"Innocence of Muslims"
Quote: kulinThe amount of hatred in this forum makes it tough to enjoy my life. I take my leave of this small minded bigotry.
Next time just hit the block button and leave your comment out in the hallway !
Quote: RonCDrawing equivalents from the past to justify the present is absurd. "I murdered the ambassador because the Christians had the inquisition"...no, sorry, both were wrong. Don't spew about how I have over-simplified the issue, you get the point. Everything that happened in the past is not an acceptable excuse for what these Muslim terrorists are doing in the name of their god today.
The point is that you insist on condemning a quarter of the world based on the actions of these extremists, and yet refuse to acknowledge the Christians of the past. Yes, Christians don't act like that anymore. Why? Not Jesus, he's been dead a long time. It's because Christians just happen to be in a political situation right now where they don't have much reason to act like this. Can you especially not see the hypocrisy of going after the seventh century and then turning around and screaming "but that was then!" Moreover, the longer you preach against all Islam, the more who die, and they are dying, in small numbers for now, but dying, the less true you'll find "but that was then!" to be.
Quote: 24BingoThe point is that you insist on condemning a quarter of the world based on the actions of these extremists, and yet refuse to acknowledge the Christians of the past. Yes, Christians don't act like that anymore. Why? Not Jesus, he's been dead a long time. It's because Christians just happen to be in a political situation right now where they don't have much reason to act like this. Can you especially not see the hypocrisy of going after the seventh century and then turning around and screaming "but that was then!" Moreover, the longer you preach against all Islam, the more who die, and they are dying, in small numbers for now, but dying, the less true you'll find "but that was then!" to be.
I acknowledge that Christians did bad things in the past. I've done it several times. I've condemned it, said it was wrong, etc.
Christians did it then, Muslims do it now makes neither one of them right. I am not "bigoted" or full of "hatred" for feeling that way. That is just silly.
The point is that radical Muslim terrorists, and people who silently or loudly support them, are killing people and the other Muslims are not often very loud in their condemnation of the wrongdoing folks.
It isn't anyone's intention that an idiot kill a Muslim simply because they are Muslim when they say things that are not kind to the Muslims, it is just an opinion. It doesn't justify the killing of an innocent. Anyone who kills an innocent deserves the most severe penalty available under law. By the same token, I don't have to remain silent because there are idiots out there who will do idiotic things. They did them before I said anything and they would do them if I were silent.
Yes, in fact I could, but I came here to learn about blackjack/card counting and should never have entered this thread. It was my mistake. I will keep these discussions to the places where they belong.
Peace to all.
John
Quote: RonCI think the information presented was great--very well written.
The problem I have is that when you lay out the case for previous atrocities when dealing with a current issue, it is often used to build an excuse for why it really isn't that bad. Maybe not your intention or your thought, but that is what ends up happening.
Thank you and a fair point, but I was responding to a person who had written something. It was not a direct, or in-direct excuse, defense, etc., for whatever happens in our world today. It was far more of a philosophical response to the previous post. That's all.
I realize these things stir up emotions in people, and as I just said in my previous post, I should never have jumped in. My mistake. Time and place and all that, you know?
John
Mitt is yapping like a little Pomeranian; meanwhile the Big Dog will attack ...
Quote: ZaylaIt is said, and proven to be true, that civilization existed for over 25,000 years in peace and harmony before any religion came along and has since lived for 3,500 years in warfare, violence and greed.
That is a huge claim that religion is the source of warfare, violence and greed.
For starters, looking at the timeline, the estimated population of the species was probably less than 1 million 12,000 years ago.
Any conceivable definition of civilization usually only starts when the population was several million (nominally 6,000 years ago when 20 million was reached), and mankind began to show evidence of writing, kingdom building, architecture, and other things commonly associated with civilization. Normally blades, beads, burials, bone toolmaking, and beauty products are thought of as modern behavior, but they alone are not considered civilization.
Sweeping claims of peace and harmony is certainly not possible with so little evidence. Murder may have been very common, but there wasn't large enough groups to mount what we think of as warfare.
Your estimate of 3,500 years ago seems to be the "Battle of Megiddo". This battle was the first one documented in extreme detail, and also lends it's name to the "final battle" or Armageddon (Hills of Megiddo).
But there was warfare before the Battle of Megiddo. And you can hardly argue that the Battle was entirely about religion, although it is documented in the bible.
Quote: Zayla"I don't. I too have given this matter a great deal of study and would challenge Zayla to answer the following queries".
Yes, in fact I could
You don't need to back down. I question the validity of a statement, but it was clearly not a rant. Statements that are "not rants" are more than welcome. I honestly have never heard anyone claim that mankind lived in peace and harmony before religion was invented.
Quote: ZaylaW
It is said, and proven to be true, that civilization existed for over 25,000 years in peace and harmony before any religion
Proven to be true by whom? Take Native Americans, for
instance. They were here for 10,000 years before they
were introduced to any kind of organized religion. And
the different tribes had wars for thousands of years and
religion had nothing to do with it. People generally war over
territory, over land. Religion has very little to do with it.
Look at WWII. Japan attcked us at Pearl Harbor over land
in the Pacific. Hitler invaded Poland and other countries
to increase his power. Religion didn't enter into it.
Quote: 24BingoAlso, I question the contention that religion is only 3500 years old.
There's hard evidence that Hinduism existed in 7000 BC.
Thats 9000 years ago. A totally fascinating religion.
Quote:'Homer the Heretic' (Season 4-Episode 3).
(Homer buys a crate of Duff beer and a packet of cigars at the Kwik-E-Mart)
Homer: Apu! I see you're not in church!
Apu: Oh, but I am! I have a shrine to Ganesha, the god of worldly wisdom, located in the employee lounge!
Homer: (approaching the shrine) Hey, Ganesha, want a peanut?
Apu: Please do not offer my god a peanut.
Homer: No offense Apu, but when they were handing out religions, you must have been out taking a whiz.
Apu: (angrily) Mr. Simpson, please pay for your purchases and get out and (cheerfully) come again!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100904164220AA9VZI9
Quote: ZaylaQuote: MonkeyMonkeyI don't. I too have given this matter a great deal of study and would challenge Zayla to answer the following queries
Yes, in fact I could,
Given the number of people that jumped on your bandwagon with kudos I think you owe THEM at least a stab at proving some of your wildly unlikely statements, or the truth, which would appear to be that you simply made up numbers and have a shaky grasp at best on the history of religion. Me, I don't really care, I already know this subject and doubt there's anything you're going to be able to dig up, at least from a credible source, to support your statements, but saying "Yes, in fact I could" when no, in fact you can't is disingenuous.
Quote: Zayla
but I came here to learn about blackjack/card counting and should never have entered this thread. It was my mistake.
Fair enough, I've said my piece, I won't hound you about it.
Quote: ZaylaI will keep these discussions to the places where they belong.
Well, this is Off-topic->Religion, I can't think of a better place for them.
Quote: ZaylaIt is said, and proven to be true, that civilization existed for over 25,000 years in peace and harmony before any religion came along and has since lived for 3,500 years in warfare, violence and greed.
Your post says "no wars 25,000 years ago, and this is because there was no religion". I don't see that connection. While I'll fully agree many crimes and attrocities have been and are carried out "in the name of God" today, I think if you eliminated God, nothing would change.
Back 25,000 years ago, the human population was a million-ish. That's the population of a big city, say Philly or San Jose, spread across the entire globe. If we adjust to scale, then our war in Afghanistan today scaled to back then would be like sending 42 dudes the next tribe over to rough someone up. No wonder there were no "wars", there weren't enough people to fight. Not to mention, in the hunter-gatherer culture, fighting is not easily afforded.
No, people fight simply because they can. We see this in all of creation. If two differing factions come to odds, there's a fight. In the animal kingdom, it's usually habitats or resources, things that are needed. In the human world, it's no different. Sure, we have this weird "religion" thing that doesn't fit the known idea of survival, but is it not a battle for "territory", does it not fill a "need" for some?
With our rate of technological advancement, there may be a time in the relatively near future where all current religions could be scientifically proven true/false. Should that happen, would the fighting stop? If there were no longer a question as to which to follow, would there be world peace?
Hell no. With the people and resources to fight, there will be fighting, forever and always until there's not enough people, or not enough resources. If some great mind came and solved every serious world conflict as they arose, we'd eventually have the war of Mayo vs Miracle Whip, just to fight about something. It has to be. We're all just Sneetches, yelling about who's better or worse when our differences are completely insignificant. And we'll continue to pay out the ass just to prove our differences, and there'll always be a Sylvester McMonkey McBean to profit from our idiocy.
“They never will learn. No. You can’t Teach a Sneetch!”
Edit: Because you miss the Prophet Seuss
Sheriff, you know what will happen if it's proven religions are wrong ? All scientists will be killed as Anti-Christs, computers will be destroyed, and true believers will prepare for the Ascension !
Quote: FaceWith our rate of technological advancement, there may be a time in the relatively near future where all current religions could be scientifically proven true/false. Should that happen, would the fighting stop? If there were no longer a question as to which to follow, would there be world peace?
That's pretty much already happened. People just keep learning more and more intricate mental gymnastics.
Quote: buzzpaffSheriff, you know what will happen if it's proven religions are wrong ? All scientists will be killed as Anti-Christs, computers will be destroyed, and true believers will prepare for the Ascension !
So, in other words... a war?
Yup.
We must. Until we can't tell whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one or what one was who. And we'll look around and realize that every last cent of our money's been spent and the Fix-It-Up Chappie has packed up and went.
Then we'll have learned our lesson. And we'll all decide that Sneetches are Sneetches and no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches. We'll forget about stars and whether we have one, or not, upon thars.
This will happen.
The only question is if it'll be too late.
Quote: DigitalTimWhen we die, we cease to exist. Pretty simple and peaceful.
Evidence Please!
We investigate the filmmaker for possible parole violations...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EGYPT_FILMMAKER_PROBATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-15-06-44-20
Quote: RonCSomeone makes a film that upsets Muslims. Muslims protest and kill people because of the movie (supposedly)...
We investigate the filmmaker for possible parole violations...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EGYPT_FILMMAKER_PROBATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-15-06-44-20
Being a high profile news item is not to someone's benefit if they have outstanding issues with law enforcement.
Anyone with access could have run a check on him from anywhere.
Quote: rxwineBeing a high profile news item is not to someone's benefit if they have outstanding issues with law enforcement.
Anyone with access could have run a check on him from anywhere.
He is on probation and they should check for probation violations...but they can do it more quietly than this. This is just an attempt to appease people that won't be appeased and say "we did something"...
We don't get it...there are super great fantastic Muslims.
There are Muslims who want all of us dead. Those Muslims will never, ever accept anything we do. We can give them millions of dollars, fight their wars, etc. and they won't change. We can't support governments that support them.
Come to think of it, the Muslims in Afghanistan know about that as well...
Get that gooey black tar heroin out of the tall flowers first.
Quote: RonCThere are Muslims who want all of us dead. Those Muslims will never, ever accept anything we do. We can give them millions of dollars, fight their wars, etc. and they won't change. We can't support governments that support them.
Your statement here reflects the mindset that created this problem in the first place. The fact is that American foreign policy has become one where everyone receives either money or bombs. Pakistan gets both. The domestic version of this philosphy is the nanny state. All things must be either subsidized or banned (or at least taxed heavily, like cigarettes). We need to just leave these areas alone militarily. Allow free trade with these areas and we can send goods across the borders instead of sending troops across the borders.
Quote: bigfoot66Your statement here reflects the mindset that created this problem in the first place. The fact is that American foreign policy has become one where everyone receives either money or bombs. Pakistan gets both. The domestic version of this philosphy is the nanny state. All things must be either subsidized or banned (or at least taxed heavily, like cigarettes). We need to just leave these areas alone militarily. Allow free trade with these areas and we can send goods across the borders instead of sending troops across the borders.
And I advocate stopping the support of those governments that will never be allies. Trade is fine; if they can pay for stuff and they don't attack our embassy or the workers there help delivering the goods, fine. The minute they attack our citizens in country, no trade. None. No American presence. Nothing. Leave them to their own devices. There are plenty of other people who we may be able to help.
There will always be the "close cases"--I'm not against giving them a chance. If they hose us, let them hose themselves.
Quote: RonCThe minute they attack our citizens in country, no trade. None. No American presence. Nothing. Leave them to their own devices. There are plenty of other people who we may be able to help. There will always be the "close cases"--I'm not against giving them a chance. If they hose us, let them hose themselves.
So Ron let me see if I understand you correctly. Assume I am a business owner. I am manufacturing widgets in Los Angeles and exporting them to distributors in France. Now assume that a radical French animal rights group coordinates an attack on an animal research lab in South Carolina. Now you believe that you have the right to have heavily armed naval ships shut down my export vessels as well as stopping the incoming ships that are carrying all that delicious French wine and cheese to us. Do I understand you correctly?
1) What gives you the right to put a gun in my ribs to stop my ships from delivering their cargo?
2) What gives you the right to use that same gun to stop French wine makers from delivering their cargo to thirsty American drinkers?
3) Is it appropriate to punish large, law abiding segments of both the American and French societies because a couple of radicals attacked an American business?
4) Is trade a basic human right or a privilege that can be granted and rescinded?
Quote: bigfoot66So Ron let me see if I understand you correctly. Assume I am a business owner. I am manufacturing widgets in Los Angeles and exporting them to distributors in France. Now assume that a radical French animal rights group coordinates an attack on an animal research lab in South Carolina. Now you believe that you have the right to have heavily armed naval ships shut down my export vessels as well as stopping the incoming ships that are carrying all that delicious French wine and cheese to us. Do I understand you correctly?
1) What gives you the right to put a gun in my ribs to stop my ships from delivering their cargo?
2) What gives you the right to use that same gun to stop French wine makers from delivering their cargo to thirsty American drinkers?
3) Is it appropriate to punish large, law abiding segments of both the American and French societies because a couple of radicals attacked an American business?
4) Is trade a basic human right or a privilege that can be granted and rescinded?
If they don't do everything in their power to stop the attacks--in other words, if they are in support of the attackers--there should be no official support from the United States. If idiots do something and the host country is trying to protect out people, it isn't the same thing. I wouldn't expect France to ACCEPT an attack by radicals on our people and I wouldn't expect them to be in tacit SUPPORT of it either.
I not only have a right to protect my people--I have a duty to do so. Once the area is cleared of the "official presence" and our citizens are given they opportunity to leave, let both our people who wish to remain stay (without our protection) and let trade continue but everyone is on their own.
You don't have a "basic human right" to trade under the protection of the government. So you are on your own once our diplomats are not safe in country.
Quote: buzzpaffHow about the idiots who go hiking on the Iran border ? Or stay in countries after all Americans have been told by our Embassy to leave ?
You tell them not to go or to leave right away and they are on their own. Sorry.
Look at the Iraqi sanctions of the Clinton era. The UN estimated in 1995 that 567,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of the trade sanctions. Leslie Stahl asked Albright about this on 60 minutes, and Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." Notice that she did not say "That's a ridiculous estimate" or "We don't agree with the UN's estimate here". This made a lot of news in the Arab world.
I am not trying to defend 9/11, the folks who killed Mr. Stevens, or the behaviour of those animals in Egypt who violated Lara Logan of 60 Minutes. But let's be objective for a minute. An Iraqi citizen who has watched his children die thanks to American policies and knows that the government DEFENDS that as an acceptable price to pay might see 9/11 and the death of 3-4 thousand Americans a little differently than you and I do. Of course we should all be morally outraged by every unnatural death. But stopping people from trading is part of what lead us to our current set of problems. I encourage you to rethink your position on trade sanctions.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
I'm not saying I agree with them in any way. If it were up to me, believing in invisible omnipotent friends would not be considered any less of a mental disease just because it's widespread and infectious.
But in their shoes? Hell be damned if Americans wouldn't be doing the same. And worse. Or more precisely the same, but more effectively.
On second thought, I'm not sure if that hasn't been the case already... just, like said above, in more effective ways.
Joke:
Q: Why does Mr. Mushroom get invited to every party?
A: Because every one knows he's a fungi!
Dude! They were Iraqi babies! Practically Amalek in nature and we know what God thinks of the Amaleks:Quote: bigfoot66Bump. I still want someone to defend Albright here.
Eggs-Terrrm-Min-Nate!! Eggs-Terrrm-Min-Nate!!Quote: Word of God1 Samuel 15
15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
or whatever...
Quote: bigfoot66Bump. I still want someone to defend Albright here.
!
NotsoBright? Did you see Hillary yesterday, she
looks like an upside down bell in a pantsuit.
That woman has some kind of thighs on her.
And Michelle is always picking on the Obese..
Well so did Colin Powell.
Just not sexy at all
Speak for yourself, I though Colin Powell was a hottie!Quote: WongBoHillary has thick thighs?
Well so did Colin Powell.
Just not sexy at all
Quote: s2dbakerDude! They were Iraqi babies! Practically Amalek in nature and we know what God thinks of the Amaleks:
Quote: Word of God1 Samuel 15
15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Forget Amalek. Psalm 137:8-9.
"Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and bash them against a rock."
(Saddam ~= destroyer - many fundies will tell you that's who the "Abbadon" in Revelation is.)
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/09/libyan-president-no-doubt-consulate-attack-preplanned-135664.html
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/
"Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
The media is focusing on Mitt Romney's "gaffe"...I'm thinking that they should at least be pushing President Obama to take control of his own foreign policy.
How many months was it going to take for them to figure out that an embassy in a war-torn nation that hates the USA would have been a good embassy to defend?
Quote: rdw4potus
How many months was it going to take for them to figure out that an embassy in a war-torn nation that hates the USA would have been a good embassy to defend?
Thats what everybody is asking Obama and Hillary. Was
Obama really that naive that he thought they loved him
over there and would keep quiet forever? Some, if not
most of this was planned months ago. My ass its about
some movie they didn't like.
Quote: EvenBobSome, if not
most of this was planned months ago. My ass its about
some movie they didn't like.
You seem to be failing to grasp that the handful of terrorists used the much larger rioting crowd to carry out their plot. Were it not for the rioting crowd, the attack could not have been carried out. And, given the dozens of other rioting crowds of non-terrorists, it's fairly safe to say that at least some people in the Muslim world are pretty freaking pissed about the movie.
Quote: rdw4potusYou seem to be failing to grasp that the handful of terrorists used the much larger rioting crowd to carry out their plot.
It was part of their plot, it was all planned. Too
many coincidences, too many warnings. Obama
can't cling to the flimsy movie excuse much longer.
Quote: EvenBobObama
can't cling to the flimsy movie excuse much longer.
yeah, if Obama reduced security there against recommendations, or if that particular security threat should have stood out for some reason among the many they probably get every day. That might be flimsy.
Haven't seen anything like those yet. So, don't know what's flimsy, except your accusation so far.
Quote: rxwine
Haven't seen anything like those yet. So, don't know what's flimsy, except your accusation so far.
My accusation? Good lord, reports are pouring in from
all sides of this that it was planned months ago. Do
you even watch the news or read?
