Praise HIM for HE is GREAT

[Torremalku]

Guest-Ted1 said:

Ummm. . .

I think someone's inferiority complex is interfering with an objective analysis. The US wasn't organized enough to get numerous religious fanatics past Iraq's border and then take piloting courses there. It's open to interpretation, but I think it's safe to assume that an Islamic radical is fairly bright.

It is better to err on the side of safety, and don't underestimate them. However, alot of these radicals are total sh*t for brains and actually somewhat comical in their stupidity.

[Rob Larrikin]

Guest-AgentOrang said:

MO,

In response to your query re. Peace........try the USA on for size. The most violent, crime ridden country on earth is our beloved USA.

The most violent, crime ridden country? It appears you have been drinking too much Agent Orange, Orange. Your brain has shrunk, you are hallucinating and your tongue is wagging uncontrollably as you spew out mindless gibberish. Aside from failing to provide an example of a more peaceful country, as MO asked, you scorned Stonewall’s correct point about the entire continent of Africa being far more violent than the US. Aside from Africa, there’s China, India, the entire former USSR, not to mention South America, most of Asia, North Korea, Pakistan, most of the Far East, New Guinea and many, many others. The US is at the top of the “low crime” list, alongside Great Britain, a number of European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Go to Switzerland and you will find life very comfortable and safe, as it is in the US, Australia or Scotland. Now, whether the US has a healthier living standard than Scotland or Norway is a matter of debate, but certainly that group of nations is at the top of the list of non-violent, peaceful, safer and healthier countries in which to live. Now, you may return to your Agent Orange drink.

[siberice]

Guest-hubcap said:

20% of your population responsible for 80% of the prison population? 20% of americans causing 80% of crime? B*llsh*t!
What's my point? That anyone who says racial profiling doesn't exist isn't paying attention.

It's not "B*llsh*t" it's culture. Follow Hollowood, get in trouble... Yes, there are differences in conditions, but it's the same for Asians who come very poor here but their crime rates are lower. Looks like the Mexicans are taking the lead in the southern states, so relax.

California Blacks fought hard to *preserve* racial profiling - in schools ans stuff... What's your point

[siberice]

Ogilvy said:

Well, because quite simply we haven't bombed any of their HOLY cities. If we did that they would go nuts.

Thay are already nuts. And the more we hesitate the worse it gets. There are two ways to bring them to their senses. One is massive nuclear bombings. The Japanese were much better armed, much more organized and **much more suicidal**. They surrendered. Muslims will too. In fact this will be the end of Islam. They will convert. This is the sure way. I'm not in favour of this cult but I don't have the guts to recomend this solution. I wish I did.

The other way is to declare Islamic Law a danger to humanity. That will mean isolation, and eventual regime change in Saudi, Iran and such. Then some kind of a treaty with the rest of the Islamic world, requiring they live under a civil law, provide women with equal rights, etc. It will cost us more terror but it looks like a better solution - if only the US and EU could come to terms on it. There are working examples of Muslim countries under a strict civil law.
But don't hold your breath. There is powerfull interest in the US and EU that is trying to use Islam against democracy. After all, don't you feel the need of a strong World Government to 'protect' peace and stability? Spaniards do. See how they voted today.
Of course, under the NWO Muslims will be getting all the virgins - post-mortem. But we can't expect them to see this now, can we!

[Ogilvy]

Guest-siberice said:

Thay are already nuts. And the more we hesitate the worse it gets. There are two ways to bring them to their senses. One is massive nuclear bombings. The Japanese were much better armed, much more organized and **much more suicidal**. They surrendered. Muslims will too. In fact this will be the end of Islam. They will convert. This is the sure way. I'm not in favour of this cult but I don't have the guts to recomend this solution. I wish I did.

The other way is to declare Islamic Law a danger to humanity. That will mean isolation, and eventual regime change in Saudi, Iran and such. Then some kind of a treaty with the rest of the Islamic world, requiring they live under a civil law, provide women with equal rights, etc. It will cost us more terror but it looks like a better solution - if only the US and EU could come to terms on it. There are working examples of Muslim countries under a strict civil law.
But don't hold your breath. There is powerfull interest in the US and EU that is trying to use Islam against democracy. After all, don't you feel the need of a strong World Government to 'protect' peace and stability? Spaniards do. See how they voted today.
Of course, under the NWO Muslims will be getting all the virgins - post-mortem. But we can't expect them to see this now, can we!

I'm saying that right now they're peanuts. If we bomb a holy city, they'll be....macadamia nuts.

How about a third option that shows religious tolerance? Ending Islam would be bad. It is a good religion with a lot in common with Christianity and Judaism. Regardless of your beliefs, it is simply wrong to want to drop a bomb on a site that all Muslims, even the peaceful, moderate ones, look towards for inspiration.

If Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been holy cities we wouldn't have bombed them. We would've chosen some other big city that didn't have any holy site.

In any case, nuclear warfare is an atrocity that should not be used if we can use tanks, airplanes, soldiers, ships, etc. Why in the world would you want to see the holy cities bombed? Can you deal with having to look at footage of over a million dead Muslims a decade later and thinking, "I supported that"?

The problem isn't with Islam. It's with the radical Muslims who deliberately break the law of the Qur'an. The only way to fight these people is to constantly be on the guard and take aggressive action like we did in Afghanistan (I don't believe Iraq helped with putting down terrorism at all, but I support the war because it is good that the Iraqi people have a democracy to look forward to now.) We need to fight Al Qaeda, not Islam, and not the holy cities. Islam is a beautiful religion, and the idea that some people here would just as soon see those stunning holy sites blown up kind of upsets me.

I mean, honestly, get a history book and learn to appreciate other cultures and the historical value of cities like Mecca.

[bob]

Hi

[Ted]

Well actually. . .Muslims blowing up buildings and cafes and such aren't breaking Koranic law--they're following it with "fidelity." Islam is a works-based faith, i.e., the more good works you do, the more likely allah is to let you in heaven. Non-muslims fall under the definition of the "enemies of allah". Killing said "enemies" is a good work. Thus, the Muslims blowing the WTC were being more "virtuous" than the moderates. Whoop-de-doo. Not really a religion I'm anxious to support, myself. If someone was going to bomb Islamic "holy cities," surely they would give advance notice and oppurtunity for evacuation.

[Ogilvy]

Ted said:

Well actually. . .Muslims blowing up buildings and cafes and such aren't breaking Koranic law--they're following it with "fidelity." Islam is a works-based faith, i.e., the more good works you do, the more likely allah is to let you in heaven. Non-muslims fall under the definition of the "enemies of allah". Killing said "enemies" is a good work. Thus, the Muslims blowing the WTC were being more "virtuous" than the moderates. Whoop-de-doo. Not really a religion I'm anxious to support, myself. If someone was going to bomb Islamic "holy cities," surely they would give advance notice and oppurtunity for evacuation.

Based on what I've read from two versions of the Qur'an, I would have to disagree with you. Islam does not condone the killing of non-combatants such as the WTC workers.

Christians and Jews are People of the Book according to the Qur'an, and should be treated with tolerance and respect.

Allah does not reward people who murder disbelievers. According to the Qur'an, Allah constantly reminds Muhammed that he is only a Messenger, and that if people blaspheme against Islam, he is only permitted to say, "Wait for the Day of Judgement, and surely we wait with you." It is not for men to punish people for disbelieving, because there can be no "compulsion in religion." It is useless to do anything about it and best to simply ignore them, according to the Qur'an.

The alternative to ignoring them is only to try to convert them by example. Basically, a Muslim must try to avoid sin and live a righteous life, and hopefully other people will be drawn to the religion when they see the effect it has on him/her. Violence is certainly prohibited, and it definitely wasn't a widespread practice in medieval Islamic civilizations.

According to Western Civilizations: Eleventh Edition Volume One by Robert E. Lerner, Standish Meacham, and Edward McNall Burns, "Because the Arabs did not demand conversion and exacted fewer taxes than the Byzantines and Persians, they were often welcomed as preferable to the old rulers. One Christian writer in Syria went so far as to say "the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hands of the Romans ]i.e., the Byzantine Empire] by means of the Arabs"

"They rarely sought forced conversions, and they generally allowed a place within their own states for Jews and Christians, whom they accepted as "people of the book" because the Bible was seen as a precursor of the Koran. In keeping with this attitude of toleration an early caliph employed a Christian as his chief secretary, the Umayyads patronized a Christian who wrote poetry in Arabic, and Muslim Spain saw the greatest flowering of Jewish culture between ancient and modern times. The greatest fruit of this Jewish flowering was the work of Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), a profound religious thinker, sometimes called "the second Moses," who wrote both in Hebrew and Arabic."

[Ted]

If Islamic civilizations were truly that tolerant, they wouldn't mind non-Moslems visiting Mecca and Medina.

[Ogilvy]

Ted said:

If Islamic civilizations were truly that tolerant, they wouldn't mind non-Moslems visiting Mecca and Medina.

Well, as far as I know, a lot of them don't mind it. Of course, the terrorists certainly do. Osama bin Ladin and his followers believe that no non-Muslim should be allowed to enter Arab territory, period. He isn't angry with the United States because we have more than he does, as sadly some people believe, but because he thinks that Americans should not be in the Middle East.

Now, his views aren't necessarily valid according to the Qur'an, but it is because of those views that he blew up the World Trade Center. He thinks he was punishing us for our soldiers in Saudi Arabia and for intervening in the first Gulf War.

From what I've seen, non-Muslims can enter Mecca and Medinah, but a lot of Muslims object to them entering the Kabah.

Really, it is a tolerant religion, but probably not as tolerant as Hinduism or Buddhism. But then, this is generally the case with all monotheistic religions except for POSSIBLY Zoroastrianism. I do believe that Zoroastrianism is about as tolerant as Buddhism and Hinduism, but then I've seen some pretty conservative Zoroastrian websites that lead me to believe the opposite. I wish that I could find out the truth on Zoroastrianism for myself once and for all, but sadly the Avesta is probably the rarest religious book in the world-it is seriously impossible to find a COMPLETE translation of it in the West.

[Ogilvy]

Guest-bob said:

Hi

Hello.

[Ted]

Ogilvy said:

Well, as far as I know, a lot of them don't mind it. Of course, the terrorists certainly do. Osama bin Ladin and his followers believe that no non-Muslim should be allowed to enter Arab territory, period. He isn't angry with the United States because we have more than he does, as sadly some people believe, but because he thinks that Americans should not be in the Middle East.

Now, his views aren't necessarily valid according to the Qur'an, but it is because of those views that he blew up the World Trade Center. He thinks he was punishing us for our soldiers in Saudi Arabia and for intervening in the first Gulf War.

From what I've seen, non-Muslims can enter Mecca and Medinah, but a lot of Muslims object to them entering the Kabah.

Really, it is a tolerant religion, but probably not as tolerant as Hinduism or Buddhism. But then, this is generally the case with all monotheistic religions except for POSSIBLY Zoroastrianism. I do believe that Zoroastrianism is about as tolerant as Buddhism and Hinduism, but then I've seen some pretty conservative Zoroastrian websites that lead me to believe the opposite. I wish that I could find out the truth on Zoroastrianism for myself once and for all, but sadly the Avesta is probably the rarest religious book in the world-it is seriously impossible to find a COMPLETE translation of it in the West.

I think the complete avesta is on this site: www.avesta.org/avesta.html

I guess that non-muslims entering Mecca is ok for the less conservative muslims, but the more conservative and radical ones make a huge deal out of it.

[MO]

[Ogilvy]

Ted said:

I think the complete avesta is on this site: www.avesta.org/avesta.html

I guess that non-muslims entering Mecca is ok for the less conservative muslims, but the more conservative and radical ones make a huge deal out of it.

Yes, but then what do you expect to come out of radical thought? It's crazy, no matter where it comes from.

I am aware of the complete Avesta on that website, however I do not wish to read a "holy book" on the Internet. I would much rather have the actual book in front of me that I can hold and open and read and flip through the pages, etc.

I suppose the main reason why you can't find an english translation of the Zend Avesta outside of the Internet is that there are only about 180,000 Zoroastrians in the world, and most of them are in India. Radical Zoroastrian thought claims that no Zoroastrian can marry a non-Zoroastrian, and they do not attempt to convert anyone due to their belief that all religions lead to Ahura Mazda and paradise. The burden of converting people to Zoroastrianism is entirely on the slightly conservative moderate to liberal Zoroastrians, and they sadly don't do a very good job. As it is, the Zoroastrian population mainly increases through child birth within Zoroastrian families.

Because of this, there is not a very great demand for Zend Avestas in the western OR the eastern world, and most Avestas in the world are probably written in Hindi or the Avestan language, and only owned by single families of Zoroastrians. I assume that publishers have given up on selling Avestas because nobody in the United States really buys them. After all, there are only 1,000 Zoroastrians in this country. I would probably have to learn Avestan or Hindi and travel to India to find a complete copy of the Avesta. Which I very well might do someday.

It really is sad that this religion is becoming extinct, when it was once the largest religion in the world.

[Zhavric]

You kids crack me up.