Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Azenine**

uk_crow wrote:

But then people going into places with knives and fire bombs with intent to harm innocent people seemingly doesn't? How strange.

If you looked earlier on in the thread I had already posted about these and also deplored them.

My apologies, I missed that.

**dæl**

uk_crow wrote:
The countries that have a much stronger belief in Islam are noted for their increased intolerance of: homosexuality, womens rights and civil liberties.]

Correlation is not causation. All those results prove is that intolerance exists, not why. Islam is not any more or less intolerant than Christianity, despicable things have been done in the name of both, but that is down to the people doing such things being despicable themselves.

**Relapse**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I don't think you're a bigot, I think you have a short-sighted and slightly warped opinion of Islam. Malta only legalised divorces last year. Christian groups in both Europe and the US are fighting tooth and nail against the right to abortions and the right of homosexuals to marry.

The point I'm trying to make is, the society of many middle-eastern nations is where we were around 130 years ago. We were just as, for lack of a better word, deluded as many of those you mention in your post (and for what it's worth, I think they're massive tossers too), but we made a better society. Thus, we can draw the conclusion that it's not Islam, but rather politics and tradition, that is the problem. Catholicism is still struggling with some stuff, and the situation in Northern Ireland isn't exactly awesome (not blaming Catholics exclusively for that, just usin it as an example).

130 years ago, in either the UK or the US, it was not acceptable to do this:

Murder little girls for going to school.

Cut off the nose and ears of a girl for trying to escape her forced marriage and leave her in the woods to die.

Burying a woman to her neck and stoning her face until she is dead, for the crime of witchcraft.

Hunting down and murdering your daughter for the crime of loving a nonbeliever, oh, after you've let her uncles and cousins rape and beat her first, so she learns her lesson.

Force your own 12 year old daughter to live in a kennel in the back yard because she had been gang raped by the local taliban and therefore brought you shame because she was no longer a virgin, beat her every single day because you are irritated by this and because she has lost all value.

Frankly, if you want a real comparison to the nations ruled directed by islamic sharia, you need to go back to the dark ages in western Europe. Hundreds of years, if not a thousand, to find an equal to this sort of repulsive abuse of human rights and inhumanity.

Abortion issues, gay marriage issues? You'll need to grasp at a lot of straws to find anything like the barbarity, wickedness and oppression I can find in any and all islamic nations with a couple of minutes on google. I understand it's upsetting, I as a liberal, as someone who always wants people to be happy and free to believe what they want and live as they want, fought against this conclusion for years, it was a long and arduous journey for me to reach this point, to finally acknowledge that this belief system is, as it currently exists, a malevolent one and a threat to everyone else's freedoms, culture, education and happiness.

The fundamentalism that has swept through this religion, in most everywhere it exists, is the death of liberty, the death of ideas and the death of the individual. Go look at the children in Pakistan nodding their heads as they are force fed the quran and repeat it mindlessly as zombies, in a language they don't even speak, in the religious schools that have sprouted like weeds everywhere there. Go look at the site where the Buddhas of Bamiyan stood for nearly 2 thousand years until they were dynamited, go listen to the new Egyptian brotherhood of Islam calling for the destruction of the sphinx and any statues or symbols of anything that is not their monochrome religion's version of the world. The book burnings, the calling for and in some cases, the murder of artists, film makers, authors and anyone else who speaks out in criticism.

Why should I afford absolute tolerance to a religion and mindset that holds no tolerance for me, or my way of life? That would put to death friends of mine for their sexuality and force others to abandon their freedoms and become second class citizens?

Why am I viewed poorly by my peers in the liberal left for criticizing this fascism, when I'd be lauded for criticizing the fascism of a skin headed white organization? For me this raises the question of whether they afford such vast leeway and tolerance to something like this because their own experiences of islam are through foreign or 'brown' people and that therefore they themselves are guilty of a form of positive discrimination/racial stereotyping.

If this were a white, European nation, murdering people who spoke out against it, who suppressed it's womenfolk to only be breeding machines and servants, who killed homosexuals and hated the jewish as their blood enemies, who burned books and crushed free thinking, who... wait a minute... that does sound familiar somehow.

When Islam stops suppressing their female population, stops wanting to assimilate or destroy all that is not islam, when it basically goes through it's own version of the enlightenment and replaces the human bomb with reasoned debate, they can come back to the table, until then, I see no reason to continuing to try to integrate a religion that won't do just that.

Let's add this gem to the mix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls'_school_fire

I remeber reading about that when it happened.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dæl wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
dæl wrote:
unmercifulconker wrote:
To defend Islam and its intollerant regime is rather warped imo.
No, to think that Islam is an intolerant regime is what is warped. Islam in itself is not.

Interesting, because when I think of more tolerant examples of islam, I can't help but think they are more tolerant because they are less islamic, less hardline, less absolute in their adherence, do you disagree?

I agree they are less hardline, and less absolute, but the term less Islamic I have slight issues with. Do you think that the more tolerant branches of Christianity are less Christian than the hardliners?

If they are less absolute, less hardline, they are, by definition, less adherent to the writings contained in the Quran, I suggest that means they are less 'islamic', because they are not doing as they are commanded by religious leaders/scripture.

**dæl**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If they are less absolute, less hardline, they are, by definition, less adherent to the writings contained in the Quran, I suggest that means they are less 'islamic', because they are not doing as they are commanded by religious leaders/scripture.

That is a fair assessment, would you agree then that Christians who take slaves, or marry women they rape, or refuse to eat shellfish are more Christian than someone who lives by the Golden Rule and 10 Commandments alone?

**MeanGreenStompa**

dæl wrote:
uk_crow wrote:
The countries that have a much stronger belief in Islam are noted for their increased intolerance of: homosexuality, womens rights and civil liberties.]

Correlation is not causation. All those results prove is that intolerance exists, not why. Islam is not any more or less intolerant than Christianity, despicable things have been done in the name of both, but that is down to the people doing such things being despicable themselves.

Perhaps, but the oft cited Westboro Baptists don't chop bits off the people they claim they are offended by, they stand around with placards.

They do not, sanctified by church and church-controlled-state, behead women for witchcraft, they do not cut off a little girl's nose and ears for fleeing abuse marriage... and if they did, I'd have as much problem with them, especially if they were millions strong in my country and demanding we all obey Fred Phelps on pain of death!

In fact, I totally refute your statement, Christianity IS more tolerant that Islam, it certainly wasn't several hundred years ago, but it's far more tolerant these days. I'm certainly not a great fan of any of the monotheistic faiths, but western Christianity stands head and shoulders over Islam in it's treatment of women and it's avoidance of totalitarian power in the countries where it makes up the majority.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If they are less absolute, less hardline, they are, by definition, less adherent to the writings contained in the Quran, I suggest that means they are less 'islamic', because they are not doing as they are commanded by religious leaders/scripture.

That is a fair assessment, would you agree then that Christians who take slaves, or marry women they rape, or refuse to eat shellfish are more Christian than someone who lives by the Golden Rule and 10 Commandments alone?

They are adhering to the literal word of the bible, so... Are they more Christian, perhaps, but then the Bible is an odd book, because you can find all of that fun stuff in the Old testament, which is also used in the Torah, so it's also Jewish. Christians are defined by the new testament, so then again, perhaps not.

And the striking difference is that you'd be hard pressed to find Christians still adhering to many of the leviticus laws, whereas you can find literal absolute adherence to the Quran right across the muslim world and in the muslim communities in the west.

**whembly**

@MGS... I worship you in this thread man.

When are you running for office?

**dæl**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
dæl wrote:
uk_crow wrote:
The countries that have a much stronger belief in Islam are noted for their increased intolerance of: homosexuality, womens rights and civil liberties.]

Correlation is not causation. All those results prove is that intolerance exists, not why. Islam is not any more or less intolerant than Christianity, despicable things have been done in the name of both, but that is down to the people doing such things being despicable themselves.

Perhaps, but the oft cited Westboro Baptists don't chop bits off the people they claim they are offended by, they stand around with placards.

They do not, sanctified by church and church-controlled-state, behead women for witchcraft, they do not cut off a little girl's nose and ears for fleeing abuse marriage... and if they did, I'd have as much problem with them, especially if they were millions strong in my country and demanding we all obey Fred Phelps on pain of death!

In fact, I totally refute your statement, Christianity IS more tolerant that Islam, it certainly wasn't several hundred years ago, but it's far more tolerant these days. I'm certainly not a great fan of any of the monotheistic faiths, but western Christianity stands head and shoulders over Islam in it's treatment of women and it's avoidance of totalitarian power in the countries where it makes up the majority.

If we are going to segment Christianity into Modern and Earlier forms then yes you are absolutely correct that the modern interpretation of Christianity is far more tolerant than the majority of interpretations of Islam. But the holy book of Christianity is still the same as it was in the time of the crusades or the inquisitions, it would be safe to assume then that it wasn't the holy book that lead to the atrocities done in the name of Christ. In making the statement that they are similar in their levels of intolerance I was looking at the holy books in isolation, and both are very similar in that regard. The difference comes from the people of the religions, not the religions themselves.

**Azenine**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

130 years ago, in either the UK or the US, it was not acceptable to do this:

Murder little girls for going to school.

Cut off the nose and ears of a girl for trying to escape her forced marriage and leave her in the woods to die.

Burying a woman to her neck and stoning her face until she is dead, for the crime of witchcraft.

Hunting down and murdering your daughter for the crime of loving a nonbeliever, oh, after you've let her uncles and cousins rape and beat her first, so she learns her lesson.

Force your own 12 year old daughter to live in a kennel in the back yard because she had been gang raped by the local taliban and therefore brought you shame because she was no longer a virgin, beat her every single day because you are irritated by this and because she has lost all value.

Frankly, if you want a real comparison to the nations ruled directed by islamic sharia, you need to go back to the dark ages in western Europe. Hundreds of years, if not a thousand, to find an equal to this sort of repulsive abuse of human rights and inhumanity.

Abortion issues, gay marriage issues? You'll need to grasp at a lot of straws to find anything like the barbarity, wickedness and oppression I can find in any and all islamic nations with a couple of minutes on google. I understand it's upsetting, I as a liberal, as someone who always wants people to be happy and free to believe what they want and live as they want, fought against this conclusion for years, it was a long and arduous journey for me to reach this point, to finally acknowledge that this belief system is, as it currently exists, a malevolent one and a threat to everyone else's freedoms, culture, education and happiness.

The fundamentalism that has swept through this religion, in most everywhere it exists, is the death of liberty, the death of ideas and the death of the individual. Go look at the children in Pakistan nodding their heads as they are force fed the quran and repeat it mindlessly as zombies, in a language they don't even speak, in the religious schools that have sprouted like weeds everywhere there. Go look at the site where the Buddhas of Bamiyan stood for nearly 2 thousand years until they were dynamited, go listen to the new Egyptian brotherhood of Islam calling for the destruction of the sphinx and any statues or symbols of anything that is not their monochrome religion's version of the world. The book burnings, the calling for and in some cases, the murder of artists, film makers, authors and anyone else who speaks out in criticism.

Why should I afford absolute tolerance to a religion and mindset that holds no tolerance for me, or my way of life? That would put to death friends of mine for their sexuality and force others to abandon their freedoms and become second class citizens?

Why am I viewed poorly by my peers in the liberal left for criticizing this fascism, when I'd be lauded for criticizing the fascism of a skin headed white organization? For me this raises the question of whether they afford such vast leeway and tolerance to something like this because their own experiences of islam are through foreign or 'brown' people and that therefore they themselves are guilty of a form of positive discrimination/racial stereotyping.

If this were a white, European nation, murdering people who spoke out against it, who suppressed it's womenfolk to only be breeding machines and servants, who killed homosexuals and hated the jewish as their blood enemies, who burned books and crushed free thinking, who... wait a minute... that does sound familiar somehow.

When Islam stops suppressing their female population, stops wanting to assimilate or destroy all that is not islam, when it basically goes through it's own version of the enlightenment and replaces the human bomb with reasoned debate, they can come back to the table, until then, I see no reason to continuing to try to integrate a religion that won't do just that.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the contents of the Koran, but I would be quite surprised to find that this kind of thing is allowed or indeed encouraged by their holy scriptures (the original ones by the prophet Mohammed, not more recent ones scriptures, if there are any).

And, to be honest, the people that perpetuate these atrocities in their everyday lives, despite saying that they are doing this because it is what their prophet has asked them to do, I do not believe that they are Muslims. Words can be twisted in so many ways and I heavily doubt that these people have had access to the true words of their prophet. Their religious leaders are most probably the ones to blame here because they are the ones who (deliberately or not) teach a violent and false interpretation of the Koran.

If you look at the Old Testament, there are many hideous things that can be found in that part of the Bible, but due to the relatively high level of education, political stability and laws in place in the Western world, people don't go around claiming that these things are true and should be followed (at least not in a public fashion).

Just my two pence worth.

EDIT: dael sums it up quite nicely just above.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dæl wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
dæl wrote:
uk_crow wrote:
The countries that have a much stronger belief in Islam are noted for their increased intolerance of: homosexuality, womens rights and civil liberties.]

Correlation is not causation. All those results prove is that intolerance exists, not why. Islam is not any more or less intolerant than Christianity, despicable things have been done in the name of both, but that is down to the people doing such things being despicable themselves.

Perhaps, but the oft cited Westboro Baptists don't chop bits off the people they claim they are offended by, they stand around with placards.

They do not, sanctified by church and church-controlled-state, behead women for witchcraft, they do not cut off a little girl's nose and ears for fleeing abuse marriage... and if they did, I'd have as much problem with them, especially if they were millions strong in my country and demanding we all obey Fred Phelps on pain of death!

In fact, I totally refute your statement, Christianity IS more tolerant that Islam, it certainly wasn't several hundred years ago, but it's far more tolerant these days. I'm certainly not a great fan of any of the monotheistic faiths, but western Christianity stands head and shoulders over Islam in it's treatment of women and it's avoidance of totalitarian power in the countries where it makes up the majority.

If we are going to segment Christianity into Modern and Earlier forms then yes you are absolutely correct that the modern interpretation of Christianity is far more tolerant than the majority of interpretations of Islam. But the holy book of Christianity is still the same as it was in the time of the crusades or the inquisitions, it would be safe to assume then that it wasn't the holy book that lead to the atrocities done in the name of Christ. In making the statement that they are similar in their levels of intolerance I was looking at the holy books in isolation, and both are very similar in that regard. The difference comes from the people of the religions, not the religions themselves.

We do not live in the Dark Ages any more, we grew up and grew out of them. The Islamic world, on the other hand, has actually regressed in it's levels of tolerance, culture and intellectual progression.

The people make the religion, not the book but how people live by it. A book is just a book, what people read and especially what they act on, is the way the religion lives and breathes in the world. As I've said throughout the thread, I remain hopeful for moderates to lead the islamics in western nations aware from totalitarian adherence, but At This Time, fanaticism and utter blind devotion/conversion/infection is on the rise and among the younger practitioners. I hope it's a phase, what I really hope is that comforts, luxuries, education and media will outcompete this aspect and produce more muslims who want to go to garden fetes, be happy that their daughter is dating a neopagan white goth kid who studies hard and that realize that people from other religions and cultures are not inferior and worthy of conversion or death.

Read Power Shift by Alvin Toffler, if aliens viewed the earth over the course of the last few thousand years, real progression in learning and advance came from the far east and middle east, out of china and the early islamic world, but some turning point occurred in the middle east and there was a rejection of science, art and education

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azenine wrote:

I'm not very knowledgeable about the contents of the Koran, but I would be quite surprised to find that this kind of thing is allowed or indeed encouraged by their holy scriptures (the original ones by the prophet Mohammed, not more recent ones scriptures, if there are any).

Mohammed said:

Sahih Muslim
Book 017, Number 4209:
Abu Huraira and Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani reported that one of the desert tribes came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I beg of you in the name of Allah that you pronounce judgment about me according to the Book of Allah. The second claimant who was wiser than him said: Well, decide amongst us according to the Book of Allah, but permit me (to say something). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Say. He said: My son was a servant in the house of this person and he committed adultery with his wife. I was informed that my son deserved stoning to death (as punishment for this offence). I gave one hundred goats and a slave girl as ransom for this. I asked the scholars (if this could serve as an expiation for this offence). They informed me that my son deserved one hundred lathes and exile for one year. and this woman deserved stoning (as she was married). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah. The slave-girl and the goats should be given back, and your son is to be punished with one hundred lashes and exile for one year. And, O Unais (b. Zuhaq al-Aslami), go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her. He (the narrator) said: He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death.

Find me the excerpt where Christ orders executions? I've read both books and cannot remember Jesus ordering people be put to death. Mohammed (may peace etc etc) orders quite a lot of death and war and violence in general.

Read them both, let me know where I'm going wrong if you have a differing conclusion.

**Relapse**

Jesus, in a similar situation with an adultress said that only someone without sin should cast the first stone. The crowd departed and Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were. After she told him they were gone, he said for her to go and sin no more.

The Old Testament in the bible was harsh in law so the Israelites would survive as a people. It was a hostile time all around, and anything less than this kind of strictness would have meant they ceased to exist as a people.
This is my opinion, of course.

**dæl**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

We do not live in the Dark Ages any more, we grew up and grew out of them. The Islamic world, on the other hand, has actually regressed in it's levels of tolerance, culture and intellectual progression.

The people make the religion, not the book but how people live by it. A book is just a book, what people read and especially what they act on, is the way the religion lives and breathes in the world. As I've said throughout the thread, I remain hopeful for moderates to lead the islamics in western nations aware from totalitarian adherence, but At This Time, fanaticism and utter blind devotion/conversion/infection is on the rise and among the younger practitioners. I hope it's a phase, what I really hope is that comforts, luxuries, education and media will outcompete this aspect and produce more muslims who want to go to garden fetes, be happy that their daughter is dating a neopagan white goth kid who studies hard and that realize that people from other religions and cultures are not inferior and worthy of conversion or death.

Read Power Shift by Alvin Toffler, if aliens viewed the earth over the course of the last few thousand years, real progression in learning and advance came from the far east and middle east, out of china and the early islamic world, but some turning point occurred in the middle east and there was a rejection of science, art and education

That regression is in part the fault of the UK and US, the amount of cash being thrown at the mujahideen during Operation Cyclone was extraordinary, and gave them phenomenal levels of power locally. By using the likes of Abu Hamza as a means to wage war in Bosnia and then allowing him residency we have helped create many British radicals who would otherwise have been moderates. In supporting extremism we have given it roots that are far wider than they would have been without our support. That is not to say that we are solely responsible for terrorist attacks, far from it. People make their own choices in life and if those choices attempt to visit violence on others they should be dealt with properly.

Your hope for Islam is something I share and it is worth remembering that the majority of Muslims who live within western countries do want to go to garden fetes, for every Finsbury Park Mosque there are 50 moderate ones.

Thank you for the recommendation, I will stick it on my reading list, and yes the East lead the way for a very long time, the code of laws in 23rdC BC Babylon was probably better than some codes of law in place in the region today, and they understood and used Pythagoras' theory centuries before he was born.

What shift do you think occurred that lead the Middle East away from the path of progress?

**Azenine**

MGS: I never claimed that Jesus said anything of the sort, but there are many passages in the Old Testament that describe punishments for various things. For example:

And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
- Leviticus, 21:9

And he shall cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall lay them in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar.
- Leviticus, 1:12

A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus, 20:27

If a man lies with a woman having her sickness, and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her foundation, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood; both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
- Leviticus, 20:18

Riiiight. That's in no way or form barbaric and/or prone to any kind of misinterpretation...

/sarcasm

Maybe you'd like to re-read the Old Testament again, to refresh your memory?

**Relapse**

Azenine wrote:
MGS: I never claimed that Jesus said anything of the sort, but there are many passages in the Old Testament that describe punishments for various things. For example:

And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
- Leviticus, 21:9

And he shall cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall lay them in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar.
- Leviticus, 1:12

A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus, 20:27

If a man lies with a woman having her sickness, and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her foundation, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood; both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
- Leviticus, 20:18

Riiiight. That's in no way or form barbaric and/or prone to any kind of misinterpretation...

/sarcasm

Maybe you'd like to re-read the Old Testament again, to refresh your memory?

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Relapse wrote:Jesus, in a similar situation with an adultress said that only someone without sin should cast the first stone. The crowd departed and Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were. After she told him they were gone, he said for her to go and sin no more.

The Old Testament in the bible was harsh in law so the Israelites would survive as a people. It was a hostile time all around, and anything less than this kind of strictness would have meant they ceased to exist as a people.
This is my opinion, of course.

I like and find common cause with a great deal of what Christ said, the bits that basically were so eloquently summed up by Bill and Ted, Mohammed also taught some of that, a lot less of it than Christ did and more intermingled with things on violent retribution, absolute adherence and conquest.

The Old Testament is a very weird mix of important health information (pigs often contained tapeworm that, if undercooked, proved fatal to humans, shellfish in the raw sewage ridden Mediterranean likely even more so) and also nonsensical propaganda about enemy tribes and slandering them.

dæl wrote:
That regression is in part the fault of the UK and US, the amount of cash being thrown at the mujahideen during Operation Cyclone was extraordinary, and gave them phenomenal levels of power locally. By using the likes of Abu Hamza as a means to wage war in Bosnia and then allowing him residency we have helped create many British radicals who would otherwise have been moderates. In supporting extremism we have given it roots that are far wider than they would have been without our support. That is not to say that we are solely responsible for terrorist attacks, far from it. People make their own choices in life and if those choices attempt to visit violence on others they should be dealt with properly.

Your hope for Islam is something I share and it is worth remembering that the majority of Muslims who live within western countries do want to go to garden fetes, for every Finsbury Park Mosque there are 50 moderate ones.

Thank you for the recommendation, I will stick it on my reading list, and yes the East lead the way for a very long time, the code of laws in 23rdC BC Babylon was probably better than some codes of law in place in the region today, and they understood and used Pythagoras' theory centuries before he was born.

What shift do you think occurred that lead the Middle East away from the path of progress?

I don't think this is one of the things that we can pin on the western powers dabbling in the islamic world to play chess against the soviet empire, dubious as that all was. We certainly stirred the pot and incurred a level of hatred for our king making and whirlwind reaping, but the shift from Saladin's Islam to the Islam that we were indulging and arming occurred a good deal earlier, like perhaps a few hundred years earlier. We didn't make that, it flourished and replaced the earlier islam all of it's own. I seem to remember reading of a scholar who lead the ideological revolution to a more radical and entirely less tolerant Islam, but cannot remember his name. It was certainly linked to theological leaders replacing monarchs and elected leaders. And it's a strong lesson for the West to keep religion the hell out of it's politics...

The West may have armed the taliban and Al Q, but they existed prior, we just threw money and guns at them. We didn't make the ayatollahs and the fatwas, these are islamic in origin and design.

Many want to find a way to keep pointing the finger back to the west but islam make it's own yoke.

**Azenine**

Relapse wrote:

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

And that changes what exactly?

**Relapse**

Azenine wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

And that changes what exactly?

The people that wrote them were non Christian for openers. Jesus said the time of those laws you mention was done.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Azenine wrote:
MGS: I never claimed that Jesus said anything of the sort, but there are many passages in the Old Testament that describe punishments for various things. For example:
Riiiight. That's in no way or form barbaric and/or prone to any kind of misinterpretation...

/sarcasm

Maybe you'd like to re-read the Old Testament again, to refresh your memory?

Thank you for your unnecessary and asinine sarcasm, it portrays you as immature and easily slighted.

You did not mention Christ, you did mention Mohammed and referenced the bible, so I asked about Christ, who is the Christian center of devotion to God as Mohammed is to the Muslim God.

So.

I'm going to indulge you once, despite your inability to read what's already been covered in this thread and what I've answered.

1. I stated that the old testament is indeed full of wacky gak, the real difference is that most of that wacky gak isn't practiced any more.

2. It's certainly not ordained as law and enacted in the streets of predominantly Christian western democracies any more.

3. Christians and Jews share the old testament, neither party are launching terrorist attacks in the streets of the west, the Jews are not marching through the streets of London ordering the immediate adherence to the Torah by the entire population or their punishment by death.

Now, go back and READ the thread and what's been already covered, either debate this on terms or I'll put you on ignore. Learn to debate like an adult, with a counter to WHAT I'VE ACTUALLY SAID instead of your attempts to entirely warp my statements into your designated desire for ignorance.

**dæl**

I don't think this is one of the things that we can pin on the western powers dabbling in the islamic world to play chess against the soviet empire, dubious as that all was. We certainly stirred the pot and incurred a level of hatred for our king making and whirlwind reaping, but the shift from Saladin's Islam to the Islam that we were indulging and arming occurred a good deal earlier, like perhaps a few hundred years earlier. We didn't make that, it flourished and replaced the earlier islam all of it's own. I seem to remember reading of a scholar who lead the ideological revolution to a more radical and entirely less tolerant Islam, but cannot remember his name. It was certainly linked to theological leaders replacing monarchs and elected leaders. And it's a strong lesson for the West to keep religion the hell out of it's politics...

The West may have armed the taliban and Al Q, but they existed prior, we just threw money and guns at them. We didn't make the ayatollahs and the fatwas, these are islamic in origin and design.

Many want to find a way to keep pointing the finger back to the west but islam make it's own yoke.

I don't for a second think we created Islamic fundamentalism, what we have done is upset the balance by giving serious power to the fundamentalists. In regions of the Middle East the level of power the fundamentalists now have because of us has allowed them to impose their will on the local population, this is probably best illustrated by Afghanistan under the Taliban.

If we were serious about eradicating terrorism from the world we could, it would be difficult but not impossible. But the analogy I made earlier was apt, we didn't eradicate piracy while we still used privateers and we won't eradicate terrorism while we still use them when it suits us.

**Andrew1975**

Azenine wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

And that changes what exactly?

Right, but that's a huge factor. I think you will find it very hard to find to many Christians the strictly follow the Old Testament, because the New Testament basically runs against many of its teachings. The Old Testament is not actually a Christian or Catholic book as it was written before Jesus's time. To say Jesus radically changed Christianity is false, because there was no Christianity before him, therefore the book of Christianity is the New Testament, and you will not see such teachings in it.

**Relapse**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Azenine wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

And that changes what exactly?

Right, but that's a huge factor. I think you will find it very hard to find to many Christians the strictly follow the Old Testament, because the New Testament basically runs against many of its teachings. The Old Testament is not actually a Christian or Catholic book as it was written before Jesus's time. To say Jesus radically changed Christianity is false, because there was no Christianity before him, therefore the book of Christianity is the New Testament, and you will not see such teachings in it.

Exactly. Jesus basically said there was a new law of mercy, ending the need for the harsh punishments of the old Testament. This is something huge that people who use the Old Testament to attack Christians seem to miss.

**dæl**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Azenine wrote:
Relapse wrote:

Something you are not taking into account is the fact these were written before the time of Christ.

And that changes what exactly?

Right, but that's a huge factor. I think you will find it very hard to find to many Christians the strictly follow the Old Testament, because the New Testament basically runs against many of its teachings. The Old Testament is not actually a Christian or Catholic book as it was written before Jesus's time. To say Jesus radically changed Christianity is false, because there was no Christianity before him, therefore the book of Christianity is the New Testament, and you will not see such teachings in it.

Strictly speaking Jesus said he was not there to change the Old Testament, which would imply the teachings of the Old Testament are part of Christianity. I have not come to abolish them, but fulfil them. Or something similar.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dæl wrote:
I don't for a second think we created Islamic fundamentalism, what we have done is upset the balance by giving serious power to the fundamentalists. If we were serious about eradicating terrorism from the world we could, it would be difficult but not impossible. But the analogy I made earlier was apt, we didn't eradicate piracy while we still used privateers and we won't eradicate terrorism while we still use them when it suits us.

I think the radicals were moving into power anyway. I really wish I could remember the name of that guy.

**Azenine**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You did not mention Christ, you did mention Mohammed and referenced the bible, so I asked about Christ, who is the Christian center of devotion to God as Mohammed is to the Muslim God.

Aye.

1. I stated that the old testament is indeed full of wacky gak, the real difference is that most of that wacky gak isn't practiced any more.

Must have missed that among all of the posts in the last fourteen pages.

2. It's certainly not ordained as law and enacted in the streets of predominantly Christian western democracies any more.

It was back then, but aye, it isn't now, agreed.

3. Christians and Jews share the old testament, neither party are launching terrorist attacks in the streets of the west, the Jews are not marching through the streets of London ordering the immediate adherence to the Torah by the entire population or their punishment by death.

Again, I agree. I misread what you said and believed that you were claiming that punishments found in the Koran could not similarly be found in the Bible, which would have been an utterly ignorant claim to make, which is why I reacted in such a way. My mistake and apologies for that (I'd say that it's been a long day, but I'm guessing that's not accepted as a serious excuse anymore?).

Now, go back and READ the thread and what's been already covered, either debate this on terms or I'll put you on ignore. Learn to debate like an adult, with a counter to WHAT I'VE ACTUALLY SAID instead of your attempts to entirely warp my statements into your designated desire for ignorance.

I wouldn't call it desire for ignorance or warping of statements as i pointed out above, but our views visibly diverge here.

**uk_crow**

What shift do you think occurred that lead the Middle East away from the path of progress?

Could the overthrow of the Shah in Iran be a contributing factor? They overthrew a western-facing government and replaced it with a hard-line Islamic state? They're strategically placed and backed and still do terrorists organisations such as hezbollah and Hamas. Obviously beforehand the ideas were their, but maybe this has acted an accelerating factor given Iran's influence in the middle east?

**Azenine**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
dæl wrote:
I don't for a second think we created Islamic fundamentalism, what we have done is upset the balance by giving serious power to the fundamentalists. If we were serious about eradicating terrorism from the world we could, it would be difficult but not impossible. But the analogy I made earlier was apt, we didn't eradicate piracy while we still used privateers and we won't eradicate terrorism while we still use them when it suits us.

I think the radicals were moving into power anyway. I really wish I could remember the name of that guy.

Just adding on to this, you may think that they were moving to power, but it doesn't change the fact that, as dael has said, the Western powers messed up the balance and (indirectly) put people who should not have been in power in power.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

uk_crow wrote:
Could the overthrow of the Shah in Iran be a contributing factor? They overthrew a western-facing government and replaced it with a hard-line Islamic state? They're strategically placed and backed and still do terrorists organisations such as hezbollah and Hamas.

That could have contributed to it, aye, since the Iranians absolutely hated him and supported those who wished to see him overthrown (who were in part hard-line Islamists). And I wouldn't be surprised if it had, to be honest.

**dæl**

I do find interesting that in al-Qaeda's founding statement the best justification they could find from the Koran was "Fight the idolators at any time, if they first fight you" which would only justify retaliation rather than offensive action.

**Azenine**

dæl wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

Right, but that's a huge factor. I think you will find it very hard to find to many Christians the strictly follow the Old Testament, because the New Testament basically runs against many of its teachings. The Old Testament is not actually a Christian or Catholic book as it was written before Jesus's time. To say Jesus radically changed Christianity is false, because there was no Christianity before him, therefore the book of Christianity is the New Testament, and you will not see such teachings in it.

Strictly speaking Jesus said he was not there to change the Old Testament, which would imply the teachings of the Old Testament are part of Christianity. I have not come to abolish them, but fulfil them. Or something similar.

I was under the impression that the Protestants used the New Testament exclusively, but that the Catholics used both.

**dæl**

uk_crow wrote:
What shift do you think occurred that lead the Middle East away from the path of progress?

Could the overthrow of the Shah in Iran be a contributing factor? They overthrew a western-facing government and replaced it with a hard-line Islamic state? They're strategically placed and backed and still do terrorists organisations such as hezbollah and Hamas. Obviously beforehand the ideas were their, but maybe this has acted an accelerating factor given Iran's influence in the middle east?

It certainly was an accelerating factor, but the shift away from scientific and social enlightenment happened a long time before that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azenine wrote:

I was under the impression that the Protestants used the New Testament exclusively, but that the Catholics used both.

Protestants use the Ten Commandments, which were Old Testament. My theology isn't exactly comprehensive but I would say Protestants use both books of the Bible as much as Catholics do.

**Azenine**

dæl wrote:

Protestants use the Ten Commandments, which were Old Testament. My theology isn't exactly comprehensive but I would say Protestants use both books of the Bible as much as Catholics do.

According to Wikipedia (prime source of the Internet!), the Protestants use the Bible and see it as "the primary and supreme source of binding authority" for all Christians.

Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible) is the primary and supreme source of binding authority for all Christians. This does not exclude other sources of binding authority, rather it places other forms of authority in subordination to the authority of Scripture.

However, the Bible includes both the Old and New Testaments, which proves you right. But then again, I'm guessing that which teachings and writings are followed and which aren't is up to people's personal views and opinions.