Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Technician required in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Hotel Apartments Available in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Dubai politics talk

Why only 'Islamic' Terrorists and not 'Christian' etc?


scot1870
Hmmmm, the minority take on the occupying forces, the majority shoot and bomb civilians because of, well, whatever reason they think up that day.
Didn't read all the lengthy posts but the situation in Northern Ireland is not the same as Islamic terrorism, the Republican movements (the clue is in the title) had one aim - to get the British out of Northern Ireland and reunite Ireland. They were terrorists who happened to often be Catholic as that's the prevailing religion in the south, though not all ROI citizens are Catholic, a certain Paul Hewson being a high profile example of a Protestant (that everyone assumes is Catholic) that supports Irish reunification. As also said, the acts were never committed in the name of God.
As for jabba never having seen police like that when he was young, I saw more riot police growing up fighting strikers, hooligans and the like! They're all body armour and no action these days. We just don't see enough water cannon action on our TV screens 8)
shafique Following on from a discussion started in 'Most recited prayer ever', I thought I'd start a thread here on this topic. Frederick rightly points out that the troubles in Ireland were 'sectarian'. However he contends that their aims were nationalist/unionist and not based on religious views/values. The possible exception to this Frederick states is perhaps the PIRA i.e. the Provisional Irish Republican Army, who were derisorily called 'provos' by the British Army and others, and even called 'The Rosary Brigage' by other IRA members - they were strongly associated with Catholicism and defending of the faith. My contention is that sectarian is another name for religious division - we are talking of two sects within Christianity (viewed by others outside of the conflict) - but those within it view each other as wrong religiously. The Protestants see Catholics as following the devil's work and vice versa. In my mind, attacking someone else because they follow a different sect is no different from attacking someone who has a different religion - both are attacking someone over their religous beliefs. The only difference is that sectarian violence makes much less sense to objective observers than clashes between religions (don't both Catholics and Protestants believe in Jesus who taught turning the other cheek?? ) Having briefly read up on the Provisional IRA, I can now see that in my previous posts when I talked about the IRA and Real IRA never being branded as Catholic Terrorists, I actually had in mind the terrorist acts carried out by the PIRA - I lived through the bombings in London and was quite close to two of them, one in Docklands and one in the City of London. The contention is that the media never attaches the label 'Catholic' to the PIRA. By contrast, Muslim groups that have political aims - US out of Saudi, ending the illegal occupation of Palestine (choosing my words carefully, illegal meaning against international law), ending the oppression of the Palestinians generally (eg collective punishments) - are readily branded Islamic Terrorists. Those that carry out suicide bombings and target civilians are roundly condemned by Islamic clerics and authorities around the world - but the media reports on those that agree with the anti-Islamic practices. But, more unjustly, when multiples more Palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli forces (which is also, in my mind, a terrorist act) - this is never labelled as 'Jewish Terrorism' in media reports - but rather acts of defence of a defenceless, weak and cowering State. In many ways, this is probably a pointless debate - for me the evidence is apparent in the reporting, and those that choose to believe Islam is evil will probably do so despite what I say or assure them that the majority of muslims believe. They may see muslims in their day to day lives as ordinary peace loving citizens, but they will continue to believe the reports that Islam is intrinsically violent and evil. From my perspective, credit is due to the people who see beyond the spin. My contention is that just as Christianity should not be blamed for the acts of the PIRA etc, Islam should not be blamed for the acts carried out by terrorists. Cheers, Shafique shafique BTW - I take Frederick's point that the IRA is distinct from the PIRA - and the former did not want sectarian violience.
In my use of the terms, I used IRA and 'Real IRA' to denote the general terrorist campaign and the residual terrorist acts that have taken place recently. I see now that instead of 'IRA' for the former, I should have been more precise and used 'PIRA' instead of 'IRA'.
From Wikipedia:
The Official IRA did not want to get involved in what it considered to be divisive sectarian violence, nor did it want to launch an armed campaign against Northern Ireland, citing the failure of the IRA's Border Campaign in the 1950s. They favoured building up a political base among the working class, both Catholic and Protestant, north and south, which would eventually undermine partition. This involved recognising and sitting in elected bodies north and south of the border. The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of Catholics in the north and an offensive campaign in Northern Ireland to end British rule there. They also denounced the "communist" tendencies of the "Official" faction in favour of traditional Irish republicanism, and they refused to recognise the legitimacy of either the northern or southern Irish states.
Cheers,
Shafique arniegang I think there is a huge difference in the types of terrorism and the groups associated with that terrorism Shaf. In particular the IRA although self admitted terrorists they did what they did to make a point for their cause. This type differs hugely to the for example 9/11 terrorist who did what they did in the name of Allah. They are twisted individuals who believe that "god" sanctions what they do and they do what they do in the name of God. Get real Shaf, at least being an honest terrorist is one notch up from a bunch of fanantical lunatics who do what they do because its what Allah/God tell them to do. With respect to Isreali/Palastinaian terrorists (on both sides) i would put them in the same camp as IRA Provos' etc, in that they do what they do because of a matter of principle, again in contrast to the Loony Islamic Terrorist. shafique
Arnie - you know I condemn all terrorists.
The kamikazee pilots though that their god sanctioned what they did, as did the Provisional IRA - they were defending Catholicism.
As for the perpetrators of 9/11 - do you think they carried out the attacks because of Islam's teachings, or did they do it because of some perceived injustice against people they sympathised with? Was it a clash of religions or an attack against an enemy?
They didn't attack the vatican - that is a symbol of Christianity - but attacked the US?
Suicide bombings weren't invented by Muslims - Japanese, Hindu, Tamil civilians have blown themselves up, all believing they were doing a good thing and that their reward will be with god.
The question I continue to pose is why we only see the label 'Islamic' applied to terrorist acts carried out by muslims?
Al Qaida were pretty clear their gripe was against injustices carried out and supported by the US. Osama bin Laden was just as religious as he is now when he was being trained by the CIA and being armed to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan - he turned on the US when they placed armed forces on Saudi soil - so for him it was political, not religious.
Yes, they do believe that when they fight against the agressors they are in the right. Yes they do believe that killing civilians is justified, using the logic that their enemies are similarly killing or supporting the killings of other civilians.
I don't believe in their logic.
I believe it would have been wrong to call the provos 'Catholic Terrorists' and I similarly think it wrong that 'Islamic Terrorists' are used for the same actions and same belief that they are doing God's work. Just because we all think the provos weren't doing God's work, does not change the fact that +is+ what they believed.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Another point - the rise in 'Al Qaida inspired' attacks is interesting on many levels. Are the young men and women sympathising and joining in just 'fanatical nutters' or are they 'honest terrorists' (borrowing Arnie's phrase)? Those that think they are being brainwashed by mad mullahs into thinking Islam is at war with the US are missing the point. Arnie says that 'honest terrorists' are better than mad fanatics. I presume an honest terrorist is one that has specific objectives - eg the re-unification of Ireland, the end of apartheid, the end of an illegal occupation by a foreign power etc. My question is that those young men who say they are blowing themselves up because of injustices in Palestine - are they 'fanatics' or 'honest terrorists'? In my mind, all terrorists are unjustified and are fanatics - but to those who make a distinction, aren't those who are fighting against specific injustices 'honest terrorists'? How about the fighters in Iraq fighting against soldiers - are these 'insurgents' freedom fighters or terrorists? To me, as long as they are targetting the military, they are resistance fighters - and no different to resistance fighters in France during the German occupation (which reminds me that there were instances of suicide missions and the killings of civilians by resistance fighters in France in that period). Cheers, Shafique arniegang You have moved the "goal posts" somewhat shaf my friend. In reply to your post Re "islam" i belive my reply stands. The IRA provo's basically acted in the same way as the 9/11 in attacking gov/inocent people, but the diference was, they didnt in reality use "religion" as the main cause. It may have started that way back in the Irish Potato Famine era and subsequent upto the 70's, but in recent history the Irish terrorism aspect was not really over religion but governence. You also sighted the Palastian/Israeli scenareo in relation to Islam and its comparrisons. Again, this is not terrorism connected with Allah as you well know, its about "possession of ground". I do however agree with your comparrison regarding the Jap pilots in the Pacific war. However Shaf, really this was insignificant in terms of the damage they actually inflicted, and it was within the "arena" of war at the end of the day. It is not really a fair comparisson to the current loonatic element of Islamic extremist's that inflict death not only on themselves but countless thousands of innocent people. You sight that OBL/AQ only seems to have a beef with the US. You know this is not true Shaf, not one group or country is safe from AQ, and yes that includes the majority of the GCC countries that pay AQ extortion money to leave them alone and in peace. My point re 9/11 is really it is a documented fact, that the recording from one of the highjacker pilots in that his last words were ...................... you know what they were, and it wasn't "death to all americans because OBL said so". At the end of the day Shaf, there must be an acceptance by Muslims in how non muslims/westerners etc etc view "the islamic terrorist" in that we just dont understand how religion can drive someone to that extreme, however deep their beliefs. You are correct we dont draw the same comparrison to other acts of terrorism, because we can differentiate between an act of hate per se and doing it under the guise of "its god's will, god approves, god loves me, and i will be a martyr for all eternity". I for one would have a micron more respect for them if they said "we just hate you fcukers and we are going to blow the sh1t out of your ass". Frederick I'll respond to this thread in later, however I would like to ask shafique to show me one example where the Tamil Tigers and the IRA ever used religion to influence their violence (do their members ever quote from holy books, do they claim that their fighting against the British occupation in the name of Jesus?) or how either of them are religious fundamentalist groups like AQ. shafique
My contention is that it is not religion that is driving them. They are attacking an enemy that is oppressing/killing people who share their religion/nationality etc.
In that, they are no different from the PIRA, Tamil Tigers, Japanese Kamikazee pilots etc
All these people believed they were on the right side of their respective religions. If they believed this, then the accusation that their religion was behind the terrorist acts must stand for all of them.
The problem is that the focus is on the bombers quoting from the Quran and citing 'Allah' in their suicide wills. However, listen to the reasons they give for willingly giving up their lives - it is not because they hate Christians or all Americans/Westerners etc. It is because they believe injustices were/are being carried out.
If Japanese pilots thought they were going to heaven - is not their religion condoning suicide? If Tamil Tiger ladies thought they were abiding by their Hindu beliefs by blowing themselves up, how is this any different from muslim suicide bombers' delusion that they will be going to heaven?
How are they different from people who have misused the Bible to justify apartheid, pogroms, inquisitions, crusades etc?
The label 'Islamic Terrorist' falsely gives the impression that the main driver is religion - and my question is why this is the case when there are political objectives to their madness.
Osama telling the US to turn to God in his last message was only a small part of the speech. He unfortunately had a lot of legitimate gripes about what the US etc were doing politically and militarily around the world - and whilst there continue to be these injustices, he and his like will continue to attract people who want to fight these injustices.
Guantano Bay is having the same effect that internment had in Northern Ireland.
Frederick asks for proof that Tamil Tigers or PIRA used religion to justify their terrorist acts. I am not the one who are labelling their actions as based on religion - I am saying that in the same way they weren't labelled, 'Islamic terrorists' should similarly +not+ be labelled.
I contend that the PIRA were doing what they thought their religion allowed for - they were called the 'rosary brigade' by the IRA as a sign of their warped religosity. Tamil Tigers aren't all atheist, but are hindu and believe in reincarnation - my contention is show me where they thought what they were doing was wrong or against their religion. If it wasn't, then there is no difference.
But the main comparison will be with Japanese suicide pilots - they certainly were convinced their religion condoned them giving up their lives for emperor and empire.
It seems to me that Frederick and Arnie are saying that Al Qaida's main motivation is religion, rather than what they would say is a reaction to injustices they perceive being perpetrated against muslims. If they think people are being killed just because of their religion, I don't see why a reaction to that would necessarily lead someone to conclude the reaction was because of religion.
Perhaps I'm missing something? I believe all suicide bombers and terrorists are as bad as each other. Those that kill the most women and children should be condemned the most, regardless of belief, colour or creed. Unfortunately this does not happen in practice.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique First let me say that I do not support or condone Bin Laden or any terrorist acts (I won't tire in repeating this - there is no justification for targetting and killing civilians).
But I went back to see what Bin Laden actually said his motives were - just in case I had over-looked or misunderstood what he said his justifications were - perhaps it was religion that was spurring him on?
His speech in 2004 is given in full:
I quote a few extracts only to show that his logic and objectives are as valid as PIRA or Tamil Tigers - in that it is a reaction to what they all perceive as injustices:

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation , just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
....

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
....
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
etc.
Osama Bin Laden is not citing religion as the cause of the attacks - but the sight of women and children killed in Lebanon by Israelis. His logic is that if US women and children are killed, this may stop "the deliberate killing of innocent women and children by American policy"..
What is clear to me is that this is not cited as an 'Islamic' belief/doctrine - but quite simply one of revenge/retaliation or some warped belief it may prevent further bloodshed.
I know some may be offended that I have quoted Osama's words, but I felt the point of what he claims his justification was required to answer the points made about Al Qaeda having primarily religious objectives.
Cheers,
Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique
If AQ motivations are political (for example Bin Laden says he does not hate 'freedom' - as he isn't targeting Sweden - but is targeting those who are oppressing 'his people') - then the question becomes, why are AQ branded religious fundamentalist and 'Islamic Terrorists'?
There are groups who believe that Islam should be prosletysed (sp?) militantly and a 'Khilafat' needs to be set up - many with Saudi backing - but the terrorist acts I've seen have been by groups who are sympathetic with Osama's reasons for armed struggle - i.e. the relief of the suffering of the Palestinians etc.
Arnie - the reason why the 'fxxxkers' don't just come out and say they hate us and want to blow us up is perhaps because they don't hate freedom as Bush would have us believe, but they believe they are doing what they can to combat American/Israeli etc killings of women and children. As Osama says, he isn't targetting the Swedes!
Cheers
Shafique arniegang Shaf I dont for one minute think you support terrorism or OBL etc. It is an interesting debate, no idea of support or condonement is assumed within this debate. Lack of time today stops me form replying in full , will do later. cheers Concord Shaf, I agree with you 100%. Next time there is a terrorist attack let's use their religion in front of the work "terrorist". If we say now "Islamic Terrorists" then next time a similar attack is carried out by the Hindus, Christians, Jews, Mormons, Budhists, Tamil, et. at. we'll call them "Hindu Terrorists", "Christian Terrorists", "Jewish Terrorists", "Mormon Terrorists", "Budhist Terrorists", "Tamil Terrorists", etc. etc. As you know the press has to start doing it too. It might be a while before we used all the religions (in the present state of affairs). P.s. By the way, these have to be acts of "Terrorism" just like the ones allegedly being perpetrated by "Islamic Terrorists". Othewise, there is another whole "debate" about what is "Terrrorism" (but that was not your point). Just anticipating... shafique Concord, Ok - happy for you to do that, and I will play along too. I just thought it might be easier to treat all terrorists the same and remove 'Islamic' from 'Islamic Terrorists'. :lol: We could start with the Burmese crackdown as 'Buddhist State Terrorism' then? A couple of days ago we had civilians killed in Gaza - so that would be 'Jewish State Terrorism'. Cheers, Shafique shafique I almost forgot - Blackwater killings of civilians in Iraq = 'Christian terrorists'
There will be a special prize when we get Zoroastrian Terrorism! :)
Edit:
It's actually informative to read up on the Tamil Tigers - they don't have religious affiliations, but are the ones who pioneered suicide bombings.. according to Wiki:
According to Jane's Information Group, between 1980 and 2000 LTTE had carried out a total of 168 suicide attacks on civilians and military targets. The number of suicide attacks easily exceeded the combined total of Hezbollah and Hamas suicide attacks conducted out during the same period.
It will be interesting to see whether more recent suicide bombings have changed the balance.
I'm also not sure whether the Tamils are Buddhist or Hindu - the Tamils in Mauritius are Hindu, but they have a specific form of Hinduism which is different from mainland Indian Hinduism (i.e. there are Tamil temples and non-Tamil Hindu temples in Mauritius)
Tamil Tigers are fighting for liberation, but do target civilians as well - eg see:
When 15 aid workers were killed last year.
Cheers,
Shafique Concord Shaf,
I think you stop reading my entire post becuase I wrote,

And I did it becuse I anticipated your next "argument" (see last two words on my previous post).
Surely, if any of the Burmanse, Christians, or Jews you mentioned blew themselves up and killed others, or flew planes into buildings, etc. then we'll call them Burmese, Christian and Jewish Terrorists. shafique Concord, Ok - so we are limiting the discussion to suicide bombers.... I wasn't, but ok. But to be fair, I used the example of Tamil Tigers because they did blow themselves up, and Japanese kamikazee pilots because they flew planes into targets (committing suicide in the process). Also, I don't think that 'Islamic Terrorist' as a label is only applied to suicide bombers - hence I think it doesn't make sense to only limit the comparisons to suicide bombers. I would argue it is more logical to see what the motivations are - Al Qaeda, for example, is saying they are carrying out the attacks against civilians because civilians are being killed by Israel with US/Western support. They aren't fighting against Christians or Europeans generally (as OBL says - they aren't targetting Sweden). And we come back to my initial question - why call these guys 'Islamic'? Cheers, Shafique shafique PS - I'm enjoying this discussion, I'm stuck in the office on a Saturday waiting for my staff to finish producing some financial projections before I can write a report with them which is due on Monday! I've had enough of Sudoku and reading 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' by Gibbon - a rivetting read, but a tad long at 3000 pages :) Concord I saw the news banner that there was a blast that apparently killed 12 people in the Maldives. Let's see what kind of terrorists these are called. Unless it was a cooking accident in which case they will be "Culinary Terrorists". It can get silly you know... If the terrorist are islamic and someone calls them "Islamic Terrorists" is it a fact. It does not say that all muslims are terrorists.
shafique Let us wait and see. Concord's comments above make my point. It is now acceptable to call acts carried out by Muslim as 'islamic'. It may be that Concord meant to say 'if the terrorists are Islamists' (a term I don't like, but is better than 'Islamic' which tarnishes a whole religion)? However, I expect a lot of people will not see a difference between 'Islamic' and 'Islamist'. And this is the fact that I am complaining about. Cheers, Shafique Concord
No. It was not what I meant. If the terrorists are islamic/muslim what is factually inacurrate about calling them "Islamic terrorists"? It may be that the are not just Islamic, but also Islamists - and thus more "accurately" it would be to call them Islamist terrorist. Then we can separate them into Shia, or Sunny, or...never ending. Same with "Christian Terrorists" are they; catholic, protestant, lutheran, greek orthodox, pentecotal, etc. etc?
My point was that the fact that the terrorist's religion is mentioned does not mean that everyone in that religion is a terrorist. Which actually is the point you made for me in the above post by saying that it "tarnished a whole religion". I don't think it does...
Same can be said for all thing attributed to "Westerns" does it tarnished the whole of the "West". Not at all but it does in some eyes and ears. shafique Concord, Just to clarify, you are saying that a terrorist who also is a muslim can be described as an 'Islamic Terrorist'. Are you saying this is a valid, accurate description? Would a muslim who is addicted to drugs similarly be called an 'Islamic Drug Addict'? Cheers, Shafique Concord
Yes and Yes - if indeed they are muslim. And if Christian, etc. (see the title of your thread) then they can be called Christian terrorist/drug addict, etc.
p.s. CNN, BBC, et. al. will ned to be convinced to change their reporting :wink:
I remember listening to a show where some of the commentators were saying "homicide bombers" instead of the often used term: "suicide bombers". Just a slight change but makes you think.
Just "to clarify" (in Shaf speak) what I am saying is what I am saying :wink: shafique Concord, Thanks for the clarification. If I agree with your logic for the sake of arguement, then the issue does become one of why other terrorists aren't labelled as 'Christian Terrorists' etc. Which, I think, is the original question I asked. :) cheers, Shafique Concord
I think Arniegang might have answered it but I am too lazy to look back but here is what I think.
1. Becuase the Muslims let "others" get away with it.
2. Because the "others" might have more control of the media.
3. Because there are less and less "non muslim" terrorists out there.
4. Because the tapes that some of the suicide terrorists have left behind involve their faith (Islam) - true these are fanatics but it makes for good sound bites. And it is simply the world we live in. By the way, I am relying on the translation for what they said on the tapes.
5. Because maybe there is no other religious group to which their religion can be attached except Ironically maybe jewish terrorists and I saw that term used in a recent CNN special ("God Warriors") - this is the part that Arniegang answered specially concerning IRA.
6. Becuase, unless and until, terrorists attacks stop being carried out by those who are fanatics (Islamists, etc) the decent Muslim world will be unfarily "labelled" so that it might be a task for Muslim to address than simply the labelling of terrorists.
The solution is not to find a label for other terrorists but to eliminate "terrrorists". Easier said than done... shafique Thanks Concord. I agree with points 2, 4 and 5. Disagree with point 1, 3. Point 6 involves non-Muslim perceptions of Islam and muslims and the actions of terrorists. It may just be semantics, but I don't have issues with the label 'Muslim extremists', 'muslim terrorists', 'muslim fanatics' - these are accurate descriptions. However, 'Islamic' means influenced or condoned by the religion - eg 'Islamic Art' is not just art created by muslims, as there are Muslim artists who create art in the style of Modern Art and whose work would not be termed 'Islamic'. Maybe it is because 'Christian' or 'Jewish' etc is used for both 'Islamic' and 'Muslim' connotations (i.e. as pertaining to the religion and meaning a follower of the religion). I take exception to 'Islamic Drug Addict', but not to a 'Muslim Drug Addict'. Anyway, perhaps I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill - I'd be interested in what others think. Wasalaam, Shafique Frederick The IRA never defined or justified themselves on the basis of Catholicism, whereas the organizations that you noted clearly do you sharia as part of the basis for justifying their actions. Those who pursue violence because of Christian beliefs (ie: Joseph Koney) are labeled as such.

I strongly agree with this, but would still classify them as Muslim terrorists. While most Americans are woefully ignorant of why various terrorists groups are blowing people up and should be far more intently focused upon the political causes of these conflicts, the fact remains that this is a form of religious terrorism as secular goals are being advanced by religiously-sanctioned techniques in a religious context.

Which is why Shinto was considered to be a key aspect in the WWII Japanese war machine.

The difference lies in the Christian Tamil Tigers. Care to point out the Christian authorities in Al Queda or Islamic Jihad for me? No?
LTTE is a secular organization, and states as much. While most of its members are Hindu, not all are, and its philosophy is based on race and secession, not religion.

Again this I will certainly agree with. Personally I prefer the term Qutubism, as it draws upon the political and religious factors involved without as much ambiguity or misrepresentation as other labels.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.
(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
,,845725,00.html

We did NOT support Bin Laden and the Arab Afghans. That was Saudi Arabia through funds funnelerd in through Pakistan on order by the CIA. jabbajabba I think another key aspect of difference between the provisional IRA and AQ is that AQ is international and not predominantly national like the provo's. For example in Ireland there was never a case of a Spanish Catholic or Brazilian Catholic or Italian or any other nationality fighting British troops on the streets of Belfast based on religious denomination. It was not a case of fight the British for their atrocities against the catholic world. It was more a case of fight the brits out of our land and out of occupation. With AQ its quite different. For instance you may have an English guy fighting alongside a Egyptian - they are fighting on the basis of their religious conviction and atrocities against the ummah despite nationality or country. I can however see your concerns with the term 'Islamic terrorist', but using the word catholic terrorist for the provos is incorrect - they were predominantly fighting a nationalistic dispute more then a religious (seen as occupation). It was a more a case of a bit of religion invariably spices up war and gets the ranks more passionate. This is the situation that you now have in Iraq. Insurgents on the whole see the war as them fighting against occupation, however the US administration love calling them AQ as it justify s matters :) shafique Frederick, Thank you for your post - it is well reasoned and I agree with what you have written. I also do not have an issue with the term 'Muslim Terrorist' and agree that 'Qutubism' may be a more accurate description - the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot to answer for. I feel I've probably said all I can on this subject, but thank you again for your insights - it led me to read up a bit more on the IRA and the various break-away factions etc. Jabba - you make your points quite clearly as well. Yes AQ have foreign fighters, but AQ are fighting what they see as oppression against Muslims as opposed to fighting 'for Islam'. AQ fighting against occupying forces are not terrorists (at least not by my definition) - and labelling 'insurgents' as terrorists is another debate altogether :) Cheers, Shafique jabbajabba Well the whole term 'terrorist' is more a term used to label near on anyone who opposes US and UK foreign policy.
Its this whole war on terror which is eroding the civil liberties in he UK as the terrorist acts of 2000 and 2005 and the incredible US patriot act (president can call Marshall Law, in effect start a police state).
So far they have managed to arrest some serious terrorists mind you;
,,2146693,00.html
,10674,1038890,00.html
There are quite few more, but I will end up filling the page up with links.
I don't know about you - but coppers never looked like this when I was a kid;

jabbajabba
:) True water cannon is a lot better then bullets (albeit even plastic);
For sure - I remember the minders. But I am sure they wore had tit hats with truncheons;
How about this for a bit of history;
shafique
I didn't know that a census had been carried out. Your information is better than mine :wink:
Cheers,
Shafique scot1870
Count the bodies shafique
Counting the bodies of civilians may indicate the majority of victims are Muslim. (And here I'm thinking of civilian deaths around the world - not just in Iraq).
Where muslims are killing other muslims (as opposed to Israelis, American mercenaries..sorry contractors, American soliders etc)... do you guys think the family of the muslims killed think that Islam condones terrorism?
One piece of news that has got good coverage over the past few days is the letter sent by 138 Islamic (religious) leaders to the Christian community emphasising the peaceful nature of Islam and amongst the points raised that Islam rejects terrorism.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Oh - and I haven't seen a good argument or statistics yet that the majority of supporters/members of Al Qaeda/Insurgents etc are engaged in terrorism rather than armed resistance to an occupation.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic about the use of words? :) arniegang Count the bodies
Counting the bodies of civilians may indicate the majority of victims are Muslim. (And here I'm thinking of civilian deaths around the world - not just in Iraq).
Where muslims are killing other muslims (as opposed to Israelis, American mercenaries ..sorry contractors , American soliders etc)... do you guys think the family of the muslims killed think that Islam condones terrorism?
One piece of news that has got good coverage over the past few days is the letter sent by 138 Islamic (religious) leaders to the Christian community emphasising the peaceful nature of Islam and amongst the points raised that Islam rejects terrorism.
Cheers,
Shafique
tut tut shaf - do i detect a note of sarcasm - rare indeed
:wink: shafique Arnie - mercenaries/contractors quip was sarcastic, but the rest of the message was serious. I do have a sense of humour.... incidentally one of my frustrations is that I haven't found a site which has downloads of each episode (whereas all the US shows are uploaded within hours of broadcast!) :wink: arniegang what episode and of what Shaf? :lol: shafique :) That's what you get with young children running around and moving and deleting text as you type! :) I was/am looking for 'Have I got news for you' - can't get regular downloads of it... the only saving grace is that they've started showing the highlights on the BBC web site. Cheers, Shafique arniegang Shaf i dont know much about torrents etc, but i know you are. My lads friends say this is one of the best in the UK at the mo Hope this helps shafique Thank your friend for me Arnie - I have registered with the site and will be downloading the programme! Cheers, Shafique arniegang Glad to help mate :wink: jabbajabba
is a great site and has been a staple diet for me whilst working away.
Got to watch the opening show of x-factor whilst in kuwait, sad I know. freza Shafique has made some great points. There's such an obvious double standard in how true terrorism and foreign criminal activity is labeled/not labeled. This simpleton bias is so ingrained in the media and in the masses, that I don't see it changing any time soon, I mean c'mon, let's be real. And it's not as if most people have a knack for questioning what doesn't benefit their perceptions of themselves or their countries. If anything one would hope that more "alternative" but serious international media outlets would use accurate language when referering to true terrorism. But many a times they're too busy trying to be politically correct and fitting in to Western media standards - what else is new? In a more balanced world Israel would be officially coined a extremist terrorism state, and its actions against its neighbors/hostaged land: Jewish terrorism. It is a self-titled Jewish state after all, and it is an expert at inhumanity - in applying it that is - but we all know the grip that this Jewish state has on the world, the played out opportunistic victimization by which they will forever justify their own victimization on others. As to American/Anglo Christian terrorism - two-faced Protestant morals aside - let's just call it what it really is: very poorly concealed Neo-White Supremacy. benwj Many good points have been raised by everyone regarding the term "Islamic Terrorist". As previously pointed out: The Islamic refererence is an unfortunate adjective used to describe the group of terrorists, who happen to all have a have a common belief in islam. Unfortunately, this is the most appropriate description. This leads to the most common misconception in that ALL islamic terrorists are fighting for islam. Other objectives are then overlooked. However, the misconception is not limited to the non-mulsims. The term also leads muslims to believe that the war on terrorists is a war on islam, which is also incorrect. Just the other day i had a personal aquaintence tell me that the Americans were worried about islam taking over the world. So although the term "Islamic Terrorist" is not appropriate, I do beleive that it is accurate and not another example of double standards. shafique I do think a lot of people share your conclusion benwj - that the term 'Islamic Terrorist' is accurate. My only hope is that they are using the term 'Islamic' to mean 'Muslim' (as I have said above, I have no issue with the label 'Muslim Terrorist'), but I fear that in actuality the label is symptomatic of the belief that Islam (and therefore all muslims) condones terrorism. Cheers, Shafique benwj I suspect that the term 'Islamic' was used instead of 'Muslim' because it was coined by the western media who believed it to be more of a technical reference, rather that the xenophobic Muslim reference. Either reference can be misinterpreted the same way, and your fears are well justified. There has been a lot of references to the IRA/PIRA in this thread, and it should be noted that it wasn't that long ago that the rest of the world incorrectly considered all Irish to be terrorists, or at least have a connection to one. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and it has only been since the violence has ceased that opinions have changed. Unfortunately, as long as there are "Islamic Terrorists", most muslims will be tarred with the same brush. shafique benwj, I lived through the PIRA bombings of main-land Britain - and during that time (generally speaking) the British did not view all Irish as terrorists and conversely the Americans were the main source of funding for the PIRA - who viewed them as freedom fighters! Cheers, Shafique scot1870
What you clearly miss is that pre-9/11 the world was building pressure on Israel as an oppressive state that used disproprionate force. The events of 9/11 made the world think again, whether rightly or wrongly.
As for the Arab fixation that the world is run by Jews, get over it, so many people here verge on the dellusional on that point. Jewish people hold shares in companies, as do Arabs and Christians and folks from any walk of life. Being Jewish doesn't give them a magic extra power like many people seem to believe.
As for Shafique's point on PIRA being funded by Americans, absolutely true. The ignorance of the Yanks who are Irish (ie. 4th generation on their mothers side, so not Irish by anyone else's definition) fuelled Irish terrorism and it was only 9/11 that led to a crackdown on such activity. As has been covered before though, Irish terrorism did not have its roots in religion, having thousands (millions?) of 16 year olds declaring Jihad when they clearly don't understand all the influences is a very different situation. shafique
Many will argue that the roots of 'Muslim Terrorism' is not religion but the perceived/real oppression of people who also happen to be Muslims. At least, that is what Bin Laden says and emphasises this with his comment that Sweden isn't being targeted.
Also, let us be clear - Jihad does not equal terrorism. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. In fact, Jihad (in the sense of armed struggle) comes with strict laws and any act of terrorism cannot be called 'Jihad'.
I've avoided discussing the use of the term 'Jihad' - because the meaning in most people's mind is clear, even if the term is not appropriate. Therefore the word has taken on a meaning which is not true to its roots, but as a label for acts of armed attack by Muslims, it does the job. And it is in this context I am saying that Jihad is not equal to terrorism.
I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Many will argue that the roots of 'Muslim Terrorism' is not religion but the perceived/real oppression of people who also happen to be Muslims. At least, that is what Bin Laden says and emphasises this with his comment that Sweden isn't being targeted.
Also, let us be clear - Jihad does not equal terrorism. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. In fact, Jihad (in the sense of armed struggle) comes with strict laws and any act of terrorism cannot be called 'Jihad'.
I've avoided discussing the use of the term 'Jihad' - because the meaning in most people's mind is clear, even if the term is not appropriate. Therefore the word has taken on a meaning which is not true to its roots, but as a label for acts of armed attack by Muslims, it does the job. And it is in this context I am saying that Jihad is not equal to terrorism.
I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific. However, the capture of the soldiers was branded as 'terrorist' acts by a 'terrorist organisation' [sigh].
Cheers,
Shafique benwj
But not many people are as broad minded as you Shafique! scot1870
Sorry, which government does Hizbullah represent? None? Ah, then it's not an army is it?
And before you start, if the hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers who are shamefully treated like dirt in this country created their own "army" they would not be viewed as "freedom fighters" either, otherwise you're just ignoring democracy and advocating take up arms when you don't like something. scot1870 Oh and I should add I'm in no way pro-Israeli, equally Hizbullah is clearly not supportable either. It's the fact that both sides manage to be in the wrong that makes it so hard to find a solution. shafique
I don't see why resistance to an occupying army, or a regime that is holding your nationals, needs only to be carried out by government sanctioned fighters to be legitimate.
Were French resistance fighters not fighting against the French Vichy government and the German occupation? Were they terrorists? They certainly weren't an army. Arguably Hizbullah fighters are an army - did you see the Al Manar (sp?) footage of their training etc that was aired during the war - I was surprised to see Hizbollah fighters in uniforms, with helmets etc - to me they certainly looked like an army, and I'm sure the Israeli army who were not able to militarily defeat them would not quibble with the description that they are an army.
And in anycase, this discussion is about whether actions are classified as 'terrorism' or not. Fighting against the army of a declared enemy (who also views you as an enemy) is not terrorism.
I don't see why government sanction changes this view - or am I missing another point you are making about Hizbollah (who happen to have members of parliament, but I take your point that the fighters aren't part of the Lebanese army).
Cheers,
Shafique scot1870 Hizbollah as I understand it are fighting for the freedom of Palestine, so why do they have such a force in a secular state like Lebanon? French "resistance" - less than 30,000 people from a country of over 30m at the time, don't get me started on the war dodgers. shafique
Nope - Hizbullah of Lebanon are fighting for the liberation of Lebanon, the fighters are Lebanese.
You didn't say whether you considered the French resistance as 'terrorists' or 'wrong' because they weren't a government sanctioned army.
Cheers,
Shafique scot1870 The liberation of what? A secular democracy????? Yeah, those folks need saving. Oh, and if the fighters are 100% Lebanese my name is Mohammed. The French "resistance" have a romantic name in Europe, they did next to nothing to counter the German war effort and are irrelevant. They were terrorists of the most ineffective kind - they were "freedom fighters" in a country that didn't think its own freedom was worth fighting for. But, getting back to topic, why are Muslims targetting countries they have no heritage with attacks? And, more pertinantly, why are they fighting so much between themselves if it's a religion of peace? shafique
You are avoiding the question I asked - were the French resistance fighters 'terrorists' or wrong for carrying out attacks against the German Reich and Vichy Government (and not being an army). Is it really that hard to say 'no'?
Hizbollah have been successful in driving Israel out of most of occupied Lebanon - they were formed when Lebanon was occupied by Israel, and did manage to push Israel out of most of Lebanon.
Israel still holds at least 9000 Lebanese in custody and still occupies sovereign Lebanese territory.
Whether or not there are 'Davids' or 'Stevens' or 'Kevins' fighting in Hizbollah's ranks, does not change the legitimacy of a fighting force who is trying to liberate Lebanon and Lebanese. I therefore do not see what your first sentence is getting at.
Your objections seem to be:
- Hizbollah is not an 'official' army
- There may be foreign help given to Hizbollah (I suspect you mean Iranian support)
Given the second point is a new one you bring up - why would it be wrong for a foreign power to help the occupied over throw the occupation forces - did you object when the Mujahedeen were given funds and training to fight the Russians?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Clarification: I don't personally think Hizbollah were wise to capture the soldiers and give Israel the excuse to launch last year's war. However the point here is whether the Hizbollah attacking Israeli soldiers can be termed 'terrorists' - my argument is that they are not 'terrorists'. Cheers, Shafique debian It's not only about muslims, the west always create such labels as media propagandas. North Korea was described as part of the so called Axis of Evil by Bush for acquiring a weapon which his country possesses and had actually used against the japanese scot1870
Much as I hate to support the French resistance, they did so in a time of war when they had no democratic government and army to support them. Lebanon, were it not for Hizbullah, would be a stable country with a government and army that represented the people. If you're blinded enough to argue that Hizbullah is right to bring bombing and war to the country (yes, I've been to Beirut and seen the damage, as you head south it's mind blowing) when they do not represent the majority of Lebanese then you're clearly deluded. You can fight for your country in more ways than military ways, as I say pre-9/11 the world outside America was putting pressure on Israel to concede so who knows what could happen by putting weapons down.
As for the clown talking about the "hypocrisy" of the US, well, they used the atomic bomb when they shouldn't have to end WWII. Once when the country was on its knees was barely justifiable, using it again inexcusable. But what you clearly don't understand is that nuclear capability has not been used in earnest since then, quite remarkable given the amount of wars going on. The world has no interest in a nuclear war clearly, so stopping the proliferation of such weapons, especially in countries run by dictators, is clearly a good thing for the world. debian Very well, let's disarm all countries then. As long as some are still producing and developing them others are perfectly justified in seeking nukes shafique Scott,
I'm afraid you are still missing the point I wanted to make - perhaps due to my poor choice of words.
To recap:
shafique wrote:

Scott:

When I said ' do not see anything wrong' - it was in the context of whether Hizbullah was undertaking an act of terrorisim when attacking military targets. I take the view that these attacks are legitimate.
However, legitimate acts may not be sensible acts - or they may lead to consequences which are counter-productive.
Therefore, legitimacy (something being legal) does not, in my mind, equal something that is to be encouraged or condoned. This is actually a precept of Islam - whilst revenge for a wrong is legitimate, forgiveness where this does not harm others is encouraged.
On the case of Hizbollah, we seem to be arguing two different points - I am saying their attacks against the military are legitimate and not terrorist acts, and have drawn parallels with the French resistance. You appear to be arguing that Hizbollah's actions are not in Lebanon's interest.
For me, these are two different points - one is legitimacy, the other is consequences of actions.
Cheers,
Shafique scot1870
I agree disarm in principle, but the clear statment of nuclear capable countries it to use it as a deterrent. Apart from India, the nuclear countries of the world go back decades.
There is no reason for countries to develop nuclear capability (and I include India in that) now except for aggressive means, the countries that hold this capability would 99.9% never use the capability in war (did you see any nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Falklands and the like?), whereas new countries like Iran and North Korea clearly have other agendas. I'm sure you'll argue that Iran's development of weapons is to protect it from Israel, but conversely Iran's nuclear ambitions make it more of a target rather than acting as a "deterrent". Last post against you, you're clearly a nutter who has not rationale beyond Islamist idealism.
Shafique, let's agree to disagree and be done with it.
Edit: Sorry, Pakistan as well as a nuclear nation. debian Having such deterrent weapon gives the country a serious military advantage which will definitely drive others to gain as well, especially with the antagonizing foreign policies of these nuclear countries.
I won't argue about Iran, what agenda do you think north korea had ? it already made a bomb but it didn't strike any one, actually it's going to disarm in exchange for the aid and incentives
I am not for nuclear weapons, I am just discussing possible motives to seek them
"We will use it only for deterrence and you can't have it" is one of them
Islamist idealism forbids using such weapons, during war muslims are not only forbidden to kill civilians but even the plants and animals shafique
Agreed!
Cheers,
shafique St.Lucifer What a bad msg .. I just hope that yours and those who read and listen to ideas like these, tolerance levels are intact. Coz these are the kind of thoughts that spark up the fundamentalists...weak minded, never seen/ heard /thought anything outside Islam ... Or such is my worry.. Dont see any point in this whole thread. rudeboy
frederick what is the meaning of fundametalist?? i know what it means i m just asking you. i would like to know your meaning of fundamentalist. scot1870
North Korea had what was widely described as a "nuclear fart", not a nuclear bomb. When it realised it looked ridiculous, it backed down.
What you seem to miss is that the foreign policies of the NATO group never involve the use of nuclear force, that's the "deterrent" because if you do develop them then nuclear force comes in to play. rudeboy shaf I want to add something on. There are loads of terroist groups in the world. The first ever guy was George Washington. Hehe I know someone will go what bullshit. But if you ask the british ppl at that time what they thought about George Washington they will tell you he was a terroist. Where as the americans thought he was a freedom fighter who was fighting the british government and forces for the occupation of his country. Later on the guy became the FIRST president of USA. Lol ironic isint it. So was he a terroist or a Freedom Fighter? In India you have a Sikh Terroist group who want to have their own Country away from India. They have killed so many ppl including innocent and armed forces. The Indian government sees them as a terroist group where as the Western Media sees them as Freedom figthers. Why is this? Dont they have a beard? a turban? Yet they are not stereotyped why is this? Y does the western media mention about them in the NEWS? In Chile General Pinochet has killed SOO many ppl. Tortured, kidnapped, illegal detention and press censorship. Yet when he came to England in 2000 he was arrested and released by Jack Straw without facing trial. Thats right JACK STRAW. He was relased on MEDICAL grounds. The guy was never tried by the International Crimes Tribunal for his crimes. And he died peacefully in 2006. Whats the difference between Pinochet and Sadam? Pinochet killed more ppl then Sadam, he had more money through drug trafficking and selling nerve gas to other countries. Sadam was caught and tried and HANGED. Pinochet was arrested then released but NEVER TRIED? Y hmm maybe because he wasnt a MUSLIM??? I am not a supporter of sadam but I think the western government and MEDIA has double standards. In the South East you have the tamil terroist groups. Hell they are MORE viscious more violent then any other groups in the world. Yet they are not mentioned in the media? Y is this? Because they are not muslims right? Irgun and other jewish "freedom fighthing" groups or Terroist groups have killed MANY ppl by bombings and shooting. They are not labelled as terroists y because they are not Islamic. They are fighting for a freedom, against an oppression and occupation of Israel by Arabs. Arabs who have been there for YEARS for centuries. the same arabs who welcomed the Jews to Israel. Thats right the same jews who were about to be extinct by Hitler today are doing the same in Palestine. But they are not seen as Jewish terroists? Y not? havent they killed thousands of ppl???? Yet when Osama wants to fight USA government against their occupation of his land, his home. he is labelled as a Islamic Terroist. lol Stalin, lenin and hitler have killed MILLIONS of ppl by various means of way. They are not known as heros in the history books more as dictators. Yet when Bush Senior and Clinton decided to starve the children and women of Iraq by means of sanctions they werent labelled as terroists. and now when Bush who has killed thousands in Iraq and afghanistan and even in his own country, keeps on doing what he wants? Y isnt he labelled as a Terroist?? oh I 4got he aint a muslim is he?? scot1870 The IRA were labelled terrorists. So were the UDA and UVF. And they fought against each other without so much as a Qu'ran in sight. Get over yourself. In schools we learn that Stalin's genocides were worse than Hitler's. We cover Tamil Tigers and other groups regularly in our newscasts (indeed, on a normal night over 50% of news is international, not the sycophantic rubbish you're spoonfed over here). Osama is from Saudi Arabia, don't see him doing too much freedom fighting there... I could go on, but it might burst your bubble. Here's a tip, take your savings, buy a one year, round the world ticket, leave the Qu'ran at home and GO AND ENJOY YOURSELF! The world is full of fun and adventure, contrary to your belief Muslims are actually accepted in pretty much every country in the world. A bit like Visa and Mastercard really. rudeboy
lol easy now scot you dont wanna loose your temper. come on scot control it buddy easy now lol.
Can you show it to me in the Quran where it says its ok for a Muslim to kill a non -believer? can you do that? show it to me where it says in the Quran thats its ok to kill a non-believe and i ll end it here.
I have given you the facts and the links to the websites. What have you given to support your argument??? rudeboy
are the freedom fighters in Kashmir and in Palestine fighting with the Qu'ran in one hand?
Can you give me a verse from the Quran where it says its ok for a muslim to kill a non-muslim? scot1870
Why do you want an answer from me? If you could have a word with Osama next time you see him though... rudeboy
lol come on scot. I expected something BETTER THEN THAT. come on am sure u can find out something in the Quran where it says its ok to kill "infidels". you want me to help you out? scot1870 What are you gibbering about man? It's not me that's killing people! It's probably just Christians with boot polish on creating a bad name for you Muslims (I'll let you keep that conspiracy theory). rudeboy
lol its ok scot it happens ;) yeh muslims and christians and jews and hindus are killing each other :D. I really dont think its ALL the christians. Just a few rotten apples in the christian society as well as a few rotten apples in the muslim society and a few rotten apples in the Jewish society who just want to destroy earth ;). scot1870
Christians are killing people, but not in the name of Christianity. Can the same be said for Muslims? rudeboy
How do you know that they are killing in the name of ISLAM?? Do they say we are killing this infidel in the name of Islam cos it says so in the Quran? Can you give me a link to a website that shows a "terroist" group that says its ok to kill a infidel because it says so in Quran.
I have asked you before where does it say in the Quran that its ok for a muslim to kill a non muslim? Can you show it to me? Do you want me to help you? freza I "clearly" missed what you clearly...didn't because of course, Israel was just about to give back all that land that it has stolen but then, bam 9-11 happaned, and of course they couldn't go back to their very sincere and believable plans to start being humane! oh shucks, Mohammad, how can you be so guillable, a grown man like you. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?
We were talking about semantics my dear Mohammad, don't confuse things. Is Israel not a Jewish state? Well then, what they do on a regular basis is terrorism, let's just call a spade a spade shall we? Jewish Terrorism. There! rudeboy
Isreal comes from the verb sarar (to rule, be strong, have authority over). so the name means "God rules" or "God judges". A bit of a Jewish FUNDAMENTALISM or should we say EXTREMISM for u ;). Chocoholic Oh wow, threads like this only serve to reinforce my opinion, that the only good religion, is no religion at all. Then no-one can go about believing that they're better than others because of their religion or killing people in the name of it. Have you ever seen an athiest kill another person, because of their belief? er no! I rest my case. jabbajabba Scripture can and does justify terrorism when interpreted with terror in mind when it comes to the bible and the Koran. If you take buddhist scripture - which contains no violence its no wonder that there is no such thing as a Tibetan Buddhist suicide bomber? After the occupation by china and brutal treatment handed out to Tibetans there should be a monk blowing himself up aboard a bus full of Chinese commuters every week. jabbajabba Opps - in respect of equal ops I failed to mention the Torah as well. rudeboy
I dont think anyone here is saying that Islam is better or christianity or hindusim is better. All i know is that Islam makes sense.
Ok I am not going to make fun of christianity or something. But christianity real confuses me even though am a muslim. And i am sure there are christians who probably feel the same way. The same could be said about Hinduism in which there are over 100 gods. God for light god for air sun etc. There is so much confusion in other religions. Is that why ppl are converting to islam because it is simple and answers all your questions???
And really which RELIGION in the world says you should kill each other? Islam doesnt I have asked ppl to find a verse from the quran which says that a muslim should kill an infidel at point blank range. Does it say that in the Bible? Does it say it in other forms of religions. NOOOO it doesnt.
Follow the religion that makes sense to you. That answers all you questions such as how was earth made and even WHO really designed the organ systems of human beings? how we eat something, how it travels down our throat, down various veins and into the stomache where the muscles digest it. How does it happen? who designed it this way? Y was it this way? we have eyes nose ears who gave us all this?? how come we all look different. some have blue eyes, green eyes, black eyes. some of us EVEN look similiar?? Y how did this happen??? lol Islam answers it all and its all there in the Quran from the explantion of the human body to whether aliens exists or not ;).
There are so many questions. And i can go on and on and on. the list is huge with so many questions. Most of them are answered in the Quran or even in Islam.
I ll give you an example about how simple Islam is. we muslims believe in one god and Muhammad was his last messenger. Yet there are different verions of Islam. Such as Suni, Shiasm, Sufism, Wabism and the list goes on. (more on this later on when someone starts a post about them ;).
But if you look at christianty. You believe in one God yet Christians also believe in the Christ as God as well . How can a human be a god? This is just an example that shows y other religions are complex and Islam is simple. Dont get me wrong i am sure there is a good explanation behind Christ as a god and as a human being. But you can see how even christians can get confused about their own religion.
i am not forcing anyone to change their religion. Believe in what you think is right.
By the way Choco have you seen a muslim kill a non-muslim cos of their beliefs or cos their religion said so???
heheh being an athiest is an easy way out i guess but choco i am sure even you have some questions that confuse you. questions about god, life, earth, human beings and the war happening around us. Frederick
Can you name a verse from the New Testament that condones violence? Frederick
Rudeboy, you already provided some verses from the Quran that call for the killing of polytheists, so I did not feel that I had to.
Just for the record, you do know that , and your ahadith of inner jihad is considered weak by Muslim scholars, right? jabbajabba
From Jesus himself.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39) jabbajabba
Rudeboy - just as you believe in less gods then the hindu's. I believe in just one less god then you - so we have something in common.
Well actually that is not true - as I am not a true atheist, I just don't believe in personal god obsessed with human affairs.
My belief is that if there was a god with dualistic human attributes looking down on the world (which there is not in my humble opinion) he would be thinking to himself 'Time to move on folks'. Frederick [quote=\\\"jabbajabba\\\"][quote=\\\"Frederick\\\"]
Can you name a verse from the New Testament that condones violence?
From Jesus himself.
\\\"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.\\\" (Matthew 10:34-39)
The passage is a prophecy that to convert to Christianity can mean putting oneself at odds with ones own non-Christian family.
To interpret this text literally as a call to familial violence rather than as allegory is not only to misunderstand Jesus, but also the poetic nature of the New Testament. Even through history when Christians have committed violence in the name of God and the church, they have never taken this passage as marching orders. shafique
You'd be surprised Jabbajabba - Tibettan monks have been known to go on the rampage and kill other monks, over disputes on Buddhist theology!
A few years back, the monks in exile with the Dalai Lama were embroiled in a controversy over a ruling by the Dalai Lama that a certain 'god' should no longer be worshipped any more. Some monks did (and still do) objected to this and there were murders (if I recall correctly) of monks by other monks. This took place in their compound in India and was reported widely at the time.
I'll see if I can look it up.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Ok - found the reference, wasn't quite as gory as I remembered - three monks murdered in 1997:
But does make the point that Buddhism has it's extremists who kill innocents!
Sad fact that - but why should we be surprised, at the end of the day we are all human with the same qualities and frailties. (and that is what Islam teaches - humans share a common link and that the solution is one universal set of values)
:cry:
You know I'm a great one for stats - I would hazard a guess and say there are fewer nutters as a percentage of practicing Muslims than in other religions (due to the fact of large numbers).
Cheers,
Shafique jabbajabba shafique - I knew you would come along and right size me on this :) Dorje Shudgen - there are some of Dorje Shudgen followers in the UK (NKT). Some believe working the deity is a quick and ruthless way to enlightenment, others see him as a Evil deity and his worship should be avoided. Since then DL cast them out. Another on the street debate; shafique
:lol:
As the song says 'there's good and bad in everyone'...
Cheers,
Shafique scot1870
Read back on this forum, atheism is a harder choice than accepting organised religion as organised religion is rammed down your throat at an age when you are not able to question properly. Atheism doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but its answers often have a lot more science behind it than other theories :roll:
If Islam answers your questions, good luck to you. But please stop asking me to quote you text from the Qu'ran asking where it's OK to kill people. I repeat, it's other Muslims doing it, not me. If you can't reconcile yourself that some Muslims are evil scum (as per any other religion) then you're being blind and ignorant.
Oh and I see freza is back, new avatar, same crap. shafique
I agree with you on this point Scot. I think it takes a lot more faith to be a concious Atheist than it does to be a Theist. I personally do not have enough faith to believe that there is isn't an intelligent being behind creation.
I also agree with you that there are Muslims committing crimes and saying/believing that Islam condones/requires these actions. In that, these muslims are no different from any other group of people who will justify their actions despite what their groups guiding principles actually say/mean.
I think people are confusing these facts with other assertions that extrapolate these facts to conclude that the underlying religions are therefore at fault. This is a separate argument that I have no hesitation in debating - as you know. To me, it's like saying we should ban cars because of all the traffic accidents on Sheikh Zayed Road! :)
[edit - I also have objected to the extrapolation that equates all fighting by Muslims as 'terrorism' or even as 'Islamic' when they are actually either civil strife or armed opposition to occupations etc]
cheers,
Shafique rudeboy
Ok there is no religion in the world that says you should kill ppl. But you should only do this in defence.
Fredreick there are different forms of Jihad. Like Shaf said most of the muslims are fighting against an occupation and injustice shown towards muslims.
I agree with you there are some muslims who are doing bad things. But isnt the western government done enough. Havent they killed over 100,000 ppl from 1947 to 2007? from palestine to kosovo to chechynea, from Iraq to Afghanistan and to Kashmir.
they havent been directly involved in the killing of ppl apart from afghanistan and iraq. But they have supported governments such as Israel, India and even Russia where USA, UK, Nato or even UN didnt come to an aid of the muslims.
We can argue about this over and over again. But if USA uk dont change their foregin policies the war will continue ppl will kill each other and so on.
3500 ppl died on september 11 and the blame was put on the muslims and muslims leaders from across the world were "blackmailed" into joining USA against terroism. What did bushy say? Oh yeh "join us or be against us" lol.
3500 died on 9/11 and USA uk attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.
100,000 muslims have died from 1947 and on wards. Please tell me who should we attack?? If one of our non "corrupt" leaders stand up against USA and UK policy what happens to them? Their countries get taken over by USA forces example Sadam Hussain or sanctions are put up against others e.g Gaddafi Libya.
I only think that terroism is just a excuse, its a distraction for the whole wide world. While USA builds its tactical bases around the world. Bases in UK, France, Spain, Turkey to Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Iraq the list goes on.
Y do they need these bases?
BECAUSE USA is the GUARDIAN of the WORLD :D rudeboy 46 countries with no US military presence 156 countries with US troops 63 countries with US military bases and troops 7 countries with 13 new US military bases since 9 11. In 2001, US had 255,065 troops abroad :S. blaaady hell half of the world is conquered by USA already :S. All the continents in the World have USA troops or bases apat from Africa. And we all know what is happening in Africa. All the seas have usa ships in them :S. Ex- Soviet States have USA bases and troops in it. Y? Cant France protect itself? Cant Qatar and Bahrain protect it self from its enemies? Dont the Saudis have their own forces? Sheesh you talk about Al Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalist. Talk about USA Empire and Unilateralism Its good that ppl in USA UK and across Europe are opening their eyes finally cos they see how USA is building their empire. And when ppl do stand up against USA they are either killed or shut up or they face lots and lots of cricitism. I know i will :D so what slowly slowly am sure some eyes will open ;)



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy