Thank you Hardware150......I think I freely admit that in terms of factual knowledge of this subject I am the student or underling in present company...but that does not mean I can't recognise that Nexxo's arguments were so obviously onesided and biased but simply did not have the factual information to counter them. None the less I will not concede to such obvious bias even if I have to decline to personal attack in order illustrate that bias. That said thank you for intervening with a more factual counter to this bias and I will happily go and play with my toys
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. If you're not familiar with the facts yourself (which you didn't even need to admit to), then you are simply not in a position to argue your own unfounded opinion, let alone to be able discredit other people's, and are just putting yourself up to get shot down each and every time. It's like arguing with your surgeon just before you're about to go into the operating theatre about the best way to carry out the procedure, and you wouldn't do that, now, would you? I must also admire Nexxo' patience here. If it was me I would have banned you 3 posts ago, but that would only serve to support your misguided preconceptions on the subject. Does that make me a fundie too? Please...
Again: no clue, kiddo. This has been discussed in some detail in another thread. See DaRudeBaboon's excellent summary here. Lybia paid compensation in order to end embargos imposed by the West. It was realpolitik: the price it paid for a bigger return later. The exact same ammount was then stealthily paid back within months by the US as part of an ongoing oil deal. It too had an interest in ending the embargo so it could get its hands on Lybia's oil, but it couldn't very well do that after it had fingered Lybia as the cullprit for Lockerbie. The evidence to support this accusation was very dodgy and I suggest you read up on it. Al-Megrahi was appealing against his sentence. A condition of his release on humanitarian grounds was that he would drop that appeal. Many people (not just me) believe that had the appeal gone to court, a lot of inconvenient facts would have arisen. And why would Kenny MacAskil visit him in person before his release? Highly unusual, wouldn't you agree? This is a much more complex story than you want to believe. But if you want to be angry at someone, start giving Syria your Paddington Bear hard stare --the Mossad has some reasonable grounds to think it was in fact to blame for Lockerbie all along. EDIT: now on to Hardware150's points: True. The argument is that if we hadn't levered the Shah in power, there would not have been a revolution and the Ayatollah would never had the oppportunity to muscle in. The problem is that at the same time they were supporting Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war was nasty. It involved child soldiers. The view of many people in the Middle East is now (kind of reasonably so) that the West played two sides against each other and armed both sides to perpetuate one of the most bloody conflicts in history, under a cynical "divide and conquer" policy. The first Gulf War was pretty legit, and I have no problem with it (even if April Glaspie did drop the ball by not warning Saddam off his stated ambitions). The evidence that there was any terrorism coming from Iraq was pretty shady. Weapons inspectors found no WMD (not surprisingly if you think about it for a second), the papers 'proving' that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium were proved forgeries. He did not tolerate Al-Qaeda on his soil; he was a secular tyrant and saw Fundies as a threat from Iran. Bush said: "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad!", but apart from the fact that personal vendetta's are no excuse to send a country to war, Saddam had in fact not committed any act of aggression towards Bush Sr., ever. He was too busy getting his ass handed to him during Gulf War V1.0; he was too busy doing what is a dictator's business: staying in business. Which brings me to the WMD again. Saddam Hussein had many enemies, abroad, in his neighbour Iran and within his own borders. A dictator's business is to stay in business. His tools are power and terror. If Saddam had WMD he would have been parading them up and down Baghdad every Sunday as if it was the Red Square. He would have been showing them off, not hiding them. The reason he played coy with the weapons inspectors was to hide the fact that there was nothing to hide. The lion had no teeth. So are things better now? Iraq is now a haven for terrorists. THE US State Department's 2006 annual report on global terrorism said that the number of reported terrorist incidents and deaths has increased exponentially in the years since the US invaded Iraq, largely because of Iraq itself. At least twice as many people have died since our invasion then they ever did under Saddam's rule (some say five times as many). We have two million refugees. Utilities are still not fully restored. Large areas of Iraq are still not safe. When the Iraqi were asked in various polls, most felt that their lives are now worse than under Saddam. That is a compelling argument, but in the long run it made things worse. A democratic moderate government was more likely to play nice with a democratic West than a Communist East. The current regime in Iran does not care who it sells oil to --they're all junkies as far as it is concerned. Good argument: in the 80's and early 90's the USSR was indeed seen as a much bigger and more serious threat than some Fundies in sandals with a few AK-47's. It was in fact not until some Russian double-agents leaked papers from the Kremlin to the West that it became clear that the USSR saw the West as a serious threat also --that it seriously (but erroneously) believed the US would soon launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike and that it should beat the US to it. Reagan and Thatcher were shocked to realise how close to the wire they had been playing it. These documents resulted in a turn-around in politics and started the negotiation of mutual disarmament initiatives. Luckily Gorbie just came into power and the rest, as they say, is history. But I digress. The point is that yes, the USSR was seen as a serious threat, and rightly so, but the Fundies, and later the Taliban, were totally underestimated. To make matters worse, nobody learned from the Russians; how the second most powerful army in the world got its ass handed to it by a few sandal-wearing Fundies with third-hand AK-47's. Somehow Bush thought that it could invade Afghanistan and succeed in a few months were the USSR had failed over a decade. Then he refocused on Iraq, spreading his army even thinner. And where it Osama now? To put it in Bush' words in 2006: "It is not a top priority use of American resources... I truly am not that concerned about him.”
For a start, Nexxo has pointed out several examples of Western aggression towards the East. The point in this matter is that there is Western aggression towards the East. Two Middle Eastern states have been invaded by Western powers in the last ten years. The point is this, if you're going to invade a country, you'd better have a good reason for it. Nexxo has pointed out that the justifications were weakat best, even with the strongest pro-West views, greedy and oil motivated by general consensus, and highly illegal and morally dubious at worst. I'd say Nexxo has a pretty strong basis for his West=bad argument in these case. Backed up by the incitement of hatred towards the East and Islam in particular that has been stirred up by politicians and the media, I'd say that Nexxo was provided some much needed balance. And, since this debate was originally about Islamophobia, I'd say you have done a good job of proving that Islamophobia is alive and kicking today. You say that Nexxo disgusts you. I saw one person providing facts and opinions based on those facts and one spewing hatred. I know which one disgusts me.
I have to disagree. I do believe that there should be a separation of the church and state (which the Bible teaches), in that the state runs itself; always aiming to be a fair representation of it's population, but I believe that actions like Bishops addressing the house of Lords are vital. The Bishops don't get a vote or anything, but provide a moral view which is separate from the political world. Such an action doesn't alienate those of other believes; as people of 'many religions', and 'no religion' have voiced their support of such addresses as they allow for a deistic (in the sense of a philosophic fixed moral rule, as oppose to theological deism) rather than purely utilitarian view, which can help to maintain a moral compass. Religion will always effect politics, education and governmental capacities because so many people believe in God (or a higher being or gods). In fact a system which doesn't address issues of religion would be failing to represent it's population. The key is to have a political system which isn't run by religion/belief and doesn't enforce or control religion/belief (like the medieval Holy Roman Emperor did, or the Chinese government does) but is understanding of the importance of faith in the life of many.
TBH it appears that you do agree. Whilst I respects everyone's right to believe in what they want, I don't wish for my government to impose laws/actions based on faith or belief.
The part I disagreed with was"should not have any place", as religion is going to come up. For example: if every person who believes in God in the US decided that capital punishment was against their own beliefs, then those people can vote just like anyone else against it. Now if the percentage was big enough to cause a removal of Capital punishment, then religion has effected the law, but not as a institution which has pulled it's weight , but because the US is a democracy and aims to best represent it's people. An abuse of the above system would be if the majority decided that it was now illegal to convert to a different religion, despite what the majority believe that action would still be wrong, although there is pretty much nothing that can be done in that situation.
Judaism, Islam and Christianity have a huge number of commonalities. They've also slaughtered each other in large numbers over the years. I'm not religious, although there's a lot of religion throughout the generations of my family, from Catholic Priest to Jews and Muslims. Personally, I see no difference between extremists, I don't care whether they blow themselves up or kill using depleted uranium shells, they're still extremists rather than a representation of the majority of religious people. Most people just want to live a safe life and protect their family. I don't understand religion and how it can be differentiated from any other delusion, but then I don't tar an entire group of people with the same brush just because of their beliefs. Anyone who does is ignorant to the reality.
Religion won't have played a part, democracy will have though. Regardless of why someone has voted for or against something, this is their own personal opinion, and I disagree that the result could be attributed to religion (or not as the case may be). You fail to realise that there is more than just catholicism as a religion in the US and indeed the UK, and there are also large numbers of athiests etc. If I voted against capital punishment, and the vote got passed, would that in turn make me a catholic? I think not. I also think that the churches have a lot to answer for in what they preach. Contraception, abortion, homosexuality and out of wedlock civil partnerships are all things that don't receive much tolerance from a variety of religions, with some even being vilified for supporting any of these or going against their churches tenets. Now in some countries (the US included), these churches have campaigned politically to have the government in power to fall in line with their thinking. They also have applied pressure (direct and indirect) on these governments and their representatives too, both through history and in modern times.
In my own opinion(albeit an insubstantial one), one would be a bit foolish to think that religion has no part in politics. It's a given, although it's not as prevalent it's there. However as Stuart has stated, there is no justification for categorizing someone into a religion because of their political outlook, that is even more foolish. Of course we may try all we want to question the ideals of churches, but honestly it would be a protest in vain.
I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, But I keep seeing the word "jihad" crop up. Being a muslim, born and raised in the states, i'm curious as to the interpretation of the term by others. Please do not google, or use any other resource, using instead what you believe it to mean. And if you are not sure what it means, then simply state so. And no, as disturbed as i am by some of the arguments made here (and indeed disgusted even more by the actions taken by 'muslims' in the name of religion, and the resulting stereotypes attributed to muslims) I do not seek to take part in argument, but am asking so simply to get another perspective.
Jihad to me always means "Holy war against others who do not believe as we do". And from what I understand it can technically be followed through any means (at least according to the very far out whackjobs). Thankfully most followers of Islam are not like those far out whackjobs.
I agree you can't categorize someone's religious beliefs because of their politics. That's why I used the US as an example where the Christian Conservative vote is theoretically big enough to tip a vote either way (though of course not big enough to win a vote outright). An example over here would be the Conservative proposal which effects Catholic foster homes if they don't promote Homosexuality, the idea being that LGTB may be more likely to block vote than Catholics. (Of course using Capital punishment was in reality a poor example). As far as I understand Jihad it's a effort to reclaim an area to Muslim faith, normally in terms of a military campaign, but I'm guessing it's not limited to that?
To me Jihad means to wage a war on others that has been sanctioned by God/Allah. I have taken middle eastern studies courses so that is where I get the definition. However, truly to me right now, it seems that Jihad is being more commonly used to execute the will of a leader by him deeming that what they are doing is sanction by God/Allah. But for what it is worth and as mentioned in the post above me, it seems as if it is being used only by the extremist on all sides, whether they be musilm, christian, etc, to instill fear and hate into the world.
As do I, as do I, also, has anyone read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins here? *waiting for every religious person to pounce on me and rip me to shreds* because seriously, that guy is amazing
Well this is a very good thread and it gives the insight into what people think about religion and more importantly islam. Im a muslim from the U.K my mother bought me up to be religious, but she also taught me to be a human being. She taught me to respectful to everyone no matter what religion, cast, race, colour, and wealth. i have children of my own now and im teaching them about islam and about having respect. I fully condone what is going on in the world today with these sucide bombers killing innocent people in the name of islam, trying to get the islamic law instated in a countries where we are guests. My parents were given a chance to better themselves by being allowed into the U.K in the 1960's and we should be grateful that we are given the chance and work with everyone to make the countries we live in a better place instead of trying to bring hate in the name of islam. Islam is a religion of peace, The quran states that you should not shed the blood of innocent people in the name of Islam. I have enough to deal with in my life ( taking care of my family and earning enough money to keep going) I dont need people to hate me becuase of a minority of extremists giving Islam a bad name. We have had enough discrimination due to the colour of our skin in the 80's (60's,70's and 80's) for my parent to have to go through this now. all im syaing is for everyone to just livetogether side by side no matter what they believe in
online, there is no race, colour, accent, rich, poor or religious divide. Here there is only the Awesome.
