The Spin Doctors: Angola Becomes 'First Country to Ban Islam'

[ArMaP]

No I have said nuking the entire region is likely the only solution MANY TIMES

Region? It's a religion, not a region, how can you nuke an idea?

Not saying we SHOULD do it but they have been at it for over 2000 years

Islam is 2000 years old?

[RUSSO]

... how can you nuke an idea?

Bringing a better idea to the place

[zorgon]

Region? It's a religion, not a region, how can you nuke an idea?

No I meant REGION   The entire Middle East   Don't need to nuke an idea  Just send em all back to the STONE AGE for a few hundred years

Islam is 2000 years old?

What I said was " they have been at it for over 2000 years"

THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.

Of course another solution is put an Israeli flag on one bomb and drop it on Mecca and put an Iranian flag on another and take out Jerusalem...



No I am not seriously saying we DO IT but IF we did  that would be an interesting spectacle N'est pas?

[Sinny]

THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.

People of these religions have not been at each others throats.

Godless people (usually in the form of their political leaders) have led the confrontations, not the actual people of God.

[ArMaP]

No I meant REGION   The entire Middle East

I know you meant region, I just don't understand why bomb a region because of something that has no borders like religion.

Don't need to nuke an idea  Just send em all back to the STONE AGE for a few hundred years

That area is not the only one where there are people with those ideas.

What I said was " they have been at it for over 2000 years"

THEY is Jews Muslims and Christians in the middle east at each other's throats.

No, Jews have been there (and everywhere) for around 3000 years, Christians for 2000 and Muslims for 1400.

[zorgon]

Sigh.....

you DO tend to take everything to literally

[zorgon]

People of these religions have not been at each others throats.

Godless people (usually in the form of their political leaders) have led the confrontations, not the actual people of God.

For a "godless leader" to have led a confrontation... would that not require the people of that religion to follow that leader into confrontation?

Personally I think you are an Ostrich using selective wording to confuddle the issue

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[1] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east.

Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe;

Jihad , is an Islamic term referring to a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jih?d is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen. The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".

Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Within the context of the classical Islamic law, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic God (Allah) and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims,[6] and so is often translated as "Holy War",[7][8][9] although this term is controversial.[10] According to the Dictionary of Islam[3] and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis, in the large majority of cases jihad has a military meaning.[11] Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[12] It was generally supposed that the order for a general war could only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which has been vacant since 1923)—such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states—always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad


But hey  believe what you will... I will be worm food soon so not MY problem   

We shall see what Europe looks like in 10 years... 

[Sinny]

Haha, Ostrich

Your right, my words are selective, partly because its effective for not having to explain myself (in theory), and partly because I'm in a constant state of wonderment in regards to definitions of words and context of concepts...
Its hard to formulate thoughts into words.

Meh..

Back on topic: by 'people of the religion', I mean the true 'religion' which is obviously a *means to an end* in order to reach what people in your circle might deem as *attainment*.

As goes the 'New Age' mantra, "there are many paths to the ulitmate goal", or something like that.

Anyone who partakes in death/destruction/'evil' in their beliefs is obviously not on the 'right path' to 'attainment'.

But I'm well aware some of the above concepts may have challenged definitions.

To skip ahead a bit - I'm just pointing out that the word 'Islam' has been thrown around too easily and too loosely to serve any constructive purpose. 

Which is unusual for our members.



Hm.

[ArMaP]

Sigh.....

you DO tend to take everything to literally

Yes.

[petrus4]

Back on topic: by 'people of the religion', I mean the true 'religion' which is obviously a *means to an end* in order to reach what people in your circle might deem as *attainment*.

From my perspective, Semitic monotheism generally (and Islam particularly) are not about liberation or union with the divine, to anywhere near the same extent as they are about the social and political control of large populations.  There are individual exceptions to that rule, of course.  Sufism exists in Islam, and Catholicism tends toward mysticism at its' outer limits as well; but those are, again, exceptions to the norm.

As goes the 'New Age' mantra, "there are many paths to the ulitmate goal", or something like that.

Actually, that mantra is Hindu; as is, of course, the word "mantra" itself.  The prototypical New Age and hippie movements were primarily Hindu in origin.  The British colonialism of India led to an export of Hinduism back to England and America, and interest in Hinduism in turn led to many of the original gurus (such as Vivekananda, and more notoriously Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishnas, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation) travelling to America. 

The latter two men, unfortunately, were largely (although not completely; much good has come from both ISKCON and to a lesser extent Transcendental Meditation, despite their founders' intentions) con artists.  Vivekananda on the other hand was a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, wrote several books on the different forms of Yoga or paths to liberation, and gave lectures in New York which were attended by Nikola Tesla, during the last days of Tesla's life.

Anyone who partakes in death/destruction/'evil' in their beliefs is obviously not on the 'right path' to 'attainment'.

My own earlier comment about a mushroom cloud in reference to Islam was not meant seriously.  I can not lie, however.  In my own ideal world, Islam as one specific religion, simply never would have existed in the first place at all, so there would be no cause for violence against its' adherents; and on an emotional level at least, I genuinely am inclined to view the religion's existence as a miscarriage of divine justice.  The world would be infinitely better off without it.  It is truthfully also the only religious system in existence that I know of, that I feel that way towards.

The above perspective is also, it must be said, antithetical to my more usual moral view; which is that the maximisation of diversity is one of the foremost goals of the observable universe.  If said maximisation of diversity is one of the primary definitions of good, however, the minimisation of diversity is in turn one of the primary definitions of evil; and it is, more than anything else, the religion's drive towards uniformity and the subjugation of the entire planet, which is the source of my central grievance with Islam.

I will also make another point here.  I have two younger brothers; Jeremy and Lachlan.  Jeremy is the middle child, Lachlan is the youngest, and I am the eldest.  My relationship with Lachlan is very positive.  My relationship with Jeremy, however, is extremely negative; as also is Jeremy's relationship with Lachlan.  While Jeremy has friends, if sufficient alcohol is poured into said friends to loosen their lips, they will admit that even they at times find his behaviour, highly morally objectionable. 

There is a single common, negative element within the above scenario; a single instigator, regardless of the other parties involved, and that is Jeremy himself.  A person might say (and indeed, both he and my father consistently have) that my negative relationship with him is my own responsibility; yet who is to blame if he has conflict with virtually everyone else he interacts with?

In the same manner as Jeremy, as a specific body of theology, Islam is a source of conflict, strife, and discord.  It is completely and diametrically opposed to peace.  War has characterised the religion's history for as long as it has existed, and that is a matter of public record.  It seeks total uniformity and monoculture within Islamic majority countries, yet even when that is attained, when there are no more infidels to be attacked, Muslims can often be observed killing each other.

A demonstration of this can be seen in the fact that, just recently, the Buddhist population of Myanmar rioted against the Islamic population of the region.  The point here is that adherents of what is usually one of the most peaceable and compassionate religious groups in existence, found it necessary to take up the sword against Muslims.  I would invite you to let the magnitude of that, sink in for a few moments.  In every religious or political conflict in which Muslims are involved, there is always a single constant; Muslims themselves.

I did not believe, in the case of the Cold War, that Communism was a genuine threat.  I did not believe, and still do not believe, that Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews was in any way based on anything remotely legitimate. 

Yet Islam represents the very first case where I believe that the threat is genuinely real.  It is an ideology which the rest of humanity legitimately needs to defend itself against.

[zorgon]

But I'm well aware some of the above concepts may have challenged definitions.

"challenged definitions" are of use only to the political mind

To skip ahead a bit - I'm just pointing out that the word 'Islam' has been thrown around too easily and too loosely to serve any constructive purpose. 
Which is unusual for our members.

Well the thing is once you have decided that the only solution to that region is to NUKE it  semantics no longer matters

For ArMaP the term "region" refers to THIS region...  90% of the worlds grief centers on that little spot (yeah okay I made up that percentage )

[ArMaP]

A demonstration of this can be seen in the fact that, just recently, the Buddhist population of Myanmar rioted against the Islamic population of the region.  The point here is that adherents of what is usually one of the most peaceable and compassionate religious groups in existence, found it necessary to take up the sword against Muslims.  I would invite you to let the magnitude of that, sink in for a few moments.  In every religious or political conflict in which Muslims are involved, there is always a single constant; Muslims themselves.

When Muslims attack other people is the Muslims' fault, when Muslims are attacked by other people it's still the Muslim's fault. 

[ArMaP]

According to their respective books, what's written in the above image is not true, as the creation of the world didn't happen just in that region. 

[Sinny]

When Muslims attack other people is the Muslims' fault, when Muslims are attacked by other people it's still the Muslim's fault. 

A good point ArMaP.. #

Interesting to note that it is the Muslim faith that our leaders have been trying to control and demonise over the last 30 years..

It appears to be working.

[Somamech]

Heck I've chatted to Arab's who also think they should nuke the region as they find all these wars insane. 

These people are good Arab Folke who are following/swindled by the same GOD as a couple of others too