News that makes you say WTF! (64 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
I get the feeling from the vibe here that people seem to pay more attention to innocent people killed by the West than those innocent people killed by terrorists all in the name of religion.
Interesting. Also seems like taking the easier way out by not doing anything is better than actually trying to make the world a better place rather than let it burn down.
- - - Updated - - -
Its instant "justification" as soon as something is posted where terrorists kill innocent people. Instantly it gets diverted back to the West and how its our fault rather than actually taking any part in the blame yourselves over there.
Interesting. Also seems like taking the easier way out by not doing anything is better than actually trying to make the world a better place rather than let it burn down.
- - - Updated - - -
Its instant "justification" as soon as something is posted where terrorists kill innocent people. Instantly it gets diverted back to the West and how its our fault rather than actually taking any part in the blame yourselves over there.
I do agree that religion is the a big reason for killings throughout the world. What happened in Pakistan wasn't because of US intervention, it was straight up lunatics making a point/ getting revenge.
And it's not America's job to make the "world" a better place. Let people in the middle east kill each other, our gov't doesn't seem to mind when people in Africa do it. That brings me to my point that a big proportion of terrorist attacks in US are from places our gov't has had a footprint on.
And it's not America's job to make the "world" a better place. Let people in the middle east kill each other, our gov't doesn't seem to mind when people in Africa do it. That brings me to my point that a big proportion of terrorist attacks in US are from places our gov't has had a footprint on.
Like I said, it's an interesting conundrum. It might be easier for you to turn a deaf ear to whats happening there by not doing anything , and to be honest, sometimes I get so fed up and I think the same thing. Let them destroy themselves on their own. Then I see things like today, where its so easy for men to walk into a school and look a child in the eye as they pull the trigger. There is a special place in Hell for men like that and the sooner they get there the better. And if its US Troops that send them there then I'm fine with that too.
To the point of religion, whether or not our footprint is there or not doesn't make a difference at this point Their decisions were based on the idea that their God said it was justified, NOT because of the West.
- - - Updated - - -
It isn't Americas job to make the world a better place. Right. But no one else is doing anything about it so would you rather live in a world where there is no one trying to make it a better place? There are plenty of places in the world where the US footprint isn't the problem and chaos still endures.
To the point of religion, whether or not our footprint is there or not doesn't make a difference at this point Their decisions were based on the idea that their God said it was justified, NOT because of the West.
- - - Updated - - -
It isn't Americas job to make the world a better place. Right. But no one else is doing anything about it so would you rather live in a world where there is no one trying to make it a better place? There are plenty of places in the world where the US footprint isn't the problem and chaos still endures.
Religion has gotten skewed since religion began. History shows quite well when its happened and how effective it was. People fight most passionately when God "tells" them to do it.
- - - Updated - - -
Here we go. First Maddy, now you. I know it was only a matter of time until you decided to chime in.
Feel free to disagree, you already know where I stand on most matters anyways but keep it civil otherwise on the block list you go.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm all for a good debate and all but if you disagree at least try and explain why without getting nasty otherwise its pointless.
- - - Updated - - -
Here we go. First Maddy, now you. I know it was only a matter of time until you decided to chime in.
Feel free to disagree, you already know where I stand on most matters anyways but keep it civil otherwise on the block list you go.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm all for a good debate and all but if you disagree at least try and explain why without getting nasty otherwise its pointless.
Naw. I see it more as an ethnic expression of perceived victimhood. Some people set fires to their town and loot stores. Others kill kids in the name of Allah. Both are fucked in the head and have reduced complex problems to fit a small, narrow and supremely shallow mindset.
There are fuckups in all walks of life. It's just where you're from, or what you identify with, that changes how it's expressed.
There are fuckups in all walks of life. It's just where you're from, or what you identify with, that changes how it's expressed.
Iran warned Australia about Sydney attacker
Man Haron Monis, the gunman behind the 16-hour hostage standoff in Sydney, Australia, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and himself, was well known to Iranian authorities. The self-styled "sheikh," who left Iran for Australia in 1996, had abused Australia’s political system to gain immunity from prosecution in Iran, where he was a wanted man.
According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “The psychological history and condition of this individual, who for more than two decades was a refugee in Australia, was repeatedly presented to Australian officials.” Afkham did not elaborate, but Haron Monis’ history while in Australia paints a clear picture of him as unstable and a charlatan posing as a religious man.
Before changing his name, Haron Monis was Mohammad Hassan Manteghi. As early as 2008, the Australian Shiite community warned federal agents he was an imposter posing as a Shiite ayatollah (in fact, they said there were no ayatollahs in Australia at the time) and no one had ever heard of the two names he was using, "Ayatollah Borujerdi" and "Sheikh Haron." He was, however, in the news at the time for harassing family members of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan. Before his conversion to Sunnism to take up the cause of the Islamic State group, Haron Monis had faced a number of legal battles, including numerous charges of sexual assault — under the guise of religious "healer" — and accessory to the murder of his ex-wife in Australia. Fars News Agency reported that Iran had requested via Interpol that Haron Monis be extradited in 1996 for “heavy financial fraud,” but that the request was denied when Haron Monis claimed that he would be persecuted in Iran for his “liberal” views. He was eventually granted political asylum in Australia. A search of Interpol did not bring up anyone by the various names he used, but foreign-based Persian-language Manoto reported that Haron Monis was wanted in a $200,000 fraud case. Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) also claimed that Haron Monis had been wanted by Iran. Interestingly, while most Western media outlets published images of Haron Monis dressed in traditional Shiite clerical garb, IRNA's choice shows a man in sunglasses wearing a white jacket over a black shirt with white stripes and white pants. Australian media outlets had long bought into Haron Monis’ branding of himself as “liberal.” In January 2001, Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National program profiled Haron Monis, before his name change: “While in Sydney, we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Borujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam — dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.” The Fars article, headlined, “The con artist who was not returned to Iran under the excuse of ‘political asylum,’” also criticized the Western media for emphasizing his Iranian nationality.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...acker-unstable-con-artist.html##ixzz3M6tQJTB4
----------------------------
Very sad but Australian officials are clearly at fault for this shit. He was clearly an unstable fraud. It's sickening to bring religion into this, AGAIN.
Man Haron Monis, the gunman behind the 16-hour hostage standoff in Sydney, Australia, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and himself, was well known to Iranian authorities. The self-styled "sheikh," who left Iran for Australia in 1996, had abused Australia’s political system to gain immunity from prosecution in Iran, where he was a wanted man.
According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “The psychological history and condition of this individual, who for more than two decades was a refugee in Australia, was repeatedly presented to Australian officials.” Afkham did not elaborate, but Haron Monis’ history while in Australia paints a clear picture of him as unstable and a charlatan posing as a religious man.
Before changing his name, Haron Monis was Mohammad Hassan Manteghi. As early as 2008, the Australian Shiite community warned federal agents he was an imposter posing as a Shiite ayatollah (in fact, they said there were no ayatollahs in Australia at the time) and no one had ever heard of the two names he was using, "Ayatollah Borujerdi" and "Sheikh Haron." He was, however, in the news at the time for harassing family members of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan. Before his conversion to Sunnism to take up the cause of the Islamic State group, Haron Monis had faced a number of legal battles, including numerous charges of sexual assault — under the guise of religious "healer" — and accessory to the murder of his ex-wife in Australia. Fars News Agency reported that Iran had requested via Interpol that Haron Monis be extradited in 1996 for “heavy financial fraud,” but that the request was denied when Haron Monis claimed that he would be persecuted in Iran for his “liberal” views. He was eventually granted political asylum in Australia. A search of Interpol did not bring up anyone by the various names he used, but foreign-based Persian-language Manoto reported that Haron Monis was wanted in a $200,000 fraud case. Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) also claimed that Haron Monis had been wanted by Iran. Interestingly, while most Western media outlets published images of Haron Monis dressed in traditional Shiite clerical garb, IRNA's choice shows a man in sunglasses wearing a white jacket over a black shirt with white stripes and white pants. Australian media outlets had long bought into Haron Monis’ branding of himself as “liberal.” In January 2001, Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National program profiled Haron Monis, before his name change: “While in Sydney, we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Borujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam — dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.” The Fars article, headlined, “The con artist who was not returned to Iran under the excuse of ‘political asylum,’” also criticized the Western media for emphasizing his Iranian nationality.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...acker-unstable-con-artist.html##ixzz3M6tQJTB4
----------------------------
Very sad but Australian officials are clearly at fault for this shit. He was clearly an unstable fraud. It's sickening to bring religion into this, AGAIN.
Interesting quote from a right wing dutch politician: "Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslims".
I am not an expert on the Quran but these recent events have driven an insatiable curiosity in me to learn more about Islam and understand why it is seemingly behind a lot of the terrorist activity. The more I read quotes from the Quran, the more I was actually quite shocked at its content. It seems that Mohammed was peodophile, rapist, sexist and murderer amongst other things. There are some disturbing literal quotes (while in a lot of cases contradict other quotes). One could argue that you could find some disturbing quotes in the old testament. However, a key difference is that according to Islam, the writing of the Quran are "God's words". Above all else, the attitude is to convert others to Islam or pay taxes to Muslims or be killed. Muslims looking to abandon Islam for another religion are to be killed.
I am pretty tolerant of other people's beliefs. However, I think people should question their tolerance if those beliefs are in direct conflict with the underlying laws and principals of modern society (Islam seems to be incompatible with modern democracy). The UK has let their tolerance swing so far into the extreme that they recognize Shariah law - which by its very nature is almost in direct conflict with British Common Law.
Islam itself is a pretty extremist set of beliefs and principals as far as I can gather up to this point. Of course, the vast majority of muslims are "moderate" muslims who are peaceful and well adjusted. However, if Islam is to be followed to the letter of the Quran, I do have some serious reservations about the future of society due to the growth of Islam. And to be clear the growth of Islam is not being driven from conversion but rather growth in Islamic population as their average birth rate is multiples higher than the global average.
Personally, obsession to ANY religion is dangerous. The relative peace of modern society I think owes a lot to the fact that people are less devout than they were in the past.
So what is my ultimate point? No matter how much modern society strives to be tolerant of all religous and racial backgrounds, ultimately the rule of law is paramount and all its inhabitants must follow it regardless of background. If a group of people's beliefs are in direct contrast with the underlying principals of freedom and democracy, these people should be scrutinized accordingly.
I am not an expert on the Quran but these recent events have driven an insatiable curiosity in me to learn more about Islam and understand why it is seemingly behind a lot of the terrorist activity. The more I read quotes from the Quran, the more I was actually quite shocked at its content. It seems that Mohammed was peodophile, rapist, sexist and murderer amongst other things. There are some disturbing literal quotes (while in a lot of cases contradict other quotes). One could argue that you could find some disturbing quotes in the old testament. However, a key difference is that according to Islam, the writing of the Quran are "God's words". Above all else, the attitude is to convert others to Islam or pay taxes to Muslims or be killed. Muslims looking to abandon Islam for another religion are to be killed.
I am pretty tolerant of other people's beliefs. However, I think people should question their tolerance if those beliefs are in direct conflict with the underlying laws and principals of modern society (Islam seems to be incompatible with modern democracy). The UK has let their tolerance swing so far into the extreme that they recognize Shariah law - which by its very nature is almost in direct conflict with British Common Law.
Islam itself is a pretty extremist set of beliefs and principals as far as I can gather up to this point. Of course, the vast majority of muslims are "moderate" muslims who are peaceful and well adjusted. However, if Islam is to be followed to the letter of the Quran, I do have some serious reservations about the future of society due to the growth of Islam. And to be clear the growth of Islam is not being driven from conversion but rather growth in Islamic population as their average birth rate is multiples higher than the global average.
Personally, obsession to ANY religion is dangerous. The relative peace of modern society I think owes a lot to the fact that people are less devout than they were in the past.
So what is my ultimate point? No matter how much modern society strives to be tolerant of all religous and racial backgrounds, ultimately the rule of law is paramount and all its inhabitants must follow it regardless of background. If a group of people's beliefs are in direct contrast with the underlying principals of freedom and democracy, these people should be scrutinized accordingly.
