Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Still grasping at straws?

- it's my fault for calling torture, torture.

No, I just find it inconsistent to claim crucifixion is not torture and explain your reason that I provided above but now you say quartering is torture.

What's the difference?

shafique wrote:Mea culpa

You have another tool. Condemnation Shaf. Condemnation.

But seriously, you can't talk this straight. Your making a fool of yourself.
EH scores excellent points. You gotta give him that.

So eh - it appears you now agree with my first statement that English kids celebrate each year the foiling of a Catholic terrorist plot and the torture and execution of the plotters. We agree that the drawing and quartering is torture. Please confirm. (Given that - as illustrated in Braveheart - it is used to extract confessions in return for a quicker death, it is by my definition torture).

But just to be clear, this was my first statement:

shafique wrote:Let me know if you have other nursery rhymes you want me to decipher? Next you'll be telling me that all English people are demonic for celebrating the arrest, torture and execution of a Catholic Terrorist each year on Nov 5th when we burn effigies of him!

(And note, Guy Fawkes was indeed tortured to extract a confession - and THEN he was publically executed. So, he was tortured and yes quartering was an additional torture)

We can certainly move on to crucifixion and whether I think it is torture - I personally think it is a painful way of executing someone, and agree that some will view this as torture. If there is no element of extracting information, then I would say that it does not constitute torture - but a painful execution. You asked for the difference - I've given you my answer.

However, in popular culture, crucifixion is indeed viewed as torture.

Do you agree with the statement of Robert Langdon in Lost Symbol (yes, I know a fictional character) who stated something like:

Some people would call a religion that practiced ritualistic cannibalism and whose adherents worshipped in front of an instrument of torture, to be barbaric.

That religion, of course, is Christianity.

And he pointed out that the cross was a Roman 'instrument of torture' and the ritualistic cannibalism refers to Catholic (and some other churches) ritual of taking the sacrament and believing they are eating flesh and drinking blood.


So, Robby - should I use to the tool of 'condemnation' in the way Dawkins uses and accuse eh's of advocating child abuse (Dawkins says anyone who says it is ok kids to be brought up Christian is committing child abuse)??

I mean, the Bible has much more blood, guts and s.ex than any Hamas tv programme! Should I condemn?

(Oh, and since this thread has been discussing kids tv programmes, nursery rhymes and nationalistic songs - I feel I am taking the discussion up a notch by making references to Hollywood movies - Braveheart - and fictional professors - Robert Langdon! )

Cheers,
Shafique

Listen, Shafique and Berrin think like a bunch of theocrats in the 21st Century. Wake up fella's.

The only party that still reads and governs from the bible in my country is the SGP, a small leftover reformed protestant party that still believes that women should stay at home and are not allowed to join the party for their opinion. They never preach or even mention blood or killings.

The equal employment laws in my country just informed our Christian SGP that they are in violation of constitutional treaties and have to adapt to modern consensus or face the consequences. The bible is forgotten in this part of the world mate. Only in dark pits is it still lectured in full glory. Do you know where? I don't.

Its obvious your thought process is a little bit more towards 7th Century Saudi practices. Man we are so different. It hurts.

Hey, I know most Christians rightly ignore the x-rated parts of the Bible (in fact, one study says that up to 70% of the Bible is effectively self-censored, in that it is not read in Church and Bible readings).

Muslims know exactly how this works - we treat Hadith in exactly the same way. There is a wide body of texts, some of them contradictory, some weird and funky, others in total accordance with the Quran. Even the compilers of the books of Hadith stated that the most funky Hadith were rejected - but others that were contradictory were kept in, and it was up to readers to choose between them.

So, just like we have 'young earth' nutters in eh's home country who insist that the universe is less than 7000 years old, there are Christian scientists who scoff at these views. There are Benny-Hill type grandpas who get ridiculed on Arab TV for claiming the world is flat according to the Quran, whilst Nobel Prize winning Physicist Abdus Salam argue that the Quran and science are in total accordance.


There are organisations like MEMRI who try and mislead with edited highlights and provocative translations (and historically fabricated translations).

Here, a child from Holland rings a children's show and sings a nationalistic song which reflects the reality of the occupation of Palestine. Do I wish that these songs didn't need to be sung? Of course. Is it indoctrination - perhaps it is. But at the end of the day it does not say that the kids are encouraged to become terrorists, kill civilians or even hate all Jews or Israelis - it speaks to the reality that Palestinians are being killed because they are fighting an occupation that is decades old.

MEMRI's spin is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:... But at the end of the day it does not say that the kids are encouraged to become terrorists, kill civilians or even hate all Jews or Israelis - it speaks to the reality that Palestinians are being killed because they are fighting an occupation that is decades old.

MEMRI's spin is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Cheers,
Shafique

You gotta be kidding me. It is indoctrination and nationalistic ideology. It reminds me of the National Socialistic Workers Party in Germany, just before the rise of fascism.

Scapegoating is so old. This Hamas channel is just propaganda. Logically, you get counter propaganda, like MEMRI's, probably funded by the West. You know how these guys are played. Failed States ring a bell?

MEMRI is probably just a response. Middle Eastern shit is insane. You guys life in a world of mental hurt. Madness.

Perhaps Al Aqsa TV is pure propaganda and is used to indoctrinate Palestinians to hate all Jews etc.

I just trust you aren't taking Memri's word for it - as I said, their track record for misrepresenting is there for all to examine.

I see an edited clip of a caller singing a song which says Martyrs will go to heaven, you guys see evil indoctrination. Evil, obviously, is in the eye of the beholder.

Is it really that wrong to point out that Memri's spin is hardly a source of reliable information about Palestinian TV in general, and certainly not Children's tv. It's like getting your information about Obama from Fox News!

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, my man, think rationally with me here.

No matter what MEMRI says, look at the source of this issue. Who is broadcasting this sick program? Its not MEMRI! The origin is Hamas as you said.

Children should be kept away from this idiocracy. Just like the bible or Quran etc, peoples minds are trained to think in a certain way. Just a little push makes them snap towards extremism instantly. The basis is already indoctrinated, right? Sick

I really have isues with you talking this right in some ways. I hope the Maldives gives you a more French perspective on things happening in the ME. I get angry when I see this.

Atomic bomb anyone? djeezzz.

Hey, I'm with Barghouti on this one - Al Aqsa does cross the line with some of its broadcasts.

However, I also get a bit peeved with Memri vids that are edited and translated in such a way which misrepresents what is going on. This particular programme is called 'Pioneers' for example and seems to be the equivalent of cadets or scouts - getting kids to think it is cool to become freedom fighters when they grow up.

These kids already live in the world's greatest open air prison, have lived under occupation for all their lives (as their parents have too). So, where you see indoctrination, I see kids being taught things which are a reflection of the reality they are living.

They aren't being taught to be terrorists, suicide bombers, jew-haters etc etc - this is all implied by Memris spin, but it is not reality. If that was happening, that would be sick.

Cheers,
Shafique

Problem is that is does happen in the name of religion. There is no defense for it.

Recently you had this NYC bomber, had an MBA, finance job, family, all was good until he lost his house and job from a bad debt situation in a market downturn. Suddenly his Islamic Pakistani roots came to show and snapped mentally. Suddenly he hated America...?

This isn't normal Shafique. These apparently normal fooks have a basis of religious doctrine in them that is wrong. You still are blind to it. Like I said, I think its sad you lot defend indoctrination in your certain ways.

Religion sucks, especially the ones that are stuck in Middle Ages mindsets. When was the last Christian martyr on European grounds? I can't remember...

Sure thing - if the resistance in Palestine was happening in the name of religion, then of course we should blame the religion.

The problem is that, as with the Times Square bomber, the attacks are being done not because of anyone's religion.

Palestinian resistance comes from Palestinians who are Christian, atheist and Muslim - and indeed many Israelis speak up against Israeli oppression. Did you know that Arafat, for example, had a Rabbi who served as his Minister of Jewish Affairs (he died recently)?

Sure, religion sucks for some people - the struggle that Palestinians have with the Israelis though is about land, not religion. It's about basic human rights, not whose religious book is more valid. To drink the Israeli kool aid is to agree with their spin that it is a struggle of civilisations or about religion.

The recent Pakistani Bomber was quite clear why he was bombing America - it was retaliation for the US bombings of Pakistan by drones. Nothing to do with religion. (We had a whole thread about it)

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/times- ... e-attacks/

So, tell me - should I agree with eh and yourself that the attempted bombing in NYC was over religion, when the evidence is that it was not? Should you not ask yourself on what basis you implied it was over religion (or perhaps you believe it was over religion that he tried to explode a bomb - not a suicide bomb - a car bomb?)

I'll happily join you in condemning real crimes when they are committed, however Memri spin is something I've got a particular aversion to. But that's just me.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sure, the given reason was drone attacks. Fine. Tell me, why do these nutcases come from Islamic background each time?

Is it just me, or can we easily establish a relation from the number of 'incidents' from these snapped individuals with their firm Islamic ethics?

I lost confidence.

RobbyG wrote:Sure, the given reason was drone attacks. Fine. Tell me, why do these nutcases come from Islamic background each time?

He didn't. He was a Pakistani American who turned against the US after it bombed Pakistan.

Yes, he was Muslim - and the people that were killed by the US drones were Muslim. However the attack was because of the bombings, not because he was Muslim.

RobbyG wrote:Is it just me, or can we easily establish a relation from the number of 'incidents' from these snapped individuals with their firm Islamic ethics?

I lost confidence.

One can easily look at statistics and compare the 'feelings' that people have about the risk from 'Islamic' terrorists and reality. However, why not look at each case on their merits and see how many of the 'nutters' are blowing up civilians because they hate people of another religion, rather than for another reason?

(In fact, there was an academic study done in the US which concluded that the risk was exagerated in the media and in people's perceptions - again see the thread about Terrorism in the USA, the facts - the link is given there)

And again, sorry for belabouring the point, but I still challenge the link between terrorist plots, jew or west-hating ideologies and what Memri is portraying as 'indoctrination'. Is it really surprising that a people under occupation have nationalistic songs which say that those who die liberating their country or in the line of duty go to heaven? Or is it automatically a JIhadist indoctrination when Palestinians show national pride?


Cheers,
Shafique

It still doesn't make me comfortable from his actions. He went on bomb training camp in Waziristan in Pakistan, and that gives me the creeps. These guys have nasty tendencies to do martyr-like things.

It is known that he skips the Friday prayers, but apparently does like car bombs. Did his friends in Paki convince him to become a 'good' muslim suddenly, after profiting from the American culprit, when the going got rough?

You tell me.

Hey, I agree - the guy is a terrorist and should be locked up. We should be thankful that Pakistani Taliban don't seem to know what they are doing (and we have other numpties like the Glasgow bombers who even though some were medical students, didn't know the first thing about car bombs - thank God).

Yes, these numpties are indeed Muslims and yes they do align themselves with Al Qaeda.

However, I repeat - the evidence for the NYC numpty is that his motives are about the bombing, and not about religion. You really can't have it both ways - if the bombing of Pakistanis is not about religion - the US is at pains they are not bombing because of hatred of Islam - then the retaliation can't be about religion either.

What is noticeable is that when, say, a mosque it bombed or attacked in the US, the coverage rarely is national and when it is never tries to link the terrorist act to the religion of the terrorist (in most cases Christians). Here's a test, this year - how many mosques in the US were attacked that you can recall. Were any of them bombed? (clue - the number is non-zero)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Hey, I agree - the guy is a terrorist and should be locked up. We should be thankful that Pakistani Taliban don't seem to know what they are doing (and we have other numpties like the Glasgow bombers who even though some were medical students, didn't know the first thing about car bombs - thank God).

Yes, these numpties are indeed Muslims and yes they do align themselves with Al Qaeda.

Glad we agree.

However, I repeat - the evidence for the NYC numpty is that his motives are about the bombing, and not about religion. You really can't have it both ways - if the bombing of Pakistanis is not about religion - the US is at pains they are not bombing because of hatred of Islam - then the retaliation can't be about religion either.

Look, I'm not trying to find a link where there isn't any. But I feel these type of actions are all religiously linked or inspired. Just look at the Hamas Channels. They preach this martyr stuff from child up. I wonder what this Faisal Shahzad did get to see before he arrived in the US in 1997. You don't do this from a jiffy.

In response to your reply, I don't want to have it both ways. But what you say is nonsense.
If the US drone attacks on Pakistan are his motivations, then why can't he have been inclined to respond on his Quran inspired Jihad/martyrdom? The book preaches this wildly for the ones who want to do harm and his Taliban/Al Qaida training camp friends did learn him to make bombs in the name of Martyrdom following the blessings of the holy book. They do it on a daily basis.

What is noticeable is that when, say, a mosque it bombed or attacked in the US, the coverage rarely is national and when it is never tries to link the terrorist act to the religion of the terrorist (in most cases Christians). Here's a test, this year - how many mosques in the US were attacked that you can recall. Were any of them bombed? (clue - the number is non-zero)

Cheers,
Shafique

There are many lunatics in the US, but they don't strike often, if ever, in the name of Christianity in Europe or the US, nor in the Middle East. We can count them on one hand. That can't be said about muslim martyrs, right?

They are numerous. Lets say its all to blame to the American invasion, what does that say about their morals? To me you are sick in the head if you blow yourself up for 72 virgins. A modern Christian wouldn't make such things up in Europe.

Why are muslim martyrs so different? What makes them want to die or slaughter innocent civilians for their cause? Why not join the military instead?

Rob, come on guy?!!

Of course the Pakistani-American who set off a fire-bomb in Times Square wasn't a religious extremist.

You know, not everyone who ventures off to Pakistan and trains at a *Taliban* terrorist camp is an Islamic extremist, right?

And of course, we should also ignore Mr Shahzad's own statements that he was angry at the Mo-toons and infidels in recently published e-mails.

Oh, and forget about the fact that Mr Shahzad was *already* in attendance at one of those Islamic terror camps in Pakistan when he witnessed a drone attack against Paksitani Taliban commanders, which, he says, was what drove him to take revenge.

Dontcha know that Islam had nothing to do with this attack? (but I'll let you explain why he recently became more religious and decided to spend a few months at a Taliban run terror camp)

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe for suggesting otherwise?

(Oh, and Rob, perhaps you can tell me how many churches have been burnt to the ground in the United States this year - I'll give you a hint, the answer is non-zero. We'll see if you correctly answering this question must prove whether or not the media in the US covers church burnings enough)

RobbyG wrote:

Yes, these numpties are indeed Muslims and yes they do align themselves with Al Qaeda.

Glad we agree.

So am I.

RobbyG wrote:

However, I repeat - the evidence for the NYC numpty is that his motives are about the bombing, and not about religion. You really can't have it both ways - if the bombing of Pakistanis is not about religion - the US is at pains they are not bombing because of hatred of Islam - then the retaliation can't be about religion either.

Look, I'm not trying to find a link where there isn't any. But I feel these type of actions are all religiously linked or inspired.

A lot of people 'feel' like you do. But you'll have to explain to me how this particular case is linked to Islam.

RobbyG wrote: Just look at the Hamas Channels. They preach this martyr stuff from child up.

Ok - explain what this 'martyr' stuff has to do with a Paksitani American living in the US deciding to retaliate against his fellow Americans for the bombing of Pakistan by drones? He wasn't remotely trying to be a martyr. He didn't choose to bomb NYC when the US bombed Muslims in Afghanistan - so it appears that nationality trumps religion in his case. It is only when Pakistan was bombed, that he decided to retaliate.

Ergo, whilst you may 'feel' it is religously inspired, the evidence shows that it was a retaliation for a bombing, not a hatre crime against non-Muslims.

RobbyG wrote:In response to your reply, I don't want to have it both ways. But what you say is nonsense.
If the US drone attacks on Pakistan are his motivations, then why can't he have been inclined to respond on his Quran inspired Jihad/martyrdom?

Which part of his attempt to copy Tim McVeigh was 'inspired' by the Quran, or looked like 'martyrdom'? Eh in the past tried to link Baruch Goldstein with Islam - but c'mon I'd expect you'd be able to see beyond the spin here. Seriously.

I'll repeat the question - what part of this attempted Car Bombing (i.e. an attempt to commit what Tim McVeigh successfully achieved in Oklahoma) was inspired by the Quran or a notion of martyrdom. I agree with you that Islam says it is ok to fight people who are killing you - but that's pretty much in every law of every land, so hardly an 'Islamic' injunction. Islam doesn't condone terrorism though - so his retaliation was in spite of Islam, not because of it.

As I said, I'm happy to condemn real crimes and real motivations - but I find it hard to follow some leaps of logic presented!

RobbyG wrote:

What is noticeable is that when, say, a mosque it bombed or attacked in the US, the coverage rarely is national and when it is never tries to link the terrorist act to the religion of the terrorist (in most cases Christians). Here's a test, this year - how many mosques in the US were attacked that you can recall. Were any of them bombed? (clue - the number is non-zero)

There are many lunatics in the US, but they don't strike often,

Some of them are white, Christian and target mosques, abortion clinics etc. Numerically there are more of these non-Muslim attacks than ones by Muslims.

I agree totally that they don't strike that often - but the ones from non-Muslims occur with greater frequency than those from Muslims. The media coverage is what makes a difference.

RobbyG wrote:...if ever, in the name of Christianity in Europe or the US, nor in the Middle East. We can count them on one hand.

Really, you must have a mutated hand! (seriously) Have you counted the terrorist attacks against abortion clinics etc which are done precisely because of religion. I notice you exclude India where the terrorists do indeed try and force people to convert, and Africa where eh insists that the LRA are Christian.

RobbyG wrote:That can't be said about muslim martyrs, right?

They are numerous.

And yet the terrorist attacks in Europe and US by Muslims are outnumbered by more than 9 to 1 by terrorist attacks by non-Muslims. 'Numerous' is something we can measure and compare.

During times of war, yes there will be suicide bombings - this happened in Vietnam and the modern day suicide bombing was perfected in Sri Lanka. Not speculation, observable history. Suicide attacks don't take place where there is some parity in the arms that each side has - in all cases they are used by those who feel they don't have recourse to other ways of fighting. Where this is used against civilians, it is callous and inexcusable - but no less wrong than when a stealth bomber annihilates women and children.

RobbyG wrote: Lets say its all to blame to the American invasion, what does that say about their morals?

They are as moral as the Catholic IRA who decided to bomb Brits, or the Tamil women who blew themselves up killing civilians or even Timothy McVeigh who blew up a Government building in Oklahoma.

RobbyG wrote: To me you are sick in the head if you blow yourself up for 72 virgins.

I totally agree.

RobbyG wrote: A modern Christian wouldn't make such things up in Europe.

Not if they have stealth bombers at their disposal they won't - of course not, that would be stupid.

Thinking that the guys who choose to die for their cause are 'less human' than the civilised guys killing their countrymen is adding to the problem, not helping it.

RobbyG wrote:Why are muslim martyrs so different? What makes them want to die or slaughter innocent civilians for their cause? Why not join the military instead?

The point is - they are not. They are no different from Tamils or Vietnamese who blew themselves up, and they are feted as much as the Japanese honoured Kamikaze pilots or the Brits honoured those who fell on suicide missions during wars.

Where there are terrorists - they are no different from other terrorists. In Lebanon there was a Christian Lebanese lady who carried out a suicide bombing in 1985 (IIRC) - she was a Lebanese Arab and was fighting against Israel - should we blame the Bible for her actions?

Indeed, I totally agree - those who want to fight should indeed join legitimate fighting forces - Hezbollah proved itself to be most effective when it stopped terrorist acts and took on Israel militarily - and achieved their military objectives. The ANC blew up civilians, and yet formed the first government. Indeed, modern day terrorism was invented by the Israelis - and they won power and Begin even got a Nobel Peace Prize! (Begin was head of a terrorist organisation)

So, Muslims terrorists are no different from other terrorists, but shouldn't be conflated with non-terrorist resistance either.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Rob, come on guy?!!

Of course the Pakistani-American who set off a fire-bomb in Times Square wasn't a religious extremist.

You know, not everyone who ventures off to Pakistan and trains at a *Taliban* terrorist camp is an Islamic extremist, right?

And of course, we should also ignore Mr Shahzad's own statements that he was angry at the Mo-toons and infidels in recently published e-mails.

Oh, and forget about the fact that Mr Shahzad was *already* in attendance at one of those Islamic terror camps in Pakistan when he witnessed a drone attack against Paksitani Taliban commanders, which, he says, was what drove him to take revenge.

Dontcha know that Islam had nothing to do with this attack? (but I'll let you explain why he recently became more religious and decided to spend a few months at a Taliban run terror camp)

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe for suggesting otherwise?

(Oh, and Rob, perhaps you can tell me how many churches have been burnt to the ground in the United States this year - I'll give you a hint, the answer is non-zero. We'll see if you correctly answering this question must prove whether or not the media in the US covers church burnings enough)

lol, I can't help it. Its hard to prove, but the actions of Shahzad speak quite clearly. His mind was indoctrinated. I can only think of a few books that people use to inspire this madness. And it ain't Bert and Ernie.

Lets do a parody that is NOT shown to kids in the Western World. Bernie und Ert:

The contrast between Shahzad and these guys is over the motivation for their terrorism



Nine alleged members of a radical US Christian militia group accused of plotting to wage war against the US have been freed from jail on bond.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658604.stm

Only one was motivated to attack based on a religious book.

And, just like the most extreme religious fanatic poster here, it ain't the Muslims!

Cheers,
Shafique

You have a weak point. If only one was motivated to attack their own government based on a religious book, then why are they called a Christian militia?

That doesn't make sense.

Training with firearms and assault rifles is allowed under their State law and US constitutional 2nd amendment rights. Without proven plans and actions, what did they do so far, besides being a fringe group militia?

From what I read about these guys, is that they are against the tiranny from their own US Government. That FBI agent who infiltrated the fringe group was the one who took and used explosives with him that led to their arrest. The training of the group was done rather professionally if you have seen the videos on CNN. I think the US government got scared from these guys.

Whether they are religiously inspired or not, which would prove my point about indoctrination once more, this group prepares for their defense on their own lands, in their own country, within their constitutional rights and state law.

Nuttheads or not, why don't Islamic freedom fighters take a gun also and train to defend their own land? Why 72 virgins and bombs on foreign soil killing innocent foreigners? In the case of Shahzad, he went back to Paki and train abit for his NYC venture.

You can't deny that the martyrs from the ME almost all trace back to religious approval of martyrdom. They are being taught this religious basis from child up. Its undeniably of major influence.

RobbyG wrote:You have no point. If only one was motivated to attack their own government based on a religious book, then why are they called a Christian militia?

The NYC bomber was also attacking his own people - he was, after all an American citizen - what's your point?

The only difference is that he was motivated by bombings in Pakistan, whilst the guys above are motivated by a holy book, it appears. (I'm not the one labelling them Christian Militia).

I think my point was quite clear - religiously motivated terrorists do exist in the US, and they use the Bible for their justifications.

RobbyG wrote:You can't deny that the martyrs from the ME almost all trace back to religious approval of martyrdom. They are being taught this religious basis from child up. Its undeniably of major influence.

I would disagree. The Martyrs do it primarily because they feel they don't have any other weapons at their disposal - I think it would be fair to assume that if they had drones they'd use them instead. Yes, their religious views tell them that those who are martyred go to heaven - but that is no different from Christianity, and indeed one could say the same for Japanese, Tamil and Vietnamese suicide bombers - their religions do not say they will be punished for dying as martyrs.

'Almost all' allows for the fact that at least one suicide bomber in Lebanon was a Christian Arab lady - would you agree that her motivation was due to Israel's actions and not the Quran?

(BTW - would you class Baruch Goldstein as a Westerner or as someone from the ME? He was an American doctor who emigrated to Occupied Palestine and chose to live in Hebron, where in 1994 he effectively committed suicided by shooting up a group of worshippers at a holy site? I would say he's Western - but others have argued he's Middle Easterner. He did his act of terrorism because of his belief in the Bible.)

Cheers,
Shafique

So its justified to attack foreigners in Europe and America, in the name of a holy book, when not having the tools (read weapons) to defend their own lands? Hmm.

I admit you have a weak point (changed my last post a little for you) but religion does do alot of harm in the minds of fooks.

It has been proven to be a nutcracker time and time again. People lose it because a book gives them reason to do so. Indoctrination.

RobbyG wrote:So its justified to attack foreigners in Europe and America, in the name of a holy book? Hmm.

Nope, never justified to attack civilians at all. Just because the NYC bomber used the excuse of US bombing Pakistan to justify his terror attempt, it doesn't mean I agree with the reason. I'm just pointing out that it wasn't his religious belief that led him to seek to blow up New Yorkers with a car bomb! (So the 'martyr' angle doesn't work with him - a more appropriate analogy would be Tim McVeigh)

RobbyG wrote:I admit you have a weak point (changed my last post a little for you) but religion does do alot of harm in the minds of fooks.

Agreed. Just look at the photos of the numpties above!

RobbyG wrote:It has been proven to be a nutcracker time and time again. People lose it because a book gives them reason to do so. Indoctrination.

Agreed again. Numpties will be drawn by charismatic preachers and other nut-cases. No doubt. However, to generalise in specific cases where there is clear evidence for other motivations will lead to wrong conclusions.

As I said, I totally agree there are religiously motivated terrorist nutters in the world. In the US, however, numerically they are mostly of the Bible-bashing kind. But we rightly don't criticise the religion of Jesus for the actions of these numpties.

Cheers,
Shafique

As I said, I totally agree there are religiously motivated terrorist nutters in the world. In the US, however, numerically they are mostly of the Bible-bashing kind. But we rightly don't criticise the religion of Jesus for the actions of these numpties.

Perhaps we do need to look a bit more deeper to religious doctrine, when people are inclined to use it for their motivation. Perhaps it needs a correction or an update.

A ban of teaching certain chapters in schools and phrases of martyrdom in children tv shows? Sounds rational to me.

This Hamas channel just doesn't feel right. Its fricking wrong and leads to this discussion time and time again. They are indoctrinated from the ground up. It doesn't bode well.

-- 23 May 2010, 14:12 --

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:You have no point. If only one was motivated to attack their own government based on a religious book, then why are they called a Christian militia?

The NYC bomber was also attacking his own people - he was, after all an American citizen - what's your point?

A naturalized one, after 5 years everybody can put the oath to the test. He failed in my opinion.
He only came to the US in 1997 from Pakistan right? How many preachings did he heard from islamic scholars preaching about the martyrdom. You can't know that!

(BTW - would you class Baruch Goldstein as a Westerner or as someone from the ME? He was an American doctor who emigrated to Occupied Palestine and chose to live in Hebron, where in 1994 he effectively committed suicided by shooting up a group of worshippers at a holy site? I would say he's Western - but others have argued he's Middle Easterner. He did his act of terrorism because of his belief in the Bible.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Is that the only one you can come up with? lol

You know my stance on religion, whether it be the bible, quran or what else. Get rid of it in schools and curriculums and teach them logic and rationale. Forget virgins and ressurrection. Won't enlighten you.

Nationality is not important to me. Its where you came from and what is been taught to you. I prefer an enlightened person over a religious person.

The difference is an enlightened person, instead of a burdened one. Glad I'm not your employer! lol

RobbyG wrote:

As I said, I totally agree there are religiously motivated terrorist nutters in the world. In the US, however, numerically they are mostly of the Bible-bashing kind. But we rightly don't criticise the religion of Jesus for the actions of these numpties.

Perhaps we do need to look a bit more deeper to religious doctrine, when people are inclined to use it for their motivation. Perhaps it needs a correction or an update.

A ban of teaching certain chapters in schools and phrases of martyrdom in children tv shows? Sounds rational to me.

I certainly agree we should look into this and change the teaching/emphasis if it is a problem. Islam says that those who are martyrs go to heaven, it also says that those who kill one person unjustly it is as if they have killed the whole world. If Muslim schools don't teach both aspects, then it is wrong indeed.

I am yet to be convinced that kids who live in war zones and who have seen first hand people die in bombs and know of people fighting against an enemy are going to be adversely affected by nationalistic songs which say 'Martyrs go to heaven'. It is as if people are linking dying in the line of duty with suicide bombings - the issue is not whether Palestinian kids (Muslim or Christian) are taught to become suicide bombers or freedom fighters - but rather the fact that the Palestinians still are living under occupation and there is a need to oppose the occupier.

RobbyG wrote:This Hamas channel just doesn't feel right. Its fricking wrong and leads to this discussion time and time again. They are indoctrinated from the ground up. It doesn't bode well.

I totally agree. This is how it feels when one watches these edited highlights and reads the translations. This is indeed the intention of Memri's edited videos - to show that Hamas/Palestinians are less civilised than the West and by implication the Israelis. However, it also 'feels' like the main terrorist problem in the West is from Muslim extremists.

-- 23 May 2010, 14:12 --

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:The NYC bomber was also attacking his own people - he was, after all an American citizen - what's your point?

A naturalized one, after 5 years everybody can put the oath to the test. He failed in my opinion.
He only came to the US in 1997 from Pakistan right? How many preachings did he heard from islamic scholars preaching about the martyrdom. You can't know that!

He was still an American and still wanted to kill his fellow Americans - just like the Hutaree above.

I also keep coming back to the point that how is his attempt to do a Tim McVeigh anything to do with 'martyrdom' or the Quran? Setting off a car bomb (and not a good one at that) in retaliation for US bombings in Pakistan is not linked to Islam - certainly it has nothing to do with Martyrdom. Now, had he rammed a car full of explosives into a building like Pakistani Al Qaeda/Taliban really know how to do, then that would be another matter. It shows he didn't really get training in Pakistan - or if he did that it wasn't any good. The guys there have a track record with suicide truck bombings.

RobbyG wrote:

(BTW - would you class Baruch Goldstein as a Westerner or as someone from the ME? He was an American doctor who emigrated to Occupied Palestine and chose to live in Hebron, where in 1994 he effectively committed suicided by shooting up a group of worshippers at a holy site? I would say he's Western - but others have argued he's Middle Easterner. He did his act of terrorism because of his belief in the Bible.)

Is that the only one you can come up with? lol

Is that your answer?

He's the most prominent terrorist export of the USA - and a religiously based terrorist. His other colonialist supporters in Hebron who celebrate his actions are others.

It clearly shows that the Bible can be used to inspire suicide terrorist acts.

Do you disagree?

RobbyG wrote:The difference is an enlightened person, instead of a burdened one. Glad I'm not your employer! lol

Well, at least I'm not the most extreme poster here in terms of religious views and violence!


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I am yet to be convinced that kids who live in war zones and who have seen first hand people die in bombs and know of people fighting against an enemy are going to be adversely affected by nationalistic songs which say 'Martyrs go to heaven'.

Holland is a war zone?

Is that your answer?

He's the most prominent terrorist export of the USA - and a religiously based terrorist. His other colonialist supporters in Hebron who celebrate his actions are others.

It clearly shows that the Bible can be used to inspire suicide terrorist acts.

Do you disagree?

There was some more below the part you preferred to highlight.

I don't disagree, but you obviously deny the actual ratio of Islamic/Christian martyrs in modern days. I bet you a penny on it the muslim bombers win in hits performed and definately by attempts alone.

-- 23 May 2010, 19:19 --

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I am yet to be convinced that kids who live in war zones and who have seen first hand people die in bombs and know of people fighting against an enemy are going to be adversely affected by nationalistic songs which say 'Martyrs go to heaven'.

Holland is a war zone?

Besides that point, Shafique should also not forget that the people you socialize with, have an influence on you. Especially when your young and unexperienced. Its the most important time for a childs development.

I consider you convinced now, or die trying.

RobbyG wrote:I don't disagree, but you obviously deny the actual ratio of Islamic/Christian martyrs in modern days. I bet you a penny on it the muslim bombers win in hits performed and definately by attempts alone.

Please define what you are calling martyrs.

I certainly do believe that many more Muslims are being killed than Christians. I also certainly believe that that today the bulk of suicide bombers are Muslim (but not all). In the past it was Vietnamese, then Tamils, now it is Muslims. I presume you therefore mean 'suicide bombers' when you say 'martyrs' - but please clarify if I'm mistaken.

So, perhaps Islam has changed since the 60s?

Or could it be that the method of attack has more to do with weapons available and the perceived need to attack?

And I make the point again - in the US and Europe, there are more terrorist attacks by non-Muslims than by Muslims. The Hutaree example is a good one - they are a bunch of apocalyptic Bible literalists who were planning to kill US citizens - because of their religious belief. Nutters, to be sure. Now - from the stats I've seen, in the US there are more of these Christian nutters than Muslim fundamentalist nutters who agree with eh's view of Islam. Certainly there are more carrying out attacks (abortion clinics and the like) - and fortunately the majority result in few if any deaths.

FD - the caller from Holland was singing a Palestinian nationalistic song. This would be like the Irish in NY singing a pro-IRA song at the height of the troubles - only in this case the song is only saying that Martyrs go to heaven, and does not say 'bomb the Jews' etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

General use:
A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness"; stem μάρτυρ-, mártyr-) is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief, usually religious.

Meaning in Judaism:
Martyrdom in Judaism is one of the main examples of Kiddush Hashem, meaning "sanctification of God's name" through public dedication to Jewish practice.

Meaning in Islam:
In Arabic, a martyr is termed "shahid" (literally, "witness," as in the Greek root of the English word). The word shaheed appears in the Quran in a variety of contexts, including witnessing to righteousness (Quran 2:143), witnessing a financial transaction (Quran 2:282) and being killed, even in an accident as long as it doesn't happen with the intention to commit a sin, when they are believed to remain alive making them witnesses over worldly events without taking part in them anymore (Quran 3:140). The word also appears with these various meanings in the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

In Christianity,
A martyr, in accordance with the meaning of the origingal Greek martys in the New Testament, is one who brings a testimony, usually written or verbal. In particular, the testimony is that of the Christian Gospel, or more generally, the Word of God. A Christian witness is a biblical witness whether or not death follows.[2]. However over time many Christian testimonies were rejected, and the witnesses put to death, and the word "martyr" developed its present sense. Where death ensues, the witnesses follow the example of Jesus in offering up their lives for truth. The first Christian witness to be killed for his testimony was Saint Stephen (whose name means "crown"), and those who suffer martyrdom are said to have been "crowned".

Usage of "martyr" is also common among Arab Christians (i.e. anyone killed in relation to Christianity or a Christian community), indicating the persecution Arab Christians continue to experience to this day.



Hope your happy now.