 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Ned :
I do the distinction between Arabs (more specifically ME Arabs), Iranians, etc. because their political agendas and power structure have nearly nothing in common.
1. The only advocates of the extension to Islam through the whole world are some nuts. As I said, the Muslim faith puts an infinitely stronger importance into self-commitment to Islam, and the massive conversion of infidels is the lowest priority. Right now, the idea of an entirely Muslim world is completely stupid to nearly everyone.
2. Islam being an easily manipulable religion, it is used pretty much everywhere Muslims are fighting. In Chechnya, these people are waging a war of independance. In 80's Afghanistan, they also fought a war against an invader. ME Arab activists want to leave the horrendous spiral of shame and humiliation they're in. Iran wants to keep being independant, whether from the US or for its puppets (like Saddam in 1980).
All these countries or these groups happen to have an enemy that is nor Muslim, hence they manipulate Islam to instill religious hatred to their followers, to gather support.
Surprisingly enough, I don't see you talking about how evil Muslim countries in SE Asia are. IIRC, Indonesia is the most populated Muslim country in the world, yet I don't see you talking about how destrcutive they are. The reason is simple : these countries have no clear enemy, so there is no use for them to manipulate religion into helping the war effort.
In short, the distinction between the several populations that are Muslim is very much in order. Muslims don't want to convert you any more than communists want to eat your guts. These misconceptions remind me the Iraqi Inormation Minister when he explained Americans came there to quench their lust of children's blood. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned, in your understanding, didn't your own KIA heroically sacrificed themselves to defend your freedom and to rightfully spread it ? |
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, yes, of course. |
Are you beginning to understand my point ?
To some's eyes, the Iraqi soldiers sacrificed themselves heroically in defense of their people and their country.
To some's eyes, the American soldiers sacrificed themselves heroically in defense of their people and their values.
Is one of the two assumptions up here more valid than the other ?
Call me a vicious cultural relativist if you want, Ned, but please open your eyes and understand you kind of speech is exactly the same as what is said on "the other side". Not your speech, but your kind of speech.
Whenever I read your posts about the how-so-great values of Freedom that should be spread to the world, I'm thinking you could be some kind of zealot had you been born in Arabia. I mean it. I don't ask you to change your mind, but I'm merely asking you to open your eyes on that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Just let me say that spreading any religion by violence is wrong.
However, freeing people from slavery, abuse and torture is justified. The idea is not to impose an ideology, but to remove abuse. |
Ned, the vast majority of the Islamic world is not trying to convert anyone by force. I don't even remember this being one of the issues in Osama Bin Laden's diatribes(it may have been, I just don't remember it). Most fundamentalist sects today exist because of some percieved threat to Islam. The bankrolling of freedom fighters in Afghanistan was a major help in bringing fundamentalism to the fore and giving it some great publicity. The vicious religion you imagine simply isn't there.
You bring up the history of warfare in the Islamic world and it doesn't mean a thing because you can't demonstrate any region or culture that didn't have similar amounts of warfare at the time. If you're trying to demonstrate that Islam isn't peaceful you've won with me but I never disagreed, but I just don't think you can demonstrate that its more vicious than any other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
I would think this to be contradictory, the harder you push violence, the less converts you attract. |
Tell that to all the Christian converts in the New World.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
With regards to violence I think it would be more truthful to say that Christianity grew into violence rather than grew out of it. Certainly during its first 400 years Christianity was primarily a religion of peace, and expanded exclusively by peaceful proselytization. It began to change wehn it became the state religion of Rome. Even then Christianity was responsible for the end of slavery and gladiatorial fights.
To some extent it was inevitable that the religion would become corrupted once it became an official state religion for the simple reason that in the environment of 5th century Europe no state could hope to survive without being willing to take up the sword. Despite the harsh environment of the ealy dark ages the expansion of Christianity continued to be largely through peaceful missions up to the 10th or 11th century, when European Christain states began to organize militarized crusades of expansion.
This latter process I think was largely due to the assimilation of German culture into Christianity. It was inevitable that their warrior ethic would corrupt a hitherto pacifist religion. Ironically the end of this militarized version of Christianity seems to have been brought about by two disasterous German wars in the last century.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2003 06:50
Strange how the Serbs are still the bad guys. 
You've never heard the term martyr used in Northern Ireland? Or any other conflict in world history?
|