I'll just leave these 2 links here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close |
||
|
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
I'll just leave these 2 links here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski The local TV here just mentioned the hijacker gave up and released all the hostages.
charlo999 said: » A lot of maybes, might, could dos. Ending with a theory 120 others ready to strike. Scare time. This is the sort of media that pisses me of, especially when it gets transferred to newspapers. The big bold headlines will say something like 'Muslim terrorist holds hostages at gunpoint. With other cells ready to strike' Then in small print tell you it's only a theory. But not all people read small print or just see headlines as they pass. I honestly don't pay much attention to that, because as you mention, it usually is exaggeration. And it's like a vaccine. You eventually build natural resistance to that kind of stimuli. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Downplaying Muslim terrorists in light of things like IS and governments that are basically terrorist supporters. The IRA is a terrorist organization. In my opinion many (not all, but many) "civillian militias" in the U.S. are terrorist organizations. There are all kinds of religious and non-religious terrorist groups worldwide. Bad people are bad people and need to be stopped. As horrible as the attacks in France are, there's far, far worse done on a daily basis that people don't get outraged enough about because it happens in "less important" places to them. I know for me going to news websites anymore is an exercise in anger management because of all the absolutely horrific things you read. This week in Nigeria there was a bomb strapped to a little girl and they put her in a marketplace where she and many others were killed. What kind of sick *** does that? I'm pretty sure there isn't a single religion out there that condones that. What the *** is going on in your brain chemistry that says that's an okay thing to do? How can they even pretend it's about religion? Yet this was done by Boko Haram, a radical Muslim terrorist group. Ugh. I don't even know where I'm going with this post anymore outside of "terrorism bad", but don't *** pretend there aren't plenty of Muslim terrorists. There are plenty of NON-Muslim terrorists as well, but it seems like you're going out of your way to prove they're somehow "not as bad" or "less of a threat" than the world thinks. Agreed. While you're on the subject of Boka Haram; they're pretty much as looney as they come. Boka Haram literally means "westerners are haram(forbidden)". Its more like a Black Supremacist group with racist exclusionist ideals; Nigerians who hate "whitey", like many others in the world, Hijacking religion to enforce and oppress. Now I put these points to you, (I bet the few months of exchange between have actually lead to something tangible) 1.would you agree that religion should not be politicized, that politics should never have religions ambitions, and religions should never have political ambitions? 2.would you agree to an international law that banned the practice of using religion as a justification for war, oppression, favoritism, prejudice good or bad, discrimination, state provided benefits? 3.Would you agree that everyone is free to organize and assemble in their private life, outside of any political or state position, religious gatherings and sermons, providing that they were not political in nature? If you do agree to those 3 we've arrived at a middle ground. EDIT: Forgot to mention my original point; Society and people everywhere would be better served if the media stopped grouping MASSIVE amounts of people together into 1 group. Boka Haram would likely shoot me on site if they saw me within their neighbourhood or try to hold me hostage. I'm a Muslim with absolutely nothing in common with them other than the fact that my dad is black. However, taking the above reality as context, there are way tooooo many people in this world that would consider me and Boka Haram one and the same. Even though my family is a mixture of european Nords and Arabs, and my values and principles while Islamic, are a different kind of "Islamic" than FOX news would have most people believe is "Islam". There are a few points that could maybe be clarified better but broadly speaking, yes. I agree with those points.
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » There are a few points that could maybe be clarified better but broadly speaking, yes. I agree with those points. Awesome. The details could be hammered out in discussions and debate to arrive at a joint agreement, much like how 6 months ago we were at each others throats and today we can agree on things. Now all we need is everyone in the world to accept tolerance and diversity as a situation that is never going to change, and see the beauty in it. Tall order. As someone who lives on a "pretty liberal" country I totally understand your point now, Blazed.
But you have to agree that back then (few months ago) when you were discussing this topic, you were not being very political and that was why people were being resistant to your comments. leo said: » As someone who lives on a "pretty liberal" country I totally understand your point now, Blazed. But you have to agree that back then (few months ago) when you were discussing this topic, you were not being very political and that was why people were being resistant to your comments. I'll gladly say that I could do a better job at explaining myself and my thoughts, opinions etc, but I am lazy and more inclined to half *** things if I'm not getting paid for it. More importantly, and seriously, I've done some growing (which is the goal for me, and why I do anything at all). But I think many of you have done some growing too. The Hardliners (some) aren't sounding as crazy as they used to. I still maintain that the best solution is for religion to go away entirely. It wouldn't get rid of all the violence in the world, but it would take away a major source of conflict. But forcing that change upon people isn't any better that trying to force religion on people. Then you're just the opposite of IS; an atheistic terrorist.
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » I still maintain that the best solution is for religion to go away entirely. It wouldn't get rid of all the violence in the world, but it would take away a major source of conflict. But forcing that change upon people isn't any better that trying to force religion on people. Then you're just the opposite of IS; an atheistic terrorist. You and I differ on what we think religion is and what the cause of violence is. You and I agree in condemning the violence. You and I agree that we should aim for a world free of violence, even though it likely impossible. You think Religion is a contributor, I think it is the easiest thing to Hijack as it can transcend ethnicity, skin color, age, sex, geographical locations and borders. The question I have for you now, and what I think you need to ask yourself is; Are you blaming religion because you don't believe in it from a faith standpoint or because you truly believe its teachings contributes towards the violence or is the "cause"? But then again, I think if we're going to discuss religion, we should try to talk about each one individually, or at least group them into monotheistic such as the Abrahamic religions (christianity/judaism/islam) and the far eastern religions. I actually agree with you that it's an easy thing to hijack and isn't the "cause". But when you factor in that I personally feel religion is a bunch of hooey anyhow, I feel like, as a race, if we could all agree to set religion aside, you've got a MAJOR source of conflict removed.
Then, at that point, the crazies have no "divine justification" for their attrocities. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Then, at that point, the crazies have no "divine justification" for their attrocities. Personally, I believe that the removal of religion would remove a major source of conflict, but it wouldn't reduce the amount or intensity of conflict. People will still fight, they just won't use "Well, my God is better than your God" as an excuse. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Then, at that point, the crazies have no "divine justification" for their attrocities. Personally, I believe that the removal of religion would remove a major source of conflict, but it wouldn't reduce the amount or intensity of conflict. People will still fight, they just won't use "Well, my God is better than your God" as an excuse. But it's far easier to unite people against and wipe out a group of horrible war criminals when you don't have a potential religious dilema. I'm not saying it would get rid of all the problems. I'm just saying it would help. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Then, at that point, the crazies have no "divine justification" for their attrocities. Personally, I believe that the removal of religion would remove a major source of conflict, but it wouldn't reduce the amount or intensity of conflict. People will still fight, they just won't use "Well, my God is better than your God" as an excuse. People will always find a reason to hate, be jealous and kill. Religion has become an excuse to manipulate people into doing it, much like our states are the same thing. States make their whole country believe there is an enemy out there when there isn't (speaking of situations when the sole purpose was money, like Iraq, Libya and so on). As much as religions are merely a way of life that a lot of people who aren't religious follow, too, it would be replaced by something as soon as you remove it. Reminds me of Equilibrium. Any human community that doesn't follow a mentality that is similar to the Japanese one is literally bound to have members that are cancer. And even then, Japan has cancer, too. I'm saying this because there are things happening there that you would never imagine to happen outside of it. All you can do for your ideals and your pleasure of living is to follow your own path and not pay attention to this crazy world. The less you care, the better it gets, just like video games. I'll agree that religion is a basis for a huge amount of evil and bloodshed in the world.
But I believe it's a direct result of man using it as such. Also to control and divide people. Which is the biggest sadness I've seen, because at its core teachings, are good values and love. I can see how it's an easy thing to blame on a whole given the state of the world. And how atheism can be an easy chose. I was myself for as long as I can remember until I gave the scriptures some time. The concept of religion is to control, nothing else.
Religion promises life after death without basis of argument. It creates the illusion of "follow my path and you shall be saved! If you don't believe what I believe, I will kill you for purification of society!" charlo999 said: » Which is the biggest sadness I've seen, because at its core teachings, are good values and love. I would debate that, but it's somewhat inappropriate to the thread and I just don't have the time today. I don't think you choose Atheism.
Even people who are born within religion may get out of it one day, because they simply do not believe in all of that or not the same way. Also, people who are born without any specific religious influence may convert to a religion. I wouldn't say it's a choice though, it's more a matter of sharing values with a religion, or not, and wanting, or not, to be active within/related to it. But you don't suddenly choose to believe in something, that kind of stuff would only work for people who are really weak minded, or brainwashed. There are a few religions that did strike me as familiar, but if I became Buddhist or Muslim tomorrow, it wouldn't really be choosing to be religious, it would merely be me saying "yeah, so, this religion has the same values as I do, might as well brand myself to make it official". Blaming is a waste of time anyway, time is better spent trying to find a solution or doing things enjoyable. I don't know about that. I share many, many of the more common beliefs with Christianity. I just don't believe in, or see the need for, some all-powerful man in the sky to enforce those beliefs.
charlo999 said: » I'll agree that religion is a basis for a huge amount of evil and bloodshed in the world. But I believe it's a direct result of man using it as such. Also to control and divide people. Which is the biggest sadness I've seen, because at its core teachings, are good values and love. I can see how it's an easy thing to blame on a whole given the state of the world. And how atheism can be an easy chose. I was myself for as long as I can remember until I gave the scriptures some time. I have a few atheist friends. The biggest problem that they have, is being unable to separate religion from God. Of course, I guess religious people have that issue too. I love Christopher Hitchens, in fact, I agree with every single thing he says. I also believe in a higher entity. The only way that I can agree with Chris Hitchens, and believe in God, is if religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is a man-made construct. It's a belief set dictated by doctrine. For that reason, it will be just as imperfect and screwed up as the men that make it. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with religion. You can drop a nuke on the whole world and completely kill every human being, thus killing religion at the same time, and that has no effect whatsoever on whether God exists or not. Believe what you think is right. If you are making a decision about God on scientific evidence, then youre an idiot. The existence of God is not something science can ever prove or disprove. Science is designed for natural observable phenomenon, which God is not. The proof? Think of it this way, if God does not exist, then you atheists are right, there is no evidence for God. However, if God does exists, then every single thing from the farthest galaxy to the smallest sub-atomic particle is not only evidence but proof. You just have to figure out whether you think he is there or not. Sorry for the sermon. Religious people give God a bad name. Unfortunately, people convert to atheism because they can't tell the difference between religion and God. Edit: I don't understand what people find so unrealistic about a consciousness existing in higher dimensions than ours. We humans have it covered up to the 4th dimension (Time). Why do we think that this is as far as something "alive" can go? Asura.Kingnobody said: » That source failed to mention that Brian Kilmeade almost immediately followed up trying to clarify what he meant. C'mon, dude "bold, provocative soundbite followed by miles of half-assed caveats" is like, the oldest trick in the book Asura.Alexandero said: » charlo999 said: » I'll agree that religion is a basis for a huge amount of evil and bloodshed in the world. But I believe it's a direct result of man using it as such. Also to control and divide people. Which is the biggest sadness I've seen, because at its core teachings, are good values and love. I can see how it's an easy thing to blame on a whole given the state of the world. And how atheism can be an easy chose. I was myself for as long as I can remember until I gave the scriptures some time. I have a few atheist friends. The biggest problem that they have, is being unable to separate religion from God. Of course, I guess religious people have that issue too. I love Christopher Hitchens, in fact, I agree with every single thing he says. I also believe in a higher entity. The only way that I can agree with Chris Hitchens, and believe in God, is if religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is a man-made construct. It's a belief set dictated by doctrine. For that reason, it will be just as imperfect and screwed up as the men that make it. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with religion. You can drop a nuke on the whole world and completely kill every human being, thus killing religion at the same time, and that has no effect whatsoever on whether God exists or not. Believe what you think is right. If you are making a decision about God on scientific evidence, then youre an idiot. The existence of God is not something science can ever prove or disprove. Science is designed for natural observable phenomenon, which God is not. The proof? Think of it this way, if God does not exist, then you atheists are right, there is no evidence for God. However, if God does exists, then every single thing from the farthest galaxy to the smallest sub-atomic particle is not only evidence but proof. You just have to figure out whether you think he is there or not. Sorry for the sermon. Religious people give God a bad name. Unfortunately, people convert to atheism because they can't tell the difference between religion and God. Edit: I don't understand what people find so unrealistic about a consciousness existing in higher dimensions than ours. We humans have it covered up to the 4th dimension (Time). Why do we think that this is as far as something "alive" can go? So basically you're an agnostic, disbelieving in religion, but keeping open the possibility of some greater cosmic being who put into motion everything we observe. I don't really have a problem with that. I don't necessarily agree, but as long as it gels with observable scientific facts I can't say you're wrong, either. Hell, I guess maybe I AM the same as you in that regard. But my acceptance of the possibility of some greater cosmic entity doesn't mean much in the scheme of the day to day here on our little blue planet. The idea of the Bible's "Jehova", so to speak, is utterly ridiculous, as are the contents/implications of every other "holy book" out there. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » "Jehova"
Sorry. Coincidentally, I don't believe in reading VG Cats, either. Though that has less to do with spirituality and more to do with my feelings on web comics and the people who write them and the ethics of their "business".
But I digress. Asura.Kingnobody said: » The concept of religion is to control, nothing else. Religion promises life after death without basis of argument. It creates the illusion of "follow my path and you shall be saved! If you don't believe what I believe, I will kill you for purification of society!" Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » I don't know about that. I share many, many of the more common beliefs with Christianity. I just don't believe in, or see the need for, some all-powerful man in the sky to enforce those beliefs. This is what I used to think but. You need to look at it from a different point of view. Look at god as a father. It is easier to do this if you are a father yourself. His teachings are to aid us not confine us. As any father would do to a son. And for the same reason we teach our children morales and good. Why is this? To enforce a happier life. Not matter how much your child rebels. Also to respect your father is to learn humility. Something lost in the current world of self importance. Think of scriptures as learning tools for our own benifit. And not tools for controlling us. Do you not tell your children to do something's and they do it on the faith they have that your doing right by them. Even if you have to use tough love. Remember the saying, there can be no love without trust/faith. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » ![]() charlo999 said: » Think of scriptures as learning tools for our own benifit. And not tools for controlling us. There has been many wars and campaigns (also crusades) where the main goal is to expand religion. Heck, the Mayans were eradicated because of the expansion of Christianity. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. The English did it. The French did it. The Germans did it. The Russians did it. The Chinese did it. The Japanese did it (somewhat). In fact, it is historically proven that the church had more control and power at various points in time than the state had. Asura.Kingnobody said: » charlo999 said: » Think of scriptures as learning tools for our own benifit. And not tools for controlling us. There has been many wars and campaigns (also crusades) where the main goal is to expand religion. Heck, the Mayans were eradicated because of the expansion of Christianity. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. The English did it. The French did it. The Germans did it. The Russians did it. The Chinese did it. The Japanese did it (somewhat). In fact, it is historically proven that the church had more control and power at various points in time than the state had. I've already stated that I agree with everything you say here. That humans have done a great job of using religion as a weapon But there are good religious people too. But when would that ever make the news, can you imagine. Fred helps Margery across the road and buys her some food. Or Sam houses a homeless man until he recovers from illness. Etc. labels help people assign emotions to what is going on. if you just say some guy has a hostage then yes that is bad but people wont be talking about it for days. The news is the real terrorist. they use buzz words, labels and selective reporting to get ratings and money.
also to control public thought and mask the movements of the Illuminati. charlo999 said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » charlo999 said: » Think of scriptures as learning tools for our own benifit. And not tools for controlling us. There has been many wars and campaigns (also crusades) where the main goal is to expand religion. Heck, the Mayans were eradicated because of the expansion of Christianity. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. The English did it. The French did it. The Germans did it. The Russians did it. The Chinese did it. The Japanese did it (somewhat). In fact, it is historically proven that the church had more control and power at various points in time than the state had. I've already stated that I agree with everything you say here. That humans have done a great job of using religion as a weapon |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||