lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 Perhaps it's not so much that religion itself is bad as people's interpretation of religious texts and abuse of the texts for their own ends. 137588[/snapback] Checkout the last post on page 11 which describes some of the hatred the Koran spews. It doesnt sound like missinterpretation to me, just plain hatred.
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 `believe what they want`, murder? rape? Which religion condones that kind of behaviour? The point is, religion is very bad. We lock people up for believing in strange things, believing in some supernatural god thing is strange and when people preech strange on our streets, thats bad for society. In this day and age, nobody is locked up for their beliefs. Because we live in a democratic society, we do have people on the streets preaching at us, and it's bloody annoying. But I, like the majority, ignore them and let them get on with it. Plus, in my experience the majority are Christian anyway. Its because of the preechings of Islam, that encouraged the murder of more than 50 people.THATS extreme. Sky News quoted some figures yesterday. 1.3m people in the UK are Muslim;that's roughly 2% of the population. Of those 1.3m, 0.001% have been known to have attended Al Qaeda training camps. That's a tiny proportion of Muslims, let alone British citizens, involved in extremist activity. Instead of discriminating against innocent people, why not ask what intelligence agencies and the police have been doing with those who are known to hold extremist views?
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 Perhaps it's not so much that religion itself is bad as people's interpretation of religious texts and abuse of the texts for their own ends. 137588[/snapback] Checkout the last post on page 11 which describes some of the hatred the Koran spews. It doesnt sound like missinterpretation to me, just plain hatred. 137593[/snapback] Of course it's misinterpretation. Like I've already said, the Bible is full of it, albeit a lot of that has come about through mistranslation over the years. Islam has the same origins as Judaism, and Christianity; translating ancient scrolls from hebrew to arabic would surely have an effect? Plus, monotheistic religions were used by leaders as a way of controlling the population. There would also be an element of 'artistic licence' to get your point across.
Shum Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 It's been an interesting read all of this... But on another note, all this backlash towards certain people seems to be well and truly on the go... My mum was in the line for the bus and 3 guys jumped to the front and an asian lady said, "Excuse me, I was here first" Their reply was "fock off you Paki, and stop causing trouble in our Country" And then this morning one of the guys at work got off the bus here in Wigston, and a car of youths drove past calling him a "Paki Bomber" I mean what the hell?? This is bang out of order and people can't just call every person who they think is a Muslim a bomber. Personally, I'm half Muslim and being honest am not into religion at all but there is no way that any religion would applaud these horrible events. I'm actually worried now, about going out on the town on Saturday!
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 Which religion condones that kind of behaviour? None that i know of, unless you think the Koran means peace when it states “Slay the pagans wherever ye find them…â€Â.[9:5] etc Why does it have to be of god religion? People have beliefs, murder and rape are just a few. Sure, i agree people can believe that, but would you wana live next door to someone that does? Would you wana live next door to someone that believes in slaying pagans wherever ye find them etc? In this day and age, nobody is locked up for their beliefs. They WILL be when this new religious law comes into effect. Sky News quoted some figures yesterday. 1.3m people in the UK are Muslim;that's roughly 2% of the population. Of those 1.3m, 0.001% have been known to have attended Al Qaeda training camps. That's a tiny proportion of Muslims, let alone British citizens, involved in extremist activity I think they said 1.6M. The figure of 0.001% is anyones guess, just because it came from a news media outlet, doesnt mean its true, in the slightest. Im very worried that you took that onboard as if, not you lisa that. They gave the figure of 2,000 that have attended. Spread that amount of people around England, and there are people intent on killing all of us. That means that what i said is true, religion is bad in open society. Instead of discriminating against innocent people, why not ask what intelligence agencies and the police have been doing with those who are known to hold extremist views? Whos discriminating against innocent people? Show me one individual that doesnt hold an extremist view in England? You cant, because what one considers moderate, another considers extremism. 137646[/snapback]
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 Perhaps it's not so much that religion itself is bad as people's interpretation of religious texts and abuse of the texts for their own ends. 137588[/snapback] Checkout the last post on page 11 which describes some of the hatred the Koran spews. It doesnt sound like missinterpretation to me, just plain hatred. 137593[/snapback] Of course it's misinterpretation. 137649[/snapback] So what does this mean? “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.†[33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.†[4:24] Sounds like the koran says a man can use his hand (sword) to capture a woman as he sees fit? Cases of this have happened in England, as reported in a channel 4 documentary.
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 So what does this mean?“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.†[33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.†[4:24] Sounds like the koran says a man can use his hand (sword) to capture a woman as he sees fit? Cases of this have happened in England, as reported in a channel 4 documentary. 137763[/snapback] Sword hand simply means the dominant hand. It also looks to me like it's being used as well for dramatic effect, as 'prisoners of war' is mentioned. So you've read the literal meaning, like all the other numpties who use this to dominate women in the Middle East. As I read it (laterally thinking), Allah, or God or whatever allows you a harem of wives (marriage law), and you can add any women you capture in battle. It also says to me that you can't mess about with other men's wives, unless you've captured them in battle. If you've read any literature, harems, and the capture of women was prevalent in that area, as with the Greeks who are considered to be civilised, since ancient times. However, the women were well kept even if prisoners. As you've interpreted a worse case scenario, all it takes is a powerful leader, whether a monarch or a religious man to read the same, and use it to justify his own purposes. As I've said, the Bible is the same. It and the Koran have the same origins.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 So what does this mean?“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.†[33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.†[4:24] Sounds like the koran says a man can use his hand (sword) to capture a woman as he sees fit? Cases of this have happened in England, as reported in a channel 4 documentary. 137763[/snapback] Sword hand simply means the dominant hand. It also looks to me like it's being used as well for dramatic effect, as 'prisoners of war' is mentioned. So you've read the literal meaning, like all the other numpties who use this to dominate women in the Middle East. As I read it (laterally thinking), Allah, or God or whatever allows you a harem of wives (marriage law), and you can add any women you capture in battle. It also says to me that you can't mess about with other men's wives, unless you've captured them in battle. If you've read any literature, harems, and the capture of women was prevalent in that area, as with the Greeks who are considered to be civilised, since ancient times. However, the women were well kept even if prisoners. As you've interpreted a worse case scenario, all it takes is a powerful leader, whether a monarch or a religious man to read the same, and use it to justify his own purposes. As I've said, the Bible is the same. It and the Koran have the same origins. 137879[/snapback] So religious texts are not always misinterpretation, it depends on the reader then user of the texts. That said, the Islamic texts i quoted, certainly means very bad and very evil.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 I just wrote this for my site, my thoughts on it all.As an 18 year old facing many years living in this world I can’t help but be frightened at the thought of this terrorism carrying on, I don’t want my children growing up in the kind of world I live in at this moment of time. My youthful naivety leads me to think that these kinds of events will eventually fade away and the western world will become a safe place, but my brain tells me different. What are you going to do about it? May the innocent victims rest in peace safe in the knowledge that we won’t ever them get away with this. HERE HERE!! 137985[/snapback]
Ricey Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 As an 18 year old facing many years living in this world I can’t help but be frightened at the thought of this terrorism carrying on, I don’t want my children growing up in the kind of world I live in at this moment of time. My youthful naivety leads me to think that these kinds of events will eventually fade away and the western world will become a safe place, but my brain tells me different. What are you going to do about it? What can I do? Except support and back the war on terror.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 But the `war` on terror by terror has casued 53 deaths. How do we stop blairs terror on terror? The more `we` attack innocent muslims, the more the Islamic world will wana attack us.
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 But the `war` on terror by terror has casued 53 deaths.How do we stop blairs terror on terror? The more `we` attack innocent muslims, the more the Islamic world will wana attack us. 138099[/snapback] So you think we should sit back, and let them get on with it elsewhere? NIMBY.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 But the `war` on terror by terror has casued 53 deaths.How do we stop blairs terror on terror? The more `we` attack innocent muslims, the more the Islamic world will wana attack us. 138099[/snapback] So you think we should sit back, and let them get on with it elsewhere? NIMBY. 138279[/snapback] I think we should fight our own wars on the basis that theres clear evidence that someone is or wants to attack us. If blair had asked us if it was alright to take out sadams mob, and we said yes, whats the prob. BUT, to wage war on sadam, whilst murdering innocent people, means blair is to blame for last thursday, blair is britons enemy numero uno. He should be hung!!
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 I think we should fight our own wars on the basis that theres clear evidence that someone is or wants to attack us.If blair had asked us if it was alright to take out sadams mob, and we said yes, whats the prob. BUT, to wage war on sadam, whilst murdering innocent people, means blair is to blame for last thursday, blair is britons enemy numero uno. He should be hung!! 138319[/snapback] Alright then, General Lush, explain to me how a war can be fought without the risk of civilian casualties.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 I think we should fight our own wars on the basis that theres clear evidence that someone is or wants to attack us.If blair had asked us if it was alright to take out sadams mob, and we said yes, whats the prob. BUT, to wage war on sadam, whilst murdering innocent people, means blair is to blame for last thursday, blair is britons enemy numero uno. He should be hung!! 138319[/snapback] Alright then, General Lush, explain to me how a war can be fought without the risk of civilian casualties. 138395[/snapback] In a populated area, it cant. Its the nature of that kind of war that, that will happen. The difference between blairs war and a justyfiable cause for war, is that INNOCENT people ARE dieing in HIS war. Innocent people dont die in a justyfiable cause for war. Blair is a murderer, full stop.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 I think we should fight our own wars on the basis that theres clear evidence that someone is or wants to attack us.If blair had asked us if it was alright to take out sadams mob, and we said yes, whats the prob. BUT, to wage war on sadam, whilst murdering innocent people, means blair is to blame for last thursday, blair is britons enemy numero uno. He should be hung!! 138319[/snapback] Alright then, General Lush, explain to me how a war can be fought without the risk of civilian casualties. 138395[/snapback] In a populated area, it cant. Its the nature of that kind of war that, that will happen. The difference between blairs war and a justyfiable cause for war, is that INNOCENT people ARE dieing in HIS war. Innocent people dont die in a justyfiable cause for war. Blair is a murderer, full stop. 138534[/snapback] So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent?
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno.
davieG Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that?
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that? 138597[/snapback] I was thinking exactly the same. Please feel free to join in......please?
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that? 138597[/snapback] They will say so.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that? 138597[/snapback] They will say so. 138609[/snapback] Even if speaking out against your government is punishable by death? Cool!
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that? 138597[/snapback] They will say so. 138609[/snapback] Even if speaking out against your government is punishable by death? Cool! 138614[/snapback] Then leave that bloody country.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 So what makes the case for war justifiable that civilians are not considered innocent? 138575[/snapback] When they agree to it, or attack their enemy. The people of Iraq (the innocent ones) didnt have a choice. So their deaths are partly the blame of blair, and in our name, hes totally to blame. blair is british enemy, numero uno. 138593[/snapback] I don't like to come between you two as you're getting on so well but: how the hell do they do that? 138597[/snapback] They will say so. 138609[/snapback] Even if speaking out against your government is punishable by death? Cool! 138614[/snapback] Then leave that bloody country. 138623[/snapback] Very simple. Where do they go to when they leave?
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 Very simple.Where do they go to when they leave? 138639[/snapback] The nearest democratic country. Then the UN decide how to deal with the situation left behind.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.