Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist.
Does that mean one should condemn the teachings of Buddhism?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Look, taking the 1,400 year old writings about from someone who was clearly suffering from some sort of mental problems about how to firstly defend a specific group of people living in the middle east from the attack of another group and then later how to grew the power and influence of that specific group of people and using these writings as a basis of how to live your life in as part of a global economy is pretty ridiculous to me.
It’s not, however, any more ridiculous than taking the badly edited and translated writings of various different people living 1,700 years ago who were pushing their own separate and confliciting agendas for the development of a set of rules, laws and fables that dates back into prehistory and using that as the basis of how to live a modern life.
What makes me laugh is when one of these groups attacks the other for haveing outdated and dangerous beliefs.
So, Christianity represents as much of a threat as does Islam to today’s world, because they both have, and still do, advocate violent means on the part of their followers to further their respective “movements?”
Look, let’s cut to the chase: Are you denying that the teachings of Islam (as recognized by the mainstream schools and “jurors”) condone, sanction and even advocate violent means to their ends, and do so more than the teachings of the other major religions?
Because if you do, I’d love for you to explain to me why the overwhelming majority of car-bombing, suicide-killing, justice-by-stoning, gay-murdering, author-threatening, honor-killing, cartoon-based rioting, apostate-punishing folks in the world just happen to carry out their fine deeds in the name of Islam.
[/quote]
No I have freely admited that those messages are within islam (alongside plenty of messages of peace) and are esoused widely today and I think that it is disgusting. I don’t however think that it is justification for saying that anyone in Guantanamo is guilty by association. And I do think that it is hypocritical of one religious group to insult another relgious group for having bonkers beliefs.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Ok so the fact that he was raised a catholic and lived as a (pretty warped) Christian and claimed to be a christian throughout his life shouldn’t lead me to think he was a Christian then?
To be fair the guy was fruit loop nuts and inconsistant with what he said throughout his life, I don’t blame Christianity for that but to claim him as an example of the evils of atheism is a bit of a stretch.
If I remember correctly, a British guy living in Mexico was raised religious (Anglican?) and he became an atheist. And you can’t be completely immersed and addicted to the occult like ol’ Dolph was and call yourself a Christian so quit with the bullshit psuedo history that the butcher claimed “to be a Christian throughout his life.”
And learn to capitalize proper nouns, mi querido niño lento.
Bottom line is he may not have been an avowed atheist in the likes of Stalin but he certainly did not lead a government that espoused the tenets of Christianity nor did he personally lead any semblance of a Christian life whatsoever.
Stalin, by the way, was raised Eastern Orthodox so I guess he too was incapable of being an atheist by your reckoning, but [/quote]
Sorry if I miss out the odd capitalised proper noun, it is partly from multi tasking and partly from spending half my life typing in Spanish.
Hitler did at various points claim to be Christian but at other times I’m sure he thought he was Napoleon. Lets face it, he thought he was tall, blonde haired and blue eyed so who knows what was going through his crazed skull, my point was, to claim him in the ranks of the atheists is a bit of a stretch.
Stalin definitely espoused an atheist agenda it’s about the only thing he got right.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you are missing the point, the catholic church which is the source of education for many in Africa is against condoms this is a problem in that men have unprotected sex with prostitutes or lovers pick up HIV then go back and give it to their wife who then has children born with HIV.
So Catholics must adapt their thinking to the consequences of other’s people risky behavior. No. Blame the people themselves. Also, is there a Catholic army keeping atheists from providing all this education and condoms galore?[/quote]
Well they have adapted their thinking for far less noble reasons so I don’t see any reason why not.
And when you ask about a Catholic army keeping atheists from providing the education then effectively there is. The church as a lobbying group is immensly powerful and is able to control where aid is sent and what education is attached to it even from the US government. There is another thread here about exactly this issue.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you are missing the point, the catholic church which is the source of education for many in Africa is against condoms this is a problem in that men have unprotected sex with prostitutes or lovers pick up HIV then go back and give it to their wife who then has children born with HIV.
So Catholics must adapt their thinking to the consequences of other’s people risky behavior. No. Blame the people themselves. Also, is there a Catholic army keeping atheists from providing all this education and condoms galore?
Well they have adapted their thinking for far less noble reasons so I don’t see any reason why not.
And when you ask about a Catholic army keeping atheists from providing the education then effectively there is. The church as a lobbying group is immensly powerful and is able to control where aid is sent and what education is attached to it even from the US government. There is another thread here about exactly this issue.[/quote]
So, in short, Catholics can be held responsible for other people’s actions. And, the guy sleeping with the prostitute (cheating on his wife) is worried about the vatican’s moral teachings. Right.
Of course, if you want to play like that, I could blame atheists for the deaths. You know, for not doing enough to help convince others not to cheat on their wives with infected prostitutes in the first place. And you guys really slack off when it comes to charitable giving for Africa. So I hold Atheism responsible.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…Stalin definitely espoused an atheist agenda it’s about the only thing he got right.
Ahhhh…I see…there’s a little bit of good in everybody, huh?
[/quote]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
In an attempt to try and get this thread back on track, I think Guantanamo should be closed, anyone that they have anything approaching a case on should be charged and the rest returned to where they were grabbed.
This has plenty of negatives but I think it is the least bad option.
Anyone got any better ideas?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…Stalin definitely espoused an atheist agenda it’s about the only thing he got right.
Ahhhh…I see…there’s a little bit of good in everybody, huh?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
In an attempt to try and get this thread back on track, I think Guantanamo should be closed, anyone that they have anything approaching a case on should be charged and the rest returned to where they were grabbed.
This has plenty of negatives but I think it is the least bad option.
Anyone got any better ideas?[/quote]
Thanks for letting us know what not to do. The British don’t have a fucking clue about how to deal with the threat of Islam. Remember they are the idiots who are letting their country be flooded with so many muslims that Britain has become a threat to everyone else. Just look at this article from today’s news.
CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US
Barack Obama has been warned by the CIA that British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland security.
American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.
They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.
Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.
A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.
And a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama told The Sunday Telegraph that the CIA has stepped up its efforts in the last month after the Mumbai massacre laid bare the threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group behind the attacks, which has an extensive web of supporters in the UK.
The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda’s best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.
“The American security establishment believes that danger continues and there’s very intimate cooperation between our security services to monitor that.” Mr Riedel, who served three presidents as a Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council, added: “President Obama’s national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat.”
The British official said: "The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There’s close cooperation with MI5 but they don’t tell us the names of all their sources.
“Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented.”
Explaining the increase in CIA activity over the past month, Mr Riedel added: “In the aftermath of the Mumbai attack the US and the UK intelligence services now have to regard Lashkar-e-Taiba as just as serious a threat to both of our countries as al-Qaeda. They have a much more extensive base among Pakistani Diaspora communities in the UK than al?Qaeda.”
Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed in a US missile strike in November.
But some US intelligence officers are irritated that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed Britain as a “swamp” of jihadis.
Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5, admitted in January that the Security Service alone does not have the resources to maintain surveillance on all its targets. “We don’t have anything approaching comprehensive coverage,” he said.
The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged airline bomb plot.
The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5’s inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.
MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011 but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.
For their part, some British officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would have preferred to capture and bring to trial.
Sensitivities over the intelligence arrangement formed a key part of briefings given to Mr Obama, since they are central to what is often called “the most special part of the special relationship” and could complicate his dealings with Gordon Brown.
Tensions in transatlantic intelligence relations which were laid bare last week during the High Court battle over Binyam Mohamed, the British resident held in Guanatanamo Bay. British judges wanted to publish details of the torture administered to Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, in US custody. But key paragraphs were blacked out after American officials threatened it could damage intelligence sharing between the two countries.
Intelligence experts said that a trusting intelligence relationship, in which one country does not publish intelligence data obtained by the other, is vital to both countries’ national security.
Patrick Mercer, chairman of the House of Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said: "The special relationship is a huge benefit to us. It clearly works to our advantage and helps keep the people of the UK and the US safe.
“There is no doubt that a great deal of valuable intelligence vital to British national security is procured by American agents from British sources.”
Mr Riedel added: "The partnership between the two intelligence communities is dynamic; it is one of great intimacy. We overuse the term special relationship, but this is an extraordinarily special relationship.
“Since September 11 the philosophy on both sides has been to err on the side of telling each other more rather than less. It is in everyone’s interests that that continues.”
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Thanks for letting us know what not to do. The British don’t have a fucking clue about how to deal with the threat of Islam. Remember they are the idiots who are letting their country be flooded with so many muslims that Britain has become a threat to everyone else. Just look at this article from today’s news.
CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US
Barack Obama has been warned by the CIA that British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland security.
American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.
They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.
Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.
A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.
And a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama told The Sunday Telegraph that the CIA has stepped up its efforts in the last month after the Mumbai massacre laid bare the threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group behind the attacks, which has an extensive web of supporters in the UK.
The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaeda’s best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.
“The American security establishment believes that danger continues and there’s very intimate cooperation between our security services to monitor that.” Mr Riedel, who served three presidents as a Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council, added: “President Obama’s national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat.”
The British official said: "The Americans run their own assets in the Pakistani community; they get their own intelligence. There’s close cooperation with MI5 but they don’t tell us the names of all their sources.
“Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented.”
Explaining the increase in CIA activity over the past month, Mr Riedel added: “In the aftermath of the Mumbai attack the US and the UK intelligence services now have to regard Lashkar-e-Taiba as just as serious a threat to both of our countries as al-Qaeda. They have a much more extensive base among Pakistani Diaspora communities in the UK than al?Qaeda.”
Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed in a US missile strike in November.
But some US intelligence officers are irritated that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed Britain as a “swamp” of jihadis.
Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5, admitted in January that the Security Service alone does not have the resources to maintain surveillance on all its targets. “We don’t have anything approaching comprehensive coverage,” he said.
The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged airline bomb plot.
The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5’s inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.
MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011 but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.
For their part, some British officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would have preferred to capture and bring to trial.
Sensitivities over the intelligence arrangement formed a key part of briefings given to Mr Obama, since they are central to what is often called “the most special part of the special relationship” and could complicate his dealings with Gordon Brown.
Tensions in transatlantic intelligence relations which were laid bare last week during the High Court battle over Binyam Mohamed, the British resident held in Guanatanamo Bay.
British judges wanted to publish details of the torture administered to Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, in US custody. But key paragraphs were blacked out after American officials threatened it could damage intelligence sharing between the two countries.
Intelligence experts said that a trusting intelligence relationship, in which one country does not publish intelligence data obtained by the other, is vital to both countries’ national security.
Patrick Mercer, chairman of the House of Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said: "The special relationship is a huge benefit to us. It clearly works to our advantage and helps keep the people of the UK and the US safe.
“There is no doubt that a great deal of valuable intelligence vital to British national security is procured by American agents from British sources.”
Mr Riedel added: "The partnership between the two intelligence communities is dynamic; it is one of great intimacy. We overuse the term special relationship, but this is an extraordinarily special relationship.
“Since September 11 the philosophy on both sides has been to err on the side of telling each other more rather than less. It is in everyone’s interests that that continues.”
[/quote]
Oh it’s the resident BNP supporter back to cut and paste some more newspaper articles.
I’m confused, last week Mexico was the biggest threat, did the CIA already deal with that one then?
So what is your solution then KKKSifu? Lock up all Muslims as a way of helping the moderate elements within Islam to get their message heard over the raving extremists?
Or maybe you have been reading books by some of your new BNP chums heroes and are actually looking at some sort of final solution.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So, Christianity represents as much of a threat as does Islam to today’s world, because they both have, and still do, advocate violent means on the part of their followers to further their respective “movements?”
Look, let’s cut to the chase: Are you denying that the teachings of Islam (as recognized by the mainstream schools and “jurors”) condone, sanction and even advocate violent means to their ends, and do so more than the teachings of the other major religions?
Because if you do, I’d love for you to explain to me why the overwhelming majority of car-bombing, suicide-killing, justice-by-stoning, gay-murdering, author-threatening, honor-killing, cartoon-based rioting, apostate-punishing folks in the world just happen to carry out their fine deeds in the name of Islam.
No I have freely admited that those messages are within islam (alongside plenty of messages of peace) and are esoused widely today and I think that it is disgusting. I don’t however think that it is justification for saying that anyone in Guantanamo is guilty by association.
And I do think that it is hypocritical of one religious group to insult another relgious group for having bonkers beliefs.
Hmmm. We may actually be pretty much in agreement, if that’s your position.
Just to be clear though, there are “bonkers” beliefs and then there are “homicidal” beliefs. The former is nothing compared to the latter, which are found (and acted on) in Islam to a higher degree than in the other major religions.[/quote]
I guess the only hope is that the homicidal beleifs are so extreme that the communities will resolve their own problems as the kids start to say, you know what, I don’t want to strap a bomb to myself and walk into a crowded area, I want a nintendo and a can of coke and proper job.
Education is the key, if you can get proper teachers giving information to the kids in schools instead of Imams in Madrasas there may be a chance that the cycle of violence can be broken.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I was referring to attacks like 911 where non-combatant women, children and animals are killed.
You are the one that turns a blind eye to the majority of what is written and you also haven’t commented on the point that this is a modern interpretation of some pretty outdated views (much like modern Christianity.)[/quote]
This isn’t a modern interpretation at all. Ibn Taymiyya, Osama Bin Laden’s favorite Hanbali jurist (actually, his favorite overall), lived in the 13th century. The gates of ijtihad closed a long time ago:
The definition of jihad really hasn’t changed since, well, Muhammad.
There are “moderate” Islamic scholars living in the West who feign an attempt at re-opening the gates of ijtihad, but such people are usually engaged in taqiyya. Many turn out to be terrorist supporters later. As Muhammad said, “war is deceit.”
Then there is the Lixy school of Islam, which he has failed to define and which (perhaps) simply ignores large portions of the Qur’an and Hadith, especially Surahs 3,4, 5 and 9. In fact, it ignores most of the Medinan surahs which, as you’ll remember from our last discussion, are all the violent ones.
Hopefully the majority of Britons don’t think like you. I’d say a free Britain will cease to exist in a generation given the breakneck speed at which shari’ah is enabled by both British Muslims and effete, willfully-ignorant liberals such as yourself.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I was referring to attacks like 911 where non-combatant women, children and animals are killed.
You are the one that turns a blind eye to the majority of what is written and you also haven’t commented on the point that this is a modern interpretation of some pretty outdated views (much like modern Christianity.)
This isn’t a modern interpretation at all. Ibn Taymiyya, Osama Bin Laden’s favorite Hanbali jurist (actually, his favorite overall), lived in the 13th century. The gates of ijtihad closed a long time ago:
The definition of jihad really hasn’t changed since, well, Muhammad.
There are “moderate” Islamic scholars living in the West who feign an attempt at re-opening the gates of ijtihad, but such people are usually engaged in taqiyya. Many turn out to be terrorist supporters later. As Muhammad said, “war is deceit.”
Then there is the Lixy school of Islam, which he has failed to define and which (perhaps) simply ignores large portions of the Qur’an and Hadith, especially Surahs 3,4, 5 and 9. In fact, it ignores most of the Medinan surahs which, as you’ll remember from our last discussion, are all the violent ones.
Hopefully the majority of Britons don’t think like you. I’d say a free Britain will cease to exist in a generation given the breakneck speed at which shari’ah is enabled by both British Muslims and effete, willfully-ignorant liberals such as yourself. [/quote]
Even the 13th century is a modern interpretation of 7th century writings. The point is that it is all a load of nonsense and any Christian complaining about another religion being illogical should probably be phoning a glazier.
How am I the willfully ignorant one in a discussion with someone who basis their life around a bunch of stories gathered together deliberately to make the Roman Empire more manageble.
I am totally against the implementation or recognition of Shariah law within the UK as I would be with the implementation of any Christian based laws so I don’t really get where you are coming from. As usual it appears you are trying to have the argument you want instead of actually trying to refute the points put to you.
What points? Your entire argument has been, “But Christianity…!”
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I am totally against the implementation or recognition of Shariah law within the UK as I would be with the implementation of any Christian based laws…
Am I way off-base, or does that mean you oppose current UK law?
[/quote]
In spades!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
As usual it appears you are trying to have the argument you want instead of actually trying to refute the points put to you.
What points? Your entire argument has been, “But Christianity…!”
[/quote]
And your argument has been ‘Islam bad, Christianity good.’
So what is your proposal to resolve the Guantanamo situation?
I have explicitly stated mine. You have made sarcastic posts about letting them go in Liberal areas and had a one man argument about problems with Islam (which no-one other than lixy has disagreed with.)