 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by  Smiley
This poll could use an inverse, administered to the rest of the population.
Q: Do you think the invasion of Iraq was justified or not?
A: On balance justified -
A: On balance not justified -
A: Not at all justified -
Don’t know
Q: "Which of these views comes closest to your own?
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violence’ -
A: ‘Muslim society is violent and intolerant, and Westerners should seek to bring it to an end, but only by NON-VIOLENT means’ -
A: ‘Muslim society may not be perfect, but Westerners should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end’ -
Don’t know
Chances are the hate is mutual, in which case it'd be easy to understand why Muslims may harbor such attitudes. |
As both an opponent of the Invasion of Iraq, and as a target of Jihadists, I don't see what the Iraq War has got to do with the London Bombings. There has been no statement from the killers saying why they did it, and certainly no evidence that the killers got answers to any poll about the Infidels attitude to Islamic Society.
Jihadists will use any excuse for their massacres.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Since the exploitation has started long before that stupid/criminal Iraq war I agree that Iraq has little to do with the attacks on London. However it made recruitement much easier and put London squarely on target.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cort Haus
|
|
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think Islam can be fixed, but what the West can do to advance that is by no means simple. |
With regards to Muslims living in the West ...
1. We can't stop the Jihadist message by banning lunatic clerics, as they'll use other methods anyway.
2. Democratic opponents of anti-western Theocracy need to be able to speak openly about the value of western democracy and defend it. This means saying one or two things about Islam that both muslims and non-muslims-afraid-of-upsetting-muslims might not like.
Taken together, the need to maintain the democratic tradition of free speech is paramount. This might sound counter-intuitive to the notion of silencing the opponent in time of need, but silencing is the way of the mullahs. We must have the confidence in our selves and our democratic society to win the arguments, which can range wide and deep, to show that modern western democracy can provide a better life for ordinary people than 7th century theocratic feudalism. Those muslims and non-muslims who prefer the latter are of course welcome to take their chances in Saudia Arabia 
To this end, we need to stop doing down our own society and achievements, stop accusing ourselves of being 'Islamophobes' every time we say "Sharia Sucks!", and demonstrate how much better off Muslims in the West actually are / can be compared to under despotic islamic regimes in Arabia and Asia.
Then we are in a position to request to Islam that if it wishes to live side-by-side with us in our western culture, it must constitutionally define itself in terms that there can be no ambiguity where the line between the secular and non-secular lies. So, no Sharia Law, no Jihad, no Dhimmitude, no convert-or-die, no murder of critics, no "smite the infidel" stuff at all, and no recycled nazi anti-semistism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
Take a poll of Christians pre-Crusade and you'd get poll numbers like the ones above.
Reformations  |
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
The protestant reformation ensured Christians do not act like barbarians anymore, as they did in the 13th century. Prior to the 1500s reformation the church, it could be argued, was flawed in large part beause the violence was Church-sanctioned. (whether the crusades were morally legitimate is its own debate, but most would say no)
This is similar to the terrorism we see today (except terrorism is worse) that many Islamist clerics sanction. Therefore, they need a similar reformation, especially in light of these polls. |
Typical protestant American superstitions.
Crusqdes were something a bit new, even in western Christianity: and in the eqst, church was even more peqceful. Even being q soldier fighting in a defensive war against infidels, You hqd to abstain from communion for " years after killing someone. Of course, the example of Islam was tempting and one emperor, Nicefor Focas I think, wanted to treat soldiers that found death in a war against infidels as martyrs/ but the church opposed him.
Not that cqtholic church was completely peaceful or crusades zere completely justified, but reformqtion did not chqnge q thing; was it not a start of religious wars in Europe? Were there not massacres on both sides? Have protestants not killed and burned catholics on stakes or engaged in witchhounts?
Reformation was a great mistake.
Anyway; what sort of reformation would Islam have to undergo to become peaceful? Muhammad himself was a leader of agressive state, he himself led conquests and sometimes praised atrocities. He was not different than any other leader of his time; perhaps better than many, but he and caliphs were warmongers. Christianity originally spread peacefully; only centuries later it accepted brutal politics not long ago used against itself. Great initial success of Islam were due to political force, or violence if You like. The time of original persecution of Muslims did not last long; You can not get rid of the part of life of Muhammad that happened after He was invited to Yathrib, even if You can get rid of history of the caliphs.
By saying that there should be some division between politics and religion You actually say that Muhammad did something wrong: and how could He?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Typical protestant American superstitions.
Crusqdes were something a bit new, even in western Christianity: and in the eqst, church was even more peqceful. Even being q soldier fighting in a defensive war against infidels, You hqd to abstain from communion for " years after killing someone. Of course, the example of Islam was tempting and one emperor, Nicefor Focas I think, wanted to treat soldiers that found death in a war against infidels as martyrs/ but the church opposed him. |
Not before the Abbott Amaurd-Arnold, the progenitor of the inqisitors, quiped his famous line: "Kill them all and let God sort it out in the end". Your own country was once host to the "Moravians", a Calvinistic group that was quite prominent in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Posnan in the 16th century. In fact, it was the attempted suppression of the group that initiated the Thirty Years War. They were stamped out in the Hapsburg domains, then driven out of Poland, then expelled from Bavaria. Out of a half million only a few thousand remained to settle in Salem, North Carolina, where a restored village exists today as a shrine to their trials. quote:
Not that cqtholic church was completely peaceful or crusades zere completely justified, but reformqtion did not chqnge q thing; was it not a start of religious wars in Europe? Were there not massacres on both sides? Have protestants not killed and burned catholics on stakes or engaged in witchhounts?
Reformation was a great mistake.
Anyway; what sort of reformation would Islam have to undergo to become peaceful? Muhammad himself was a leader of agressive state, he himself led conquests and sometimes praised atrocities. He was not different than any other leader of his time; perhaps better than many, but he and caliphs were warmongers. Christianity originally spread peacefully; only centuries later it accepted brutal politics not long ago used against itself. Great initial success of Islam were due to political force, or violence if You like. The time of original persecution of Muslims did not last long; You can not get rid of the part of life of Muhammad that happened after He was invited to Yathrib, even if You can get rid of history of the caliphs.
By saying that there should be some division between politics and religion You actually say that Muhammad did something wrong: and how could He? |
In the Koran it is said that the Greater Jihad is a man's struggle to purify his won soul. The struggle to spread the word is considered secondary and was termed the Lesser Jihad by Mohammed. Islam needs a great religious leader, perhaps a Sufi, to rise and call the people away from the corrupting influence of violent causes. To do so he will have to prove to the people that the current trend of suicide martyrdom is at odds with the Prophet's teachings. I suspect that a major internicene Islamic war will be required before this is possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think the Koran is just used by reckless cynic opportunists as a tool to influence the mass.
Several years ago a number of Islamic scholars denounced using the Koran to justify attacks on unarmed civilians.
However for people who have nothing else to lose it is very easy for them to resort to extremism as a mean in their struggle against (perceived) injustices. To many of them death isn't a worse alternative to a miserable life, and they surely can believe that their deaths brings a better future to their people. |
It's not enough for them to get together once and issue a denouncement. Someone is going to have to gather together a group committed to a sustained campaign against the use of the Koran as an excuse for violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Well of course if you see it through your own perspective, Islam is a religion of terrorism. But if you see it from their perspective Christianity is a religion of terrorism too.
Let's only take Iraq and nothing else because it's recent and ongoing. According to information the casualties there are in the whereabouts of 25,000. That's 25,000 dead and pretty much of all ages, groups etc. Who did this? If you want to count it based on religion then it's Christians who did this.
Some say well the IRA has or had a nationalist agenda stemming from a desire to self liberate. This is also called national-liberation war if it didn't use terrorist tactis. I agree the IRA had a nationalist agenda. And some may say the Islamists have a religious fundamentalist agenda. I also agree with that and with that distinction.
However I'll say again that sometimes people rally under one banner. They have to do this or the "movement" won't go anywhere. This banner must have the potential to rally them or most of them under neath it. Sometimes this is communism other times it's Islamic fundamentalism. The point though is that underneath this comfy all encompasing banner they rally under, the goals may be not very different than an effort to liberate/thow out a yock, as they see it.
So the aparatus may be different but the goals may converge, even between IRA and Islamic fundamentalists and other terrorist groups.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2005 20:56
|