Megalith Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 true i suppose quotes can always have that effect, in order to get the entire context you have to read more than just a few quotes. Whilst looking those up i came across an interesting post on beating. the east is culturally different than the west, it says in the Quran that it is ok to beat someone with thin grass. the reason is not to inflict pain but humility and embarrassment. The Quran deplores violence and constantly says that although it is ok to go with the 'an eye for an eye' philosophy it is better to forgive. The Quran also says that if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't however ever say that it is alright to spill the blood of innocents as retribution as was the case with 911(or to get back on topic what many westerners seem to want) in fact many Muslims have deplored the actions of Al'Quayada as inhumane and against everything the prophet mohammed stands for. Contrarily the Quran would ask that these innocents be given the chance to witness the Good News of Mohammed and that the idiots who committed this act will not go to heaven and be mated with 7 virgins in the perfect garden of delight (as they were indoctrinated to believe) but to suffer for preventing these souls from seeing the light. What you will find if you read the Quran is it is full of texts that are identical to Christian and Jewish doctrines. One of the main reasons these three religions have issues with each other is that they are essentially the same thing. The god being talked about IS the same god whether you call this being God Jehovah or Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 The Quran also says that if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't however ever say that it is alright to spill the blood of innocents as retribution as was the case with 911(or to get back on topic what many westerners seem to want) in fact many Muslims have deplored the actions of Al'Quayada as inhumane and against everything the prophet mohammed stands for. stands for eh??? wot is he still alive then ??? (sry couldn't resist.....).... as i'm sure everyone knows by now, religion isn't the fault but a tool ppl have mis-used..... there little point in saying that the book says this, but they did that to ppls horror... the same could be said about America... they didn't turn the other cheek or forgave, when 9/11 happened... (they recognized the ppl involed were a minority, yet they insisted on bombing a whole country... but thats another thread.... ) yeah, so basically what i've been saying before, its the ppl to blame, not their religion.... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/8/14898 http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=31196 http://www.answering-islam.org/ http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ There.......Hopefully that will shed some light on the subject. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 oh c'mon. it's not even sunday. I hate reading theological stuff during the week. *groan* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Muslims need to be free from Islam........1,000+ years of bondage is enough, IMHO! >:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 religion sucks anyway lol[br]Posted on: March 24, 2007, 03:29:44 AMI say that Ahmadinejad is a madman and a fanatic and now after 15 British service personnel have been kidnapped by the mad mullahs, this can only be seen as a delibrate provocation by the Iranians, so theses people are obviously showing that they want a fight. I hope that our forces spank the Iranians for the kidnapping and warn them in future if this occurs expected a strong reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 Kidnaped? I thought they were arrested for violating Iranian territorial waters. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 now who do you actually believe the Iranians or the British MOD? [br]Posted on: March 24, 2007, 09:33:35 AM Kidnaped? I thought they were arrested for violating Iranian territorial waters. ??? well we could always book them a appointment with our lovely freind called Trident!! hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 now who do you actually believe the Iranians or the British MOD? Neither? ;D Don't get me wrong, I know the Iranian regime has a bunch of loonies, but, given the circumstance, which sovereign nation wouldn't do what the Iranians did? Of course the sailors will be eventually released. The Iranians are just messing with the UK for being in their backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm with Gatefan here. The British and US troops have no business being in that region anyway. If they don't want to get 'kidnapped', for whatever reason, then they either shouldn't go there or shouldn't be in the military, that is what those guys get paid for, to go into hazardous situations, if they weren't in the military, then I'm sure they got hazard pay as well, nobody goes to that region nowadays for no good reasons. Simple as that. Let those buggers in the middle east clean up their own mess (maybe a bit too late for that now though, but the guys who are to blame for that, are still in control of the lot). I allways have a good laugh, when I hear Bush talk about security in the Iraq, "if we pull out our troops now, the level of security will go down drastically". Security for who, I allways wonder? LOL There is only one reason they are in the region, and that is to secure oil supplies, everything else is government 'marketing'. So if you are going there for that reason, then do it right and take over the whole shit house and don't beat around the bush like some half assed wanker. (luckily this is mirror universe :D ) Everybody knows why they are there, why they keep pretending is beyond me. ::) Why everybody turns a blind eye is another thing that is beyond me. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm with Gatefan here. The British and US troops have no business being in that region anyway. If they don't want to get 'kidnapped', for whatever reason, then they either shouldn't go there or shouldn't be in the military, that is what those guys get paid for, to go into hazardous situations, if they weren't in the military, then I'm sure they got hazard pay as well, nobody goes to that region nowadays for no good reasons. Simple as that. Let those buggers in the middle east clean up their own mess (maybe a bit too late for that now though, but the guys who are to blame for that, are still in control of the lot). I allways have a good laugh, when I hear Bush talk about security in the Iraq, "if we pull out our troops now, the level of security will go down drastically". Security for who, I allways wonder? LOL There is only one reason they are in the region, and that is to secure oil supplies, everything else is government 'marketing'. So if you are going there for that reason, then do it right and take over the whole s##t house and don't beat around the bush like some half assed wanker. (luckily this is mirror universe :D ) Everybody knows why they are there, why they keep pretending is beyond me. ::) Why everybody turns a blind eye is another thing that is beyond me. :o First of all what the hell is hazzard pay...no the H M Forces do NOT get Hazard Pay Secondly, just because they are in the area of the iranians does not give them a right to kidnapping our troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 First of all what the hell is hazzard pay...no the H M Forces do NOT get Hazard Pay Secondly, just because they are in the area of the iranians does not give them a right to kidnapping our troops. Indeed, soldiers don't get hazard pay, nor should they. That's what soldiers are for, to go into hazardous situations without hazard pay, the hazard pay reference was for people who are there and are not part of the military, they only go there to get some serious benefits or because they are really humanitarian. Soldiers get paid to fight, no need to complain about 'getting shot' (or dying) afterwards, you knew that might happen when you chose that occupation. I indeed agree, that kidnapping people is not a good business, but then again, just because Bush and Blair say so, doesn't give them the right to occupy Iraq... There was NO UN support for 'the invasion' of Iraq, hence any action Iran takes against Iraqi occupation now, is equally justifiable as the actions the UK and the US took, back then. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 First of all what the hell is hazzard pay...no the H M Forces do NOT get Hazard Pay Secondly, just because they are in the area of the iranians does not give them a right to kidnapping our troops. Indeed, soldiers don't get hazard pay, nor should they. That's what soldiers are for, to go into hazardous situations without hazard pay, the hazard pay reference was for people who are there and are not part of the military, they only go there to get some serious benefits or because they are really humanitarian. Soldiers get paid to fight, no need to complain about 'getting shot' (or dying) afterwards, you knew that might happen when you chose that occupation. I indeed agree, that kidnapping people is not a good business, but then again, just because Bush and Blair say so, doesn't give them the right to occupy Iraq... There was NO UN support for 'the invasion' of Iraq, hence any action Iran takes against Iraqi occupation now, is equally justifiable as the actions the UK and the US took, back then. :) First of all the UN are about as much use as a chocolate ashtray when it comes to milatary terms, damn you need a mandate to goto the loo, they have a proven record of failures in peace keeping you only have to look at Bosnia, Kosovo, Serria Leone. Secondly your view on the armed forces is to put it politly foolish and narrow minded, If you seen what crap they have to put up with, the hours they work, the jobs they do you will see what the tax payer pays then is peanuts and should be alot higher. A example of this is a private in the british army, gets paid 800 pounds a month, for that they are working sometimes upto 16 hours a day 7 days a week for 6 months. Works out about less than 2 pounds a hour!! End of the day theses soldiers do what they are ordered to do by the govenment and the MOD, yes they are paid to fight, but they are also paid to help peace keeping, I was in the royal logistics up until the start of 2005 and done alot of operational tours but did I actually fire a single shot in anger no not at all...not even though I was in Iraq in 2003 war. End of the day you may disagree with a conflict but dont blame the troops who are asking to fight and participate in it, all they require is the support of the people which mostly they get. Finally I would like to point out that most of the comment you see on TV and read else where are people that have never been in theses areas and just jump on the bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't blame the soldiers for their direct actions they were ordered to do at all, in the end it all comes down to the guy at the top imo (the politician who sent them somewhere), whether he was directly involved or not. However they (soldiers) did choose that occupation, they were not forced into it. That means they have to take it the way they get it or leave (when they can), if they don't get paid much, it's probably because there are still plenty people willing to do the job. Supply and demand. All of which happily accept the pay and dangers that come with it. They are NOT forced into arms, thus they accept that they may get orders they do not agree with. I'm sure there are honourable causes to fight for in the world, a whole lot of them probably, but 'the fight' in Iraq is NOT one of them (imo). Sure, once you're in it, you have to do what you can and make the best of it, but that is a direct result of enlisting as a soldier. If you don't want to be placed in such a situation, you should not become a soldier. Complaining about everything that happens/can happen to a soldier changes nothing, it's simply part of 'the deal' and you should accept that once you sign the contract, you knew what could/would happen in advance, ignoring this fact is, as you put it foolish and narrow minded (possibly influenced by some glorious hollywood flics, though I'm pretty sure that last idea washes away rather swiftly once in the forces). :) As for UN military, you do not need direct UN militar control over an operation to have a UN sanctioned operation, for example the Gulf War was largely sanctioned by the UN, yet they had no control over it. A most likely reason why a lot of UN actions have failed, is because they are not aggressive enough. If you must go in, you go in all the way. But you allready mentioned that yourself. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 actually what you said did make sense and is totally right, should the UN give a resolution then it should be left to the powers that enforce it. A good example of the stupid farce of the UN is like Bosnia, under the UN control where the troops had to wear the UN beret and due to them being under UN control they where unable to stop the massacre of thousands of people at serebinica and halt the seige of the city of Sarajevo. Once it changed to NATO then the guys removed there UN berets and basically could act alot stronger. Another example is serria Leone, the UN force was powerless, the killing went on and the UN Troops where powerless, then the Royal Marines and Para's where sent in with SAS support after one battle with the rebels it was all over and control was regained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 But what is the United Nations if not the US, the UK, Russia and so on? The main reason the UN doesn't work is because its member countries don't want it to work. Yeah, the UN has some issues and therefore must be reformed, but this fact alone doesn't authorize powerful member countries to invade and destroy other nations on false pretenses, kidnap and torture "terrorists" in secret prisons, deploy two carrier battle groups (possibly three) in the backyard of a country that curiously hasn't attacked anyone in ages, inspect this country's merchant ships in its territorial waters or pretty close to it etc. etc. Just imagine how many people would have been alive today if the "coalition of the willing" hadn't completely disregarded the UN. Bah, maybe I'm being naive, but I still think the UN is the best hope for peace in this cesspool called Earth. In all honesty, attacking the UN instead of advocating its reformulation is the favorite pastime of warmongers, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 what you do have to remember is the other members of the council are russia and china, both of them are not actually close allies, russia was more bothered about iraq/iran due to there ties with them over oil etc etc so they to are motivated by oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 But what is the United Nations if not the US, the UK, Russia and so on? The main reason the UN doesn't work is because its member countries don't want it to work. Yeah, the UN has some issues and therefore must be reformed, but this fact alone doesn't authorize powerful member countries to invade and destroy other nations on false pretenses, kidnap and torture "terrorists" in secret prisons, deploy two carrier battle groups (possibly three) in the backyard of a country that curiously hasn't attacked anyone in ages, inspect this country's merchant ships in its territorial waters or pretty close to it etc. etc. Just imagine how many people would have been alive today if the "coalition of the willing" hadn't completely disregarded the UN. Bah, maybe I'm being naive, but I still think the UN is the best hope for peace in this cesspool called Earth. In all honesty, attacking the UN instead of advocating its reformulation is the favorite pastime of warmongers, IMHO. Where you been? The UN is 65% Islamic countries.........And when Europe falls to Islam, it'll be 80%. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Ah the joys of stats, personally i wont become a Muslim nor will i become a Christian nor will i succumb to any state organised manipulation of the masses, I have to say i agree with Marx that state religion is the opiate of the masses. Still however i am puzzled over the statistics used but on the basis of many Islam states being small i don't find the statistic claimed to be too outrageous, hell push comes to shove we could always break up Europe into individual townships each with its own un rep, that way there will be more of us than the Islamic countries lol ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 And when Europe falls to Islam LOL, I don't see that happening any time soon. A large part (majority?) of the population of Europe, while officially christian, in reality behaves more like atheists and/or agnostics, they just aren't mature enough yet, to admit it to themselves. In general at least 1/3 of Western Europeans would explicitly rather not have muslims in their neighbourhood, and that's not counting the ones who are unsure. However politically correct mannerism is also very strong in Europe, so you won't see a lot of people directly and identifiably make this opinion known (the results are taken from annonymous voting results and voting polls in 7 western European countries). I wouldn't worry about an Islamic Europe just yet... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now