Explosion in London Underground!!!

[Bomb Bloke]

Actually, it's a basic human instinct... But no excuse to let it get out of control. Erm.

[FullAuto]

I very much doubt it.

[Carlos the Jackal]

Hey look, I thought this that a sub-forum committed to genuine debate. What is all this teenage angst 'all the leaders of the world are so corrupt, maaaaaaaan'?

 

It disturbs me, this trend of recent times to become incredibly divisive along political lines. I've found people of differing political views to myself to become increasingly antagoinistic, and even close to violent towards me when I express my views.(Which puts a huge dent in their 'no war, peace man' arguement).

 

There have been great and compassionate leaders of men, as well as evil tyrants, and all shades of grey inbetween, and there still is today.

 

Now, cause the US is the yardstick by which all other countries are measured at the moment, lets examine a little how Bush and the Republican party are constantly attacked, and unfairly.

 

Bush has a speech impediment, and for this he's seen as 'dumb as a chimp' or an ignorant fool.

Steven Hawking has a speech impediment as well. Is he a fool? The content of articles and speeches written by G.W Bush himself have been intelligent and well balanced. He examines multiple angles of issues and acknowledges the differing views of the opposition, and presents an arguement for his point of view. Even in public speaking, which is not his strong point, until he trips up on pronouncing a word or mangles a phrase he carries himself with sincerity and compassion. Perhaps people have forgotton the speech he made just post 9/11.

 

The Republican party is portrayed by the Democrats as being for big business, and against the concerns of the average joe. However the Democrats raise taxes, the Republicans lower them, the Democrats pretend there isn't a problem with America's welfare system, while the Republicans are introducing sensible reform.

90% of the Republican party's campaign funding comes from private citizens making donations of less than $50. Over 70% of the Democrat's funding comes from big busininess and large contributions from the independantly wealthy, such as actors and buisnessmen.

 

Gee, who's for big buisness and who's for the common American?

 

I'd type more, but I need a smoke and I'm tired of the topic. I debate it at every forum I'm on.. It gets tiring.

 

Edit: I just re-read this and I KNOW it's a bit over the place. But you get my point.

[DeepOne]

Muhammad did not intend to found a religion based on murder, anymore than Jesus did (for instance, there is a hadith where Muhammad sees a woman killed on a battlefield and condemns the action). Violence is to be carried out in a solely defensive capacity, and only to certain limits, which does not include killing women, children, the old and infirm.

Muhammad conducted many offensive raids on villages (75 of them in a period of 10 years). He was all about killing and subsequent plundering. Women and children were captured as slaves (either to be "used" or sold); that is why he did not want them killed. Muhammad liked to keep the most attractive women for himself.

 

There's plenty of other Islamic scripture, and quite frankly, little of it (in the eyes of Muslims) comes close to being anywhere near as important as the Qur'an.  The rest of it's scripture has little bearing on their religion. The Qur'an does.

The Qur'an is believed to be the the literal word of Allah. The Sunnah is believed to have been inspired by Allah. The Five Pillars of Islam are not even found in the Qur'an. They are in the Hadith collections of the Sunnah. Without these, Muslims would not know what the pillars were or how to obey them. The Qur'an is largely nonsensical on its own. It is chronologically out of order, and it is dependent on the Sunnah for context. There is still plenty of jihad material in the Qur'an, but one can't really learn anything about the life of Muhammad (upon whom Islam is based) or much about how to conduct oneself as a Muslim without the Sunnah.

 

It's also amazing how few people can think for themselves. "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (2:256).

The Qur'an has so many contradictions that it even addresses the issue: "Whenever We cancel a message or throw it into oblivion, We replace it with a better one." (2:106). This is called the law of abrogation. What you quoted was later abrogated (thoroughly).

 

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks" (4:89)

 

"The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'" Bukhari:V4B52N260

 

I'd call that compulsion.

 

They're not trying to force us to convert us to Islam, that would be a wasted effort. They blew up Muslims in the London bombing, alongside Christians and Jews, who are also 'People of the Book' and to be regarded as believers.

Muhammad hated Muslims who wouldn't fight; he called them hypocrites and complained about them a lot. That may be how the terrorists view the Muslims that die in their bombings.

 

As for Christians and Jews, Muhammad railed against them regularly; they were most definitely not regarded as believers. "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." (5:51)

 

Of course they're making inroads. There are always people to be recruited, the disillusioned and the downtrodden, but the vast majority or Muslims do not support, or condone, what happened on September the 11th or the London bombings.

I don't think anyone has even suggested that any majority of Muslims support terrorism (although there seems to be very little criticism of it from them). The problem is Islamic scripture and those who follow it closely. Considering how many Muslims there are worldwide, even a fraction of 1% of them in jihad mode would represent a massive problem for the rest of the world - especially considering the tactics they use. As long as Islamic scriptures are revered by mainstream Muslims (even if most haven't actually read them, and therefore, don't know what they contain), there will probably always be Islamic terrorists.

 

Predictably, it has already been implied that I am a scared (Islamophobe, I suppose) and stupid bigot. Personal attacks (although they've been somewhat indirect thus far) are not particularly persuasive. I would think that you UK people should have learned something from the lesson of Winston Churchill and Nazism. Fundamental Islam and Nazism (Marxist Communism too) have something in common which makes them dangerous to the rest of the world. They each advocate the forcible worldwide elimination (or enslavement, at least) of all who are not "one of them".

 

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (2:216)

 

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do." (8:38-39)

 

"He said, Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals." Ishaq:324

[Strong Bob]

Bush has a speech impediment, and for this he's seen as 'dumb as a chimp' or an ignorant fool.

 

"Today the World is safer." -Bush

 

This isn't a mispronounciation or badly toned sentence. This literally came out his mouth, despite the clear increase of terrorist activity since the war started.

 

I do not necessarily call him a dumb and ignorant fool... (You have to be smart in some aspect... Be it lies and deciet or genuine ability... if you can make two presidential terms.) But clearly there's got to be something wrong there, if he can go and say something that is most certainly not true.

[Ivory]

i believe peopel and fish can live together in peace. -didnt he say that too?

 

i am not knocking him for a speach impediment, and i dotn think any one here is.

 

I think what ever you say-who ever you want to "blame" or try and redeem from that "blame" - there are still innocent people dying. its time for it to stop. Our governments (often) speak for us, we have to make sure they do not jepodise our true voice.

 

...problem is, everyone thinks their voice is truest.

[FullAuto]

Fundamental Islam and Nazism (Marxist Communism too) have something in common which makes them dangerous to the rest of the world. They each advocate the forcible worldwide elimination (or enslavement, at least) of all who are not "one of them".

 

Is there anything you're not scared of? Us 'UK people' have suffered bombings before, and most likely we'll have a few more. My country was bombed, but I'm not going to tar all Muslims with the same brush, and the bombings have been condemned by pretty much every Muslim community, here and abroad.

They are not trying to convert us to Islam, they know that's impossible. Anyone who says this calls for a further increase on the War on Terror is just plain stupid, that won't solve anything. We go and invade Arab countries and 'bomb them back into the Stone Age' as someone once put it, killing thousands of women and children, and we call it 'collateral damage'.

Nazism is dead. Communism is dead (in fact, there's never been a communist country, after their revolutions they have all been socialist dictatorships). Fundamentalist Islam is easily taken care of with the right strategy. Which isn't, by the way, invading Iraq again.

If Islam is such a terrible religion, then how come only a small minority of Muslims are carrying out this campaign? Why isn't there widespread war, if Muslims are so evil? Why hasn't every Middle Eastern country started invading their non-Muslim neighbours?

From the Muslims that I know personally, they're just normal people, working, trying to raise their children. Nothing more, nothing less. You're making their religion out to be something quite different to what it actually is.

[Accounting Troll]

Bush has a speech impediment, and for this he's seen as 'dumb as a chimp' or an ignorant fool.

I've always felt that this particular critism of Bush is highly unfair. After all, he did win the Republican party nomination, and then go on to win the 2000 and 2004 elections. After the controversy surrounding the close result in 2000, the Democrats went to a lot more effort in 2004, with the result being that they lost by a bigger margin. If you argue that Bush is an idiot, where does that leave Al Gore and John Kerry?

 

I don't think it was a case of America rallying behind its existing leader because it was at war. Britain dumped Asquith in WWI and Chamberlein in WWII because we were dissatisfied with the way they were leading the war effort. We even voted out Winston Churchill just before the end of WWII.

 

Of course, I still think that America has made mistakes in the war on terror, largely because it has never been up against this kind of enemy before. The trick is to learn from these mistakes. I also think that Bush is somewhat dishonest, but then I feel the same thing about Tony Blair.

[FullAuto]

Hey look, I thought this that a sub-forum committed to genuine debate. What is all this teenage angst 'all the leaders of the world are so corrupt, maaaaaaaan'?

 

It disturbs me, this trend of recent times to become incredibly divisive along political lines. I've found people of differing political views to myself to become increasingly antagoinistic, and even close to violent towards me when I express my views.(Which puts a huge dent in their 'no war, peace man' arguement).

 

Politicians are corrupt. It's a fact of life, like gravity. No war would be nice, but it's not going to happen, so I believe we should at least carry out war in the right way. The wrong way merely creates more problems than it solves. The right application of bullets and bombs, exactingly used, with precision and skill, can solve problems. Sadly, this is not something the US military is any good at, being infamous for bombing the wrong place at the wrong time, and causing casualties not only among the innocent (you can stick 'collateral damage' where the sun don't shine, at least be honest when you murder the blameless) but also among their Allies. Very few organisations have their act together, and where they do, they are hampered by lack of intelligence. The US has taken a lot of flak over this (maybe too much), and perhaps others have taken too little, but it's a fact that large-scale military operations can be undermined by simple guerilla warfare.

So instead of getting smart, we invade Iraq. Again.

I didn't think history was supposed to repeat itself this quickly.

[DeepOne]

Is there anything you're not scared of?

Is there any opinion different from your own which you won't mischaracterize?

 

Communism is dead (in fact, there's never been a communist country, after their revolutions they have all been socialist dictatorships).

It sounds like you haven't read The Communist Manifesto either. Socialism is believed to be the path to communism. Before true communism (their utopia) can be achieved, they must control the entire world. At that point, communists are supposed to believe that their leaders will surrender their power in favor of the communist utopia (as if that would ever happen). The fact that they never achieved their "utopian" ideal doesn't mean that they weren't communist.

 

Fundamentalist Islam is easily taken care of with the right strategy.

Easily? What is your idea of the "right strategy?"

 

I haven't proposed any solution. But I know that there can be no good solution when people don't even understand the problem. My hope would be that if more people (especially Muslims) understood the true nature of Islamic scripture by simply reading its accounts of the life of Muhammad, the problem would take care of itself as people would cease to believe that he was a prophet. Without the massive Islamic infrastructure, any remaining hardcore fundamentalists would lose most of their effectiveness. But I don't expect that to happen. The nature of Islamic societies can be such that people are pretty much forced to "play along" whether they really believe or not (i.e. they're likely to be killed if they don't), and in some cases, they probably don't have access to information that their government doesn't want them to know. And anyway, many seem to be too busy (or lazy or something) to bother reading the scriptures they profess to believe; they would rather just believe what others tell them (this seems to apply to many "Christians" not reading The Bible as well).

 

Why hasn't every Middle Eastern country started invading their non-Muslim neighbours?

Some of them would do so if they thought they had any chance of success. That is how Islam was originally spread.

 

From the Muslims that I know personally, they're just normal people, working, trying to raise their children. Nothing more, nothing less. You're making their religion out to be something quite different to what it actually is.

I've known a number of Muslims myself, and they seemed like (relatively) normal people. But it would be prejudiced to believe that all Muslims are like that as it would be to believe that they are all terrorists. The "normal" Muslims seem to believe in a highly sanitized version of Muhammad which they've been taught (which is better as they don't endorse the terrorist agenda this way). But they still consider Islamic scripture to be the literal (or inspired) word of Allah. And that perpetuates the dogma of violent world conquest which those scriptures contain - whether they realize it or not.

[sir-roosio]

Politicians are corrupt. It's a fact of life

 

Everything you ever wanted to know about corrupt politicians but were afraid to ask (for fear of being 'disapeared') Click Here

 

Sorry to join so late in the day, but. . .

 

We've had worse from the IRA as callous as that may sound.

 

At least the IRA usually phoned through a warning first. Which then allowed them to phone through warnings when there wasn't even a bomb, and the IRA's aim was something tangible, sokmething you could enter into talks over. What do these guys want 'Kill the Infidels!!!' You can't throw a stone in central London without hitting someone of the Islamic faith (and presumably being then accused of a hate crime) it makes no sense. If they want to target non-followers then set a bomb at the next meeting of the BBC executive board!

 

Say what you like, but I prefer to settle on the presumption that those responsible are evil cowardly bastards who are going straight to hell despite what they believe.

[sir-roosio]

So, within 5 days the police had gained a lead, identified the bombers and raided there houses, finding a 'large quantity' of bombs and bomb making material at one.

 

What is scary is that one of the bombers was a very similar age to me. We would have grown up watching the same TV shows, listening to the same radio station, and recieving a similar national curriculum education. Yet somehow this British born and raised person grew to hate his country so much that he was willing to die to take a few of it's other citizens with him.

 

The main question facing my country now is surely not 'how do we stop this happening again?' but instead 'how did this happen in the first place?'

[Accounting Troll]

The police have confirmed that the London suicide bombers were all British citizens.

 

Britain has a democratic process for getting rid of a government you don't like. If you don't like the other political parties, you are also free to stand as an independent candidate or set up your own party. It is also possible to take part in peaceful protests over an issue that you are worked up about. There is simply no need to commit an act of violence because you don't like the way the country is being run. Therefore the bombers had obviously been brainwashed.

 

The authorities must now focus on capturing and executing the scumbags who go around brainwashing impressionable men into thinking that they can make the world a better place by becoming suicide bombers.

[sir-roosio]

The authorities must now focus on capturing and executing the scumbags who go around brainwashing impressionable men into thinking that they can make the world a better place by becoming suicide bombers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good job they never revoked the death penalty for treason!

 

Seriously, you think the government would actually be able to execute someone? I mean in the open, not send round a few of the Hereford International Constabulary to do it on the sly, but actually process, prosecute, and execute someone. It would not be accepted here in the UK anymore.

[Accounting Troll]

More likely it would be commuted to life imprisonment. I read in the Daily Mail that the British government is even witholding evidence on Saddam Hussein that was compiled by our military intelligence. The reasoning is that if the evidence is submitted, he will be executed and the death penalty is in violation of the human rights treaties the UK has signed up for. Ironic, considering the effort we went to to depose him in the first place and the human rights his people were deprived of during his rule

 

I do favour reinstating the death penalty for people convicted of terrorism, but realistically the only way I can see it happening is a covert assassination. Perhaps Ross Kemp isn't doing anything this summer...

[sir-roosio]

We could sentence them to a lifetime of watching Jo Brand tell her one joke...

 

JB: "I'm Fat"

 

Terrorist: "hahaha, this isn't so bad"

 

JB: "I Eat Cake"

 

Terrorist: "haha"

 

JB: "and Ice Cream"

 

Terrorist: "hmmm. . gettin a bit old now"

 

JB: "I eat lots of cake"

 

Terrorist: "hmmmm, not funny Any mor, move on"

 

JB: "And Lots of Ice Cream"

 

Terrorist: "ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

[Accounting Troll]

There's a whole section in the Geneva Convention outlawing the use of Jo Brand...

[Strong Bob]

Then it won't be long before Bush will employ that tactic.

[sir-roosio]

There's a whole section in the Geneva Convention outlawing the use of Jo Brand...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shame they can't outlaw Jo Brand!

 

A feminist aquaintance at Uni told me I didn't find Jo Brand funny as I was obviously intimidated by strong, self confident Women. I replied I didn't find Jo Brand funny a she has one Joke, which is basically 'look at me I'm fat'. I was then asked if I was scared of Jo Brand as she was happy to be outside of the stereotypical male ideal of a woman, and I found this a threat tec. etc.. After 1/4 of an hour of this I finally snapped and yelled 'I didn't say I was scared of Jo Brand, all I said was I DO NOT FIND HER ONE JOKE FUNNY!'

 

To which I got a raised eyebrow and a 'hmm, thought so'.

 

God that girl was a freak!