I also hate hearing time and time again "religion" and "stupidity" in the same sentence. Of course it's only an opinion, but I can't help but feel a comment like that is religious intolerance.
Buy on AliExpress.com
This is just sick.. (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter /usr/bin
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I am religiously intolerant. But that should not surprise you as I am an American. My country was founded by the most religiously intolerant bastards the world has ever seen, searching for "religious freedom" in the new world. HA!
Religious freedom. Like the freedom people enjoyed after being accused of witchcraft? :cheesy:
Religious freedom. Like the freedom people enjoyed after being accused of witchcraft? :cheesy:
Don't worry, I didn't intend to force my acceptance 
people are free to think what they want, but it disturbs me that people misunderstand.
I really really doubt that somebody who knows islam very well will accpet the book so it would be nice if perhaps you can PM me the name of that respected muslim leader and a way I can contact him. I'd really like to know why he thinks the book is acceptable. Perhaps he has no problem with the book because it is tottally misleading thus not worth the discussion?
I understand that people will always be subjective, it is human nature. People can only minize their subjectiveness. But having read now half way, I can't really see that he has a point. Sometimes the writter just takes one verse out of a poem and base his arguments based on that verse while if you read the poem you will understand that that verse has a different meaning and intention then the one the writer talks about. It was probably logically written but wrongfully interpretated.
Btw, when your in the world's most muslim populated country, information and knowledge regarding Islam is much more easily obtainable and abundant than say in your country. That's why I'd really like to discuss with that muslim leader regarding his opinions. U can be sure I have no other intentions than merely understanding what other people think and why they think that way.
Just to add, the weakness in islam for this period in time is the lack of muslims to understand their own religion and the world around us (as in education and science), that is why we have muslims doing very unrespecatable acts, such as the bombings in London. Thats why many muslims are also easily provoked.
One other thing, nice Avatar
people are free to think what they want, but it disturbs me that people misunderstand.I really really doubt that somebody who knows islam very well will accpet the book so it would be nice if perhaps you can PM me the name of that respected muslim leader and a way I can contact him. I'd really like to know why he thinks the book is acceptable. Perhaps he has no problem with the book because it is tottally misleading thus not worth the discussion?
I understand that people will always be subjective, it is human nature. People can only minize their subjectiveness. But having read now half way, I can't really see that he has a point. Sometimes the writter just takes one verse out of a poem and base his arguments based on that verse while if you read the poem you will understand that that verse has a different meaning and intention then the one the writer talks about. It was probably logically written but wrongfully interpretated.
Btw, when your in the world's most muslim populated country, information and knowledge regarding Islam is much more easily obtainable and abundant than say in your country. That's why I'd really like to discuss with that muslim leader regarding his opinions. U can be sure I have no other intentions than merely understanding what other people think and why they think that way.
Just to add, the weakness in islam for this period in time is the lack of muslims to understand their own religion and the world around us (as in education and science), that is why we have muslims doing very unrespecatable acts, such as the bombings in London. Thats why many muslims are also easily provoked.
One other thing, nice Avatar
I'm sorry, but where have we made the average Iraqui citizen into a slave for the United States? Are we sending them to concentration camps in Baghdad? No. Unfortunately with every bomb we drop there is the risk of innocent lives being lost, however we are trying to defend the people of Iraq from the insurgents who threaten their lives and our troops' at the same time. There is quite a difference there.
defintion of slaves are not really those of years ago with chains and camps and all.
Infact many counrties are pretty much slaves to the US, with the amount of debt it has to them. The US really does have many sick economic manuvers.
going into Iraq was never meant to defend Iraqis from insurgents etc. that is mere the justification afterwards, once no weapons of mass destruction were never found. They were there for their own interest and now are trying to act the Heroes and Justify their moves. Perhaps the US did help Iraqis in the end, but that IMO was not the real intention, just a good side effect.
The US was inconsistant about the reason they came there, the only thing that is still consistant is that there are abundance in oil and infrastructure projects. Fuel to US' economic growth and global empire.
Infact many counrties are pretty much slaves to the US, with the amount of debt it has to them. The US really does have many sick economic manuvers.
going into Iraq was never meant to defend Iraqis from insurgents etc. that is mere the justification afterwards, once no weapons of mass destruction were never found. They were there for their own interest and now are trying to act the Heroes and Justify their moves. Perhaps the US did help Iraqis in the end, but that IMO was not the real intention, just a good side effect.
The US was inconsistant about the reason they came there, the only thing that is still consistant is that there are abundance in oil and infrastructure projects. Fuel to US' economic growth and global empire.
Could you give us an example of this please?
The fact of the matter is we will never know the true intentions behind the war on Iraq, however I have my own theories. Whether they be right or wrong, we unfortuntaley have caused many civilian casualties from our actions, however as you said we have done some good by ridding the country of Saddam Hussien. We will never know what the true intentions were, so we can only look at the facts.
The fact of the matter is we will never know the true intentions behind the war on Iraq, however I have my own theories. Whether they be right or wrong, we unfortuntaley have caused many civilian casualties from our actions, however as you said we have done some good by ridding the country of Saddam Hussien. We will never know what the true intentions were, so we can only look at the facts.
Forexample, here in my country, about 30 or so years ago analyst predicted an economic boom matching the one in California during the Goldrush (or so they say). During this time US economic analist came here to give this prediction, just about how big the economic growth would be, then electrical experts would make an estimation of the growth of energy needed to supply this boom over the next 25 years. These estimations were somewhat exagerated giving the idea that Indonesia needs to quickly build their energy infrastructure, how? By getting help loan from instututions such as USAID, Asiandevelopment bank. Which ofcourse have thick US background interms of economy.
Indonesia then gets the loan of the amount required based on exagerated growth predictions and end up owing a lot of money. Which is not easily returned because the boom isn't as sharp as the 'experts' predicted. More over the contracts usually include that US companies will recieve the contracts. Imagine of both the loan institution and the US companies contracted belong to the same circle.
So in a sense, Indonesia gets money from the US (economy) then gives it back to US companies(economy) and on top has still to pay back the loan plus interest which essentially injects outside money into the us economy.
The debate is whether or not such things are orcheastrated tactics (government or people in power but not neccessarily government) or just mere laws of economy which is optimized by businessmen. These things don't directly have to do with US citizens but about the small circle of US people who practically own a lot of the world by bieng at the very top of the economic pyramid and using power to maintain it at about all costs. And we all know that Business and Politics are very closely related.
So whether or not the US citizens know, it doesn't change the fact that many of US' strong business men and politician are essentially colonializing the world. That is also why many people usually separate their judgement of America interms of US citizens and US government.
I feel I am not bieng specific enough perhaps, but at least you get an idea of what I meant Andy.
I'm glad at how you reacted to my post. I agree with what you say. We never really know the true intentions, that is why I don't think anybody blames the US pple.
But looking at half facts and making conclusions from them is also not enough. Because for those people that were killed/injured/ or had family killed due to US actions (intentional or not), they will not understand those half facts and feel cheated. As the deaths were merely justified by the world as a result of media which comes out of the superpower country and thus they feel as if real justice has not been done, so who would do it? who would stand in front of the might of the world's superpower? Nobody. And that can lead to desperation.
I think the whole point Zlatan was making was not to compare directly different Terrorist attacks and how they measure to each other. Rather to becarefull when making a conclusion with these half facts. That perhaps our government(your government) isn't as true and honest as the media make it out to be, or even further yet....the so called terrorist aren't as ruthless, stupid and pure evil as many of us general people might think.
Indonesia then gets the loan of the amount required based on exagerated growth predictions and end up owing a lot of money. Which is not easily returned because the boom isn't as sharp as the 'experts' predicted. More over the contracts usually include that US companies will recieve the contracts. Imagine of both the loan institution and the US companies contracted belong to the same circle.
So in a sense, Indonesia gets money from the US (economy) then gives it back to US companies(economy) and on top has still to pay back the loan plus interest which essentially injects outside money into the us economy.
The debate is whether or not such things are orcheastrated tactics (government or people in power but not neccessarily government) or just mere laws of economy which is optimized by businessmen. These things don't directly have to do with US citizens but about the small circle of US people who practically own a lot of the world by bieng at the very top of the economic pyramid and using power to maintain it at about all costs. And we all know that Business and Politics are very closely related.
So whether or not the US citizens know, it doesn't change the fact that many of US' strong business men and politician are essentially colonializing the world. That is also why many people usually separate their judgement of America interms of US citizens and US government.
I feel I am not bieng specific enough perhaps, but at least you get an idea of what I meant Andy.
I'm glad at how you reacted to my post. I agree with what you say. We never really know the true intentions, that is why I don't think anybody blames the US pple.
But looking at half facts and making conclusions from them is also not enough. Because for those people that were killed/injured/ or had family killed due to US actions (intentional or not), they will not understand those half facts and feel cheated. As the deaths were merely justified by the world as a result of media which comes out of the superpower country and thus they feel as if real justice has not been done, so who would do it? who would stand in front of the might of the world's superpower? Nobody. And that can lead to desperation.
I think the whole point Zlatan was making was not to compare directly different Terrorist attacks and how they measure to each other. Rather to becarefull when making a conclusion with these half facts. That perhaps our government(your government) isn't as true and honest as the media make it out to be, or even further yet....the so called terrorist aren't as ruthless, stupid and pure evil as many of us general people might think.
I read an interesting article about the consequences of that war however. It was written by an expert in terrorism who graduated at Harvard.
She said Iraq never provided any real terrorism threat before the war, but that Bush has now created an extremely dangerous situation.
The war has created a perfect training ground for terrorists, who can train themselves against the best army in the world. So staying there is only going to breed more terrorists.
Retreating on the other hand is no good either. Chaos will break out in Iraq, and terrorists could gain advantage from that as well.
She also claimed that "we're fighting terrorism there, so we don't need to fight it here" is total and utter rubbish, and that the war has only created more terrorists within American and European borders. The London attacks for example were committed by EU citizens.
Ridding the country of Saddam Hussein might be a good thing, but other than that the war has only been counterproductive. I'm almost hoping for another act of terrorism in America, just to prove Bush wrong.
She said Iraq never provided any real terrorism threat before the war, but that Bush has now created an extremely dangerous situation.
The war has created a perfect training ground for terrorists, who can train themselves against the best army in the world. So staying there is only going to breed more terrorists.
Retreating on the other hand is no good either. Chaos will break out in Iraq, and terrorists could gain advantage from that as well.
She also claimed that "we're fighting terrorism there, so we don't need to fight it here" is total and utter rubbish, and that the war has only created more terrorists within American and European borders. The London attacks for example were committed by EU citizens.
Ridding the country of Saddam Hussein might be a good thing, but other than that the war has only been counterproductive. I'm almost hoping for another act of terrorism in America, just to prove Bush wrong.
My theory behind the War on Iraq is this: With the arrival of thousands of US troops in Iraq for a subsequent invasion, terrorists have found a target "close to home" that is easily accessible. Our Government might not be very friendly but their no idiots...they knew by bringing all these American forces into Iraq that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would have several available targets to choose from, thus ushering in several wannabe suicide bombers and other terrorists. The Bush Administration's hope was to draw in as many terrorists as possible to Iraq where the forces would fight them of and dispose of them, sort of creating a huge melting pot of terror and fighting. The logic behind this is to 1) kill as many terrorists as possible and 2) to make terrorist organizations focus on Iraq instead of Western Countries. We have no idea if it worked or not, however it doesn't look good.
Well that's really a great attitude. That's all we need to arm our bombs and drop them somewhere else in retaliation.
Well that's really a great attitude. That's all we need to arm our bombs and drop them somewhere else in retaliation.
Another logic behind Iraq is this:
1) Americans invade Iraq (which was not justified)
2) People that could become terrorists in the future get pissed off.
3) Those people actually become terrorists, and rather than going to Iraq, they decide to strike in America's heart and slaughter innocent people.
Because why oh why, would terrorists think about going to Iraq? They would hardly do America any harm by being there. From a terrorism point of view, it would be far better for them to go to America.
1) Americans invade Iraq (which was not justified)
2) People that could become terrorists in the future get pissed off.
3) Those people actually become terrorists, and rather than going to Iraq, they decide to strike in America's heart and slaughter innocent people.
Because why oh why, would terrorists think about going to Iraq? They would hardly do America any harm by being there. From a terrorism point of view, it would be far better for them to go to America.