Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
When Will Islamic Separatists Stop Unsettling The World?
88 Answers
As usual, Religion at the route of all evils.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bravehearted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Debate surely, rather than argue ZebUK ?
I'm glad your Muslim friends think the way they, but if they are like my Muslims friends, they are not powerful Heads of State in Muslims countries.
Lets hear condemnation from important Muslim people in the world, and maybe ISIS and others will listen. Slim hope I realise but it has to be worth a try.
I'm glad your Muslim friends think the way they, but if they are like my Muslims friends, they are not powerful Heads of State in Muslims countries.
Lets hear condemnation from important Muslim people in the world, and maybe ISIS and others will listen. Slim hope I realise but it has to be worth a try.
// We really should have stayed out of the middle east and left them to it. //
The Ottoman's ruled the middle east for 600 years before we got our hands on it in 1919. After we had finished redrawing all the boundaries and inventing a few countries, the whole place was a mess. Most of our problems now with the middle east are the result of 100 years of US, UK and French meddling.
The Ottoman's ruled the middle east for 600 years before we got our hands on it in 1919. After we had finished redrawing all the boundaries and inventing a few countries, the whole place was a mess. Most of our problems now with the middle east are the result of 100 years of US, UK and French meddling.
No you would not, jomifl. Depending on the circumstances you would be prosecuted for a religiously aggravated offence, not a racially aggravated one. A mute point because the penalties are usually the same, but an important one for the sake of this question. It's interesting, though, that you should mention that "...most muslims are born into islam and cannot opt out". I think a bit part of Islam's problem is that children are born into its faith and cannot make up their own minds about it later in life (presumably for fear of violent retribution).
I'll not go down the road of arguing why criticising a religion is not racist, ZebUK (but see above).
I know you seem to have opted out of a debate in which you freely took part. I imagine you did not like some of the opinions voiced. But, in case you have not, I will defend your accusation that I am an ignorant excuse for a human being. I've been accused of many things, but ignorance is not usually among them. I am perfectly well aware that there are multifarious strains of Islam. That, my friend, simply compounds the problem because it seems that not only can many (not all, remember) Muslims not tolerate other religions, they also cannot tolerate different strains of their own. (Bear in mind that, bar the Israel/Palestine/Gaza scuffle, strife in the Middle East and much of Africa is almost entirely due to "tribal" disagreements between the various Islamic factions). I will defend my description of Islam as wretched because whilst it has many peaceful and peace loving followers, it has a hugely disproportionate number of followers prepared to cause death, destruction and mayhem in the name of their cause. That's why I describe it as "wretched"
It is interesting that Bravehearted suggests that religion is the root of all evils. I don't know about all evils but in one way or another religion is certainly responsible for just about all of the world's wars. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it will be something else.
I'll not go down the road of arguing why criticising a religion is not racist, ZebUK (but see above).
I know you seem to have opted out of a debate in which you freely took part. I imagine you did not like some of the opinions voiced. But, in case you have not, I will defend your accusation that I am an ignorant excuse for a human being. I've been accused of many things, but ignorance is not usually among them. I am perfectly well aware that there are multifarious strains of Islam. That, my friend, simply compounds the problem because it seems that not only can many (not all, remember) Muslims not tolerate other religions, they also cannot tolerate different strains of their own. (Bear in mind that, bar the Israel/Palestine/Gaza scuffle, strife in the Middle East and much of Africa is almost entirely due to "tribal" disagreements between the various Islamic factions). I will defend my description of Islam as wretched because whilst it has many peaceful and peace loving followers, it has a hugely disproportionate number of followers prepared to cause death, destruction and mayhem in the name of their cause. That's why I describe it as "wretched"
It is interesting that Bravehearted suggests that religion is the root of all evils. I don't know about all evils but in one way or another religion is certainly responsible for just about all of the world's wars. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it will be something else.
NJ, :o) An interesting point is that if I called someone a 'tory b@stard' would I get nicked for 'political aggravation', Seeing as how both political and religious affiliation is a matter of personal choice then they should be equivalent at least in the eyes of the law.
Re. the 'religion of peace' it is ironic that more muslims have been killed y other muslims than were ever killed by the crusaders.
Re. the 'religion of peace' it is ironic that more muslims have been killed y other muslims than were ever killed by the crusaders.
You know...it's rather baffling that so many people don't realise why the West gets involved in Middle East conflicts.
Does anyone believe that we go out and shed the blood of young soldiers in an effort to spread the word of democracy?
Go on - on a show of hands, who thinks we do it for altruistic reasons.
And who thinks we do it because our lives in the West are built on this black sticky stuff that comes out of the ground?
This is what is happening - Western leaders need to keep trade routes around the Middle East secure and open. They certainly don't want the region to fall into the hands of extremists.
Therefore, so that we can enjoy our cars, plastic products, heat our homes, service our industries, we send young men and women out to the Middle East to die.
I think that's pretty much it.
If anyone has a better explanation as to why we are in this position now, please...furnish us with your wisdom.
Does anyone believe that we go out and shed the blood of young soldiers in an effort to spread the word of democracy?
Go on - on a show of hands, who thinks we do it for altruistic reasons.
And who thinks we do it because our lives in the West are built on this black sticky stuff that comes out of the ground?
This is what is happening - Western leaders need to keep trade routes around the Middle East secure and open. They certainly don't want the region to fall into the hands of extremists.
Therefore, so that we can enjoy our cars, plastic products, heat our homes, service our industries, we send young men and women out to the Middle East to die.
I think that's pretty much it.
If anyone has a better explanation as to why we are in this position now, please...furnish us with your wisdom.
NJ
I understand what you're saying, but in order to preserve our interests we supply freedom fighters like Osama Bin Laden, who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan with arms, supplies, intelligence and funding.
And then after it all go tits up, and we scratch out the word 'freedom fighter' and replace it (correctly, as it transpires) with the word 'terrorist', Western leaders start braying on about a 'War on Terror' and like gullible sheep, we (and by 'we' I don't include myself) lap it up.
We have stoked the fire of animosity between Muslim factions.
We went into Iraq without an exit plan.
We have destabilised the region.
Our chickens have come home to roost.
How many Muslim terrorist attacks did we suffer before the first attacks on Iraq?
Isn't there a direct link between that and the fact that terrorism has escalated exponentially since then?
I understand what you're saying, but in order to preserve our interests we supply freedom fighters like Osama Bin Laden, who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan with arms, supplies, intelligence and funding.
And then after it all go tits up, and we scratch out the word 'freedom fighter' and replace it (correctly, as it transpires) with the word 'terrorist', Western leaders start braying on about a 'War on Terror' and like gullible sheep, we (and by 'we' I don't include myself) lap it up.
We have stoked the fire of animosity between Muslim factions.
We went into Iraq without an exit plan.
We have destabilised the region.
Our chickens have come home to roost.
How many Muslim terrorist attacks did we suffer before the first attacks on Iraq?
Isn't there a direct link between that and the fact that terrorism has escalated exponentially since then?
Of course Islamic terrorism is a relatively new threat. The US had never been attacked on home soil before 9/11. There were occassional hijackings, but nothing worth going to war about.
From the 1940s until recently, the battle grounds in the middle east were more about halting the spread of Communism. The West supported corrupt and bloody despots because they were on the west's side. Countries such as Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq who were alligned with the Soviet Union and were subjected to plots by the CIA to destabise them. After They had repelled the Russians, Afghanistan was ripe for taking (though it didn't quite go to plan). Israel was seen as anti Communist, so the US armed them to the teeth.
Sp is right, energy supply security is also a major factor. The US fought he Gulf war because Saddam had communist support and he was threatening the oil supply.
From the 1940s until recently, the battle grounds in the middle east were more about halting the spread of Communism. The West supported corrupt and bloody despots because they were on the west's side. Countries such as Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq who were alligned with the Soviet Union and were subjected to plots by the CIA to destabise them. After They had repelled the Russians, Afghanistan was ripe for taking (though it didn't quite go to plan). Israel was seen as anti Communist, so the US armed them to the teeth.
Sp is right, energy supply security is also a major factor. The US fought he Gulf war because Saddam had communist support and he was threatening the oil supply.
naomi24
I think we are well past acknowledging the existence of Islamic extremists. Anyone who thinks they don't exist is an idiot.
But standing shoulder to shoulder with those idiots are those who fail to acknowledge where this fundamentalist movement(s) come from.
It's like you getting home to find a small fire in your living room. You grab a fire extinguisher (the first Gulf War) and put out the fire...but then you don't bother to find out what caused the fire in the first place.
And to make matters worse, you carry on with fifteen different electrical items plugged into one wall socket.
I think we are well past acknowledging the existence of Islamic extremists. Anyone who thinks they don't exist is an idiot.
But standing shoulder to shoulder with those idiots are those who fail to acknowledge where this fundamentalist movement(s) come from.
It's like you getting home to find a small fire in your living room. You grab a fire extinguisher (the first Gulf War) and put out the fire...but then you don't bother to find out what caused the fire in the first place.
And to make matters worse, you carry on with fifteen different electrical items plugged into one wall socket.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
Strands #262 “For Our Furry...
Quizzes & Puzzles202 mins ago
Is There An Option To Turn Of Reader
TV235 mins ago
ChatterBank244 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.