[Jordan]

1) Christians don't live by the old testament

2) Renegades entire point was that we are living in a 'crusade' world. This time the cursade, as always, is keeping the opposition below you so that you remain on top. It's not a holy war on regaining holy land, but humanistic war bent on staying in power. Since history tells the same story over and over again- that you don't stay on top for long if you don't keep an eye on your neighbours. And keeping them below you is always a must.

3) How is the bible at all like mein kampf?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 06 December 2005 - 03:57 AM

[Renegade]

I suppose you know very little about Islam and don't realize how stupid every word you say sounds to people like me whom know alot about the faith.

1) What have I said about Islam that has been devastatingly inaccurate?
2) Most of my arguments is that the application of islam into governance in the Mid East has lead it into decline, not that the actual religion is "evil".

In my opinion the Bible was contructed on a basis not far from that of Mein Kampf.

Uhh ok? Look at the context and time period the Bible was written. The principles/morals enlisted are in a time when those things were basically sounding like hippy love. Sure theres flaws in it but for its time it was a pretty good document. Comparing it to Mein Kampf is pretty ridiculous specially from someone who is defending the Quran, a much more stricter/conservative book which was also written ~600 years AFTER the bible

This post has been edited by Renegade: 06 December 2005 - 04:24 AM

[Slade]

Renegade:

My assertion is that in the real world, countries all look out for themselves, so obviously America will be looking to gain wherever it can.

Contrary to what you may believe, America isn't actually the World Police, or the Thought Police (Though we're trying our darndest!), and that statment really is absurd. The only "right" that America has being anywhere but its own turf is power, be it economic or military, and really, might shouldn't make right. That we do live in a world of idealogical crusades is a bit absurd, given our lengthy history of that and the inevitable result. It's the world that exists, but that's no reason to accept it at all.

Jordan: You get a gold star for being insightful.

JM: I have to agree that sometimes your rhetoric does get a bit absurd. Though it would be nice if people pointing out things like that would then possibly use it as debate instead of going on a random discrediting tangent. Seriously, everybody, let's not get petty. Not just whoever's yelling at one another right now. 'Tis bad form.

Edit: Misread some stuff.

This post has been edited by Slade: 06 December 2005 - 11:18 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Now he hates certain ones more because their involved in Islamic affairs,but that doesn't detract from the fact that he IS a believer in non muslims being meant to be destroyed.

Somehow I doubt that. As soon as the US stops treating the Arabs as though they were Indians or black folks I think Bin Laden will become a non-entity. Even if he does think like that, which is unlikely, I doubt that anyone is going to be willing to conduct a suicide bombing just because the people it targets are non muslims. You really should do research into the motivations and reasons behind terrorism. You might find that it's not just an invention of Islam.

Quote

America isn't a religiously governed country.. being right wing doesn't mean you are necessarily religious as opposed to say middle eastern countries which are governed by Islamic law.

What do you think America is governed by? The bible was one of the basises for the US constitution and for over 2000 years the US has been governed by Christians.

Quote

they just happened to buy it off a middle man

The problem here is that you, as an imperialist lackey, see nothing wrong with dealing with the Zionist Entity. A decent person would no sooner by arms from a murderer or rapist. The fact that it went through a middle man may seem of little importance to you, but it saved Iran the humiliation of having to deal directly with pigs.

Quote

Israel has never made the FIRST move into a neighboring state

What about the Zionists destroying the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground? What about the very creation of the Zionist Entity which was an illegal and genocidal invasion of land that rightfully belongs to Palestine? What about the invasion of Lebanon?

Quote

The generals weren't loyal to the previous regime. If they WERE, they wouldn't of been sitting back and chilling while lil college students called for revolution.

And yet they didnt participate in the revolution either. Obviously they were waiting to see who came out on top and most likely they had designs on power for themselves, and if they didn't the US would have paid them off.

Quote

(they virtually caused the Shah to fall in my opinion)

So you're admitting that the appostate regime of the Shaw was only held up by imperialism, and yet you deny this very imperialism. I don't know why the US didn't interfere as you wish they had, but I'm glad.

Quote

That "dictatorship" under the Shah was better than what came after it any day of the week

Hey, don't complain, you still get to live in the same country that governed Iran before the revolution. And you might be right unless you value silly things like sovereignty and independence.

Quote

People in the Mid East bla bla bla death penalty bla bla bla racism sexism bla bla bla muslim devils

My point was to concede that the Islamic faith could be blamed for the death penalty in the mid east, though I also pointed out an instance of this faith based justice system being well applied. I'm sure it's been abused at times as well, but the fact of the matter is that you're beating a dead horse. I wasnt debating about the death penalty, I was conceding that Islam was responsible for the prevalence of harsh punishment in Muslim culture, get it?

Quote

Yay one example of American stupidity in stubbornness. I said we did it just not AS MUCH as others and definitly not when it matters in the bigger picture.

Or when the US turned down Venezuelan oil aid from Hugo Chavez? The US does it MORE than others, in the issue you stated Iran at least got the guns, the US turned down the aid completely and received nothing. How is what Iran did worse?

Quote

And why do you always say stupid shit like that?

That's a very hard question to answer, but after consulting my book of juvenile debate tactics I found the proper retort: Because you smell of ass.

this is LARGELY because of their own quarrels and the adherence to religion over anything else.

Once again you continue your "blame the weak" argument. The same argument that condoned slavery and the genocide against native Americans. Did you at all grasp the point of the statement made by replacing "muslims" with "indians" or "africans" in your little speel? The weak are not to blame for being oppressed, it's those who take advantage of them that deserve our scorn.

Jordan-

A utilitarian argument in favor of the oppression of those below you, not just the American proletariat but the global poor, is just not applicable. The surest way to get your government overthrown is by disenfranchising the people and making enemies around the world. Sound ethics, enfranchisement and reasoning make a stable long lasting government. Not imperialism, money grubbing and repression.

Slade-

How can we ever be expected to evince change if our rhetoric dosnt go to levels higher than are currently attainable? The forces that attempt to push down revolutionary reforms always fight back and force compromise, and so it is meet that we should demand the most possible.

Edit: Imperialism destroyed my post, but I used the ancient Kung-Fu wisdom of Vlademir Lenin to fix it.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 06 December 2005 - 03:45 PM

[Dr Lecter]

The Bible and Mein Kampf were both written by racist, sexist, homophobs, slave traders, to provide justification for murdering people and taking their property. I can provide several verses for each if you want me to jusify this. No doubt if America was Islamic, and Muslims ruled the world I would comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. But we don't, we live in a Christian dominated world, therefore I must try my best to kick my opressors.

Just to put my own opinion into context, I know many fundimentalist Christians, and I don't even know one fundimentalist Muslim. I know many liberal Muslims, I only know about five liberal Christians, unless you include people that claim to be Christian and never attend any church at any time of the year or worship in any way. If someone know a devote, yet liberal Christian, please correct me.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 06 December 2005 - 07:59 PM

[Slade]

Sadly, it looks like the quotes caught Trotsky's axe in the head...

One of my mom's co-workers is a libertarian religious conservative. It's really odd, because she's friendly and tolerant. But I need to correct you: it's spelled devout.

[Renegade]

The Bible and Mein Kampf were both written by racist, sexist, homophobs, slave traders, to provide justification for murdering people and taking their property. I can provide several verses for each if you want me to jusify this.

It's too hard to argue with illogicalness... though just to make you even attempt to validate the stupidity of this statement, provide passages where the New Testament is racist/supports slavery/makes a claim to murder people. I really don't know why you and JM don't understand this concept of HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

Just to put my own opinion into context, I know many fundimentalist Christians, and I don't even know one fundimentalist Muslim.

Where do you live... and nobody said either is better. My whole point however is that Islam has lead the Mid East into DECLINE while christianity has not lead the west to decline because they have moved away from religion directly governing every part of society. I've never claimed that at their roots one is better than the other..

Btw, I like how you disregarded my statement of showing me one place where i mentioned something inaccurate about the Muslim Faith..

This post has been edited by Renegade: 07 December 2005 - 01:57 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

*raises hand* I'm liberal, and I consider myself a "Christian" (though I hate the term lumping myself in with what most people generally think of when they hear it). I worship, though it is in my own way, and many of my beliefs go WAY against typical Christian beliefs (i.e., I don't believe in an eternal suffering in hell after death). So I'm not sure if I really count for this "true liberal Christian" you are looking for. But I thought I'd throw myself in there for fun? ... *shrug*

[Renegade]

You really should do research into the motivations and reasons behind terrorism. You might find that it's not just an invention of Islam.

Sigh.. it's irrelevent. I know why global terrorism occurs. That is irrelevent however to the fact that at his heart, if Bin Laden had the power to do so, he'd terminate any person who was a non believer (non muslim).

What do you think America is governed by? The bible was one of the basises for the US constitution and for over 2000 years the US has been governed by Christians.

The constitution is hardly "based" on the bible, but yes American culture is partially guided by judeo-christian values. Again though, the laws that govern our country are not completely directed by the Biblical laws. And no idea what you mean about the US being governed by christians for 2000 years.. im guessing you meant the west.

The problem here is that you, as an imperialist lackey, see nothing wrong with dealing with the Zionist Entity. A decent person would no sooner by arms from a murderer or rapist. The fact that it went through a middle man may seem of little importance to you, but it saved Iran the humiliation of having to deal directly with pigs.

Ummmm you still don't get it do you lol... that's like saying I don't wanna buy weed off a murderous drug dealer, so instead of dealing with HIM i deal from a friend who bought it off that guy for an increased cost. Again, I gain LITERALLY nothing from it, and the murderous drug dealer gains just like he would normally. See your argument would be correct if Iran DIDNT know it was Israeli weapons they were buying, except they DID so it defeats the purpose of going through a middle man.

As for Israeli's bombings of Egyptian Air Force, lets look at what REALLY happened instead of just blaming Israeli entirely for the whole thing:

The Six-Day War, 1967 began as a strike by Israel, which Israel and its supporters consider preemptive, against Egypt and Syria following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli, according to a possible interpretation of international law), a build up of troops along the Syrian border, expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel [6]. (In fact Nasser had said this would be an objective only if Israel "embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt"). Surprise Israeli air strikes destroyed the entire Egyptian air force while still on the ground.

And with Lebanon, that pretty much is the one instance where Israel directly invaded a neighboring state before being attacked however, Lebanon was being used by the PLO as a base to invade Israel so the only thing Israel could do what retaliate back. It wasn't like Israel woke up one day and said, oh let me invade someone! It was more like, we're getting attacked by a group in Lebanon, so we're gonna have to go smoke em out.

And yet they didnt participate in the revolution either. Obviously they were waiting to see who came out on top and most likely they had designs on power for themselves, and if they didn't the US would have paid them off.

.....when a military stops supporting its leader while he's being overthrown that sorta means they are sitting back to allow the new revolutionaries to take over, or atleast are impartial to whoever is in power. You really don't get the whole concept that high rankings generals were EXECUTED for not being muslim not because they were "planning a coup". Most of the people they killed weren't even political, they were just career military men. Why don't you go reading about the people executed rather than just declaring them traitors when you know nothing about them or how they killed? I guess its much easier to just declare people guilty though when you have some high and mighty cause right?

So you're admitting that the appostate regime of the Shaw was only held up by imperialism, and yet you deny this very imperialism. I don't know why the US didn't interfere as you wish they had, but I'm glad.

Who said it wasn't? Again, I've never claimed the Shah was in power without the help of the West. The only thing iv EVER said was that Iran + Shah = good, Iran + Revolution = Shit. And it wasn't so much that America didn't help him, its that they kinda just backed off entirely on supporting him and I'd say even told him to get out. Additonally, you had France giving Khomeni a public venue to speak his bullshit and European media giving him airtime for some reason.

Hey, don't complain, you still get to live in the same country that governed Iran before the revolution. And you might be right unless you value silly things like sovereignty and independence.

Ummm.. Iran was perfectly indepedent and soveriegn. You still don't get it, the Shah was a NATIONALIST. He dealt with everyone, from US-Israel-Europe-USSR-China etc. He was PRO US but he wasn't a PUPPET to them. In fact his dad was the reason Iran even got itself out of being influenced so heavily by the West (though he got screwed over in WWII but neway thats another story). More importantly is the fact that while Iran now has no more sovereignty/indepedence than it did then, except now it just has a worse economy, worse rights, and a shittier place in the global community.

I wasnt debating about the death penalty, I was conceding that Islam was responsible for the prevalence of harsh punishment in Muslim culture, get it?

I don't even know what your saying... you stated a couple posts back how you see the "no problem" for Pakistan publically executing people.. you made the statement not me. Everything else your saying is just mumbo jumbo, you think death penalty here = unjustified, but overthere you think its perfectly fine. I don't see why YOU believe that its fine overthere but not here...

Or when the US turned down Venezuelan oil aid from Hugo Chavez? The US does it MORE than others, in the issue you stated Iran at least got the guns, the US turned down the aid completely and received nothing. How is what Iran did worse?

Getting a couple galloons of oil from Venezuala will hardly alter America in the bigger picture. Iran's dedication to being anti West however has left it to be sanctioned or out of world community now for 20+ years. It's not hard to see, go look at the numbers for Iran before revolution and the country after it. Not rocket science in linking what caused Iran to tank.

The weak are not to blame for being oppressed, it's those who take advantage of them that deserve our scorn.

You still don't get it. My contention is that Islam has made the Mid East uncompetetive in the global sphere. Here's how the REAL world works: countries look out for themselves, and try to take advantage of any weaknesses in other countries. Thus, while America should be disliked for being "imperialistic", this isnt' different from what any other country would do in its position. The problem I have with Islam is that I WANT the Mid East to be able to own America/West yet it can't because its become such a poor/weak/undeveloped region of the world (largely because of religion). For example, if i had bad parents and wasn't able to succeed in life because of that, i wouldn't blame the guy who beat me out for a job, i'd blame my parents for not giving me the ability to compete against that person for the job.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

that at his heart, if Bin Laden had the power to do so, he'd terminate any person who was a non believer

You're wrong. Look at the targets Bin Laden attacked up until after 9/11 they were all military and economic. The USS Cole, the trade towers, the pentagon, etc. He didnt prefer to go to kill the maximum number of infidels, he wanted to make an impact while making a statement, and kill those who profit directly by the rape of the middle east. I'm not saying what he does is right, but if he wanted to just kill infidels day and night the body count would be much higher, maybe NEARLY as high as the number of civilians Bush has murdered.

Quote

And no idea what you mean about the US being governed by christians for 2000 years.. im guessing you meant the west.

I hit zero once too many. Heh.

Quote

that's like saying I don't wanna buy weed off a murderous drug dealer, so instead of dealing with HIM i deal from a friend who bought it off that guy for an increased cost.

In the one case you're aiding and abetting and could even get hit with accomplice or obstruction if you're aware of what he's done. In the other you'd only get misdemeanor posession. There's definately a difference, and if you absolutely have to have that ganja you'd be safer and better off to go through the other guy.

As for saying the Zionist Entity didn't start that war that's just bull. The Zionists were not only the agressor but they started everything when they invaded Palestine and took it from its rightful inhabitants and began building up a military force that was a threat and a destabilizing force in the region.

Quote

Lebanon was being used by the PLO as a base to invade Israel so the only thing Israel could do what retaliate back.

The Palestinians were excersising their right to resistance against genocide and trying to regain their homeland. Had the Zionists not invaded the West Bank and Gaza then the PLO wouldnt have had to go to Lebanon. Furthermore it was only the decent thing to do for Lebanon to shelter the PLO.

Quote

.....when a military stops supporting its leader while he's being overthrown that sorta means they are sitting back to allow the new revolutionaries to take over, or atleast are impartial to whoever is in power.

Had they been on the side of the revolution they would have helped. Rather they were waiting to see who came out on top and waiting for an opportunity. What that opportunity may have been we can only speculate.

[quote]You really don't get the whole concept that high rankings generals were EXECUTED for not being muslim not because they were "planning a coup". [quote]

That may have been the official reason given, but its just silly to think that that's the only reason. It's pretty standard to do something about the old regimes military when you take over after a revolution, I'm not saying its right but it was a safe thing to do.

Please reconcile these two quotes:

Quote

I've never claimed the Shah was in power without the help of the West.

Quote

Iran was perfectly indepedent and soveriegn.

Quote

I don't even know what your saying... you stated a couple posts back how you see the "no problem" for Pakistan publically executing people.. you made the statement not me. Everything else your saying is just mumbo jumbo, you think death penalty here = unjustified, but overthere you think its perfectly fine. I don't see why YOU believe that its fine overthere but not here...

The point was that that was the only death penalty case I'd heard from Pakistan lately and it sounded fine to me, since it was both oben about the barbarousness of what was done and was clearly called for. And you're still trying to open up a debate where there wasnt one. I'm not in favor of the death penalty anywhere, which is what you failed to understand when I said it up there. I'm saying that it's bad that Islam pushes the death penalty and that (and not socio economic or political problems) is something you can blame on Islam.

Quote

Iran's dedication to being anti West however has left it to be sanctioned or out of world community now for 20+ years.

You claim to want a strong and independent middle east but you cant stand any mid east country standing up to imperialism.

Quote

My contention is that Islam has made the Mid East uncompetetive in the global sphere.

What are you basing this upon? I could contend that Christianity is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, or that Budhism was the reason the Chinese were able to invade Tibet, but I'd be making completely silly and illogical arguments.

For example, if i had bad parents and wasn't able to succeed in life because of that, i wouldn't blame the guy who beat me out for a job, i'd blame my parents for not giving me the ability to compete against that person for the job.

That analogy is faulty. It's more like you're living on a plot of land and are too weak to patrol that land constantly, so your stronger neighbor comes and cuts down your trees and hunts your game and shoots you if you interfere. That's more what imperialism is. You try to make it sound like an economic argument when its really a question of morality and human decency.

[Dr Lecter]

Sigh.. it's irrelevent. I know why global terrorism occurs. That is irrelevent however to the fact that at his heart, if Bin Laden had the power to do so, he'd terminate any person who was a non believer (non muslim).

I have to say that Bin Laden is too smart for ideology, many of the people in the World Trade Centre were infact Muslim, for obvious reasons, such as the words "World Trade". Religion may be what keeps the soliders fighting, but its almost never the start of the conflict. That almost always breaks down to one of the following: money or power. I suppose one execption would be if it was both power and money. I suppose in history there have been people that have done things just for their faith, but its almost certain that if you look high enough up the right ladder someone didn't do too badly out of the deal.

[Slade]

Technically, money is a concept that represents a form of power one can possess.

[Dr Lecter]

Not totally true, the Romano-British upper class for instance had no power in Britain after the Romans left because their money became worthless. Money sometimes equals power, power sometimes equals money. Its never certain. Hence the concept of money being a concept that represents a form of power that one can possess is not totally true, but neither is it totally false.

[ion eon]

Money is power in the sense of your limitations financially wise and it is also very useful for bribing and what have you. So if you think about it money has a lot to do with power.

[Dr Lecter]

Maybe, but there are many things that no amount of money can bring you. Those are the things that other kinds of power take control of.

On another note, here's my version of a famous Billy Connolly joke about the IRA:
A British man is walking through Baghdad and a Shia points a gun at him and says "Oi, are you a Sunni" and he says "No, I'm just a British guy", so the Shia lets him go, he walks abit futher along and and a Sunni jumps up and says "Hey, are you an Shia?" and he says "No, im just a British guy" so the Sunni lets him go. So, he walks abit futher along, and an American soldier shoots him.