Anyway...I really am out of here now......something much more important has turned up.....my copy of Halo3 ODST has just arrived.
I agree that Christianity has blood on it's hands much more than any other 'modern' religion But most of the stuff you mentioned was from the Roman Catholic Church, there are other forms of Christianity out there too. The British Protestant church is much more relaxed than the Catholic one, they don't preach homophobia, anti birth control etc etc for starters. I think religion should always be considered nothing more than a personal lifestyle choice, and it should not have any place in politics, education or any other official capacity within any government. As soon as it does any of the above, it only serves to alienate those who don't follow that religion. The US is a prime example of how not to mix politics and religion tbh.
As-salamu alaykum The nicest man ive ever met was a Muslim. He fled Iraq when his fruit farm got torched by the government and his brother went missing (again the government) and came to England. He set up a butchers selling halal meat, he came into the slaughter house i used to work to make sure the animals were killed correctly. All the slaughter men used to take the piss out of him, but he always smiled back and was nice to them and he became friends with them all in the end (slaughter men killing animals all day 5 days a week aren't the nicest people in the world). He also gave out Arabic sweets and sometimes curries yum. I don't think nexxo was referring to Muslims living in Islamic countries, i think he was referring to Muslims living perfectly within harmony with the democratic societies they are meant to oppose so much The west might have not created them par say, but they did get rid of democratically elected leaders in iran for instance so they could have Iranian oil and stop the communists getting there hands on it. Then in countries like Afghanistan we encouraged and helped school extremism in order to fight the soviets, they just continued the extremism after the soviets left, ever seen rambo 3? That movie is pwnage. Yes the costs of war are greater than the profits made by oil companies in Iraq, but vice president Dick Cheney had business ties with some of those companies that were first aloud to go into Iraq for oil, the American government only let american companies into iraq at first to secure the oil deals. Also lets not forget good old George W came from a family in the oil business. Nexxo didn't say that America gained money from this, but when you look into it it looks like the president, those in office, and there friends probably made a killing (excuse the pun) out of the Iraq war. Yes it is all a bit conspiracy theory but there we are. I can see where you're coming from, and saying that yes we did make mistakes in the past and now Christianity is no where near as bad as it was 1000 years ago, but if we had left the middle east alone over the last 60 years after world war 2, then maybe things would be different now and maybe they would still be electing leaders without the voting being rigged and protesters being killed (iran), or just the voting being rigged and massive bribes payed to officials (afganistan). No matter what you say, Islam is not "at war" with the west, some terrorists that don't represent islam attacked america and killed nearly 3000, and attacked the UK and killed 50ish people. Then lets add the number of troop deaths in iraq and afganistan to that number, id say its about 3600 people who have died, not an insignificant number but again, by terrorists and not Islam. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Documented civilian deaths from violence 93,108 – 101,608. Thats just Iraq. A UN air strike on an oil tanker killed around 100 people the other day, and stuff like this goes on every day, not to mention the fact that the terrorists kill innocent Muslims in these countries more than they ever kill soldiers. cba writing any more, gtg, have fun.
I'm sure there are many more who are equally nice...the problem is not the individual but the Islamic movement that is becoming increasingly radical and adversely influencing it's I'm sure predominantly good people. Seriously....you think people will accept that Dick Cheney is evil enough to orchestrate a war to give himself some more pocket money....LOL...this is just more nonsense stirred up to cloud the truth. Thankfully that is right at the moment....but I fear that this will be the case if things continue as they are in the relatively near future. I don't know what the religious persuasion or ethnic origin of any of the commentators here is and frankly don't want to go there, but would like to say to all those bleeding hearts of Western origin that support this clap trap and insist on repeating it don't be so easily swayed. The truth is easily twisted by those with an agenda.....what do you trust in the classic interpretations of history and more recent events as proposed by your own culture or the rewritten contrived versions of events created by these fundamentalist cultures to suite their cause. Choose which side suits your interest and lend your support to them rather than weakening them. Do you really fancy going to enforced daily prayer at your local mosque, do you want to see your women folk shackled to a life of domestic servitude, do you want to see the execution or incarceration of the homosexual community, do you want to see the public flogging of 75 year old widows for socializing / mingling with male friends....and so many other ridiculous scenarios too many to mention. I'm guessing the answer would be NO.....in that case stop rolling over like a bitch to the cause of alien cultures and have the integrity to argue your own cultures quarter.... you know the culture where generations of men and women have given their lives and continue to do so just so you can live in freedom....frankly I think your opinions are a disgrace.
Goodness aren't we behaving just like the title implies... If you can show me one instance of a western culture "Shackling there women" etc en mass in the name of Islam then i'll grab my claymore and march on them until then honestly get a grip on reality.
Yes as I recall my history "Complacency" was a major factor that led to Hitler being able to extend his influence to a point where he was almost able to take over the world. (Not that I am comparing the religion of Islam to Hitler) I'm not Islamophobic so I want to draw back a bit.....you know what it's like when people get into arguments.....their statements become more and more extreme in order to prove a point. But I am very fearful about where this seemingly insolvable cultural divide is going to end up.
And if look a little further in to your superficial recollection of history you'll see Hitler got in to power preaching Nationalism and hatred against one particular culture and section of the population, see any other parallels in the recent UK Euro elections. Complacency is not the enemy anger fear and hate are always remember your Jedi training young padawan.
And of course the Islamic Fundamentalists are teaching their followers to love and embrace their Western Brothers??? And whether complacency is the enemy or not depends on which side of the fence you are on...complacency will make you the victim of someone else's aggression. So the student becomes the master.
I don't know where all this has come from.....I remember 30 years ago most people in the West thought that Muslim was a type of cloth...or is that Muslin
The fundies probably not, but then as has already been discussed fundies do not a population make. However because they make all the noise that is how an opinion is formed. The US is not full of bible bashing KKK supporters or any of the other multitude of fundi groups that come form the US. Ireland is not full of gun toting terrorist trying to blow each other up. England is not full of Skin head BNP voting idiots Scotland is not full of drunk angry wife beaters intent on burning down England True we should not be too complacent about fundamentalist trying to ruin "our way of life" however I also think that we should be less worried about some crazy Muslim blowing up our bus and more so about not getting hit by said bus since its its a much bigger worry in day to day life. We are already the victims of some one else's aggression and all the demonstrations and vigilance in the world didn't help when the US warlord marched in to the middle east supported by his little lapdog.
Just hope you are right on this point. But as I pointed out earlier there are several reasons that lead me to doubt that the views of mainstream so called moderate Islam are very far removed from those of the fundamentalists. I don't think you can consider the civilian casualties as victims of the US warlord or the UK "lapdog" as you put it but more the end result of the brutal regimes which were previously resident there. PS from you sig is see that you choose to live and sleep in the security of the "Lapdogs" bed that you seem to resent so much...just a little hypocritical in my view. Anyway thanks for the frank exchange of views even if we are on different planets as regards our opinions....now I really am out of here.
I don't sleep in Tony Blair's bed???? I wasn't talking about the people who have been killed as a result of the coalition forces actions in Afganistan/Iraq, i'm talking about the soldiers who have been killed because the US wanted to go to war in the Middle East and the UK government wasn't strong enough to withstand the pressure put on them to join in. I'm talking about the people killed in the July 7th bombings. Least of all i'm talking about the fact that now we are at a greater "terror alert" than we were before we went into Afghanistan and the fact that i still can't take a bottle of water on to a bloody aeroplane. These actions were taken against the will of the majority of the people as the demonstrations in London, Glasgow and other places showed. The fact that I enjoy a little less security now is a direct result of the "lapdogs" (TB) decisions. Lets be clear the action in Iraq and Afghanistan has not made the UK a more secure place. I see no hypocrisy in living where i've always lived and criticising a government for doing something which has benefited no body except the big oil firms. Once more the security which is live and sleep under is not provided by the military action which is going on in the middle east.
OOOHH ERRRR....I've never thought of Tony Blair like that before....best not go anywhere near his bed in future discussion. I thought from your previous reply when you said "we are already the victims...." that you were from Iraq or Afghanistan.......okay so just rewind my last reply. I don't think you are right that the military interventions are not supported by the majority....as you said about the fundies.....a vociferous minority do not necessarily represent the opinions of the often more silent majority. And I agree that we are not safer at the moment but we will be in the longer term. Far from being dragged along by the US I think TB made the correct call on this one....sometimes tough and unpopular decisions have to be taken......freedom is not free....it had to be fought for and has to be defended.....the security you live and sleep under has been provide by military actions of the past and you will continue to benefit from current and future actions....good job some in our society still have the stomach to stand up and defend our interests.
If you're not for us, you're against us? I think Bush said that once. I don't think you know what the TRUTH is. You may think I sound like Fundie sympathiser, but I think you sound like, say, a dumb xenophobic redneck. Because you are woefully ill informed about the political events surrounding the Middle East over the last century. Every post you make spills over with ignorance. Stay on track now. You said that religious beliefs did not inform politics in the West. I just gave you an example where it did. You mean like the IRA went collecting charitable funds in Boston? A single gun was found on the grounds of a Mosque in Manchester. Not good, but hardly a cellar full of AK-47's and Semtex. Hardline clerics? You have them here, you have them everywhere. Try Rev. Phelps' brand of Christianity. Try some of the stuff that goes on in the US Bible Belt --that scares me as much as the Fundi clerics preaching over here. My problem is that you don't even know the recent past, and therefore you make Islamophobic judgements without seeing how the West contributed to that state of play, how some non-Muslim countries are just as brutal or primitive, and how the West is just as likely to support primitive Muslim countries like say, Saudi Arabia as it is to attack those like, say Iran. it's all about the oil in the end. Who will sell it to us and who won't. Again, your gaping ignorance is showing. Iran has many Christian and Jewish minorities happily living in it, protected under the Iranian constitution. They even proudly consider themselves Iranian. Not convinced? Do your research and prove me wrong. No, we hothoused them. We supported them when it suited us. We put Hussein in power in Iraq knowing full well what his tyrannical ambitions were and we supported him when he was killing those 100.000 Iraqi we now wring our hands about, because he was a useful enemy of Iran. We overthrew the democratic, secular government of Iran in 1953 because it wanted to nationalise its oil industry. We installed a tyrannical Shah who in turn was overthrown by the Fundie government Iran has now. FFS read your history. Yeah, and the Palestines have no historical claim on that territory whatsoever. Again, history. Read it. Palestine was experiencing an immigration of jewish settlers for a good century before Israel came to be. The rise of Nazism in the 1930s led to an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This caused the Arab revolt of 1936–1939 and led the British occupiers to cap immigration with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine. By the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine, up from 11% in 1922. After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly violent conflict with the Jews. In 1947, the British government withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. The newly created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city — a corpus separatum — administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status. The Jews agreed, the Arabs didn't. Civil war ensued, the rest is history. If anything, the Jews picked their own place, and the Western colonial occupiers did their best to stop them. In the end they threw up their hands and left the Jews and Arabs to fight it out amongst themselves. Interesting factoid: the first Prime Minister of Israel was a former terrorist guilty of blowing up British government officials in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. And nobody gave a crap about the holocaust happening again. it is not as if no other genocides have happened: Armenians, Kurds, Tutsi; nobody is particularly that bothered. Currently, oil has to be bought with US dollars. It is the only accepted currency in the oil trade in the Middle East. This means that every country that wants to buy oil has to stockpile dollars. This makes it a popular and valued currency. OPEC however had been contemplating for a while to switch to the Euro. Saddam, sitting on the second largest oil field in the world, definitely wanted to in order to circumvent the embargos imposed after Gulf War Mk. 1. If he had gone ahead, the fear was that OPEC would follow. This would be bad for the dollar. But even if OPEC had not followed suit, it would have opened up the second largest oil field in the world (remember) to any country that could pay in Euros such as Russia, China, N. Korea... The US would lose control over the countries competeting for the same oil by not being able to control their access to the purchasing currency anymore. But that is only one of twelve reasons for invading Iraq; seven others were also about getting control of the second largest oil field in the world, and four were strategic in geo-political terms. All these reasons have been analysed in depth in various reputable newspapers, political journals and books. Try reading some and I won't actually have to spend the rest of this thread educating you. The Iraqi Interim 'caretaker' government was created by the US; its main leaders chosen by Paul Bremer (remember him? If you want any credibility in this debate, you should know who he is). The US as occupying force held the de facto power. The first three oil contracts were awarded by this 'government'. The real elected Iraqi government came into power in 2006 and signed the remaining contracts in 2008. It is official knowledge that U.S. advisers tasked to Iraq’s Oil Ministry were involved in the negotiated contracts between Iraq and the major international oil companies. Interestingly, in this 'free trade' the contracts went to US and UK oil companies only, with Russia and China making lucrative offers but not getting a look in. The contracts make interesting reading and I suggest you do. It ties Iraq into a 30-year deal where the oil companies own and control most means of production and take an unusually large slice of the profit --about three times that of usual oil contracts anywhere else in the world. It is the laugh of a fool. Go play HALO, kid. The TRUTH is not only out there, it is complex and not as black-and-white (hat) as you imagine it is. The only uneducated fundamentalist listening to the paranoid rantings of his exalted leaders is you.
+1 You are far more eloquent then I could ever manage. It's like you know what I want to say, and do it for me. All in all a wonderful counterpoint to the hate filled vitreol spewed in the posts you quoted.
Wow...Nexxo I must say that I am impressed with your extremely high level of knowledge of the politics of the of the middle east and the Islam/Western debate and freely admit that it is far greater than mine and also far greater than simply having a good general knowledge. I think it probable that for some reason it is of special interest to you perhaps due to your religious beliefs or ethnic origin? But that said I am not ignorant or unintelligent as you have suggested and feel that I know and have experienced quite enough to make an informed opinion which is equally valid to yours even if your knowledge is greater. I have read much of the factual information in your post with interest but that has not changed my opinions. The reason being that even factual information is open to biased interpretation. I do not intend to go through point by point your last post but just as an example of what I mean here are some points. Firstly the American oil companies having the first and prime pick of the contracts as you describe it. That may well be fact .....and the way that you interpret this from your particular standpoint / bias is that this is one of the reasons they went to war. I however would place a different interpretation on it. As the USA in the majority and to a lesser extent the UK financed and conducted the intervention it is completely understandable that they would wish to secure a large part of trade with the Iraq which they freed in compensation for their efforts and vast expenditure... BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THEIR INTERVENTION....THAT IS JUST YOUR BIASED OPINION....NOT FACT. It may be a fact that the agreed contracts are more favourable to the oil companies than usual...you interpret this as a the west ripping of Iraq to the point of stealing their oil. An alternative interpretation would be that developing the oil infra structure in such an unstable and dangerous part of the world would represent an extremely high risk venture to those oil companies and so is reflected in the terms of the contract.....do you think the oil companies would be happy to invest millions of dollars in oil installations only to see them blown up or a change of regime kick them out of the country. I am not saying that this is the correct scenario either but you must understand that your interpretation of the facts is only that....YOUR INTERPRETATION BASED ON YOUR BIAS. You also make much of the OPEC/Dollar/Euro situation and while I must say I am impressed by your factual knowledge of how this system works....however the scenario that you propose for this being a reason for the US intervention is just that...A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO FABRICATED TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN BIAS / OPINION. Your debating strategy is one of trying to blind with science/fact in the hope that this will substantiate your biased opinion formed from those facts.....I'm sure you understand the subtle difference between fact and opinion and while it is obviously necessary to have factual information in order to form an informed opinion people will still form different opinion based on the same factual information depending on their bias / standpoint. I think that last point really sums up the fears I have....it seems to me that those in the middle east and from Islamic regions seem almost determined to interpret any and all actions of the West as an attack on them be that the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the cartoon depictions of Mohammed in Denmark and this is leading down a one way street to a catastrophic conclusion. The West is not fighting a crusade against the East but if those determined to imply this have their way then sadly there will be a real war.
I am neither Muslim nor Arab, if that is what you are wondering. I am a White/Black caribbean mix Dutch guy who was raised in the Dutch Reformed (a flavour of Protestant) faith although my father was a Catholic, and faith-wise I am an agnostic, as a good scientist behooves. But I grew up during the times of the Shah being kicked out and replaced by the Ayatollah, the Arms for Iran scandal, Gulf War V1.0 and 2.0 and the Afghan invasion by the Soviets and then ourselves. I witnessed 9/11 as it happened, on TV, live. Moreover we on this forum have been debating all these things since 2003. Most of us are very informed by now. I am not a Fundamentalist terrorist sympathiser as you have suggested. But you have been the one who has been condescendingly laughing at my opinions. You don't have to agree with me, but you would be also disagreeing with many political and economical experts, a range of reputable newspapers and journals, and even government officials in the US and UK who have openly admitted what has been going on. All this is kind of accepted fact --even by those who orchestrated the whole deal. You just haven't been following events. The West has not exactly been working very hard to disabuse them from that notion. Again, the overthrow of Iran's government by the CIA with the help of the UK is acknowledged fact. Our support of Saddam Hussein when he was gassing Kurds (or was he? When he was still our friend the US claimed it was Iran. Seriously, read up on it) and torturing people is a fact. Our supply of weapons to Iran at the same time is a fact. The USS Vincennes accidentally taking down an Iranian Airbus airliner (IR655) in the Gulf is a fact. The captain of the ship received a medal for his service soon after. The medal citation noted his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." The US hothousing Fundamentalist Muslim schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan and providing it with money and school books glorifying the Jihad to create the next generation of warriors against the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan is an established fact. The US foreign office encouraging the establishment of the Taliban in 1996 because it would bring some stability to the region is a fact --openly admitted by the government officials endorsing the policy. The US ambassador, April Glaspie telling Saddam that the US had "no opinion" on his planned reposession of the disputed oil fields bordering on Kuwait (which led to the invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War V1.0) is a fact. Transcripts of the meeting also show that she stated that the US would like oil prices to go up, because this would increase profit margins for American oil companies too. The Bush administration planning to invade Iraq as soon as it was elected into office (and before 9/11 or the question of WMD came up) is a fact. The invasion happening depite UN inspectors clearly reporting that there was no evidence of WMD is a fact. Another fact is that IAEA inspectors discovered that documents showing Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger were forged. But the CIA chose to stick to the claim for another six months. The President of the UN, Kofi Anan stating that the invasion was illegal and a breach of UN law is a fact. The US shipping bombs to Israel through the UK without informing the UK government, to aid Israel in its bombing of civilian territories in Lebanon, while the UN's position was not to take sides in the argument but broker peace is a fact. The UK selling jet fighters with nuclear capabilities to India at the same time as it was on a diplomatic mission to prevent imminent war between Pakistan and India in 2002 (let me tell you how serious it was: the UK defense ministry was already calculating radioactive fall-out zones consequent to a limited exchange between Pakistan and India so the government would know from where to evacuate its diplomatic personnel abroad in the East) is a fact. You want me to go on? You can interpret it any way you want, but denial is not a river in Egypt. The problem is you don't know all this, and you don't know any of the viewpoints from the other side. After 9/11 Iran, eager to dissociate itself from terrorism offered to open diplomatic relations to co-operate in the war on terror in the Middle East. A week after fruitful discussions with US diplomats, to everybody's surprise, Bush included Iran in his 'Axis of Evil' speech. Iran and its nuclear programme? After the invasion of Iraq, Iran offered the US full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups --everything was on the table. The US ignored it. In fact, it sent a humiliating letter of complaint to the Swiss ambassador who had forwarded and endorsed the proposal on behalf of the Iranian government, effectively for spamming them. As I said: it is complex stuff. Some people prefer the simple, black-and-white, goodies vs. baddies take on things because it lets them sleep comfortably at night on a warm bed of self-righteousness. I've been here before with creationists, religious fundamenalism and right-wing politics, and any attempt at a debate is always a lost cause. There is no point when people don't want to know what doesn't fit their a priori beliefs. I am debating facts; you are debating faith. Believe what you want to believe. Muslims do. Why should you be any different?
Like I said Nexxo I am not about to do battle with you on the knowledge front you are much more informed....but still the information you volunteer is completely one sided.....you string together a list of what the West has done and how amenable Iran was post 9/11 and was snubbed by America....without having knowledge of these events I have no idea why this would be....but would imagine that if looked into there would be good reason for this....but you do not explore that...you just except that as evidence that the West is bad.....as I said some are just determined to paint the West in a bad light. That is why despite your obvious knowledge of what we are discussing I do not accept your opinions when it is quite obvious to me that you are completely biased to the the extent that I even thought you were an Islamic fundamentalist.
You admit that you don't have knowledge of a fairly big chunk of what Nexxo is discussing but then still feel you are in a position to call his comments one-sided? If you don't know what Nexxo is talking about how can you have any grounds to comment on the bias of his comments?
