Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 Isn't this the same person who the other day wanted non-Britons out of this country?
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? 138597[/snapback] They will say so. 138609[/snapback] How? - Nobody has ever asked me in my 57 years whether I would like my country to go to war, on my behalf; bordering on being a pacifist I've been against every invasion we've made including the Falklands and the Gulf wars, as eventually people have to sit down and negotiate and yes innocent people get killed. Granted the majority MAY have wanted to but how would they determine that, Oh yes I know by reading the SUN - You're having a laugh Lush.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 Isn't this the same person who the other day wanted non-Britons out of this country? 138688[/snapback] Quote me? Where is the next dictatorship country to England, where people fear their very lives?
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 How? - Nobody has ever asked me in my 57 years whether I would like my country to go to war, on my behalf; Granted the majority MAY have wanted to but how would they determine that, Oh yes I know by reading the SUN - You're having a laugh Lush. 138690[/snapback] Either democratically, or with their feet. So you HAVE to be asked? I dont get what your onabout, 3rd point? For what its worth, i never buy any paper. Run on.
davieG Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 How? - Nobody has ever asked me in my 57 years whether I would like my country to go to war, on my behalf; Granted the majority MAY have wanted to but how would they determine that, Oh yes I know by reading the SUN - You're having a laugh Lush. 138690[/snapback] Either democratically, or with their feet. Doesn't answer the question, How have I been democratically asked if I want my country to wage war? How do I give my views with my feet? So you HAVE to be asked? Yes Please I dont get what your on about That is your fundamental problem you are so fixated with your hate for Blair, and no I didn't vote him that you seem to miss the fundamental point that most politics/politicians stink(s) whether perceived to be democratic or not. Some are just better/worse than the others. If you took off those anti Blair glasses you might be able to find a little objectivety. 3rd point? For what its worth, i never buy any paper. Pray tell us were you get all your cast iron facts from, not that they would be from a newspaper. Run on. Yes I think I will do, thanks for the advice. 138703[/snapback]
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 How have I been democratically asked if I want my country to wage war? You have a vote. How do I give my views with my feet? `views`? I meant you could use your feet to leave the country, if you dont feel you can change the democratic process. Yes Please Why should a democratically elected government ask your permission to fight a justyfiable war? I dont get what your on about That is your fundamental problem you are so fixated with your hate for Blair, and no I didn't vote him that you seem to miss the fundamental point that most politics/politicians stink(s) whether perceived to be democratic or not. Some are just better/worse than the others. You write all that, and missout what your point was, pointless really. Conversation is not your strong point Pray tell us were you get all your cast iron facts from, not that they would be from a newspaper. I never said i didnt read them, were on the net right...why would you need to buy a paper. 138703[/snapback] 138720[/snapback]
davieG Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 I haven't got the time or inclination to maintain this conversation but I would ask just the following, just for clarification like as I seem to have missed the vote for war: How have I been democratically asked if I want my country to wage war? You have a vote. Can you give me an example of a war that we've been involved in that was part of a polital election manifesto enabling people to vote their preference at any election - EVER. Or any referendum between elections allowing people to vote on entering a war - hmm I didn't think you could. As for voting with my feet and leaving the country, apart from it reflecting your somewhat naive and childish ideas - frankly why should I? especially if there is no way of telling if I'm in a minority or not. You might also consider taking your own advice by leaving the country, considering how against the Irag invasion you are, by the way which way did you vote? for the war or against it - Oh silly me we did not get asked, now that's a novelty.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 I haven't got the time or inclination to maintain this conversation but I would ask just the following, just for clarification like as I seem to have missed the vote for war:Can you give me an example of a war that we've been involved in that was part of a polital election manifesto enabling people to vote their preference at any election - EVER. Or any referendum between elections allowing people to vote on entering a war - hmm I didn't think you could. On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? As for voting with my feet and leaving the country, - frankly why should I? I think you have your wires crossed here. I meant leaving the country if your a victim of the war. You might also consider taking your own advice by leaving the country, considering how against the Irag invasion you are, by the way which way did you vote? for the war or against it - Oh silly me we did not get asked, now that's a novelty. My life is in danger because of blair, but i consider it far more reasonable to stop blair and make my life safer, than walk away from the situation. I voted against the war. 138787[/snapback]
davieG Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? A bit late wasn't it? We couldn't vote to say we don't want to go to war as it had already started.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? A bit late wasn't it? We couldn't vote to say we don't want to go to war as it had already started. 138830[/snapback] The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now.
Deathside Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] I also didn't want the war, the green party or the bnp
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] I also didn't want the war, the green party or the bnp 138841[/snapback] You must`ve voted lib dems then?
davieG Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? A bit late wasn't it? We couldn't vote to say we don't want to go to war as it had already started. 138830[/snapback] The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] What? - The fact is we did not have an opportunity to vote whether we, the voters of this country wanted to start this or any other war. You continue to imply that we did. Fact is we didn't.
Deathside Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] I also didn't want the war, the green party or the bnp 138841[/snapback] You must`ve voted lib dems then? 138847[/snapback] I was unable to vote as a couple of days before the election I was sent to Holland for work - By that time it was too late to apply for a proxy/postal vote
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? A bit late wasn't it? We couldn't vote to say we don't want to go to war as it had already started. 138830[/snapback] The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] What? - The fact is we did not have an opportunity to vote whether we, the voters of this country wanted to start this or any other war. You continue to imply that we did. Fact is we didn't. 138848[/snapback] True, i only knew about the war in december 1999, 2 years after blair won government, 2 years before it started. BUT, if enough people seriously cared (and yes they marched in big numbers) they would down tools or something, they/we didnt care enough. We still had the chance to vote labour out in local elections and the recent general election.
Thracian Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 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] If I could play a different golf shot for all the interpretations of the Koran's teaching that I've heard, you be watching me on telly this week.! I suspect it is rather like the Bible and other religious texts, a bit of a catch all. Read far enough and you find contradictions. I would point out that some prominent people say loudly in public that ANYONE who kills or commits violence in the name of the Koran is not a true follower. Someone must be interpreting wrongly.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 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] If I could play a different golf shot for all the interpretations of the Koran's teaching that I've heard, you be watching me on telly this week.! I suspect it is rather like the Bible and other religious texts, a bit of a catch all. Read far enough and you find contradictions. I would point out that some prominent people say loudly in public that ANYONE who kills or commits violence in the name of the Koran is not a true follower. Someone must be interpreting wrongly. 138892[/snapback] I feel slightly disapointed in your understanding of English, Thracian. I`d like you to show me the best possible meaning imaginable for the following text: "Fight those of the Unbelievers who live near to you, and show them how harsh you can be." (The Koran. Surah 8.123) God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly." "law that orders me to cut off the head of anyone that insults Allah and the Prophet." the Koran: Surah 25, ayat 52 “so, do not obey the unbelievers and strive against them with the Koran mightily†Allah created man from a blood clot [96:1-2], from water [25:54], from clay [15:26], from dust [30:20], from nothing [3:47]. “Every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him.†[30:26] "Men are in charge of women ... good women are obedient … ... from those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and scourge them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." [4:34] The Qur’an also shows us it is lawful to rape the women we capture in warfare: “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] "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers." [48:29] “Slay the pagans wherever ye find them…â€Â.[9:5] “Fight the unbelievers till they pay the Jizya (heavy tax on non-Muslims) and are subdued.â€Â[9:29] "If they accept Islam, desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [heavy tax on non-Muslims]. … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" [sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4294]
Deathside Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 I`d like you to show me the best possible meaning imaginable for the following text: "Fight those of the Unbelievers who live near to you, and show them how harsh you can be." (The Koran. Surah 8.123) 138899[/snapback] Question: Which translation of The Koran is this from Answer: It is a direct quote from a speech by Nick Griffin (leader of the bnp)
Thracian Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 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! 137669[/snapback] There are lots of "Westernised" Muslims and Muslims who are no more into religion than casual Christians but it is not easy to look on an see your country's laid-back lifestyle being changed before your eyes. And although I think it is cowardly and unpleasant for any man to launch such vitriol at almost any woman (it brings us down towards the level of the bombers) I wonder how you would feel if one of your friends, relatives or colleagues was having what remains of her body scraped off a tube station carriage? Which is worse, a few reactionary words or the prospect of a loved one who is never coming home? Decent Muslims themselves are in as much a battle as Christians etc in trying to rescue their good name because I truly believe the fanatics - hard though they are hitting the West - are actually harming the Muslim image far faster and far more permanently than they harm us. Indeed, at the speed it takes to sweep a sword blade across some innocent Aid Worker's throat they are changing the name of the religion they supposedly love into the most loathsome word in the English language. Some achievement that considering that a few years ago there was very little but respect for the word and for Muslim peoples. I was lucky enough to have a Muslim girlfriend long ago. She was kind, beautiful, honest, a devoted and hardworking nurse with a wonderful sense of humour and a lovely family. If everyone were like her what a wonderful world we would live in. Sadly they are not and you will find it as uncomfortable as we do until the fanatics are silenced by what I believe will not be by violence and insults but by a huge groundswell of decency and belief in what we stand for. But make no mistake. The Muslims must fight for a decent England the same as us. And in doing so they must stop trying to change our land, stop trying to villify our beliefs and instead learn to appreciate green and pleasant England, to respect it and to enjoy it. In doing so some of what decent Muslims stand for might rub off in a positive manner instead of rubbing off on the shovel of a rescue worker.
Thracian Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 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] Spot on Legendette.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 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 137669[/snapback] I was on my way home from the celtic game some years ago ironically, and a car load of asians on welford road drove by and squirted water at me from a water gun, and shouted `nearly, white guy, nearly`. At first i thought bloody hell, im going to be shot, then the water come out and i wasnt bothered. Define `half muslim` for me?
Thracian Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 On may the 5th we had the chance to vote against the war. We blew it, and let blair rage more terror in iraq and thus encourage evil scum to rage evil upon us. If you dont like that, then do something about it? A bit late wasn't it? We couldn't vote to say we don't want to go to war as it had already started. 138830[/snapback] The liberal democrats didnt want the war, the green party, the bnp and probably others. There would be nothing to stop either party pulling out, if they saw fit to do so, as labour now. 138836[/snapback] What? - The fact is we did not have an opportunity to vote whether we, the voters of this country wanted to start this or any other war. You continue to imply that we did. Fact is we didn't. 138848[/snapback] It is also a fact that we were utterly deceived over the basis for going to war ie WMD (certainly in the light of the subsequent lack of evidence). A final fact is that we never had a proper up-to-the-minute mandate from our allies to go to war. The claim that we did have a previous mandate was nebulous and debateable at best because it was known that the position of our allies had shifted since that mandate. Pulling out, I would add, brings its own extremely serious moral dilemnas and specific difficulties.
Thracian Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 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] If I could play a different golf shot for all the interpretations of the Koran's teaching that I've heard, you be watching me on telly this week.! I suspect it is rather like the Bible and other religious texts, a bit of a catch all. Read far enough and you find contradictions. I would point out that some prominent people say loudly in public that ANYONE who kills or commits violence in the name of the Koran is not a true follower. Someone must be interpreting wrongly. 138892[/snapback] I feel slightly disapointed in your understanding of English, Thracian. I`d like you to show me the best possible meaning imaginable for the following text: "Fight those of the Unbelievers who live near to you, and show them how harsh you can be." (The Koran. Surah 8.123) God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly." "law that orders me to cut off the head of anyone that insults Allah and the Prophet." the Koran: Surah 25, ayat 52 “so, do not obey the unbelievers and strive against them with the Koran mightily†Allah created man from a blood clot [96:1-2], from water [25:54], from clay [15:26], from dust [30:20], from nothing [3:47]. “Every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him.†[30:26] "Men are in charge of women ... good women are obedient … ... from those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and scourge them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." [4:34] The Qur’an also shows us it is lawful to rape the women we capture in warfare: “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] "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers." [48:29] “Slay the pagans wherever ye find them…â€Â.[9:5] “Fight the unbelievers till they pay the Jizya (heavy tax on non-Muslims) and are subdued.â€Â[9:29] "If they accept Islam, desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [heavy tax on non-Muslims]. … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" [sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4294] 138899[/snapback] First this is from ancient text written in ancient circumstances. Secondly it is a translation and it fact that much can be lost in translation but there really is much can be said about the possible meaning of each and every sentence. Thirdly: you yourself demonstrate the inconsistencies of the text (such inconsistencies being equally obvious in the Bible) Fourthly: There were many parallels of attitude which could be applied to the Christian armies which fought the Crusades (slaughter of the infidel, demanding ransom for the captured and the misuse and subjection of women which has persisted in all armies since time immemorial) Fifthly: Many moderate modern Muslims (like Christians) have moved on to accept interpretations of the Koran which are more sensibly applied in the 21st century. They are not Fundamentalists. Finally: of the Fundamentalists who would follow these teachings in a literal manner (accepting some variation in translation/interpretation) you have the remaining problem of how best to react to their thirst for murder, maiming and causing mayhem (consequences which we are guilty of too). Wars against all sorts have been tried with diabolical consequences. Given that those wars solved nothing in the medium term we need to think again about what our reaction to the bombings (etc) should be. The word in my view is stronger than weopons.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 1st. So what? 2nd. Why must someone then be interpreting it the wrong way? 3rd. How do i demonstrate the inconsistences? 4th. What the hell are you now onabout? 5th. So what they now learn isnt the orignal situation, makes a complete mockery of the koran. What is the sensible mode? final. So the understanding originality of the koran is pure evil, because you either go by the headline of what you believe in (which is fundamental), or you dont believe in it, and any modernisation of it is false. Im even more against religion than i was before. It should be sold in the comedy section, for private use only.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.