is radical religion.

And you think the US/UK/France have no power over a fat arabs family?

The West has influence with many wealthy families, but not all. There are some wealthy people who are radical Islamists who cannot be bribed out of their hatred for non Islamic societies; these people can't be influence by the west.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:Yes but in this case the issues are clearly multi-factorial. And the main underlying problem is radical religion.

C'mon...be honest. Were Irak and Sadam radical? Were Ghaddfi and Assad radical? Why are we trying to get rid of so called dictators who have managed to keep many religions in peace for decades? Answer that if you can. I am happy to give you a geopolitical lesson but do your homework too.

The West has influence with many wealthy families, but not all. There are some wealthy people who are radical Islamists who cannot be bribed out of their hatred for non Islamic societies; these people can't be influence by the west.

Have you managed to convinced yourself on this?

So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

No. Nothing at all.
Blind leading the blind.
Unfortunately.

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

Happy to answer yours once you reply to my question above.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

No. Nothing at all.
Blind leading the blind.
Unfortunately.

That's so true.

To start with : Are fanatics religious? All religions are strongly against fanaticism!

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

Happy to answer yours once you reply to my question above.

I have not been following this for a while. 
What question?

Religions at the end of the day are very much like science. You can do wonderful things or blow the whole world with it.

Stupid people is the problem....and we know now that those who perpetrated the crimes in Paris were not religious at all.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

Happy to answer yours once you reply to my question above.

I have not been following this for a while. 
What question?

There is not much to read. Starting with the intervention of Amri / Donald.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

No. Nothing at all.
Blind leading the blind.
Unfortunately.

From a quick scan, you said: "Every muslim worth his salt feels justice is done with all these terrorist attacks."
That has nothing to do with religion?

Just answer it Tenez. It isn't hard.

luvsports! wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

No. Nothing at all.
Blind leading the blind.
Unfortunately.

From a quick scan, you said: "Every muslim worth his salt feels justice is done with all these terrorist attacks."
That has nothing to do with religion?

It's all nominal. Just a sense belonging to a group.
Us against them mentality. No different from football fans of two opposing rivals.
Nothing to do with true spiritual world.

Underneath all the fear, badges and tribalism we all in the same boat whether we like it or not.

Pretty rich of you to ask me to answer a question while refusing to answer the very first question.

And I have answered it clearly above but you don;t want to read it.

As I said Slavery, Colonialism, extermination of Indians or else is also the fault of the victims? Can't it be the whole fault of our imperialism?

And to add to above, if you want to find out about the spiritual aspect, have a look at Abraham's first son.
I mentioned it in one of replies to you, but you never commented on it.

The rest is all about money, greed, power, control currently masked with "religion".
Before it was "birdflu", cold war...there is always a boogeyman.
Imagination of evil is endless...but underneth it all same old - mammon.

I believe it's both religion and western imperialism.
You think it's just the latter.

No need to go any further as I disagree mahoosively.

However evil and religious suicide bombers look to you, in a horrible way they are just defending themselves.

Imagine if somehow Iraq was world power and bombed the life out of Britain...how would you feel?

And worst of all it's the West that are creating the monster and chaos...so that they can create their own order.

You may think they are sorting out the bad guys so we can have a good life...

But look how they have changed this country in the last 15 years...

Do you think you will be able to live off your pension one day?

Do you think pensions will exist?

Look how media are twisting morals and undermining and destroying family units...

Imagine where we'll be in 20-30 years at this rate?

I will say this.

If my team Leeds United have some racist fans there and they do some abhorrent things, then they are part of the club.
Idiots yes, but Leeds' idiots.

luvsports! wrote:I will say this.

If my team Leeds United have some racist fans there and they do some abhorrent things, then they are part of the club.
Idiots yes, but Leeds' idiots.

Idiots is what $$$ powers want us all to be - easy to control and manipulate through their lies pumped out in media every day.
Living in fear for our jobs, mortgages, for our security just so the tiny minority who control everything can have luxurious lives...

luvsports! wrote:I believe it's both religion and western imperialism.
You think it's just the latter.

No need to go any further as I disagree mahoosively.

Certainly but the difference is I support my view with facts while you just throws an opinion.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:So this is all the fault of Western Imperialism? Nothing at all, not one % to do with religion?
Please answer that.

No. Nothing at all.
Blind leading the blind.
Unfortunately.

That's so true.

To start with : Are fanatics religious? All religions are strongly against fanaticism!

I can only speak for Christianity.

To start with, the word "fanatic" does not even exist in the Bible.
Christ said:
"And thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all,thy soul, and with all thy mind, and all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment  greater than these."
Mark 12:30-31

Neighbour is not literally people who live next door, but all our fellow-men, in all corners of the earth.

And since people are even confused with what love is (too many Hollywood fairy-tales a la "they rode off into the sunset and lived happily ever after"), here is what love is meant to be:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
1Corinthians, 13

So this is what we should be like or at least strive to be like.
Instead, men love themselves only and put themselves first.

And there lies the beginning of all our sorrows.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I believe it's both religion and western imperialism.
You think it's just the latter.

No need to go any further as I disagree mahoosively.

Certainly but the difference is I support my view with facts while you just throws an opinion.

Cheap shot.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I believe it's both religion and western imperialism.
You think it's just the latter.

No need to go any further as I disagree mahoosively.

Certainly but the difference is I support my view with facts while you just throws an opinion.

Cheap shot.

another 2 word reply...I must say I expect a bit more of a debate from a journalist.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:I believe it's both religion and western imperialism.
You think it's just the latter.
No need to go any further as I disagree mahoosively.

Certainly but the difference is I support my view with facts while you just throws an opinion.

Cheap shot.

another 2 word reply...I must say I expect a bit more of a debate from a journalist.

I think LS is trying to model himself on Jeremy Paxman

I can be laconic. I just think you are wrong. 

Boko Haram? Nothing to do with Islam either?

I think there's a difference between looking at things simplistically without looking at the evidence, which is what Tenez is doing, and looking at it with nuance as myself and LS are doing. There aren't always two parties to blame in every event; but in the case of the middle east it's clear that both religious elements as well as failed Western interventions have made the situation worse. I'd argue that the main underlying critical problem is political Islam.


Tenez; you say that science and religion are the same, this isn't just wrong but it's so wrong it's embarrassing. Science consists of observing facts, and then basing theory on evidence in order to find out what is true; as well as creating any mechanism based on facts. It itself is no doctrine, science does not tell people to make vaccines which save millions of lives or make nuclear bombs which endanger millions of lives.
Religion however is specifically a doctrine; the current main religions all have text and beliefs that were introduced to humanity in the past, and are all said to be divine and thus the absolute timeless truth. In these texts (in the form of holy books for Abrahamic faiths) there is a lot of material that is vitriolic, bigoted, immoral and violent.
Strictly these are divine books which are timeless and always right. However most sensible religious people selectively pick out bits from the holy books which are positive and try and use these to influence their lives (for example NITB's verses a few posts earlier which was very positive and a message I would largely echo); and do not take the whole thing literally.

However there are some who take everything literally, and even select the more violent bits of the holy books. Christians in Uganda do it do discriminate against the gay community; but at this moment in time polling shows followers of Islam are most likely to take their book to be literally true. There are lines in the Koran that are against women's rights, against gay rights; the most hate-filled verses are directed at those who are non-Muslims and those who leave the Muslim faith. This is what radical Islamists and terrorists use to brainwash people and commit horrendous acts of violence.

You are such a biased debator DT, it's actually very poor form from you.

Where did I say that Religion and Science are the same? you are lying or you are dumb stupid. You choose.

I am saying that, like water both are neutral. one can drink it to save his life or one can get drown in it and die. It's what WE do with it which matters. Some use science and religions to kill, others to save lives. Blaming religion or science is stupid.

But above all, like LS, you fail to answer the very question I raised. Why are we (the West) getting rid of leaders who are not fanatics nor particularly religious in the middle east? Knowing of course that each time they are being replaced by religious fanatics? Why are "We" keeping the most religious, anti-democratic governments in place?

Tenez wrote:
Where did I say that Religion and Science are the same? you are lying or you are dump stupid. You choose.

I am saying that, like water both are neutral. one can drink it to save his life or one can get drown in it and die. It's what WE do with it which matters. Some use science and religions to kill, others to save lives. Blaming religion or science is stupid.

I know what you were saying; and this is exactly what I was referring to. I was never under the impression you literally thought religion and science were the same thing. However you did say, as you do again here, that you think their effects are both totally neutral.
In my reply I explained why that is a fallacy, that they are not actually the same in this context. Science does not have a specific doctrine, while religions do. If you're a literal believer in the Old Testament, you may not be a bad person, but still believe that God has said that people who commit sodomy should die. Meanwhile science doesn't tell you to do anything, although you could use the observation of facts and practical application of theory for any agenda possible.
So that was the key difference which I was pointing out. Both effects are malleable with human behaviour, but science is neutral while religion isn't.

Tenez wrote:
But above all, like LS, you fail to answer the very question I raised. Why are we (the West) getting rid of leaders who are not fanatics nor particularly religious in the middle east? Knowing of course that each time they are being replaced by religious fanatics?
How do you explain there was no religious fanatics under Saddam, Ghaddafi and Assad despite Islam being a 800yo religion?

Firstly I think you need to look up the history of Islam. You said something on the other page along the lines of 'the history of Islam is peaceful'... actually throughout the past millennium it really hasn't been. It actually was spread through violent conversions, and if not that conversions based on huge financial blackmail where people had to basically choose between Islam and their livelihoods.
These dictators you quote were fanatics (just not religious ones), and killed thousands of people, including anyone who opposed them (including religious fanatics). But yet, I still agree that these dictators would probably still be better for the region than religious theocracy. Any intervention has failed because these cruel murderous dictators are the only thing in many cases which is stopping and containing religious theocracy.

First all civilisations have been religious. Not a single one wasn't. So it is difficult to know what the human race woudl be without religions. Maybe the guy who recently flew his plane with 150 people on board into the Alps might be a symbol of what the human race would be without it. He was no religious fanatic but "healed" (or drugged) by our chemistry science. Thankfully billions of humans see themselves live beyond death one way or another  and therefore have some moral duty while on earth.

So I appreciate you pointing all the wrongs of religions, but we don't know what is the alternative quite.

...Actually the civilisation who is probably least religious is ours, the Western civilisation. The civilisation which has replaced God's belief with the Golden Calf (the $$ god). The "Corporation" religion. This one is destroying our planet like no other religion has, is perpetrating a new form of colonialism which, unlike the old forms has no intention to educate, build bridges and roads but simply destroy, divide and spread chaos. And strangely enough protects the worst religious countries in the planet..to remind us how bad religion is!

I am not a particularly religious person so do not feel the need to defend religions. I just think it's intrinsic to the human race like science was in ourselves when we first threw a stone to kill our preys. And above all I woudl invite those with teh usual rhetoric of Religions are evil, to think beyond it.

Criticising religion is stupid. Like one criticising science, it's what we make of it.

Tenez wrote:First all civilisations have been religious. Not a single one wasn't. So it is difficult to know what the human race woudl be without religions. Maybe the guy who recently flew his plane with 150 people on board into the Alps might be a symbol of what the human race would be without it. He was no religious fanatic but "healed" (or drugged) by our chemistry science. Thankfully billions of humans see themselves live beyond death one way or another  and therefore have some moral duty while on earth.

Yes, that was certainly a strange case and an excellent illustration.

I once heard a pilot who survived a crash say that there were no atheists on that flight when the plain was nosediving.
Everyone was praying and calling God's name.

Tenez wrote:You are such a biased debator DT, it's actually very poor form from you.

Where did I say that Religion and Science are the same? you are lying or you are dumb stupid. You choose.

I am saying that, like water both are neutral. one can drink it to save his life or one can get drown in it and die. It's what WE do with it which matters. Some use science and religions to kill, others to save lives. Blaming religion or science is stupid.

But above all, like LS, you fail to answer the very question I raised. Why are we (the West) getting rid of leaders who are not fanatics nor particularly religious in the middle east? Knowing of course that each time they are being replaced by religious fanatics? Why are "We" keeping the most religious, anti-democratic governments in place?

Don't know. But as Hegel said: "We learn from history that we don't learn from history."


So Tenez, do you see only the good that religion does as Islam or Christianity etc? Anything that is written on the blood splattered pages of the Bible and the Koran and the Torah have nothing to do with religion despite it being in the sacred documents?




Before Islam came along in the middle east, it was in a golden age of science, medicine and tech - the world leader in fact. 
Christianity was destroying everything that challenged it but it had a reformation, Islam didn't.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html - Examples of quotes from the Koran calling for horrific violence.




Polls:
51% of Muslims polled in the USA wanted the choice of Sharia and want their own Sharia courts.
Between 20-25% of Muslims polled in the UK (same for US) believe violence is fine against those who draw cartoons of Mohammed.


83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates 
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/



Countries that want Sharia law: : Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%). 


Remember Sharia says:  Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped, allows husbands to hit their wives, allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye, cut thieves' hands off, robbers crucified or mutilated, kill homosexuals, beat/imprison bloggers etc, stone to death adulterers, apostates killed.


"Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews."





For more details see here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

I hate it when religious people say we would have no morals and would just kill people willy nilly if it wasn't for religion.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Yes, Iraq was a beacon of freedom and democracy before we went there. No gassing of Kurds or anything else.

Islam has been a problem since it was formed and will continue to be until you stop appeasing it.  And, by the way, going into Iraq as an occupation force WAS a mistake - but not for the reasons you think, Tenez.  The reason it was a mistake is that idealists like Blair actually believed they could create a democratic society there (which helps the oil flow).  They failed to factor in Islam.

And they are still failing to.  Already they are all going on about bombing Isis as if another MUSLIM group won't just pop up to replace them.

Also, the real problem in the Middle East is Saudi.  It funds all the crazy mosques in Europe and has a huge hand in funding terror as well (weren't the 9/11 terror attacks Saudi caused?).  But the West won't say it because they need the oil.

Indeed; I doubt the invasion of Iraq was for altruistic reasons; I think self interest of the West played a big part in it. It is in the interests of the UK and US to ensure Iraq is a stable democracy with strong trading relations with the West. The claim as Tenez says that the West secretly support ISIS, is as illogical as it is devoid of evidence; currently ISIS is stealing the oil and using it for their own wealth.
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst nations on earth, yet the western leaders cowardly treat them like royalty due to their huge wealth and power.

It's just conspiracy nonsense.  A lot of Westerners like to blame themselves for all the world's ills because that's more palatable to them.  I don't understand it, but I know it happens a lot. I've spoken to dozens of people who believe 9/11 was all remote controlled aircraft and other such nonsense, because they can't accept some Muslims armed with box cutters could do what they did.  Every big event in history has a minority group claiming the fault lies other than where it does, or that there is some sort of evil behind-the-scenes agenda at work. All paranoia.  But very dangerous, because until we start addressing Islam and its practices and teachings, we are going nowhere.

As for this insane nonsense that Islam isn't to blame for what these Muslims do, I offer only 2 arguments (there are hundreds):

1. Would so many people be willing to blow themselves up if there was no promise of afterlife?  I doubt it.  The main justification these warped people have is that this life is not the true life, and that by killing the enemy (stated by Muhammad as Jews, Christians, and unbelievers), they go to paradise.  Often a promise of virgins too. So the Koran (actually MUHAMMAD) is A. telling its followers to kill  B. giving a reward for that behaviour and C. telling its believers that they are not really dying when they blow themselves up.  So there is NO DETERRENT.  On the contrary, there is an INCENTIVE.  No Koran/Hadith = No incentive.

2. If Tenez is going to accept that Islam isn't responsible for what these people are doing, then he also has to accept that Nazis didn't do what they did because of their ideology.  Good luck.

Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

luvsports! wrote:Don't know. But as Hegel said: "We learn from history that we don't learn from history."


So Tenez, do you see only the good that religion does as Islam or Christianity etc? Anything that is written on the blood splattered pages of the Bible and the Koran and the Torah have nothing to do with religion despite it being in the sacred documents?

why do you say that? I have said from the beginning that religions, like Science is what we make of it. They give us moral laws. like science woudl give you the physical laws. Jesus for instance said I have not come to take away Laws, I have come to add some. And yet when faced with the lady who was going to be stoned to death for adultery he said the one who has never sinned can throw the first stone. That to me is the perfect example of what Laws are. Killing, stealing, cheating and many more things are not  morally fine...That's the role of religions....then there is forgiveness and all that but your own moral and life style is based on centuries of religious practice from your ancestors. That's why you don;t eat insects or other humans like other humans do. You simply can't throw it all out. It's part of yourself whether you like it or not . But at the end of the day it's what you make of it.

Before Islam came along in the middle east, it was in a golden age of science, medicine and tech - the world leader in fact. 
Christianity was destroying everything that challenged it but it had a reformation, Islam didn't.

You may criticise muslims as much as you like. Put yourself in their shoes once, how woudl you have liked to have arabs deciding that because we are completely brainwashed by Murddoch and his empire and are under the dictature of corporations destroying the planet like never, they are kindly going to bomb the hell out of our lives to save us from all the brainwashing and polluting lifetyle? Woudl you really like to have other countries meddling around with our own gouvernments (and whoever control them)? They have been extremely patient if anything to have been bombed for so many years and having lost so many lives. Why are we not bombing China to save them from their communist dictatorial party as well? cause we know they are not as peaceful as Muslims i guess.

So now we are paying the price of this new form of colonialism. But th eworst thing, once again, it's not Muslims who did those atrocities in paris, they are a bunch of drugged lazy arabs (according to those who knew them) who never felt at home in Belgium and France. Nothing to do with Syria or being Muslims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html - Examples of quotes from the Koran calling for horrific violence.

There is what the prophetes say and there is what the successors add to the book




Polls:
51% of Muslims polled in the USA wanted the choice of Sharia and want their own Sharia courts.
Between 20-25% of Muslims polled in the UK (same for US) believe violence is fine against those who draw cartoons of Mohammed.


83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates 
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/



.......n army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews."
[/font][/color][/size]

I am afraid there is lots of bullshit in this. Just look at the facts. before WE messed up with the middle east (I am talking at least for the last 50 years ) there was not much of this violence and extremism you see nowadays. We are hugely responsible for polarising many of them by constant aggression.

I hate it when religious people say we would have no morals and would just kill people willy nilly if it wasn't for religion.

You see, this is already an extreme comment. You are falling into the trap. We have polarised Muslims and now you are polarised. It's you against them.

And once again you have not answered the question:
Why are supporting the worst Islamists countries and bomb the hell out of the non religious ones? Explain! You are constantly moving the goal post but fail to answer that very simple question? Why are we supporting the country where the 9/11 terrorists came from yet never bombed the Saudis but all the other countries which had nothing to
do  with the 9/11 attack! Why are we trying to get rid of Assad whose regime managed to keep many different religions at peace for decades?

Matter for thoughts:

Who looks more aggressive? A Lion or Lamb? Which one developed through hundred thousand of years of evolution huge theeth, sharp claws? Which countries have the Lion or Eagle as emblems?

Who has developed all this magnificent arsenal, from guns and canons to the atomic bomb? The Muslims?

Here is another good religious lesson: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

You can't even see the goalposts, the goalposts are a dot to you :P .
It is not me against them. There is no point debating you because you don't address my points and then you strawman me. 

The very first comment I made was in answer to that.

You cannot prove religion has nothing to do with this mess. I have said it is both. 

I have said WE are a big guilty party but I have shown through polls and data that you just dismissed (the closest we've come to talk about facts) that religion is far from perfect.

luvsports! wrote:You can't even see the goalposts, the goalposts are a dot to you :P .
It is not me against them. There is no point debating you because you don't address my points and then you strawman me. 

The very first comment I made was in answer to that.

You cannot prove religion has nothing to do with this mess. I have said it is both. 

I have said WE are a big guilty party but I have shown through polls and data that you just dismissed (the closest we've come to talk about facts) that religion is far from perfect.

Religion is a very complex subject. Whether it is perfect or not is not something that interests me. men have used religions to perpetrate atrocities to great scales, no doubt but people at large (99%) don;t use it to do evil, so if 1% does, the problem might be with them, not religion.

The reason I dismissed your quotes and stats is that they are so far from my reality and history. My best friend is egyptian, I lived in Marseillle for 6 years with plenty of Muslims there and I have known muslims all over the world and have good muslim friends even in London. From my experience (and not what I read) I found them rather nice and peaceful. Sure they have bad sides as well....but no more than we have I'd say...just different.  If you have an open mind, I am sure you will get the same experience.

I am not sure I understand your answer to my question. Are you saying that we made "mistakes" when attacking Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia, and then now  Syria? You are not serious are you? We keep making "mistakes" pretty bad mistakes in fact but tomorrow the UK, after having started that mess in Syria is going to vote to bomb again....and maybe make another "mistake".

With such gullible people no wonder our governments can do whatever they want.

You make it seem as if I don't have muslim friends or am against them or something.

Right now on fb I am talking to two of my very good mates who are muslims with Pakistani families. Most of the youth of today, don't give a damn about where your from, if your gay, lesbian etc, doesn't make a difference.

I criticise ideas. Ones that I think are wrong. I criticise lots of things from all aspects of society. It's my job to question things. 

See that is where you are being disingenuous. 
You are misconstruing my views again because we disagreed on religion. 
That isn't right.
You're saying im credulous before even hearing my view. Why?

Why should I even respond when you are pigeon holing me? 

I go on about drugs in sport more than you do. I made that comment before about hating the media and saying I want to bring it down from within.

And now you are labelling me with this tosh?!

DOn't let your preconceived notions that aren';t correct cloud your judgement.

You said "The very first comment I made was in answer to that." and that was your reference to Hagel's quote....that's why I thought you believed we attacked those countries "by not learning from history".

I must say you are not very clear in your arguing....so if I misunderstood you, you still have not answered the questions!