Pakistan's opposition leader Benazir Bhutto assassinated

[Ahmad89]

I find it hilarious how you guys see religions, muslims and politics. Until you guys have done enough research on all three, start your opinion and not a harsh one.

 

Democracy + Islam = War

Its plain and simple. Its just like that episode of Family Guy how they showed when Irag turned democratic. Clothed woman turned into half naked woman etc etc. For as long as we live those two wont come together and youll all see. BTW this is not from opinion point of view. We have certian laws that we have to go by. I dont want to go into to much detail (i am not 'very' knowledgeable about the subject) and go wrong, but yeah.

 

I hope atheists argue themselves to death so i (we) dont have to hear anymore of their I know everything and your waisting your time.

 

According with your views, then, no Muslim nation should be accepted into any international communities. If they think their laws take prevalence over commonly accepted personal freedoms then they should turn their back on the rest of the world and accept the consequences of that.

 

My take on that view of Islam; it is arrogant, selfish and ridiculous. I may not understand Islam, but the impression asserted by its defenders makes me think of it as a trigger-happy self-righteous collection of miscreants and dissidents who need religion to unify themselves and justify their venting of frustrations at the successes of progressive nations while they still live in squalor. Live by your own outdated and superstitious laws, see where it has got you all and then be pissed about it. Pathetic and just stupid.

 

Religion should be about a way of life, not a set of ritual and law. Socioeconomic backlash is all that is keeping Islam growing. As for everywhere else, I'd say the significance of theocracy will fade in 50 years if that, not 1000.

 

There came a time in history where muslims did trade with other countries was peacful, leaders wernt bad people etc etc. Why is it their no more, that depends on your views, it could have been other wars that came and effected it or the people in the country started to rott. I cant argue with your views on islam other than the fact that you dont really know anything about it in detail instead of what people are like. Im glad you said what you said b/c now when i hear Palestinians say that they hate Americans for being arrogant, money loving assholes etc etc, i see where they are coming from (not calling you that). I hear alot of americans say why the killing and suffering overseas. Last time i checked palestine was invaded. Last time i checked Iraq was invaded. Last time i checked Afghanistan was invaded. Our once peaceful countries had to be fueled by just one match, thats all it takes. You try to change one thing, and the whole jenga pyramid falls.

 

If you want to blame it on islam, go ahead, thats only b/c you know nothing about it and why people do the things they do. I do disagree with the idea of martyr, but i dont want to go off subject too much.

If you want to blame religion in general, than i am 99.99% sure that if this earth was completely full of non god believing, or non religion people, thier would still be war over power, money, and land, just like thier is today.

 

What is no religion anyways, if you believe that thier is no religion, isnt that a "belief". Unless you call your self hard headed and dont go to anyside (or bother to go to anyside).

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

"I blame religion" is a very silly response. Religion is just a pretext. Ahmad is right on this one.

 

However, I'm with BlackKnight on what he says. International groups are linked together by similar goals, ideals and views. If Islam cannot conform, then by all means, let us be. At least speaking for most of Europe, we have nothing against that. Hell, this is our clubhouse, our rules. You want in, you play by the rules. Just like in school. If you can't conform, than, simply put, tough.

 

Oh and I do believe it highly inappropriate you having Mugen in your signature, considering your strong convictions in such a limitations. Mugen is the expression of freedom, at least in that anime.

[Ahmad89]

"I blame religion" is a very silly response. Religion is just a pretext. Ahmad is right on this one.

 

However, I'm with BlackKnight on what he says. International groups are linked together by similar goals, ideals and views. If Islam cannot conform, then by all means, let us be. At least speaking for most of Europe, we have nothing against that. Hell, this is our clubhouse, our rules. You want in, you play by the rules. Just like in school. If you can't conform, than, simply put, tough.

 

Oh and I do believe it highly inappropriate you having Mugen in your signature, considering your strong convictions in such a limitations. Mugen is the expression of freedom, at least in that anime.

Mugen is the expression of freedom yet in the end (actually the whole series) was bound by the girl. I dont think he was free. I just put him thier because i like the series along with samurai X and Samurai Jack.

[Sybarite Paladin AxL]

"I blame religion" is a very silly response. Religion is just a pretext. Ahmad is right on this one.

 

However, I'm with BlackKnight on what he says. International groups are linked together by similar goals, ideals and views. If Islam cannot conform, then by all means, let us be. At least speaking for most of Europe, we have nothing against that. Hell, this is our clubhouse, our rules. You want in, you play by the rules. Just like in school. If you can't conform, than, simply put, tough.

 

Oh and I do believe it highly inappropriate you having Mugen in your signature, considering your strong convictions in such a limitations. Mugen is the expression of freedom, at least in that anime.

Mugen is the expression of freedom yet in the end (actually the whole series) was bound by the girl. I dont think he was free. I just put him thier because i like the series along with samurai X and Samurai Jack.

 

Well if you're talking storywise than yeah, you're right. But I'm talking character design. His fighting style, his clothing style, his walking style, hell his entire character is the expression of freedom because he was designed to be so. Sure, that changes in the story, but the character design and ideas remain the same.

[Skythe]

But the terrorist do what they do because of their religion. So blaming religion is actually the only answer. They're not doing because they think cherry dum dums are awesome.

 

 

 

I win.

[L.S.D]

DOn't blame the religion but blame those that expound the knowledge (or the lack of) of the religions to the people.

 

The Words of God (applied to both Christianity and Islam) are always misinterpreted wrongly by us mere mortals.

 

P/S: I wish to clarify more on above posts but just hope it is sufficient.

[alexis]

this is not about religion, it has always been about money, powerful people use religious people just as tools, but dont get confused, the ones responsible for this are far from being religious people, it has always been and it will always be about power

 

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia page on terrorism:

The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.[18][19] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,[20] yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush.[21][22] Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or ideological action.[23][24][25] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:

“ "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[26]

 

One funny fact is that Bhuttos opposition is the party who has a friendly relationship with the US...

 

this is a complex topic and you are taking it too lightly

[Ahmad89]

this is not about religion, it has always been about money, powerful people use religious people just as tools, but dont get confused, the ones responsible for this are far from being religious people, it has always been and it will always be about power

 

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia page on terrorism:

The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.[18][19] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,[20] yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush.[21][22] Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or ideological action.[23][24][25] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:

“ "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[26]

 

One funny fact is that Bhuttos opposition is the party who has a friendly relationship with the US...

 

this is a complex topic and you are taking it too lightly

THANK YOU. At last, we have some intelligent people on this board.

[Skythe]

Religion's at fault. Tough crap, it is, move on.

[alexis]

hehe that's retarded like when george bush said that he was on a divine mission to p[unish the evil or when europeans came to the american continent to convert people to christianism

 

of course, you live in a country where those stupid excuses are more than enough as they guarantee your lifestyle, you won't even care until the day it affects the way you live

 

this isn't either about people from a certain country being all good and people from another country being evil, that is naive too

 

anyway the exasperating thing about this kind of discussion is that almost no one uses their brains, they just speak for what they see on TV or what they hear without even taking the time to understand the way things are

[Skythe]

My bad, let me rephrase.

 

All religion is flocking retarded.