Some terrorists bomb My Country!

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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.

[Fragony]

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.

mutual unerstanding? I do not understand, and I would like to keep it like that

[rory_20_uk]

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..."

[Hax]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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? I must say, I have never before heard the theory that the Vietnam action was a religious war.

[Hax]

Apart from being geographically close to the original topic, how exactly does Vietnam come into this discussion? 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]

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]

Ah, religious discussions.

stoking a flame that need not be stoked.

[HoreTore]

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]

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.


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 , but I forgive you this time

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.

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 ), 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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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'.

[Cute Wolf]

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]

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

[Cute Wolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.