Some terrorists bomb My Country! [Archive]

Cute Wolf

07-18-2009, 05:39

:furious3:

After three years of peace and safety, yesterday, a bomb explodes in JW marriot and Ritz Hotel at Mega Kuningan, Jakarta... the capital of My country Indonesia...

Some terrorists that done it must be really, really mad and had no hearts... as they ruined many people's life and hapiness. Generally, it was a heavy hit on my county's overall safety, and it does cause most of the foreign country to declare "travel warning" to Indonesia. They also made MU cancelled their performance, that should be on this monday... many soccer fans on my country will be sad because that event was prepared rather carefully for a long time... and what's more... the bombing took our still recovering economic prospect down... really down... and it will be one more a hard time... because the bombing was done right after the presidential election... causing a really great chaos and confusion among us...

Some hard-liner organizations must be the mastermind behind this tragedy, as they want to revolt my country's system into their own, and kill our democracy... And what's more, is the coward terrorists does rally their supporters to blame western countries... (afterall, they hate US, Israel, and another Westerns). It was a shame on my country, shame on the people... shame on me... because they target rather several high-end businessmen who attend a meeting in that hotel, to create a chaos and turnmoil... and destroy our morale... (u can read more on internet news...)

Thanks Jesus... for he still safe my country, the situations is soon under control... and there was no immediate turnmoils... but the damage is done... and Indonesia will take another long time to recover from this wound... I hope the orgahs here to support in pray and hope... to bring peace for my country, and hope to caught the terrorists immediately... (from all religions and even atheists, please support us in prays/hope).

Afterall, my overall connection was very slow now, and I can't open pic-heavy threads (such as Babe thread, or EB Demotivators) properly... And at least... I still can drown myself in EB...:wall:

Cute Wolf

Major Robert Dump

07-18-2009, 07:29

Just caught the news. Cowards. The lot of them. You guys over there pull it together and show them what for, tough it out, and they will be brought to justice. Wish you all the best.

seireikhaan

07-18-2009, 07:37

For those not acquainted, here's a couple (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/jakarta-bombing-video-exp_n_237013.html) of links (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAWf_ZKCO-VJwUjXZqm-XkkKGBNQD99GICD80).

Its really a pity. A pity that a couple of people would give up on life, on hope, on healing, on forgiveness. I hope Indonesia and Jakarta do not do anything hasty in an effort for revenge, and that any that are pulling the strings on such an attack find themselves denied their capacity for anger and hate.

HoreTore

07-18-2009, 07:51

Great, another excuse for politicians to make idiotic new laws restricting civil rights....

Fragony

07-18-2009, 07:57

Can't be prevented, we will just have to get used to it. Look at the bright side most of the bombs didn't explode and only a few deaths, major fail.

HoreTore

07-18-2009, 08:06

Can't be prevented, we will just have to get used to it. Look at the bright side most of the bombs didn't explode and only a few deaths, major fail.

I am sure that 99,9% of the politicians looking for re-election will tell you that you will be completely safe if you just vote for him, so that "random idiot law #892734" will be passed. There won't be a single terrorist bomb anymore if we just take off our shoes at the airport!!!!111

Cute Wolf

07-18-2009, 08:16

I am sure that 99,9% of the politicians looking for re-election will tell you that you will be completely safe if you just vote for him, so that "random idiot law #892734" will be passed. There won't be a single terrorist bomb anymore if we just take off our shoes at the airport!!!!111

You told the exact thing that one of our politician does, but he lost in the election... btw, their security plan has a crack and failed... If that wasn't about a tragedy, I'll give you a rofl... but at least, every men had flaws, and the security staff couldn't be blamed as a whole...

A really curiousity about how the Terrorist (suspects) could spent some nights undetected and assemble their bombs here? A really interesting opinion was the bomb parts was smuggled with courriers, hidden under their clothes, a little by a little...

Fragony

07-18-2009, 08:20

I am sure that 99,9% of the politicians looking for re-election will tell you that you will be completely safe if you just vote for him, so that "random idiot law #892734" will be passed. There won't be a single terrorist bomb anymore if we just take off our shoes at the airport!!!!111

No politician is going to assume we are that stupid. Bombs will go of once in a while, how exciting. They will have to try harder to impress me.

A really curiousity about how the Terrorist (suspects) could spent some nights undetected and assemble their bombs here? A really interesting opinion was the bomb parts was smuggled with courriers, hidden under their clothes, a little by a little...

You can strap a whole lot of boom on a belt, shouldn't have been that hard.

rory_20_uk

07-18-2009, 10:11

Have the elections finished or not?

Some of the candidates were really ball busting hard liners, just the types to gain from the need to clamp down on dissidents, as opposed to the more moderate open candidates.

~:smoking:

Askthepizzaguy

07-18-2009, 11:10

Cute Wolf-

Militant extremist fanaticism is the enemy of all mankind, and although it may never fully go away, know that the vast majority of people stand on the side of justice, and they stand with you. This kind of barbaric, destructive ignorance serves nothing, and it is a terrible waste of human life. As a citizen of the United States and of the world, I offer you my best wishes, hope, and support. I honor your nation and hope that all those responsible will be found and brought to justice, and that you and your fellow Indonesians will recover from this tragedy.

https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb225/askthepizzaguy/600px-Flag_of_Indonesiasvg.jpg

Fragony

07-18-2009, 11:29

Militant extremist fanaticism is the enemy of all mankind, and although it may never fully go away, know that the vast majority of people stand on the side of justice, and they stand with you.

Well said. And as you said Cute Wolf, everything is under control, no turmoil, no counterattacks. You have won, they have lost. These idiots can't hurt you just scratch you when you aren't looking, might hurt a bit for a very short moment but hardly lethal. We did a lot worse really after a filmmaker was killed by a radical, myself included. Hats of to Indonesia.

rory_20_uk

07-18-2009, 12:36

:furious3:

Indonesia, despite it's own terrorist problems, is a generally good example for the other Islamic nations of the world to follow. I hate seeing stuff like this happen.

That has been true recently. I don't imagine that the inhabitants of East Timor are overly nostalgic about the country what with the invasion, oppression and what not... and that ended in 2002...

~:smoking:

CountArach

07-18-2009, 13:50

Tragic :bow:

Banquo's Ghost

07-18-2009, 14:06

It's a very sad occurrence, and one's thoughts go out to the bereaved.

The key thing to hold on to is that terrorism only achieves its twisted aims if it diverts the citizenry from their daily lives. That includes those lives being constrained by populist politicians spouting about revenge and "security".

Louis VI the Fat

07-18-2009, 17:01

I hope the orgahs here to support in pray and hope... to bring peace for my country, and hope to caught the terrorists immediately... (from all religions and even atheists, please support us in prays/hope).I don't pray, I will wish you all the best.

Pity, this. Indonesia seemed to have had the better of terrorism in recent years, moving steadily towards more peace and progress in general. A shame.

:shame:

Hax

07-18-2009, 17:13

Indonesia, despite it's own terrorist problems, is a generally good example for the other Islamic nations of the world to follow. I hate seeing stuff like this happen.

I think Azerbaijan is a good start. They have their flaws but stand out when it comes to freedom of religion.

CuteWolf: Your comments strike me as egoïstical. You are constantly using the word "my". This might not be your intent but dehumanizing your enemies will only make it worse in the future.

ICantSpellDawg

07-18-2009, 17:29

Bummer Dude. I remember being over by those hotels when I was younger. Hopefully this will help straigten people out and recognize that terrorism isn't a friend to Islam or Islamic economies. JI sucks (not Jakarta, Indonesia - Jemmiah Islamia)

Samurai Waki

07-18-2009, 19:58

Terrorists aren't human. They're just fuel for my Death Robots.

I hope this is just a bump in the road for Indonesia, and won't become the norm.

rotorgun

07-19-2009, 03:42

May the Force be with you.

We are all diminished by these senseless acts of violence. That is what the terrorists are after-to make us all so fearful that we will put undue restrictions on our societies. They somehow blame all the problems they perceive on modernization. They are like unruly children that have been allowed to get away with misbehaving for so long, that they cannot be ruled. The best thing that we could all do is to completely shun them. By doing so they will be made to realize that their pitiful violent acts aren't accomplishing anything.

I think the media only fuels the fires of their need to be recognized. They are really a bunch of losers who hold the world hostage because we let them. Let the blood of the innocents be on their heads. The will face God one day, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

God bless the families of those injured and killed.

Fragony

07-19-2009, 08:14

I think Azerbaijan is a good start. They have their flaws but stand out when it comes to freedom of religion.

CuteWolf: Your comments strike me as egoïstical. You are constantly using the word "my". This might not be your intent but dehumanizing your enemies will only make it worse in the future.

screw that, there is them and there is me for sure

Cute Wolf

07-19-2009, 08:30

Thanks for all your support.... many thanks...
Fragony, Rotorgun, Haxios, Wakisazhi, ATPG, TuffStuffMcGruff, LouisVI, Banquo, CountArach, Rory, GellatinousCube, HoreTore, Senseikhan, Robert Dump... and everyone that read this thread...

Many thanks... :bow: :bow: :smile:

Cute Wolf...

Fragony

07-19-2009, 09:53

most welcome, keep your cools, no stronger reaction than not reacting at all

Husar

07-19-2009, 12:22

Hax

07-19-2009, 13:05

screw that, there is them and there is me for sure

Then do not expect mercy if the roles change :2thumbsup:

Fragony

07-19-2009, 17:53

Then do not expect mercy if the roles change :2thumbsup:

I don't

Hax

07-19-2009, 22:19

Ah, then I understand.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-20-2009, 03:30

Crazed Rabbit

07-20-2009, 04:23

My condolences Cute Wolf. I pray justice may be brought to those who carried out these cowardly attacks.

I'm sure Indonesia will recover.

Take care,
CR

Zim

07-20-2009, 05:41

Sorry to hear that CuteWolf. I hope the guys that were behind that are caught quickly.

Maybe it's that I work in law enforcement but attacks against civilians especially anger me. I know I'm fair game when I put my uniform on but they have done nothing wrong...

HoreTore

07-20-2009, 07:46

Fragony

07-20-2009, 08:49

Ah, then I understand.

what do you think people like that think of people like you, or do you think your zen is that powerful, you are the kuffar, worse than a pig

Hax

07-20-2009, 11:09

Hax:

You should also factor in that Cute Wolf is not, in all likelihood, a native English-speaker (not casting aspersions, get me past English and a partial knowledge of the romance languages and I'm toast. Cute Wolf did a good job). You may be reacting to a nuance that he is not intending to create.

Yes, I understand. I was a bit fast in that, I should have realised it. Nevertheless, I wish Cute Wolf strength in these days.

what do you think people like that think of people like you, or do you think your zen is that powerful, you are the kuffar, worse than a pig

Well, the Muslims I know haven't tried to kill me. If the situation would change and Islamic (or Christian, for that matter) fanatics would rise to power, I wouldn't really care, as I have a distinct other view on death than you. Or I would get the hell out of there before things started to get dangerous. Apart from that;

God welcomes you to be kind those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness (birr) and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust. ([Qur'an 60:8])

I'd like to add to this that in what we see as an terrorist country, Iran, the rights of Christians and Jews are protected in the Constitution. It's a big step from a country with an Islamic multitude to a state where religious freedom is generally ignored, and non-Muslims persecuted.

Fragony

07-20-2009, 11:54

these aren't normal muslims they are religious facists, there is no place for reason there. Of course you assume I am talking about all of them, I am used to that np. You aren't doing muslims a favour with looking away to avoid insulting them, why excuse the extremely savage militant islam.

Hax

07-20-2009, 12:46

Of course you assume I am talking about all of them, I am used to that np. You aren't doing muslims a favour with looking away to avoid insulting them, why excuse the extremely savage militant islam.

Ah, well I don't consider you to be a racist or Islamophobe by now, I just think there is a different way of telling our opinion without directly insulting. Mutual understanding and all; of course, with the most fanatic savage militant Islamists, it would be quite hard; I just don't think it to be impossible.

Jolt

07-20-2009, 14:22

Once again, those terrorist groups strike again in Indonesia. Why is that? Is it just to hit a random Western tourist location in a country where security isn't that tight or is there some kind of "problem" (Everything's a problem for the extremists) with Indonesia?

In any case, I find Indonesia the perfect example of a country that shouldn't exist. It is an amalgamation of different islands with very different backgrounds, historically and culturally. It has been kept united through the iron fist of a central government. East Timor is but the most known case because Portugal made great pressure at international levels, due to being a former Portuguese colony. Aceh and Papua New-Guinea are just another cases of lands which do not want to be under Indonesian control, just like Tibet and North-East India.

Fragony

07-20-2009, 18:57

Ah, well I don't consider you to be a racist or Islamophobe by now, I just think there is a different way of telling our opinion without directly insulting. Mutual understanding and all; of course, with the most fanatic savage militant Islamists, it would be quite hard; I just don't think it to be impossible.

how but most of all why, what is there to discus with people who do things like this.

Hax

07-20-2009, 19:38

how but most of all why, what is there to discus with people who do things like this.

I think that the only way (if there is one) to peace and security is mutual understanding. This can only be achieved by discussion. It is a very idealistic view, and therefore unrealistic, but a realistic and good first step would be Dialogue Among Civilizations.

Askthepizzaguy

07-20-2009, 19:38

Fragony

07-20-2009, 20:14

rory_20_uk

07-20-2009, 22:19

I think that the only way (if there is one) to peace and security is mutual understanding. This can only be achieved by discussion. It is a very idealistic view, and therefore unrealistic, but a realistic and good first step would be Dialogue Among Civilizations.

Very idealistic.

I'm trying to read the Koran and aside from the fact it is bloody dull it doesn't have the "let's be friends" / "we're all equal" / "love, love, peace, peace" outlook. It's death and damnation to Infidels, women are definitely less than men and in marriage can be "ploughed" as the bloke wishes (so not all bad...)

Where is halfway with a digital outlook? With Christianity it is interpreted and is stories. Islam is revelation from God. You can't really say "yes, but in this context, 'kill apostates' is metaphorical..."

~:smoking:

Hax

07-20-2009, 22:34

Where is halfway with a digital outlook? With Christianity it is interpreted and is stories. Islam is revelation from God. You can't really say "yes, but in this context, 'kill apostates' is metaphorical..."

I think it depends on the reader. Theoretically, the same could be said about the Bible; they got it directly from Jesus, who got it directly from God.

Where is halfway with a digital outlook? With Christianity it is interpreted and is stories.

Both religions could be used for political tools. In fact, any religion could be used for that; Buddhism has had its share of violence as well.

drone

07-20-2009, 22:48

I think it depends on the reader. Theoretically, the same could be said about the Bible; they got it directly from Jesus, who got it directly from God.

:inquisitive:

Old Testament is pre-Jesus. First four books of the New Testament are the Gospels of Matthew, Gospels of Mark, Gospels of Luke, Gospels of John. Human "accounts" of Jesus. Christians may claim a lot, but that the books of the Bible being transcribed directly from God is not one of them.

Hax

07-20-2009, 22:58

Old Testament is pre-Jesus. First four books of the New Testament are the Gospels of Matthew, Gospels of Mark, Gospels of Luke, Gospels of John. Human "accounts" of Jesus. Christians may claim a lot, but that the books of the Bible being transcribed directly from God is not one of them.

True; however, the actions of Jesus (following the logic that he is divinely inspired by God, after all, he is supposed to be his son) are divine on its own? Does the doubt exist that not all of his actions are supposed to have been inspired by God?

To be honest, if there is something I really dislike is when people suggest that Christianity is somehow less inclined to be militant than Islam. I'm sickened by the fact that still the suggestion exists that Islam is somehow more barbaric than Christianity, as it is historically incorrect. Not only historically, but also culturally and ethnically.

At best, it's Islamophobic and at worst dehumanizing. It's almost as if people forget the millions of Islamic people who haven't done harm to anyone in any way.

The message of the Prophet and Jesus was the same; one of love and peace. Both religions have done atrocities, and both probably will do so in the future (or have we forgotten Vietnam, for example). I think both actions (persecution and terrorism) is born out of ignorance, and ignorance is an evil that is impossible to fight with weapons.

Saying that Christianity/Islam is inherent to enlightenment is just as ignorant as stating that all Muslims/Christians are lesser people. I also think we can all state that at least the second part isn't true.

EDIT: I might have made a few mistakes when it comes to Christianity; it has been a long time since I read any Christian scriptures; the message remains the same, though.

drone

07-20-2009, 23:31

rory_20_uk's point was that the Koran was absolute, while the Bible is a set of various interpretations, stories, and lessons, with a final shroom trip at the end. The four gospels are four different interpretations of the life of Jesus, each from a different point of view and with a different purpose (and selected by the Church from a bevy of candidate books to be put in the final Bible, and edited, and translated, and edited some more). Leeway for interpretation is practically built in, the texts were written at least several decades after Jesus, and the final canon wasn't decided on until ~300-400 years after Jesus's death. The Koran is not to be touched, it stands as it was written, the word of God told to his final prophet.

Regardless, both are subject to being quoted out of context. Hence the fanatics, with the killing and the blood and the gore.

Apart from being geographically close to the original topic, how exactly does Vietnam come into this discussion? :inquisitive: I must say, I have never before heard the theory that the Vietnam action was a religious war.

Hax

07-20-2009, 23:39

Apart from being geographically close to the original topic, how exactly does Vietnam come into this discussion? :inquisitive: I must say, I have never before heard the theory that the Vietnam action was a religious war.

I was referring to the Buddhist persecution by the Christian government; hence the burning of Thich Quang Duc.

Leet Eriksson

07-20-2009, 23:45

True; however, the actions of Jesus (following the logic that he is divinely inspired by God, after all, he is supposed to be his son) are divine on its own? Does the doubt exist that not all of his actions are supposed to have been inspired by God?

To be honest, if there is something I really dislike is when people suggest that Christianity is somehow less inclined to be militant than Islam. I'm sickened by the fact that still the suggestion exists that Islam is somehow more barbaric than Christianity, as it is historically incorrect. Not only historically, but also culturally and ethnically.

At best, it's Islamophobic and at worst dehumanizing. It's almost as if people forget the millions of Islamic people who haven't done harm to anyone in any way.

The message of the Prophet and Jesus was the same; one of love and peace. Both religions have done atrocities, and both probably will do so in the future (or have we forgotten Vietnam, for example). I think both actions (persecution and terrorism) is born out of ignorance, and ignorance is an evil that is impossible to fight with weapons.

Saying that Christianity/Islam is inherent to enlightenment is just as ignorant as stating that all Muslims/Christians are lesser people. I also think we can all state that at least the second part isn't true.

EDIT: I might have made a few mistakes when it comes to Christianity; it has been a long time since I read any Christian scriptures; the message remains the same, though.

People seem to forget that it goes beyond religion. Its pretty convenient albeit superficial to blame a religion when it goes far deeper beyond that.

On another note, JI denies involvement, however the people who did it were linked (though they had a fallout with JI).

Samurai Waki

07-21-2009, 01:57

Ah, religious discussions. :wall:

stoking a flame that need not be stoked.

HoreTore

07-21-2009, 07:30

rory_20_uk's point was that the Koran was absolute, while the Bible is a set of various interpretations, stories, and lessons, with a final shroom trip at the end. The four gospels are four different interpretations of the life of Jesus, each from a different point of view and with a different purpose (and selected by the Church from a bevy of candidate books to be put in the final Bible, and edited, and translated, and edited some more). Leeway for interpretation is practically built in, the texts were written at least several decades after Jesus, and the final canon wasn't decided on until ~300-400 years after Jesus's death.

If this is your christian belief, then fine.

But to say this is the belief of every christian, then you're wrong. Even if you say it's the belief of the majority, then it's still irrelevant, as the crazies are the minority.

And there are plenty of christian fundamentalists who believe that the bible is the word of god, final and complete. Why else do you think there are creationists? Heck, it's actually the christian belief of the christians here where I live, I only found out some years ago that a lot of christians don't consider the bible to be the direct word of god, which was what I had learned in my childhood.

And if you think that there is no interpretation, discussion and renewal in Islam, you're simply ignorant. Sorry.

@Rory: huh, I got the same impression reading the bible you got from reading the koran....

Cute Wolf

07-21-2009, 07:33

There is no way to discuss with those who do not listen. That is why, after valiant attempts at expressing our own views on this very website, we often have to take a breather once in a while. Fanatical devotion to one's own worldview to the point where you refuse to take criticism and consider everything else to automatically be a lie... is a form of madness. I believe I've mentioned something along these lines before and the reaction tweren't enthusiastic. :laugh4:

I do think that we're veering off-topic now. If we aren't discussing the actual attack in Indonesia, we should start a new thread.

Ohh, but I think they are still very relevant to the situation here... The Muslims are actually a good people, even my Girlfriend is muslim wearing headscarf... remember? but the discussion of fanaticism isn't an off topic because they are directly linked. Thanks ATPZG

Once again, those terrorist groups strike again in Indonesia. Why is that? Is it just to hit a random Western tourist location in a country where security isn't that tight or is there some kind of "problem" (Everything's a problem for the extremists) with Indonesia?

In any case, I find Indonesia the perfect example of a country that shouldn't exist. It is an amalgamation of different islands with very different backgrounds, historically and culturally. It has been kept united through the iron fist of a central government. East Timor is but the most known case because Portugal made great pressure at international levels, due to being a former Portuguese colony. Aceh and Papua New-Guinea are just another cases of lands which do not want to be under Indonesian control, just like Tibet and North-East India.

Ohh, I think it was a 'soft' group bashing :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:, but I forgive you this time :laugh: :sweatdrop::wall:

Well, personally, many countries shouldn't exist if the diffrences are present, or they were originally an occupation force... I don't hate US, but they actually "stole" those land from native Americans with treacherous pacts, for example, and North Ireland in UK is really the same thing. And those [snip... hehehe...] east timor, are the best example on how a lesser people's will can be bent by several foreign interests. Actually, the invisible hands in east timor affair wasn't any country or humanitarian organization... it was [snip... hehehe...] multinational company that only interested in exploiting oil and gas reserve at the Timor sea. They do the same in Papua (not PNG, correction for you) and Aceh. Well, if u look at the timor lestenese conitions now, they are more [snip... hehehe...], [snip... hehehe...], and [snip... hehehe...] compared from the times they are still under Indonesian control. Portugal are just try to exploit the chaos in Indonesian government that time, and sadly their [snip... hehehe...] tactics are prevailed...

well, I put [snip... hehehe...] because I got an infraction for saying something bad about them.:wall:

Well, every country has its own "claimed area" and that will goes almost against any humanitarian principles. But with that, maybe Megas Alexandros will be arrested for Invading Persia, and England should have a heavy sanction for annexing wales and scotlands... well, If a race or Area in your own country try to separate themself (the very same as Rebellions in TW :smash:), did your country only let them go, and not sending armed forces to quell them?

Eng... you should learn from that perspective.... that's all, thank you. :thumbsdown:

Louis VI the Fat

07-21-2009, 14:13

Cute Wolf

07-21-2009, 14:26

Me, I'd rather describe Indonesia as Javan colonialism taking over after independence where the Dutch left off. Only this time, far more intense. Indonesia is a colonial power, brutally oppressing '[snip] lesser peoples'.

Hey, we, Javanese never opress another race, despite we are the majority (even in fact, I was half Javaneese)... And many of our founding fathers aren't javanese either.

And what did u say about "brutally opressing?"

Kralizec

07-21-2009, 15:19

My sympathies to the Indonesian people.

I'd like to add to this that in what we see as an terrorist country, Iran, the rights of Christians and Jews are protected in the Constitution. It's a big step from a country with an Islamic multitude to a state where religious freedom is generally ignored, and non-Muslims persecuted.

I can barely believe that you're arguing that non-muslims aren't being persecuted by the Iranian authorities. Christians and Jews are ignored for the most part because they're almost invisible in Iran nowadays. Other religions, including Sunni muslims, are subject to various degrees of persecution.

If you're going to make a case that Islam isn't inherently intolerant or violent, Iran doesn't make a very good example. The fact that they have a clause in their constitution against religious discrimination means nothing - look at all the dictatorships througout history and you'll notice that most of them had eloquent and elaborate constitutions garantuing their citizens all sorts of rights, prosperity and nice weather to boot :juggle2:

Cute Wolf

07-21-2009, 15:41

If you're going to make a case that Islam isn't inherently intolerant or violent, Iran doesn't make a very good example.

Well, at least every over theocracy is often bad - bad things that only terrorists and fanatics want... because they want to stretch the rule to the almost unnecessary things, while taking the most delicious part to their inner circle only

I was a Christian, but I live with many Muslim friends, even my girlfriend are muslim. And most of them (well, most... I know some fanatics in my "not my friends" ranks...) never try to obstacle another's religious duty. I often wait my gf to pray when we are on date... and she often wait me to worship Jesus in my church every sunday... well, most of them are quite tolerant. But that's true if u points someone in their ranks love to bomb the church and kill christians... but they are very rare... (and they are the faction that does the bombing!!!)

Hax

07-21-2009, 16:21

I can barely believe that you're arguing that non-muslims aren't being persecuted by the Iranian authorities. Christians and Jews are ignored for the most part because they're almost invisible in Iran nowadays. Other religions, including Sunni muslims, are subject to various degrees of persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Iran as the shining example for Muslims lands, I'm stating that even in a land as Iran, the civil rights of Jews and Christians are defended by the law. I missed the nuance there, myself.

Fragony

07-21-2009, 16:34

If you got to give an example make it Turkey, but that is far from desirable either. Equal rights in law doesn't mean equal rights in practise.

Kralizec

07-21-2009, 17:36

I'm stating that even in a land as Iran, the civil rights of Jews and Christians are defended by the law. I missed the nuance there, myself.

They're defended allright, and animals are protected in western countries too. They're not considered equal to muslims and that's the whole point.

Centurion1

07-21-2009, 17:50

And it is only that way in turkey because they have been absolutely secularized. The Muslim clerics have very little power because the military smashes any attempt at religious revolution (not that i am arguing with that)

Hax you have to be kidding. There is religious discrimination in their very conversion process.
Muslim Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad making it inherently holy
2. Tell all the Muslims they are good
3. Make all the people of the book (Christians Jews) pay a special tax
4. kill all the pagans (non-book people), this is debatable it sometimes happens (example Zoroastrianism in IRAN)
5. Make book people convert so they don't have to pay the special tax.

The religion is inherently violent. They can say what they want about peace and love it doesn't change the facts. They have a word specifically invented by Muslims for holy war. (crusade was invented by Latin speaking pagans in Rome and it means war of truth)

Now i am not making excuses for western civilization we are pretty :furious3: individuals. however, the new testament is All about peace and forgiveness.

Its not just religious its also cultural. The people of that area have always been violent much like Europe, but it only escalated when the Seljuk turks converted *cough* crusades *cough*

HoreTore

07-21-2009, 18:37

Right....

I suggest you read up on how christianity entered pagan lands, Centurion1.

It came here through torture. I'd rather convert because of a tax burden than because someone is showing a snake down my throat or about to chop my leg off.

Hax

07-21-2009, 19:09

MuslimRoman-Catholic Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad Crusade making it inherently holy
2. Tell all your followers how evil the enemy is
3. Kill every Muslim
4. Kill every non-Christian
5. Oh yeah, those that survive might be "persuaded" through aggressive questioning to convert to christianity; if fails, try 4).

Guess what, I have something for you; it's from the Qu'ran, 106.9;

"You have your way of life and I have mine."

How's that for forced conversion?

the new testament is All about peace and forgiveness.

Like how Jesus killed a tree because it didn't want to give him any figs? Don't be ridiculous. Religion can be used for political means. It is not inherently good or evil, or whatever, it's how it's read. It's very typical for us in the west to want to speak of superiority and things of the like; "this is more than that", or "Islam is more violent than Christianity".

Haven't we learned in 2,000+ years of "civilized" history that "truth" is relative?

(crusade was invented by Latin speaking pagans in Rome and it means war of truth)

Does "Pope Urbanus II" ring a bell? Etymology:

From Middle French croisade (“‘marked by the Cross’”), from Mediaeval Latin cruciata, past participle of cruciare (“‘to mark with a cross’”), from Latin crux (“‘cross’”)

Askthepizzaguy

07-21-2009, 19:13

This conversation is full of generalities which are not applicable in all cases; the equivalent of saying all (group) are (stereotype).

The tone is not necessarily open minded or productive and it is heading towards a lock. I urge all parties to consider the fact that they won't make any headway convincing the opposition and that the course of the conversation is becoming less and less related to the OP.

Fragony

07-21-2009, 19:21

MuslimRoman-Catholic Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad Crusade making it inherently holy
2. Tell all your followers how evil the enemy is
3. Kill every Muslim
4. Kill every non-Christian
5. Oh yeah, those that survive might be "persuaded" through aggressive questioning to convert to christianity; if fails, try 4).

Guess what, I have something for you; it's from the Qu'ran, 106.9;

"You have your way of life and I have mine."

How's that for forced conversion?

Like how Jesus killed a tree because it didn't want to give him any figs? Don't be ridiculous. Religion can be used for political means. It is not inherently good or evil, or whatever, it's how it's read. It's very typical for us in the west to want to speak of superiority and things of the like; "this is more than that", or "Islam is more violent than Christianity".

Haven't we learned in 2,000+ years of "civilized" history that "truth" is relative?

Does "Pope Urbanus II" ring a bell? Etymology:

Political wizardry, Urbanas II managed to combine roman war doctrine with christian ideals.

edit: the idea of violence in the name of christianity is rather complicated, it's based on a roman law of when violence can be used, don't have the specifics here but mr Urbanus has been a bit naughty.

HoreTore

07-21-2009, 19:25

Political wizardry, Urbanas II managed to combine roman war doctrine with christian ideals.

So.... When christians go crazy, they're abusing christianity.

When muslim do the same thing, they're following their religion.

:inquisitive:

Fragony

07-21-2009, 19:52

So.... When christians go crazy, they're abusing christianity.

When muslim do the same thing, they're following their religion.

:inquisitive:

Oh screw that, it just happens to be that there is a lot of confusion about killing in the name of christ and that it has been solved by the church rather smart, been a discussion for a while when Charlemagne was doing his thing, two swords and all that. I forgot the exact words but they made roman war-doctrine somewhat more convenient, sure someone can fill me in.

rory_20_uk

07-21-2009, 21:19

I think it depends on the reader. Theoretically, the same could be said about the Bible; they got it directly from Jesus, who got it directly from God.

Hardly. At least one of the Gospels states it is an amalgamated work. The letters and so on afterwards are clearly between two people and make no attempt to state they are the written word of God, but written by man.

Of course people can state it is the absolute word of God, but the Qu'ran explicitly states that the entirety is directly from God. No wriggle room there whatsoever.

Although there are loads of similar ones:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2:191-2"
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5"
"Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. 9:6"

Hats off if people can square this circle...

~:smoking:

HoreTore

07-21-2009, 21:28

Hardly. At least one of the Gospels states it is an amalgamated work. The letters and so on afterwards are clearly between two people and make no attempt to state they are the written word of God, but written by man.

Of course people can state it is the absolute word of God, but the Qu'ran explicitly states that the entirety is directly from God. No wriggle room there whatsoever.

Although there are loads of similar ones:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2:191-2"
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5"
"Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. 9:6"

Hats off if people can square this circle...

~:smoking:

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.
2. You say there is no wiggle room in the Quran. You state passages calling on believers to kill the infidel. How do you then explain that 99,9% of muslim do not kill a single infidel...? If there really was no wiggle room in Islam, every muslim would look to kill non-muslim. As they do not, this is proof that there is wiggle room in Islam.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-21-2009, 21:45

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Iran as the shining example for Muslims lands, I'm stating that even in a land as Iran, the civil rights of Jews and Christians are defended by the law. I missed the nuance there, myself.

A law which enshrines their rights as inherently less than those of a Muslim? That was last progressive 1,000 years ago.

MuslimRoman-Catholic Conversion Practice
1. Invade a region on jihad Crusade making it inherently holy
2. Tell all your followers how evil the enemy is
3. Kill every Muslim
4. Kill every non-Christian
5. Oh yeah, those that survive might be "persuaded" through aggressive questioning to convert to christianity; if fails, try 4).

Guess what, I have something for you; it's from the Qu'ran, 106.9;

"You have your way of life and I have mine."

Actually, a Crusade is a war of liberation, at least originally. Further, conversion by force is expressly forbid to Christians.

Like how Jesus killed a tree because it didn't want to give him any figs? Don't be ridiculous. Religion can be used for political means. It is not inherently good or evil, or whatever, it's how it's read. It's very typical for us in the west to want to speak of superiority and things of the like; "this is more than that", or "Islam is more violent than Christianity".

Haven't we learned in 2,000+ years of "civilized" history that "truth" is relative?

Truth is not relative, perception is. The fig tree episode is problematic, but it's also purely about a naked display of God's power. Jesus asked for the tree to be destroyed, and it is. Never is it suggested that this validates violence against people.

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.

I think the distinction being drawn is what is actually in the Bible, and that is not. I believe Rory is reffering to the prologue to Luke, which makes it explicit that finding a reliable Gospel is nigh impossible. FYI Luke's protestations to accuracy are standard for Hellenistic history and biography.

rory_20_uk

07-21-2009, 21:48

Two major problems in your theory, rory:

1. There are plenty of people who believe that the holy ghost "possessed" the writers of the bible when they wrote, therefore making it the direct word of god, and as such is unalterable and final.
2. You say there is no wiggle room in the Quran. You state passages calling on believers to kill the infidel. How do you then explain that 99,9% of muslim do not kill a single infidel...? If there really was no wiggle room in Islam, every muslim would look to kill non-muslim. As they do not, this is proof that there is wiggle room in Islam.

1. Fair enough. How everyone else knows who was correctly "possessed" and who weren't must in itself be interesting.
2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God, whereas many Christians have managed to work intolerance into the message of "love thy neighbour"

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

07-21-2009, 22:31

Historically, most Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspiried, or at least all us 'Sola Scriptura' Proddies. Much like Calvin, I take a position on the matter that you can't really prove/disprove, in that I believe the scripture won't make sense unless you are actually 'saved' as they say. In my early Christian days, I didn't get a lot of the stuff I read in the NT. But as time has went on and I start to read more theology and grow in the spirit, the spiritual maturity shown by people in the NT often amazes me, it was just on too high a level for me to appreciate before. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean the NT is divinely inspirid, but I think that it could at least be said that is has a very clear message which provides us with everything we need to know on being Christian and forming doctrine.

EDIT: Clearly my spelling is not divinely inspired...

Hax

07-21-2009, 23:09

2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God

I asked my father, and will ask my family in Algeria about this; there is room for (constructive) criticism when it comes to the Islam. There is room for debate on how the Koran should be interpreted; whether every message should be taken literally; it's like you've totally forgotten about Liberal Islam (Liberal_movements_within_Islam). Also, I guess you are not familiar with the concept of Ijtihad and Fitrah? The first time, according to my father, means "using your intellect", in this case used to observe the Koran, but can mean using your intelligence under any circumstance; Ijtihad is also the being to read the Koran critically, using your intellect to decide for yourself what Surats are important and which one carry less weight, or disregard some surats altogether.

Fitrah is your natural sense of right and wrong; this can change dependent on location, time, virtually any circumstance.

Truth is not relative, perception is.

You will find the concept of truth differs per person. Your truth is not mine.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-21-2009, 23:19

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 01:56

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 02:09

Rhyfelwyr

07-22-2009, 02:26

Ah, excellent point for me to use as an example.

Regardless of Rhy's good intentions and his Grace, or lack thereof, he can never be trusted to interpret scripture correctly; even if it is infallable.

No offence Rhy, seriously.

None taken, it's like I said, what can you do, you can't prove it or disprove it. Maybe it's like you said, I'll be blinded from critically assessing it. Maybe I'm right and you can only understand the scripture by living by it and not just doing scholarly work, who knows, we can't prove it to each other.

As for Islam, I think it could easily be a tolerant religion, it just has a lot of cultural baggage. I remember in one guy's sig over at the TWC, there is a passage from the Koran that says Muslims, Christians, and even Jews, who genuinely follow their religions, will be good with Allah when they meet him. Can't remember the exact verse though...

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 06:41

Regardless of Rhy's good intentions and his Grace, or lack thereof, he can never be trusted to interpret scripture correctly; even if it is infallable.

Indeedelidoo!

Explain why that doesn't apply to Islam.

Please.

2. I would be interested to hear how Muslims get around this aspect. The "wiggle room" appears to be against the Word Of God, whereas many Christians have managed to work intolerance into the message of "love thy neighbour"

The fact is that they do. 99,9% of muslims do not follow the vile passages of the koran. 99,9% of the muslims are peaceful people. 99,9% of the muslims following the parts of the koran where it says you should be nice and respect people.

But of course, Islam is still evil and Christianity is a shining beacon of light in a dark world. :dizzy2:

Look. If you want to find passages about massacring your fellow man, there will be plenty of it in both books(yes, the NT too). If you want to find passages about respect, peace and human dignity, you will also find lots of it in both books.

Fragony

07-22-2009, 07:22

Actually, a Crusade is a war of liberation, at least originally.

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

Louis VI the Fat

07-22-2009, 07:27

look you do not understand latin obviously so let me give you a intro course. There are TWO different major latin dialects. There is Roman Latin (what you think of as latin, the roman empire), and there is ecclesiastical latin (church latin)

Urban took a word and perverted it from original latin and used it in church latin. You should analyze word origin more.....Actually, if one analyses the word origin of 'crusade', the first thing one will notice is that pope Urban II never used the word at all.

Also, if you want to give intro courses in Latin, perhaps one ought to be aware that 'crusade' isn't derived from Latin in the first place.
(Yes, I am aware that some online etymologies name Latin 'cruciata'. This is incorrect. Latin cruciata only meant 'marked with a cross'. In the figurative meaning of 'waging holy war' Latin cruciata is derived from Middle French 'croisement'. Later the suffix was changed to make 'croisade'. Whether French changed the suffix under influence of 'cruciata' having gained currency in Latin, or whether Latin only adopted 'cruciata' in the meaning of holy war after the suffix change, is unclear.)

Ironside

07-22-2009, 09:33

The first crusade should be seen as a pilgrimage really. They didn't really know what they would find, the objective was to go to the holy land, there was hardly any talk about the military aspect.

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect. :book:

Fragony

07-22-2009, 09:48

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 14:58

The first calling crusade were the Pope's response to the Byzantine emperor's request for military aid in reconquer the holy land (he had hoped on something more in style with payed mercs though). That would classify as a notable military aspect. :book:

Wasn't seen like that by the participants, most went unarmed in small groups, it wasn't an army heading to the holy land, it was very fragmented.

Actually, you're both right. There was a military expadition which went to the the Holy Land, and a popular movement that initially followed it and eventually overtook it. It was the popular movement that committed most of the atrocities, the knights were generally much more circumspect.

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 15:01

Also, if you want to give intro courses in Latin, perhaps one ought to be aware that 'crusade' isn't derived from Latin in the first place.

It was taken from latin roots by the french.

The origin of the word "crusade" may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication.

True the french "made" the word but they used latin roots. Which makes it in my mind latin. Of course almost all words originating in western europe have latin roots......

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

He is going to talk about the fig tree like he did before

I want to make it clear that i dont hold muslims entirely to blame. i think Christianity has done some evil :furious3: like the inquisition, treatment of native americans. But all i ever hear about in my history classes, is white males bad, western culture bad, Christianity bad. So all we ever learn about is the Middle East, south america, Near East, India, and Sub-saharan africa. In my AP World class we spent like a week on european and western history. This is supposed to be a college class mind you. In return we spent 4 weeks on sub-sahara africa. now i think these places should be learned about because they are very important. i dont even mind learning just about them, but i dont like my culture, race, gender, and religion to get trashed. yeah according to those standards white males did some bad :furious3:, but i just get tired of hearing people talk about HOW evil we are and how we ruined their lives. Yeah, the south americans may have hated us when we first came, but i think at least some are happy they dont have to worry about being sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl. so yeah western culture has done ALOT of bad stuff, but we have also done a lot of good.

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

Cute Wolf

07-22-2009, 16:08

I am sorry for this rant. Basically, my point is we have all changed so there is no point in arguing with examples from hundreds of years ago. There is a very small chance that Muslims and Christians would annihilate entire cities of the others population for instance. I think Islam is not an inherently evil religion, but lately it has been twisted to embrace violence. I think blame really lies with their clerics like Khomeini and other such men. some (mind you some) use the power they wield over their fellow Muslims irresponsibly, much like pope urban did in the medieval era. Religion should NEVER be mixed with war and politics.

P.S. Gah, i am such a ranter, sorry.

A very good point centurion... I totally agree with your arguments here... BTW, even if their religious scriptures said about that, it was based on condition of some 1200 years ago, when every king demands his subjects to follow his religion or face dire consequences.

Well, it was really right, a religion is being twisted for violence. And what that those terrorists aim isn't truly a religious "earthly heaven"... at least for their inner circle such as OBL, AK, AHM, NMT, and ABB (all are still free and can do more evil deeds in the wolrd, if any of us have a weak link in our security, what they aim is power.... power to control the deeds of people through sheer fear and twisted religious system. The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

Odin

07-22-2009, 16:25

The pure religion inside (islam) isn't evil one.... as the Religion was just another victim.

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

Its not really complex and isnt masked in some deep inner logic within the religion, its crystal clear. The fact that the majority of Muslims dont adhere to the doctrines of thier faith (much like Christians dont) dosent mean that the "pure religion" isnt one that embodies and exports violent means to achieve its indoctrinated end.

We like to call them radical, but in truth they got the intent right they just happen to be applying it in an absolute way, which isnt prudent given that it was written as a social construct within a society structure that was highly factional. We are still to a degree but not nearly as much as we were 1400 years ago.

so essentially: KILL, MAIM,BURN

Cute Wolf

07-22-2009, 16:42

The primary orator, practioner and accepted prophet of said religion was a military general. Why we are still perplexed over the accurate implementation of the doctrines of Islam is surprising to me. If you are a non believer, you are to be converted. If you dont convert you are an afront to god and are to be killed.

It was a context quite common that time... more political than religious.... as they face bosth ERE and Sassanids that time...

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go... :thumbsup:

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 17:30

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork. The mongols of Genghis Khans time were intrigued with Christianity for these very reasons.

Cute Wolf is right however, the vast majority of people in the world right now are religion in name but not practice. However, compared to America the middle east is far more religious because of the very culture. The vast majority of Middle easterners are Muslim, therefore it is easier to be a practicing Muslim in the middle East than it is in America or some other highly diversified society.

Hax

07-22-2009, 17:45

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork.

Actually, drinking alcohol is one of the things that is typically Christian; wine representing the blood of Christ and all of that. It isn't meant in a negative or positive way, it's just interesting.

Becoming a Buddhist isn't very hard; take refuge in the three Jewels and you're done. Becoming a Muslim isn't very hard say the Shahada and you're done. Everything else is mandatory, in my opinion.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 17:50

It was a context quite common that time... more political than religious.... as they face bosth ERE and Sassanids that time...

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go... :thumbsup:

So, you're saying that most "Muslims" aren't really Muslims at all, and that is why they don't kill infidels.

That's not a great arguement.

Odin

07-22-2009, 18:01

Well, you should try to have more muslim friends... at least they aren't as evil as you might imagine, but their belief system is rather "unbeliefable" is much true. However, most "muslims" didn't follow their say religion strictly. They are flexible, just follow some skin deep procedures as cosmetics.... much same as today's most Christians are goes to church because their mom said they should go... :thumbsup:

I dont think there evil, i just think they lack the humility to acknowledge that the mythology they created includes a god that gave them the ability to make rational decisions and to moderate themselves.

Its a nice backstop to have in your life when you can throw out a religous doctrine that is unassailable, you know "Well the bible says" or "thats gods will". I personally wouldnt mind a good old fashion war based on religous doctrines, it would be easier to comprehend motivations and justifications.

Plus I could come out of retirement although I dont think I could do Benning in July\August im to old now. thankfully we have plenty of ungrateful, spoiled, entitled idiots around between 18-28 that can go kill in my sted.

Cheers!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 18:09

Christianity is a very easy religion to follow. we are not required to forsake certain earthly pleasures such as drinking or pork. The mongols of Genghis Khans time were intrigued with Christianity for these very reasons.

Well, there's the no sex thing. That's sort of hard to follow, virtually impossible for most people actually. There's an anecodote I quite like:

The Oxford Dons are arguing about what, if any, unique contribution Christianity has made. In walks C.S. Lewis, "What's the ruckus" says he, the Dons tell him and his response is, "Oh, that's easy. Grace."

Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, not contract. That's what makes it so unusual, in that it posits a unique relationship with (a) God.

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 18:29

HoreTore, I want you to find me a New Testemant passage advocating killing, let alone massacre.

Easy.

Romans 1:32 - the gays shall die.

But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return ~;)

rory_20_uk

07-22-2009, 18:40

So, you're saying that most "Muslims" aren't really Muslims at all, and that is why they don't kill infidels.

That's not a great argument.

I thought that not following religious dogma does generally mean you're not following the religion. I guess you could argue they're following a branch that believes that this is God's will which was revealed to Mohammed but right at this moment they're not 100% happy to go along with everything God said... possibly s/he was having a bad day on some bits of it... Sort of nearly practising Muslims.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 18:44

I thought that not following religious dogma does generally mean you're not following the religion. I guess you could argue they're following a branch that believes that this is God's will which was revealed to Mohammed but right at this moment they're not 100% happy to go along with everything God said... possibly s/he was having a bad day on some bits of it... Sort of nearly practising Muslims.

~:smoking:

So.... Every christian who doesn't support the death penalty for gays, are not christians...?

Also, there are more than just one version of Islam, just like there are more than one version of christianity. Face it Rory, Islam isn't set in stone. There is interpretation and discussion.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 18:51

Easy.

Romans 1:32 - the gays shall die.

Romans 1.32

They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die - yet they not only do them but even aplaud others who practice them.
2.1

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Where are the Gays and where is the call to kill them? Try again, prefferable from the Gospel.

But the thing with the NT, is that those who wrote it had no power at all. The christians were in no position to massacre anyone, so there aren't as much encouragement for violence and massacre as the old testament, for example. Does that mean the NT is peaceful? No, it simply means that god is the one doing the massacring in that book. The christians can't do it, so god will massacre every unbeliever for them. Just wait for jesus to return ~;)

Where does it say in the Gospel that God is going to go around massacring people. What is the principle of the New Testemant?

Murder?

If Jesus was such a blood-thirsty man why did he go bumbing around the desert for three years holding picnics?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 19:03

I thought that not following religious dogma does generally mean you're not following the religion. I guess you could argue they're following a branch that believes that this is God's will which was revealed to Mohammed but right at this moment they're not 100% happy to go along with everything God said... possibly s/he was having a bad day on some bits of it... Sort of nearly practising Muslims.

~:smoking:

My favourite problem, who decides Dogma? The Pope? The Caliph?

So.... Every christian who doesn't support the death penalty for gays, are not christians...?

Also, there are more than just one version of Islam, just like there are more than one version of christianity. Face it Rory, Islam isn't set in stone. There is interpretation and discussion.

Actually, Paul says don't kill the gays. As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out a couple of years ago, he just doesn't like them, but he's talking about Jewish law for Jewish people.

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 19:05

Where does it say in the Gospel that God is going to go around massacring people. What is the principle of the New Testemant?

Murder?

If Jesus was such a blood-thirsty man why did he go bumbing around the desert for three years holding picnics?

Oh come on. Don't tell me you haven't read what happens to the unbelievers.

Jesus wasn't a blood-thirsty man, Jesus was a powerless and beaten man - that's why he was in no position to be blood-thirsty.

Mark 4:11-12: Jesus is kind enough to speak in parables, so that people won't understand him and therefore go to hell.

Mark 6:11: Any city that doesn't welcome jesus' followers will be destroyed(by god).

But hey, how can you even begin to call a concept such as hell anything but evil?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 19:19

Oh come on. Don't tell me you haven't read what happens to the unbelievers.

Jesus wasn't a blood-thirsty man, Jesus was a powerless and beaten man - that's why he was in no position to be blood-thirsty.

Mark 4:11-12: Jesus is kind enough to speak in parables, so that people won't understand him and therefore go to hell.

Mark 6:11: Any city that doesn't welcome jesus' followers will be destroyed(by god).

But hey, how can you even begin to call a concept such as hell anything but evil?

If this is how you want to see the figure of Jesus, I can't stop you. Answer this though:

If Jesus was so helpless and constrained by circumstances why did he incite the authorities, and give himself up to those authorities for execution?

He didn't have to go to Jerusalem.

Though I am confused:

If you hate Christianity so much, why don't you hate Isalm more?

It says all that and commands believers to wage war.

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 19:23

If you hate Christianity so much, why don't you hate Isalm more?

It says all that and commands believers to wage war.

Because my beef with religion isn't about war.

Everyone loves war, religious or not.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 19:31

Because my beef with religion isn't about war.

Everyone loves war, religious or not.

I don't love war.

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 19:35

I don't love war.

I don't either, but we're by far the minority in this world.

No, my primary reasons to not like christianity is 1; I don't consider it to be true, and 2; I can't love a religion who has Gandhi burning in hell for all eternity.

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 20:15

I am a 17 year old boy with a military background, training with guns, a love of ancient history, my heor is Genghis Khan, and i am conservative.......Hmmmm, i don't love war. That sounds dumb, no one loves war, they may like the adrenaline from fighting, but so does everyone, adrenaline is your friend :laugh4:

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 20:18

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 20:23

Wow, ummmmm how about switzerland...... yeah im pretty sure they aren't currently in armed conflict

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 20:26

Wow, ummmmm how about switzerland...... yeah im pretty sure they aren't currently in armed conflict

Sweden and Iceland too. So that's 3. Anyone else?

Edit: Oops, both of them are involved in Afghanistan. So it's still just Switzerland....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 20:41

Judging by the number of wars in the world, then yes, people do love war.

Try finding a country who isn't at war with anyone.

People romanticise warriors, big difference. A willingness to go to war does not have to indicate a love thereof.

However, war should always be a last resort.

Which neatly brings us back to terrorism and it's pointlessness, as it is a short a bloody route to trying to change people's minds vs a rational arguement.

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 20:48

I believe spain is not. Neither is singapore. Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, (you want me to keep going, ive barely left southeast asia.)

HoreTore

07-22-2009, 21:08

I believe spain is not. Neither is singapore. Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, (you want me to keep going, ive barely left southeast asia.)

Spain: in Afghanistan, as well as the basque separatist movement.
Singapore: Also in Afghanistan.
Vietnam: Occupies the Spratly Islands.
Bhutan: No current wars, the last one 5 years ago.
Nepal: supplies the UK with soldiers for afghanistan.

Hax

07-22-2009, 21:27

Vietnam,

With their great history of persecuting non-Christians (and all religious people now), they don't need to be suggested.

Husar

07-22-2009, 21:46

And somehow the fact that some countries have 5 or more soldiers in Afghanistan proves that all their citizens love war? :inquisitive:

Hax

07-22-2009, 21:48

The point trying to make here is the fact that fighting is typical for all humans.

Centurion1

07-22-2009, 22:29

No sir the point he is trying to make is that people LOOOOVE war. And people may fight but that doesn't mean we love it.

Spain: in Afghanistan, as well as the basque separatist movement.
Singapore: Also in Afghanistan.
Vietnam: Occupies the Spratly Islands.
Bhutan: No current wars, the last one 5 years ago.
Nepal: supplies the UK with soldiers for afghanistan.

Spain- Spain sent no troops to iraq, sorry they are in afghanistan
Singapore- sorry

Vietnam- OCCUPIES, they aren't technically at war

Bhutan- So they are at peace

Nepal- Burkhas don't count, they are now mercenaries no longer regulars in British army and there are currently no burkhas in afghanistan, buddy

If you want to play this game i will go down a list of countries and tell you who is ACTIVELY at war and who is not

Moldova
Andorra
Vatican City
San Marino
Puerto rico
Barbados
Grenada
St. lucia
Bahamas
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Madagascar
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Armenia
Thailand
Papau New Guinea
Palau
Solomon islands
Micronesia
Marshall islands

(i got bored but heres a preliminary list feel free to edit this off the top of my head)

Oh and anyone who talks about the tribalism of Afghanistan (i do often) and how it is impossible to have a centralized government should look up Mongolia, stable country with a very tribal history. They even have troops in Afghanistan.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-22-2009, 23:03

Nepal was never part of the British Empire, and her men who serve in Ghurka regiments are not mercenaries, they are regular soldiers.

Rhyfelwyr

07-22-2009, 23:27

The average person doesn't like war. Before the big total wars started, war was pretty romanticised, but then that's not been the case since the 'war to end all wars'.

Centurion1

07-23-2009, 00:13

Nepal was never part of the British Empire, and her men who serve in Ghurka regiments are not mercenaries, they are regular soldiers.

sorry i spelled it wrong. and i know that they once served as regular british troops. however, i meant at the present they do not serve as regulars. They are a strange force description. half-independent (mercenaries) but they are still considered members of the crowns royal forces.

Husar

07-23-2009, 00:22

The point trying to make here is the fact that fighting is typical for all humans.

It's just as typical for animals (http://www.coral.org/node/3896), so what?
Unlike them we actually try to limit ourselves, most of us anyway.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-23-2009, 00:22

sorry i spelled it wrong. and i know that they once served as regular british troops. however, i meant at the present they do not serve as regulars. They are a strange force description. half-independent (mercenaries) but they are still considered members of the crowns royal forces.

They serve as regulars, the same as the Irish. The recent court cases hinged on exactly the issue, that they serve in the same way, and should therefore have the same terms of service.

Centurion1

07-23-2009, 03:25

Sorry, i am not going to argue with you about something that im not sure about. i will just take your word on it:2thumbsup:.

Rhy is right that all animals (including ourselves) fight, but at least we try not to.

Husar

07-23-2009, 09:18

It's rare that people agree with me and when they do, they might just attribute it to someone else. :help:

Fragony

07-23-2009, 10:32

All your arguments are belong to me

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/410481/b333457e/ventilator_valt_imam_aan.html

HoreTore

07-23-2009, 10:52

No sir the point he is trying to make is that people LOOOOVE war. And people may fight but that doesn't mean we love it.

If you want to play this game i will go down a list of countries and tell you who is ACTIVELY at war and who is not

Moldova
Andorra
Vatican City
San Marino
Puerto rico
Barbados
Grenada
St. lucia
Bahamas
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Madagascar
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Armenia
Thailand
Papau New Guinea
Palau
Solomon islands
Micronesia
Marshall islands

Alright, I'll play your game, even though it's got nothing to do with my point, which you still haven't figured out, even though others have repeated it multiple times now:

Moldova: Civil conflict, separatist movement.
Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Puerto Rica, Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia, Bahamas, St. Vincent, Palau, Solomon Islands, Micronesia and Marshall Islands: none of these are real countries(and I believe several of them were part of Bush' "coalition of the willing").
Madagascar: Civil conflict, military coup.
Morocco: (Semi)Civil conflict/violent occupation, separatist movement(west sahara).
Qatar and Bahrain: None since the Gulf war.
Armenia: Withdrew from iraq in octobre 2008, still in Kosovo.
Thailand: You've got to be kidding me, they've been at war with insurgents for the last 5 years. Now they've also managed to fight with Cambodia over some temple.

Rhyfelwyr

07-23-2009, 13:12

It's rare that people agree with me and when they do, they might just attribute it to someone else. :help:

I'm taking all the rep here. :whip:

Hax

07-23-2009, 20:21

Rhy is right that all animals (including ourselves) fight, but at least we try not to.

Yup. Ask any historian.

Jolt

07-23-2009, 21:54

Well, personally, many countries shouldn't exist if the diffrences are present, or they were originally an occupation force... I don't hate US, but they actually "stole" those land from native Americans with treacherous pacts, for example, and North Ireland in UK is really the same thing.

True. At least half of it is. The US shouldn't really exist, or should at the very least be confined to its original boundaries in my opinion. They are a special case, however, given the fact that they have basically wiped out the native ethnicities and their country wasn't made up by an higher and lower peoples (And you said yourself in your post about East Timor), but since that is well in the past, as much as it pains me to nod, I accept their presence as a single sovereign entity. History is very important, because it means the cultures are gone and cannot be retrieved and enforced upon the majority of the present population. Such is the case of the USA, unlike Indonesia.

I would apply such an opinion on a myriad of countries. Spain castillianizes Galicians, Basques and Catalunians, therefore I am in favor of the independence of those countries. England did the same to Welsh and Scottish, therefore I am in favor of the independence of those countries. North Ireland is reportedly mostly inhabitted by Scottish, so a condominium between Scotland and Ireland would be a possible solution, in my point of view. France successfully did it to Occitans, Bretons and Burgundians (History again), therefore I accept that France remains with its current continental boundaries (Corsica shouldn't remain French, however.) India should desintegrate into a myriad of states, as should Pakistan (Baluchistan and Punjab/Khalistan pops up to my mind as the most blatant cases), China should lose most of its external territory (Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia), it should not however, lose for instance Manchuria (Manchu culture), Yunnan (Ancient Di and other non-Han tribes which were assimilated), and finally, Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Fujian, Guangzhou Huainan and Guangxi, which were territories which originally were home to many non-Han ethnicities, gradually assimilated into the Chinese (Han) ethnicity, recognized by the old Chinese emperors as barbarians. Since this cultures have large and by been absorbed in the course of history, and their distinct culture lost, I can accept that they are legitimatly part of the country they belong to. Africa would be a very special case. Since many people of the same ethnicities have already have seperate histories by being part of different colonies, the whole of Africa would need to be re-drawed, by ethnical groups, divided by the colonial boundaries (As people from the same ethnicity in different ex-colonies speak different languages, and that might lead to conflict in a unitary state (See Belgium about language conflictuality). Well, you get my point about countries which are legitimate or not in my eyes.

And those [snip... hehehe...] east timor, are the best example on how a lesser people's Just to note that ever since I read "lesser people", I rejoiced at the fact that East-Timor is independent.
will can be bent by several foreign interests. Actually, the invisible hands in east timor affair wasn't any country or humanitarian organization... it was [snip... hehehe...] multinational company that only interested in exploiting oil and gas reserve at the Timor sea. They do the same in Papua (not PNG, correction for you) and Aceh.

However true that may be, the fact is that multinationals don't force an authoritarian Indonesian government to make a refenrendum. Other countries do. That's why you don't see Xanana Gusmão or (Insert random rebel leader here) travelling abroad to meet multinational companies CEO's. They travel to meet world leaders.

Well, if u look at the timor lestenese conitions now, they are more [snip... hehehe...], [snip... hehehe...], and [snip... hehehe...] compared from the times they are still under Indonesian control. Portugal are just try to exploit the chaos in Indonesian government that time, and sadly their [snip... hehehe...] tactics are prevailed...

I'm pretty sure you can say that to the tens of thousands that died during the Indonesian invasion (Which was the classical "We are invading simply because we want to." reason), as well as the tens of thousands of victims of Indonesian repression, as well as to the victims of this incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_massacre).

As a matter of fact I have two Timorense college professors here in my college residence, they are here learning Portuguese. Since I enquired into their histories in Timor-occupied, they had to go study to Indonesian colleges (nothing wrong here), and one of them took 10 (!) years to take a simple degree because he got flunked by the professors, who did so because he was a Timorense (As you said, one of those "lesser people"), who apparently according to Indonesian professors didn't deserve a college degree.

EDIT: About Portugal, that's funny. I study International Relations, so I know what I'm talking about. Portugal should recieve the Nobel Prize for Peace. It's not everyday that you see a national boicott of Indonesian products, massive popular demonstrations of support for Timor, and a country which truly acted out of pure kindness to a foreign people in the International Arena.

Well, every country has its own "claimed area" and that will goes almost against any humanitarian principles. But with that, maybe Megas Alexandros will be arrested for Invading Persia, and England should have a heavy sanction for annexing wales and scotlands... well, If a race or Area in your own country try to separate themself (the very same as Rebellions in TW :smash:), did your country only let them go, and not sending armed forces to quell them?

Eng... you should learn from that perspective.... that's all, thank you. :thumbsdown:

Ok, then I'm pretty sure you view the German invasions throughout Europe, as well as the Japanese invasion of China and Indonesia with good eyes.

Centurion1

07-24-2009, 02:43

Alright, I'll play your game, even though it's got nothing to do with my point, which you still haven't figured out, even though others have repeated it multiple times now:

Moldova: Civil conflict, separatist movement.
Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Puerto Rica, Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia, Bahamas, St. Vincent, Palau, Solomon Islands, Micronesia and Marshall Islands: none of these are real countries(and I believe several of them were part of Bush' "coalition of the willing").
Madagascar: Civil conflict, military coup.
Morocco: (Semi)Civil conflict/violent occupation, separatist movement(west sahara).
Qatar and Bahrain: None since the Gulf war.
Armenia: Withdrew from iraq in octobre 2008, still in Kosovo.
Thailand: You've got to be kidding me, they've been at war with insurgents for the last 5 years. Now they've also managed to fight with Cambodia over some temple.

Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Puerto Rica, Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia, Bahamas, St. Vincent, Palau, Solomon Islands, Micronesia and Marshall Islands: none of these are real countries(and I believe several of them were part of Bush' "coalition of the willing").

Just because they are small doesn't mean they are not real countries. and this is a stupid atguement. you can't judge an entire group of people by their government. Otherwise then all Iranians would be raving lunatics, or all Burmans, or all North Koreans (well not sure about that, they did invent brainwashing. Just think about that......

sorry husar

Oh and the fact that Humans even have a concept of peace implies a reluctance to war. We are superior to animals because of our intellect that allows us to make decisions that do not have to be natural.

Oh and jolt do you really think that Wales and Scotland want to leave the Uk. I am sure there are separatists but the Scots aren't exactly laying down blood feuds with every Englishman they ind anymore. What i am trying to say is i think they are rather assimiltaed (but maybe i am wrong, i don't live there.)

no you cant say that America should have been its natural borders because there were Indians there too. Oh and what about Canada. and shouldn't austrailia be given back to the aborigines.... What i say is we stop worrying about the past injustices and start worrying about what is happening NOW. Indians are less than one percent of the American population so that idea is impossible. Plus, Americans have done a lot of good things so stop focusing on all the bad stuff.

Jolt

07-24-2009, 03:48

Oh and jolt do you really think that Wales and Scotland want to leave the Uk. I am sure there are separatists but the Scots aren't exactly laying down blood feuds with every Englishman they ind anymore. What i am trying to say is i think they are rather assimiltaed (but maybe i am wrong, i don't live there.)

Fact is that their language and culture still exists. And noone said they want to leave the UK. I am theorizing over which countries are or are not legitimate to me.

no you cant say that America should have been its natural borders because there were Indians there too. Oh and what about Canada. and shouldn't austrailia be given back to the aborigines.... What i say is we stop worrying about the past injustices and start worrying about what is happening NOW. Indians are less than one percent of the American population so that idea is impossible. Plus, Americans have done a lot of good things so stop focusing on all the bad stuff.

By the time the US was formed as a sovereign entity, in the 13th colonies, if there was any sizeable number of indians, I believe, the British colonists far surpassed the number of Indians. That, coupled with this: "History is very important, because it means the cultures are gone and cannot be retrieved and enforced upon the majority of the present population." I wrote in my last post, explains the situation. About Australia, the aborigine culture is also practically extinct. Therefore I can accept Australia as it is. About the bad stuff, I'm not talking about any specific bad stuff. Only explaining why I consider the USA a viable legitimate country. I'm pretty sure Germany did many good things as well, so let's prohibit everyone from talking about WW2, shall we?

HoreTore

07-24-2009, 05:04

Oh and jolt do you really think that Wales and Scotland want to leave the Uk.

Uhm................

Yes they do? Haven't been paying much attention to the scottish nationalist issue, have you?

Just because they are small doesn't mean they are not real countries.

Size matters. ~;)

Husar

07-24-2009, 13:55

Size matters. ~;)

So you support huge corporations?

You can say that some people like conflict, but war is a different matter and (http://www.amnesty.org/) your (http://www.ipeacei.org/) point (http://www.peacecorps.gov/) that (http://www.worldpeace.org/) all (http://worldpeacefoundation.org/) people (http://www.usip.org/) love (http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/20653_whales.shtml) war (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/) is (http://www.perdana4peace.org/) quite (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/) wrong (http://www.peaceandsecurity.org/).

qed

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-24-2009, 14:35

Uhm................

Yes they do? Haven't been paying much attention to the scottish nationalist issue, have you?

Tyrrany of the minority, especially in Wales. There the Demographic is roughly:

600,000 Welsh.

2,200,000 Anglo-Welsh

200,000 English

Of those, about 2,000,000 overall wanted neither independance nor, supposedly, an assembly. However, all the Welsh voted for one and they got it. As I said, a noisy minority.

Fact is that their language and culture still exists. And noone said they want to leave the UK. I am theorizing over which countries are or are not legitimate to me.

Debatable, Welsh and Scots-Gailic are minority languages, and many of the cultural features are Victorian, Druidism for example.

Note: Both the Queen and the current Archbishop of Canterbury are Druids.

Rhyfelwyr

07-24-2009, 17:07

Uhm................

Yes they do? Haven't been paying much attention to the scottish nationalist issue, have you?

The majority of the Scottish people still favour remaining in the UK, however most do want some more devolution. National identities are quite complicated here, don't believe the tartan & shortbread history we make up to attract tourists, it's not representative at all of the reality, national identity is quite complicated here.

EDIT: Also, Scotland was not annexed or assimilated as has been suggested here...

Debatable, Welsh and Scots-Gailic are minority languages, and many of the cultural features are Victorian, Druidism for example.

Note: Both the Queen and the current Archbishop of Canterbury are Druids.

And historically at least, most of the lowland Scots would identify much more readily with England than with the Irish (which we used to use to refer to the Highlanders).

Also, you got some info on the Queen/Archbishop being druids, I am intrigued...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-24-2009, 17:23

The majority of the Scottish people still favour remaining in the UK, however most do want some more devolution. National identities are quite complicated here, don't believe the tartan & shortbread history we make up to attract tourists, it's not representative at all of the reality, national identity is quite complicated here.

EDIT: Also, Scotland was not annexed or assimilated as has been suggested here...

Quite correct, England was annexed by Scotland. A very impressive dynastic feat, that. It's also worth pointing out that English national identity, though rarely articulated, is just as complex and fractured, cutting across as many regional and ethnic/cultural borders.

And historically at least, most of the lowland Scots would identify much more readily with England than with the Irish (which we used to use to refer to the Highlanders).

Also, you got some info on the Queen/Archbishop being druids, I am intrigued...

Not baby-killing Druids, social Druids. They organsie the Estevodd, the (frankly quite recent) nationalistic Welsh culture festival. Obviously, Rowan Willians is not a member of a Pagan religion.

HoreTore

07-25-2009, 00:26

Philipvs and Rhyfelwyr, I wasn't saying that the majority of scots wanted independence, I was simply pointing out that there is talk about secession... And it was aimed primarily at the Scots... :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-25-2009, 00:55

Cute Wolf

07-25-2009, 07:46

True. At least half of it is. The US shouldn't really exist, or should at the very least be confined to its original boundaries in my opinion. They are a special case, however, given the fact that they have basically wiped out the native ethnicities and their country wasn't made up by an higher and lower peoples (And you said yourself in your post about East Timor), but since that is well in the past, as much as it pains me to nod, I accept their presence as a single sovereign entity. History is very important, because it means the cultures are gone and cannot be retrieved and enforced upon the majority of the present population. Such is the case of the USA, unlike Indonesia.

I would apply such an opinion on a myriad of countries. Spain castillianizes Galicians, Basques and Catalunians, therefore I am in favor of the independence of those countries. England did the same to Welsh and Scottish, therefore I am in favor of the independence of those countries. North Ireland is reportedly mostly inhabitted by Scottish, so a condominium between Scotland and Ireland would be a possible solution, in my point of view. France successfully did it to Occitans, Bretons and Burgundians (History again), therefore I accept that France remains with its current continental boundaries (Corsica shouldn't remain French, however.) India should desintegrate into a myriad of states, as should Pakistan (Baluchistan and Punjab/Khalistan pops up to my mind as the most blatant cases), China should lose most of its external territory (Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia), it should not however, lose for instance Manchuria (Manchu culture), Yunnan (Ancient Di and other non-Han tribes which were assimilated), and finally, Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Fujian, Guangzhou Huainan and Guangxi, which were territories which originally were home to many non-Han ethnicities, gradually assimilated into the Chinese (Han) ethnicity, recognized by the old Chinese emperors as barbarians. Since this cultures have large and by been absorbed in the course of history, and their distinct culture lost, I can accept that they are legitimatly part of the country they belong to. Africa would be a very special case. Since many people of the same ethnicities have already have seperate histories by being part of different colonies, the whole of Africa would need to be re-drawed, by ethnical groups, divided by the colonial boundaries (As people from the same ethnicity in different ex-colonies speak different languages, and that might lead to conflict in a unitary state (See Belgium about language conflictuality). Well, you get my point about countries which are legitimate or not in my eyes.

Just to note that ever since I read "lesser people", I rejoiced at the fact that East-Timor is independent.

However true that may be, the fact is that multinationals don't force an authoritarian Indonesian government to make a refenrendum. Other countries do. That's why you don't see Xanana Gusmão or (Insert random rebel leader here) travelling abroad to meet multinational companies CEO's. They travel to meet world leaders.

I'm pretty sure you can say that to the tens of thousands that died during the Indonesian invasion (Which was the classical "We are invading simply because we want to." reason), as well as the tens of thousands of victims of Indonesian repression, as well as to the victims of this incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_massacre).

Well, history is history, past is the past... no matter how long it is.... "Well, at least I was happy when I become a conscript and sent there to shot some of their heads and torture them... they are simply not humans." is NEVER an argument when some "larger" countries decide to "invade" smaller countries. Providing you play TW games much (afterall this forum is TW....) you know that in the history, IF the "freedom" for all is applied, today's wolrd will become an anarchy ruins of everyday riotting people. As bad or as good as they could be used... Power gives order. Just look at today your "timor leste", as they are become poorer and poorer everyday. And they become further infractioned, as most of their former "allies and friends" become bitter rivals in politics. Everyday, a corpse lied in the roads was common occurence in Timor leste... as much of the people now regrets their separation from Indonesia. Much of their refugees in the East Nusatenggara Province now decide to become Indonesian citizens once again, because they said that living here now..... is hell (Citation: I did have an article to said that, but it was written in Indonesian, and in my newspapper (KOMPAS))

And who says that multinational corporations ain't behind this carnage? just look at who gets the best guards and hire many PMC's in timor leste... Australian, British, and American oil gas and natural resources company. Even they have power to shoot timor leste's police and didn't get any punishment "they just say accident"

As a matter of fact I have two Timorense college professors here in my college residence, they are here learning Portuguese. Since I enquired into their histories in Timor-occupied, they had to go study to Indonesian colleges (nothing wrong here), and one of them took 10 (!) years to take a simple degree because he got flunked by the professors, who did so because he was a Timorense (As you said, one of those "lesser people"), who apparently according to Indonesian professors didn't deserve a college degree.

EDIT: About Portugal, that's funny. I study International Relations, so I know what I'm talking about. Portugal should recieve the Nobel Prize for Peace. It's not everyday that you see a national boicott of Indonesian products, massive popular demonstrations of support for Timor, and a country which truly acted out of pure kindness to a foreign people in the International Arena.

Ok, then I'm pretty sure you view the German invasions throughout Europe, as well as the Japanese invasion of China and Indonesia with good eyes.

Well, I was an assistant professor in my collage, and I was tasked to give some exams and homework on Inorganic chemistry, and I know that several of my fellow assistant friends depiss some junior students because of their religious or racial backgrounds. Pretty much true, some Papuan students got a bad mark they shouldn't get because some "muslim" assistants never give "christians" more than 60% (usually much less). But at least I doing my Job Professionally and give them good marks they deserve (not because they are christian like me, but everyone deserve 90% is got 90% from me). Discrimination exists everywhere! And yes, while some "unproffesional flunkers" lied in university, most of the Lecturers and assistants are good and honest, and never flunk their students or juniors.

Oh, and the bolded sentence means that I dislike that. Initially japanesse said that they want to liberate asian countries from european colonization, and history is history, without that disaster happened, much, I said much, countries in east and southeast asia never had their european influence lessened. Well, the german invasion is a really diffrent case, as the WW2 is more kind of Revenge in Nazi's point of view, but their result is complete fail nonetheless...

And If u play RTW, or EB, or BI... or anything "historical" TW mods... You did learn that "the strong eats the weak" and with that, history is shaped. But respect other's territory, and didn';t meddle in another's "inner problems" was a good start to maintain peaceful relationships. Indonesia is much like US, they are both "De facto and De Jure" country, with certain identity, and pastime "naughty invasions". But the first step towards more friendly relationships is honour each other. Most Indonesians aren't unreasonable flunkers, just ask Obama.... he spent his child time in Jakarta, Indonesia, and he didn't get any discrimination.

Jolt

07-25-2009, 15:20

Well, history is history, past is the past... no matter how long it is.... "Well, at least I was happy when I become a conscript and sent there to shot some of their heads and torture them... they are simply not humans." is NEVER an argument when some "larger" countries decide to "invade" smaller countries. Providing you play TW games much (afterall this forum is TW....) you know that in the history, IF the "freedom" for all is applied, today's wolrd will become an anarchy ruins of everyday riotting people.

In ther International Law, like you said, there is a principle which was created in 1648 (!), which is three-fold:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

As such, Indonesia had no right whatsoever to invade Timor-Leste, which was a completely seperate and legitimate sovereign state with no connections to Indonesia. As such, every state is theorically free from one another. And there is freedom for all in many countries. And you don't see them rioting everyday. So long as there is responsible governance by the ruling class (THAT is the problem, not multinational companies), then one can value freedom in a country without riotting.

As bad or as good as they could be used... Power gives order. Just look at today your "timor leste", as they are become poorer and poorer everyday. And they become further infractioned, as most of their former "allies and friends" become bitter rivals in politics. Everyday, a corpse lied in the roads was common occurence in Timor leste... as much of the people now regrets their separation from Indonesia. Much of their refugees in the East Nusatenggara Province now decide to become Indonesian citizens once again, because they said that living here now..... is hell (Citation: I did have an article to said that, but it was written in Indonesian, and in my newspapper (KOMPAS))

Power gives order through oppression and fear. Like in many countries coming out of totalitarian regimes, its people come with a collective state of mind where they want to expel all the rage and anger they stocked up while under the oppressive regime. That is why after most totalitarian regimes, there is always a period of several years of anarchy. Portugal was no exception to this rule. Once East Timor straightens its structural problems usual to a new-born state, it should begin to gain a gigantic influx of wealth through its exports of oil, and that alone can make a substantial of their part of their revenue in the future.

Oh and I know about all that. I know that there are still many Indonesian partizans in Timor, and that these continue to murder and loot and rape until this very day. Some days ago, I just read a news that a pro-Indonesian Timorese group had raped and killed 5 women in the outskirts of Dili. It isn't just the assassinations and agitation to intimidate the population into voting for continued existence inside Indonesia when the referendum happened. No, it continues to this very day.

Another problem is the economic neglect that Timor Leste suffered both during Portuguese administration (Heck, they were a colony, so we were legitimatly exploiting them) and during Indonesian administration (They were supposedly an integral part of your country, yet they were still economically neglected, and if you have a constitution, I'd bet it says somewhere in the first chapters that Indonesia is a unitary state, whose duty is to improve the life of all its citizens. You were definetly not accomplishing that.), which has only increased the problems and workload of the Timorense government today. If you ask me, would I be a citizen of:

a) a country whose citizens willingly call me a "lesser person", where I am educationally discriminated based on my ethnicity and where the lands I lived in were oppressed, subject to constant murders and repression, as well as the general lack of economic advancement
OR
b) a country which is ruled by my own kin, which despite all the gigantic structural problems it faces, actually attempts to improve the social, economic and political life (However difficult that may be) of all Timorense
Which one do you think, I would choose?

And who says that multinational corporations ain't behind this carnage? just look at who gets the best guards and hire many PMC's in timor leste... Australian, British, and American oil gas and natural resources company. Even they have power to shoot timor leste's police and didn't get any punishment "they just say accident"

What do the multinational corporations gain by this? I'm sure they all wanted Indonesia out so they could have a new sovereign body willing to sign contracts with them, but what do they gain with sustaining the anarchy? (You are implying that they take active action in promoting violence and destruction in the country)

Well, I was an assistant professor in my collage, and I was tasked to give some exams and homework on Inorganic chemistry, and I know that several of my fellow assistant friends depiss some junior students because of their religious or racial backgrounds. Pretty much true, some Papuan students got a bad mark they shouldn't get because some "muslim" assistants never give "christians" more than 60% (usually much less). But at least I doing my Job Professionally and give them good marks they deserve (not because they are christian like me, but everyone deserve 90% is got 90% from me). Discrimination exists everywhere! And yes, while some "unproffesional flunkers" lied in university, most of the Lecturers and assistants are good and honest, and never flunk their students or juniors.

Discrimination based on ethnicities? How I pity such people. People who have lives to live and have to get stuck perpetually on an educational system partly based on discrimination people through their religious or ethnical background. See? Primary example why Indonesia is an artificial country.

Oh, and the bolded sentence means that I dislike that. Initially japanesse said that they want to liberate asian countries from european colonization, and history is history, without that disaster happened, much, I said much, countries in east and southeast asia never had their european influence lessened. Well, the german invasion is a really diffrent case, as the WW2 is more kind of Revenge in Nazi's point of view, but their result is complete fail nonetheless...

Made that statement as a response to your sentence "Eng... you should learn from that perspective"

Which basically says, that you support invasions of people the invading powers consider "lesser people" and "Part of their claim area". So Japan considered Indonesia part of their claim area, and according to your hypothesis, they have every single right to invade your country and treat you like cattle.

And If u play RTW, or EB, or BI... or anything "historical" TW mods... You did learn that "the strong eats the weak" and with that, history is shaped. But respect other's territory, and didn';t meddle in another's "inner problems" was a good start to maintain peaceful relationships. Indonesia is much like US, they are both "De facto and De Jure" country, with certain identity, and pastime "naughty invasions". But the first step towards more friendly relationships is honour each other. Most Indonesians aren't unreasonable flunkers, just ask Obama.... he spent his child time in Jakarta, Indonesia, and he didn't get any discrimination.

We have reached a time where the "strong eats the weak" is no longer that linear and when a country is breaking international laws to "eat the weaker", it should not complain if another stronger country comes to eat it (Exactly like Japan did.). The rules are to be followed by everyone. If you break a rule with one country, you are breaking the rules with the entire world.