Thread: Israel-Lebanon conflict

OMG, maybe this is true?

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Yeah, you don't choose the religion you're born into and even if you disagree with a religion, there's no need to be so deeply offensive. If someone attacks your beliefs in such an outrageously offensive manner as has been displayed in this thread, you're more likely to believe it more rather than change your mind. This type of thing only polarizes opinion further and creates bad feeling.

What are you talking about? Anyone can believe whatever they want. You believe that just because someone is born somewhere automatically makes them brainwashed cyborgs to religion?

One of my teachers from Afghanistan told us about how he doesnt believe in Islam, and after going through school and being forced to read the koran he saw how it couldn't make sense and chose to be an athiest. This was in the 70's. When the USSR came into afghanistan in the 80's he moved to Rostov on don, and after the collapse of the USSR he moved to America.

Alot of people are weak(er) than others, thats why they turn to things like, Religion, or Emo to guide thier lives. Others think for themselves and make their own decisions

Well, I'd contend that if you look around at the world today you'll see there are rather a large number of brainwashed cyborgs to religion. Most people will follow the faith of their family and community, it's the default behaviour of humans. I don't like it myself and wish people could learn to think for themselves and not blindly follow the preachings of religious leaders or ancient religious texts. But for that to happen, people have to have access to other viewpoints, to books and information sources that challenge them to think critically about the beliefs they absorbed from their parents. I was fortunate enough to be born in a developed country with a very good educational system and to parents who didn't spend a huge amount of time trying to indoctrinate me to their beliefs (They rather naively thought if they were good Christians I would automatically follow their faith and they weren't obsessed with religion anyway). There were other factors as well which meant I had a lot of time to think about these things and developed an interest in them due to the particular environment I grew up in. Not everyone is as fortunate (although perhaps if you're religious you mightn't feel fortunate is the right word). So, it's rather simplistic to just say anyone can believe what they want. Often, it's not that easy. Some families can really do a good job of locking a kid's brain into a particular religious viewpoint in the early years of life. But everyone is different, there are some people who would think for themselves no matter what they were programmed to think. But I believe they are exceptional and are not representative of the vast majority of people.

And lastly, I'm not saying that all religious people are unthinking automatons. I might feel that a lot of their ideas don't add up or are very inconsistent but it doesn't mean I think they are wrong about everything. I have religious friends who can think very carefully about things and come to their own conclusions, and often see things much clearer than me about particular issues, but I still feel when it comes to the big questions of life they are uncomfortable about challenging their beliefs and are often content to believe unusual things on the basis of faith and faith alone.

Originally Posted by prospector

and are often content to believe unusual things on the basis of faith and faith alone.

That's because most religions are concerned mainly about things like the afterlife and God. You really can't investigate on your own about those things, like you can about more human sciences, for obvious reasons, i.e. unless you've died and come back to life, etc. So faith is really the only option about such topics.

You really can't investigate on your own about them to find out for yourself if they're true or not, even if you have the time and don't have to work for a living like most people around the world, so people rely on what religious figures have to say about those things, like the founders of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc, who claim to have in some way had an experience of the afterlife or claim to have spoken to God, like Jesus, Moses, etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Wars happen because of three and three things only: power, money and territory.

So, you are telling me that The 80 or so wars that Mohammed started (26 of wuich he personally participated) were over power, money or territory?

That would make Mohammed a terrorist and all Muslims guilty by association wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Kirill2142

Originally Posted by DDL

My Israeli friend is having to take cover for his life, and is seeing Israeli soldiers being killed every day.

They're soldiers! They have to take part in the battle, and sometimes they are killed. It's common at war, isn't it?

Let me re-write that - soldiers AND civilians. My friend, who is still only a boy, is fearing for his life.
If someone attacked your country, surely you would attack back, would you not? Self-defense, not terrorism.

Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman

D'u know Nostradamus or someone like this? (I don't know the original name of him in English). He predicted that the Third World War would come from the the Middle East (the Near East). And every big war comes in the beginning of the century. Strange coincidence, ah? Maybe it would be better to destroy either Lebanon or Israel to prevent the war?
Just think - to kill 1 million of people and save 10 millions or save 1 million and kill 10 millions of people (so that one million will die at war later). And it is predicted that the Armageddon would come just after the war! You can disagree with me, you can agree. Everyone who read this will think - omg, maybe this is true?

Uh, maybe not. The second world war is what I would call a big war, and it began 1939. Besides, Nostradamus said loads of things. Most of them weren

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Yazeed

But, I'm just curious, where did you find this info? I'd be interested to know.

Yes, he had most or all of his detractors killed in similar fashion. This lady was just a poet that he didn't like. The story is taken from Hadith.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41023
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index. ... le&sid=142
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

[quote:21poqkso]
Sahih Bukhari
• "Narrated 'Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years old). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, 'Best wishes and God's blessing and a good luck.' Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage)." [7]
• "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." [8]
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 "Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)."
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236. "Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed (sic – consummated) that marriage when she was nine years old."
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained

[/quote:21poqkso]

This is another false attribution to Mohammed. Just like a number of people come up with racist writings and attributed the Talmud to justify anti-Semitism, people distort hadiths because it further advances their cause against Muslims. I see your sources are quite unbiased and very impartial in judgement.

To quote from submission.org

The source of the above information can only be the Hadiths books which are nothing but lies attributed to prophet Muhammad. It has no support in Quran. It does not make practical sense. Any person at the age of six is still a child who is incapable of taking crucial decisions which are essential for marriage under Quranic guidance, like taking solemn pledge, ascertaining mutual attraction, agreeing to the dowry (including adjustment thereto), ascertaining whether the opposite person is an idol worshipper or not and many other issues. Further, marriage involves taking serious responsibilities on the part of both the spouses concerning the upbringing of the family, which a child of the age of 6 or 8 or whatever is incapable of taking.

Originally Posted by Alware

Originally Posted by Yazeed

'How' what is written in the Koran?

The life of Muhammed.

http://www.submission.org/muhammed/

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Ramil

Wars happen because of three and three things only: power, money and territory.

So, you are telling me that The 80 or so wars that Mohammed started (26 of wuich he personally participated) were over power, money or territory?

More or less so.

Originally Posted by DDTl

That would make Mohammed a terrorist and all Muslims guilty by association wouldn't it?

Mohammed was a prophet of God or so muslims think. I wouldn't question that. But he was probably the only "saint" person in Asia of that time. Wars are not the deed of one man. There were also his followers who DID make war upon the heathens mostly for gold, power and territory. International policies existed even those days. And giving all due regard to Muhammed - he was just a man and he was compelled to follow rules dictated by the reality.

The influence of Muhammed could just as well have been used by other forces to their own interest.

And don't forget the fact that apart from being a prophet, Mohammed was also a major politician of that time and some of his steps were rather political than spiritual. (Jesus had a political experience too, by the way).

Terrorism is efforts of a person or a group of persons directed to force local population into obedience through fear. (that's a more or less strict definition of the word).

In the name of Jesus Christ there were committed much more atrocities than muslims happen to do up to date. Islam is a young religion that tries to fit into the modern world. Give it a chance. It's a matter of 1, at most 2 more generations. Christianity has been more or less civilised by the middle of the XIX century, i.e. 1800 years since Jesus had been born. Muslims are making much greater progress.

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Ramil

Wars happen because of three and three things only: power, money and territory.

So, you are telling me that The 80 or so wars that Mohammed started (26 of wuich he personally participated) were over power, money or territory?

That would make Mohammed a terrorist and all Muslims guilty by association wouldn't it?

George Bush is a terrorist. Therefore all Americans are terrorists by association.

Correction... And even more so correct... Predident Bush is an idiot. He graduated from harvard with the "gentleman's C". Thus my conclusion, making all Americans idiots.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Terrorism is efforts of a person or a group of persons directed to force local population into obedience through fear. (that's a more or less strict definition of the word).

Perhaps you're being too technical with the word "terrorism." Not everything that inspires terror or fear is terrorism in the political sense. Every war inspires fear as war is an ugly and frightening venture. But soldiers targeting other soldiers is just part of war and not terrorism.

Terrorism means more the purposeful targeting of civilians and civilian structures which have no military use imo.

Originally Posted by Yazeed

This is another false attribution to Mohammed. Just like a number of people come up with racist writings and attributed the Talmud to justify anti-Semitism, people distort hadiths because it further advances their cause against Muslims. I see your sources are quite unbiased and very impartial in judgement.

It's funny how muslims say that anything bad that mohammed did is just a distortion, when it comes right out of their own writings

Talmund is not Tora and followed by only a few Jews. Whereas Hadith is respected and quoted alongside Koran in Islam in general. The proof of this comes in the form of Sharia Law practiced by many Muslin countries, including the New Afghanistan government, sadly!

Muslims speak out of both sides of their heads when it comes from Hadith. напремер: When Hadith says that MOhammed was pleased that the poet and her children were slaughtered, a cleric might say that "Well, that is only Hadith". But the next day the cleric will use Hadith to prove a point about mofo Mohammed!

Claiming that

This is another false attribution to Mohammed

is just pathetic and only fools those who have no knowlege of mohammed not to mention the fact that this is the typical response from a muslim. History proves otherwise and there really is no explanation for mohammeds despicable behaviour other than, well, that he was a moron.
Like most religious people, be they Christian or Muslim, you need to do more research on your cult.......oops sorry, religion.

Originally Posted by basurero

Originally Posted by DDT

George Bush is a terrorist. Therefore all Americans are terrorists by association.

The anaolgy doesn't quite work. You see firstly GW doesn't target civilians in order to cause terror. However, if he was a terrorist, only the republican party would also be terrorists by association.
Just in the same way the nazi party and neo nazis are guilty of racism anti semitism and share the blame with Hitler for atrocity.

Therefore in the same way muslims share the blame of mohammed's atrocites because they damn near worship him as if he was god.

So if all muslims are guilty of terrorism, whether they believe in the murder of innocent civilians or not, then surely all Americans must be guilty of terrorism (war crimes: whatever you want to call it), whether they support Bush or not.

Originally Posted by mashamania

Originally Posted by Ramil

Terrorism is efforts of a person or a group of persons directed to force local population into obedience through fear. (that's a more or less strict definition of the word).

Perhaps you're being too technical with the word "terrorism." Not everything that inspires terror or fear is terrorism in the political sense. Every war inspires fear as war is an ugly and frightening venture. But soldiers targeting other soldiers is just part of war and not terrorism.

Terrorism means more the purposeful targeting of civilians and civilian structures which have no military use imo.

People tend to mistake other forms of violence with terrorism. Greedy for sensations journalists whose common IQ level is being not more than 20 gladly stick a "terrorism" label on every possible situation (the word is being popular after all).
Terrorism is when you have some goals and you choose to frighten people to achieve these goals. When soldiers aim at other soldiers - that is an act of war. When soldiers aim at civilians purposedly - that is a terrorism.

Originally Posted by DDT

Therefore in the same way muslims share the blame of mohammed's atrocites because they damn near worship him as if he was god.

There is no other god but God and the Mohammed is the prophet of God.

You would have been beaten with stones in some Arabian country for speaking heresies about worshiping Mohammed as a God.

And I would repeat - Christians have committed much more atrocities in the name of Jesus Crhist than muslims did. Why don't you mention that? Why don't you call all christians terrorists?
Christian inquisitors burned their own people not to mention "heathens" whose deaths score is uncountable. Christians committed genocides of peoples in Southern America during the spanish dominion over the region - whole nations were wiped out, christians killed thousands of people in crusades and generally two world wars were started by the christians.
It was christians who used nuclear weapons on civilians. Why don't anybody say that Christianity is a criminal religion then?
I am an orthodox crhistian myself, but I wouldn't deny the historical facts and use double standards in relation to the Islam.

Originally Posted by DDT

Therefore in the same way muslims share the blame of mohammed's atrocites because they damn near worship him as if he was god.

This is a very disturbing mindset to see someone adopt and is really the first step on the road to dehumanising an entire people and justifying violence against them. It reminds me of the way many Christians believed that all Jews carried a communal guilt for the death of Christ. This widespread belief in Europe acted as the justification for terrible acts of violence against Jews throughout the ages. I can see you've learned nothing from history.

http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=8366322

an interesting article for those who would like to read in Russian a bit

Originally Posted by basurero

So if all muslims are guilty of terrorism, whether they believe in the murder of innocent civilians or not, then surely all Americans must be guilty of terrorism (war crimes: whatever you want to call it), whether they support Bush or not.

I just told you why! Because all Americans did not vote for him or in other words, follow his religion of republicanism. Muslims have to hold Mohammed (the leader of their party) blameless for the atrocities he committed. That is like nazis holding Hitler blameless.
How does one feel when they meet a guy wearing a swaztika? They feel insulted and repulsed because they know that this guy thinks that what Hitler did was good.
It is the same when muslim tries to tell me that Islam is the "true" way.

Originally Posted by Ramil

And I would repeat - Christians have committed much more atrocities in the name of Jesus Crhist than muslims did. Why don't you mention that? Why don't you call all christians terrorists? [/quote

Firstly because what christians did is another subject. The subject of my post was Mohammed. Christians are not the subject of why Mohammed was a criminal and not a prophet.

Secondly, I am not talking about the atrocities of Muslims here, only the atrocities of MOhammed himself. If you want to equate that to Christians I don't see how because Jesus never participated in War, rape, torture and looting. Nor condoned them.

There is no comparison between Jesus and Mohammed. What Christians or Muslims do on their own is irrelevant. And the fact is Christians did more good for the world than Islam did for the world anyway! But I can see that it is easy for some people to turn this into a Christian Witch hunt because of what Roman Catholics did who weren't exactly Christians anyway. But that would be a little over your head and another subject.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It was christians who used nuclear weapons on civilians.

The non-orthodox and non-catholic Christians.