If you ask me it seems that the "civil war" in Syria is really a struggle in the Moslem world for dominance between Persian and Arab style Islam. With Al Qaeda & Saudi Arabia supporting the "rebels" and Iran supporting Assad, it is a battle that would probably still be going on between Iraq and Iran had the US not interfered but now it has spread further West because Husain is "out of the way". I hope we stay out of this one.
The "Middle East" is one big shit hole. Its hard to say which could more closely resemble hell on Earth, the Middle East, or most of Africa. Other than Turkey and Israel, what hope is there?.. And I would not want to live in those places either.
Do not be surprised if there is interference.
The world reacted to the crisis in Syria:
I am 100 percent sure that someone mixing the shit from the outside...as usual...
Until we have groups around who can profit from War we will have some around for sure.
Otherwise as far as I know there is nothing written in the real Coran that would say kill or dominate.
Though religion has made the world into a more beautiful place on the whole, it's always these religious groups that fight eachother.
Co'z those fighters are not following what is written in their holly book...they are just stupid ignorant assh....
I studied different Religions and all of them are based on friendliness toward each other. Whoever kills in the name of a God or Religious movement that person should be bbrrrrgrrhhgggppfff...I would probably put them on an Island far away from Mankind so they stop poison the rest of us.
Doing things "in the name of..." means zero responsibility for the action someone is doing.
Quote from: archonforest on May 08, 2014, 03:37:52 am...I would probably put them on an Island far away from Mankind so they stop poison the rest of us.
Sometimes seems We are already on that Island.... the real Earth has been hidden from us except in dreams.
Quote from: archonforest on May 08, 2014, 03:15:14 am...as far as I know there is nothing written in the real Coran that would say kill or dominate...
You have not read the Quran. You should find this interesting.
I did not read the Coran as I was never interested in a translated/interpreted by someone version. I have a friend in Pakistan and she is Muslim. She read the book and she told me that there are no parts like that. That is the reason I said As Far As I Know...
Otherwise look here:
"Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." [Quran 2:193]
"But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" [Quran 9:61].
So yes this book like the Bible can be controversial. Probably every person will understand them differently. I guess some dumb-ass could potentially misunderstand the above quote and do bad things anyways...
In no way shape or form can you equate the Bible with the Quran. To do so is (within the context of each book) a kind of act of violence against both religions.
It would be like a king putting a throne in the white house, or placing a fresh water fish in salt water. The two books are not equal, they are not of the same beginning or end. They do not teach the same understanding of reality.
As for me, in my opinion, its is always illogical and morally wrong to justify violence in the name of Christ (if you go by Christ). But it is not always wrong to do violence in the name of Allah (if you go by Muhammad). However, in Christianity there has been much violence in the past. But when you look closely at those times, you will see that much of that violence was politics disguised as faith. Especially within Catholicism, where the papacy is both a religious office and a political one (though it was not meant to be).
It is easy to make a fool of someone who cannot read. And most solders of any religion are illiterate. That is true of Christianity in the past, and of Islam now. But if you ask me if I think that the Muslims would be as violent (or tolerant of violence) today if all Muslims could read. I would answer yes... Regardles of how the quran is translated or interpreted. Because fundamentally, Islam calls for obedience, while in christianity it is more important to love than obey. It is not a simple distinction.
edited a point for accuracy.
Quote from: archonforest on May 11, 2014, 10:42:52 amShe read the book and she told me that there are no parts like that. That is the reason I said As Far As I Know...
I have a Penguin version of the Quran and it does say such things. I also have a Pakistani friend who I met in college. What I would do is to take one or more of those verses that say such things in the English translations and then ask my Muslim friend to translate those specific verses herself from the original Arabic. If she is did not read the original Arabic but Urdu (or other language) then she is also reading a translation and has no more basis for claiming what the Quran says than me reading an English verison. You will know that she was not being honest if she gives you some sort of him-haw "its not honorable to ask such a thing" evasive kind of reply. It is easy to make whole-sale denials but I wouldn't give them any wriggle room. Too often people (even good people) want to believe in something so much that they dance around a subject but never address anything in particular. That way they can tell an untruth and not feel like they are doing anything wrong by being vague.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 11, 2014, 12:44:23 pmIn no way shape or form can you equate the Bible with the Quran.
I have to agree with you. The Bible is not a book but a collection of books written by different authors from different times. The ideas are corroborated in the way that law is corroborated in a government "by the people and for the people" such as a democracy. It is in the same spirit as science where the evidence is given in any one written work by one person to be tried by others in an attempt to reach the truth. The Apostle Paul wrote "Work out your own faith". A Catholic wrote to me that it just means to discipline yourself to just accept what is told to you on faith. As a Methodist I think I can see through the old Roman strategy of trying to control the people by an attempt to claim a monopoly on religion. Fortunately, the Romans did not write the bible or they would not have put things in there like "Call no man who is on this Earth 'father' for you have one father who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)
On the other hand, the Quran was written by one man claiming that Gabriel gave him this information directly from God. The Moslem dictum is that you have no right to question it. There is no room for corroboration in this religion. There is a lot of moodiness in that one author as you read. He has mood swings from asking people to be kind to the poor to saying that those who leave Islam must be killed. There is no leaving the business of punishment up to God (they have no faith that He will do that) so they take it into their own hands. One of the author's favorite tirades is to blast Christians for being poly-theists because of "the trinity". I'm personally not a Trinitarian for I believe that "The Father" and "The Holy Spirit" are one and the same in different roles. I believe that Jesus was a different person who claimed to be "one with God" in the same spirit as a man and woman are joined as one in marriage. But I don't discount the possibility that "the holy spirit" is also a subordinate being that subjugates himself under the "one true god". I am a monotheist as the Muslims and Jews are.
I would strongly disagree with most of what you just wrote. But isn't it nice that I can disagree with you without feeling the need to kill you for it.
Badger, can you be specific? (And thank you for not feeling the need to kill me)
Its too much to write on Pablo. This topic is beyond complex. But I have no idea what your talking about when you describe the Trinity for one.
Without religion all is much easier to understand guys ;)
Although not that there are other many stupid reasons for people to fight for unfortunately.
Fortunately, I am not fighting for anything on this subject. I'm just interested in Badger's take on it. I've had enough religious battles in my personal life. I'm just fishing for different people's take on things like this. My motive is that my life has inspired me to start writing screenplays. Hearing different people's view on religion will help me form the different characters in the stories. All input is appreciated.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 13, 2014, 01:08:08 pm
Fortunately, I am not fighting for anything on this subject...
That was a general statement not about you Pablo. But good to know anyway.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 12, 2014, 09:21:52 am
On the other hand, the Quran was written by one man claiming that Gabriel gave him this information directly from God....
A small point, I think written is not the correct term. As I read the explanation, it was heard and then recited and copied down by others.
The Quran indicates Muhammad himself did not read or write :
7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet
, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them."
Fleetwood: This is very interesting. The way it reads I would think it was talking about Jesus (not Muhammed) whom the Gospel is all about. "Gospel" is a word that is used to basically describe the story of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel). The four books are "The Gospel according to Matthew", and the same for Mark, Luke and John. Many also believe that Jesus was foretold in the Torah, especially in Isaiah. And, of course, the Torah is that part of the Christian Bible that is used by the Jews. Since Muhammed's time was about 600 A.D. he knew all about the Gospel and the Torah and the Quran comments on them quite a bit. My Moslem friend calls Jesus a prophet and we all know that Jesus didn't write any of the Bible himself (which includes both the Torah and the Gospel). The verse that you quote indicates that many who would become or were already Moslem had access to reading the books of the Jews and the Christians. My Moslem friend says (in his own words) that Muslims regard Jesus more highly that even Christians do, though I doubt that would be possible since standard line Christianity claims Jesus to be God (as part of the Trinity).
It is common for people to generalize the term Gospel to all religions as some people call a Mosque a "Moslem Church". I think they are both corruptions of their original meanings.
The very next verse 7:158 may help clarify who is meant by the Messenger :
Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided.
It doesn't make sense that he would refer to himself in the third person as "the Messenger written about in the Gospel" and then in the next verse announce himself as the same Messenger in the first person. He wasn't around six centuries earlier to be written about in the Gospel so clearly he is talking about two different messengers; first is Jesus "the messenger written about in the Gospel" then he announces himself as "the messenger of Allah to you all". Arabic does have definite articles so it would be likened to calling the sun "the light of the day" while the moon is "the light of the night". There is only one of each so the definite article "the" would be appropriate in both cases.
I don't take it as words of Muhammad talking about himself. I read it as Gabriel speaking to Muhammad and he is telling Muhammad, that he, (Muhammad) was previously foretold as the unlettered prophet in the writings of the Torah.
Who knows ? I'm not a scholar of any of these things, I just like to find out what I can. Uncontested 1400 year old facts are hard to come by without a time machine, let alone 2000 years, or 4000 years. Especially difficult when various groups want a certain thing to be true or untrue.
Okay. I think I understand now. So you are saying reference is made to two different messengers. The first one is interpreted to be Muhammed and the second one is interpreted to be Gabriel.
In the "soft sciences" like paleontology they often use "Occam's Razor" as a guiding principle. Paleontologists simply call it "parsimony". The most straight-forward explanation is usually correct: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor. As you know, however, religious literature is often intentionally written to be arcane. Religious fanatics are usually people who prefer mystery and irrationality over facts and logic.
The Quran is full of the same stories that are in the Bible and especially the Torah. The roles of the characters are often reversed as with Isaac and Ishmael. It wouldn't surprise me that Muhammed might be substituted for Jesus when a vague allusion is made. I actually expect it because there is so much of it in the Quran. I think we all agree that the Torah was written first. Jesus came much later and Muhammed came much later than that. So it is well known that Muhammed had the Bible and the Torah in hand to study and plan his strategy while those who went before him did not have that advantage where the Quran is concerned. You are correct in that people believe what they want to believe. But when it goes far against the grain of what is known then it can really be stretching it far to want to believe certain things like the re-interpretations of old works as you have pointed out. The Jews complain that the Christians re-interpret the Torah in ways that disagree with their belief system. There is one difference in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity vs. those two and Islam. Jesus said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. If I had to venture a guess at how Muhammed might "honestly" summarize the purpose for his life it would be that he didn't come to add more to the same story but to rewrite it so that the Ishmaelites were the "chosen ones" and not the Jews. But "chosen for what?" is my million dollar question that no one seems to be asking. If they all knew what that meant then I don't think anyone would be so eager to fill those shoes. :-\
It's a little funny that the spell checker on this website wants me to correct the spelling from "Muhammed" to "Mohammed" while Wikipedia translates "Mohammed" to "Muhammed". Seems that people can't even agree on "known facts" sometimes. :o
Great discussion, fleetwood. I hope you find the answers to your questions. Looking back on these religious battles, it looks like it may be little more than an ancient "sibling rivalry" in a struggle for control, power and wealth. And the Suni vs. Shea battles just go to show you that Islam is no more immune to ideological corruption than any other belief system.
Quote from: fleetwood on May 13, 2014, 04:30:24 pmThe Quran indicates Muhammad himself did not read or write :
I did a little more research and I now realize I was in error when I said that the Quran was written by one man. Indeed, fleetwood was correct in that Muhammed didn't write any of the Quran and probably was illiterate. On the other hand, Jesus was not illiterate but was apparently fluent in speaking and readying at least Hebrew and Aramaic and possibly Greek. But neither took part in the composition of the books that were later written about them.
After thinking about it some more I came to the realization that "John the Baptist" is the most logical one to have been "the unlettered messenger" talked about in the Gospel and foretold in the Torah. He wrote no letters as Paul and the other apostles did. But he did come to announce the coming of Jesus and he did not do it by writing.
I have found Malachi 3:- "Behold I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me". I can now understand why the Moslems don't think that this messenger was John the Baptist but the Christian do. This messenger has to come before whoever "me" is who is talking. Since the Christians claim that Jesus is God then it would logically be John the Baptist. But the Moslems don't think God has come yet (and neither do the Jews) so they must look forward in time (six centuries later) to find their messenger. I wonder who the Jews think this messenger is. Are there any among you who can answer this question?
Its like asking who gave the golden tablets to Joseph smith... No one. Because it did not happen. Islam is really not that interesting. And as to its value to humanity, I say look at the consequences of its effect on the world. Look at Africa, look at the middle east and large parts of Asia.
What more do we need to know?
Not sure that all those things u mention Badger happened coz of the religion itself but most probably coz of stupid people. Like in the name of God(the Christian one) many people were killed tortured...etc. Dont think God said that this should be done.
Never mind. These topics have been written on for almost two thousand years. There really is not anything else to say. Believe what you understand to be true, and accept the consequences. That is all that can be done.
Jesus is the messiah, even in Islam. His name is Issa, Al Massih Issa to be precise.
The only difference between catholiism and islam, on Jesus, is that islam rejects trinity idea. Jesus is a man, nothing more. And so, he shouldn't deserve a cult. But, he is the equal of Moise, Abraham or Muhamad.
Now, that makes me laugh when I read that the problem in Middle East is Islam, or in Syria.
The problem there is that they have oil, and that USA wants it. So they do their best to bring chaos in those countries, come with an army, and take over everything they can.
That has nothing to do with religion.
Quote from: Seth on May 21, 2014, 04:17:14 am
The problem there is that they have oil, and that USA wants it. So they do their best to bring chaos in those countries, come with an army, and take over everything they can. That has nothing to do with religion.
Laser-precisely diagnose ;)
Quote from: TheBadger on May 22, 2014, 06:53:03 pm*nevermind :)
Hmm...where did it go? What you wrote I think was pretty much right on. The Suni vs. Shea split happened long before oil was discovered on the Arabian Peninsula. They have been at each other's throats for centuries. The oil surely influences who gets gun money but its certainly not the cause of the deep-rooted conflict. Syria is pretty far down the list of oil producing nations.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 22, 2014, 10:47:22 pm
Syria is pretty far down the list of oil producing nations.
Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, plus it has a strategic location for regional security and energy route.
And don't forget they decided to sign a deal with Russia that writes off 80% of their debt.
And they are alawite, you know...
The problems in Syria has nothing to do with religion but, again, with USA wanting to control this area and bringing chaos there.
IMHO the current problem is not the Suni vs. Shea split....but what Seth says. Otherwise I am sure the split was a source of conflict long time ago but hard to believe that this is the main problem over there right now....anycow I have no proof so... :)
So how can you explain all of these reports of Sheites executing Sunis in alley ways and vice versa? All this money pumped in from the Arabs on one side and Iran actually sending in troops and money to support Assad. The Russians are also supporting Assad in a big way. I know the American government seems to be supporting the Suni side (I wish they wouldn't) but hasn't sent in any actual troops like was implied. It is well known that lots of foreign moslems have come into the country to fight on one side or the other. I don't understand how, in your mind, the USA is able to control the minds of these muslim insurgents to go fight the opposing "infidels" who believe in the wrong form of Islam. Perhaps its just a technique used by the Muslim controlled governments to motivate (by brain-washing) their soldiers who are fighting for their respective sides. I think the Syrian conflict may be liken to the Northern Ireland conflict where each side used their brand of religion as a rallying point (Catholics vs. Protestants). The Northern Ireland conflict was all about those who called themselves Irish wanting the British kicked out of there. There is no doubt that the Sunis want religious control of the region. No amount of the USA wanting their oil can make them go kill each other for control of the country. I think you guys are a bit off in your understanding of the conflict. I would like to have a better understanding myself.
Over 160 thousand have died so far in the civil war and it puzzles me how you two can think the whole thing is caused by nothing but the USA wanting oil. Can you please give me details on how this works? If you can't explain then don't try. General mud slinging isn't going to support your argument. I always thought that Americans were so naïve but I now know how many Europeans don't have a very good understanding of foreign affairs; average Americans because of their general lack of interest (and sometimes alarming ignorance) and Europeans to feed their favorite prejudices fueled by those old colonial rivalries. I know, that is MY prejudice.
After researching a little more I see that Syria is the most significant oil producer in the Mediteranean just because the Mediterranean is not a significant oil producing region. The way you put it is akin to saying Argentina is the most significant corn producer of all of the nations of Antarctica. Syria is on the edge of the mother lode which is centered on the north side of the Arabian Peninsula. This map says it all:
There was a time when I could have taken an extension of my Israel/Egypt trip to Syria. I should have done it then. I don't think now is a good time.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 23, 2014, 08:48:17 am
There was a time when I could have taken an extension of my Israel/Egypt trip to Syria. I should have done it then. I don't think now is a good time.
To answer this first. Israel is still okay to be. I have been there 5-6 times. But not only for a week. Longest was 6 months in a row. I found the place very friendly and beautiful. Nothing like what u see in the fabricated news in the TV. I witnessed that Hebrew and Arabic people living together in many places without problems. You should go there. It is safe.
So what u see on the TV and hear on the radio read on the net as NEWS are most of them not real and fabricated and very far from reality. Therefore the conflict in Syria most probably have a different source than it is stated. If you have a conflict and when u have the source then it can be handled by the two group. In an old conflict like this the source is something else and somebody else who is not part of any side but actively running some black propaganda on both. It can be the US for the oil for example. Why they killing each other? 'Coz they are stupid. I went around the planet visited many countries and the majority of the people are rejecting violence. But u always get those airheads who can do things like this and when it is started they can pull in others who would never start this. Like when u have a bunch of people in the same place and someone(s) start to panic it will go through the masses and people will die for nothing.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 23, 2014, 08:48:17 am
So how can you explain all of these reports of Sheites executing Sunis in alley ways and vice versa?
Did you notice that before we, occidentals, begin to mess up with Syria, there was no kiling ?
We decided that Assad was the bad guy and brought armed men and weapons there. Now we complain about the dead people ? laughable.
It is like Iraq and their so-called WMD... We killed 800 000 people there, mostly kids. For what ??? Oil, freakin' oil.
Considering what you wrote, you know nothing about Islam. period.
And you seem to know not much about Ireland neither. It is a war against occupation. Since the begining it was. Even when it was about Pictes and Scotts...
Quote from: PabloMack on May 23, 2014, 08:48:17 amI think you guys are a bit off in your understanding of the conflict
I think you are far off understanding Syrian conflict, to say the least.
Yeah, man. USA are the real problem. They wanna rule the world, have cotrol on energy and information. All that thanks to lies (WMD in Iraq, official version of 911...), torture (like in Guantanamo), wars, etc...
Sorry to sound harsh, but you sound very naive to me. It looks like you believe what you hear on TV. and That's a shame to my eyes.
QuoteYeah, man. USA are the real problem. They wanna rule the world
. Well France had its turn before. So how can you judge? We are better at it anyway. :P ;) ;D Oh, and thanks for Louisiana by the way, its quite a nice place :D
Quote from: TheBadger on May 23, 2014, 07:19:13 pm
QuoteYeah, man. USA are the real problem. They wanna rule the world. Well France had its turn before. So how can you judge? We are better at it anyway. :P ;) ;D Oh, and thanks for Louisiana by the way, its quite a nice place :D
hehehe yeah "we" had our time. But don't get me wrong on that : we were piece of colonialist shits back then. And now, it's your turn to smell like manure ;)
Even if I don't think that you're better at it than frenchies back then. Your way is more violent, and it looks a lot more clumsy and discourteous.
Hey, you're a nation for a small amount of time, you were Brits' taxes cows before that. That is why you act like rough new free men :P
BTW, I don't merge US people and US politics. American people are not the problem, just their imperialist government.
;D lol. Thanks for being clear. :P
QuoteAnd now, it's your turn to smell like manure
I live in farm country, the smell does not bother me anymore.
Quote...you were Brits' taxes cows before...
Some say we still are ;) I don't know much about banking my self though.
Well said Seth. Actually I think the government in the US is a puppet one like in many places. I think the smell comes from above the level of governments. I read a book about this...a very good one...ohhh it's called Rule by Secrecy. And what is written there just makes sense...
Many people can say what is written there is just not possible...well this is the exact reason how they made it. Read that book.
Quote from: archonforest on May 23, 2014, 09:39:53 am
Israel is still okay to be...You should go there. It is safe.
I did and everything you wrote I agree with. The "news" propaganda on the TV isn't a very good representation of what's really going on over there. But I am not a typical American. I do travel abroad a lot but it is usually to 3rd world countries.
Quote from: Seth on May 23, 2014, 01:51:16 pmYeah, man. USA are the real problem. They wanna rule the world...
I know I don't have the best understanding of middle east issues. But I'm am sure that I know the motivations and feelings of Americans much better that you because I grew up here though I don't speak for all Americans. If you go back to 1940, the world had a remarkable number of dictators trying to take over the world (or their parts of it) all at the same time. It was WWI/II when Americans decided that ignoring the rest of the world would not make these problems go away. I personally think that the world regularly comes up with dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito/Tojo, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Moa Tse Dung, Ho Chi Minh... The list goes on and on. You might argue that the USA has been no better, but then you've never lived through Nazi Germany (have you?). Americans want to prevent another dictator from taking over so much of the world again and you can't do that by sitting on you hands. Of course the USA didn't do much about Idi Amin and other dictators of small-time countries (which have little or no oil). But the world has been a relatively peaceful place considering there is so much technological potential for killing people now than ever before. As you said, you've spent a lot of time in Israel and it is a much more peaceful place than the news would lead people to believe. It is not very fun to go to the dentist but the pain he causes is often regarded as worth avoiding much greater problems later on in life. I don't agree with all my government does. For example, the allies should never have turned Western New Guinea over to Indonesia. That was a huge mistake. But I personally believe if the USA had not been a self-appointed police over the past half century, we would have half a dozen powerful dictator-lead empires knocking at our doors at this moment if we were not already dead.
Quote from: archonforest on May 24, 2014, 07:55:41 am...Actually I think the government in the US is a puppet one like in many places. I think the smell comes from above the level of governments. I read a book about this...a very good one...ohhh it's called Rule by Secrecy. And what is written there just makes sense...
I have no argument against that. Where-ever the centers of power are, that's where evil men will collect.
What you don't seem to understand is that even if you grew up in the US, you are not the US government.
So to prevent dictatorship, it is legitimate to lie to the whole world, like with the WMD, and kill more than 800 000 civilians just in Iraq ?
Sorry to not agree with that very strange idea.
And I, like a lot of human on this earth, really don't want to live like the americans wants us to live. I don't care about the american way of life, money, or even bringing democracy to the countries that are not democratics.
At least some of the dictators you mentionned didn't hide behind humanism to commit their crimes.
And I would like to know... who the hell decided that the USA should be the police of the world, kill people with their wars and steal every drop of oil they can ?! That is beyond my understanding.
and when you say :
QuoteBut the world has been a relatively peaceful place considering there is so much technological potential for killing people now than ever be
I really, really hope you are joking !!!!
Quote from: Seth on May 24, 2014, 08:21:25 pmSo to prevent dictatorship, it is legitimate to lie to the whole world, like with the WMD, and kill more than 800 000 civilians just in Iraq ?
I know you don't remember what all I said and want to blame me for things I didn't say. I think we should not have had the Iraq II war and I don't know what GWB was thinking. I don't claim that he knew that Iraq did not have nuclear WoMD but if he did he was lying. We know that Sadam did have chemical WoMD because he used them on the Iranians (so you need to qualify when you say WMD). We should not have had that war. But you have to admit that all of the hide and seek games Sadam was playing only made him look suspicious. Don't you remember when he ejected the multi-national inspectors from his country? Taking out Sadam was a stupid move and it handed control of Iraq over to the Sheites and now Iran has more power in the region.
Given we were there though (even though we should not have been) the difference between you and me is that I don't think that if an Iraqi was serious about wanting a peaceful nation he would have pulled out an AK47 or RPG and launched it against our occupying forces. But I think you are right that democracy is probably not for every nation and that dictators are what they would likely have in its absence. What bothers me so much is that Wikipedia reports "In a 2005 report, using updated information, the IBC reported that 7,299 civilians are documented to have been killed, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces. " With you claiming that it was 800,000 (a hundred fold exaggeration) I think someone is seriously lying and the finger seems to be pointing to you. Can you say anything in you own defense?
And I do understand that the US government is different from the general American people. But what do you think I can do about it? Does it make you feel better to have confirmation from me that I have little control over my country's government?
Quote from: Seth on May 24, 2014, 08:21:25 pmand when you say :
QuoteBut the world has been a relatively peaceful place considering there is so much technological potential for killing people now than ever beI really, really hope you are joking !!!!
No I am serious. Have you had half your family executed in the streets during the past 10 years? Oh. Not even one? I stand by my statement. You must have a serious phobia or believe the news which you say is in such error. Listen to archonforest. He said it:
Quote from: archonforest on May 23, 2014, 09:39:53 amI found the place very friendly and beautiful. Nothing like what u see in the fabricated news in the TV.
Don't Call me a liar : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
Since the first gulf war and the embargo, there was a lot of civilian victims...
We disagree. Even the first war was not legit. You went there for oil.
QuoteBut you have to admit that all of the hide and seek games Sadam was playing only made him look suspicious.
Again, with all the bullshit USA told their allies, you have to admit that only made them suspicious.
QuoteHave you had half your family executed in the streets during the past 10 years? Oh. Not even one?
You don't know me. Four members of my family were bombed by allies bombing AFTER the WWII in France, and one of my friend was killed during a terrorist attack in Paris, and 2 others killed in Afghanistan. That doesn't authorize me to take my gun and go in another country to kill them, by starving or gunshot, and steal thei oil.
USA should apply non-interventionist, and stop bringing their allies and ennemies into war.
We will always disagree, I know.
QuoteAnd I do understand that the US government is different from the general American people. But what do you think I can do about it? Does it make you feel better to have confirmation from me that I have little control over my country's government?
First, you should stop covering their back and justifying their wars and thievery.
Then you should stop thinking you are a democracy.
Last, you should understand that your country's gvt is the major problem right now in term of peace.
Try to read how many wars are going on since the last 30 years and tell me again the world is peaceful
Quote from: Seth on May 25, 2014, 05:23:57 amTry to read how many wars are going on since the last 30 years and tell me again the world is peaceful
I judge how peaceful the world is on what I see myself in person. I have travelled to 31 countries all over the world and I have never witnessed a violent act on any of my visits. You and I both know how the media can magnify a billion times any isolated incidents anywhere in the world. I don't hear gunfire outside my house every night...really almost never and I think what I do hear are fire crackers on rare occasion. I think I can match your lost relatives and friends one-for-one and I think of it as "normal background noise". So I do think of you as being like an elderly granny who is afraid to go out at night in fear that vigilantes are out there roaming the streets. I live in a very Hispanic neighborhood and, even though the men have to puff their chests out and show how macho they are, the biggest danger around here is when we trim our grass along a long 400 ft. curb. Low-rider pickup trucks use the stop sign down at the end of our property as the starting point for racing each other in front of our house. We had to jump out of the street just two days ago to avoid getting run over. But that's about the extent of the violence I've seen in my neighborhood.
While I was working for Rohm & Haas the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland killed someone I personally knew from corporate engineering in Pennsylvania. There were several others from the Rohm & Haas office in Germany including the vice president and his family. Honestly, I can't seem to remember, though, knowing anyone who was killed in the middle east though I know or have talked with several veterans of those wars.
On my visit to Israel and Egypt in 1996 we stayed in a town called El Arish on the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai Peninsula. Our bus was held up by traffic when we got there because we had to wait for Yasser Arafat and his entourage to leave. We only stayed there one night and it was an experience to see shearwaters flying so close to the coast which we never see along the Texas coast. Two weeks after we got back I heard on the radio that some Moslem terrorists had attacked that place and killed several Greek tourists. I'm glad we missed that.
Of course I had an uncle who died in the Battle of the Bulge. How did the Allies manage to bomb France after WWII was over? Can you send me an article link to that?
I came close to seeing a disaster in Vietnam last year. A woman was doing something with a propane or butane tank and it was ruptured. I heard a lot of screaming and the woman was engulfed in a cloud of flammable gas. If there had been an ignition source nearby she would have been ravaged in a ball of flames. But the cloud dissipated and no one got hurt. It made me appreciate the standards we have here in the USA for guaranteeing the integrity of fuel containers. And it may have saved one more life from becoming a statistic as being killed in a war action caused by an American because I happened to be standing near by. ;)
I appreciate you Seth for keeping your language somewhat civil. I hope it means that Oshyan won't have to lock this thread. But I now wonder what I was thinking when I started it. I started it as a religious issue and I should have known that the direction it would lead is right back to participants' favorite phobias and perceptions of the world.
I see that LOCK TOPIC button down at the end of the page. Should I push it or not?
Something I like a lot more than Terrorism is Terragenism. I hope to be doing a lot more of that with you in the future... :D
Also we have to remember that Governments start war, not people. Wars are a racket and propel the health of the state. I suggest anyone who is interested, watch some very informative videos from Larken Rose, Jeffrey Tucker, Josie The Outlaw, Ben Swann, Amanda Billyrock, Adam Kokesh, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Nigel Farage, & Peter Schiff. Some of them are Minarchists and the rest are full-blown Anarchists. Although I personally disagree with some of these folks on spiritual thoughts, I agree with the ideas of Voluntaryism. Mans laws are all inherently flawed. Universal Law, The Golden Rule, Natural Law, God's Law... what ever one want's to call it benefits everyone and can make a better world.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 25, 2014, 08:15:08 am
Something I like a lot more than Terrorism is Terragenism.
Quote from: ChrisC on May 25, 2014, 12:39:59 pmAlso we have to remember that Governments start war...