# Forum General General Discussion  London terror attack, yo. :O

## TriggerHappyJack

So it doesn't look like anyone's posted this yet, so I will. I have insomnia, so I saw the whole thing.  ::  At like 9:00 AM in London six bombs (confirmed) went off in the Underground. At first they were all, "OH IT'S AN ELECTRIC OVERLOAD LALALA." but then them bitches start talkin' all up about some double deckers gettin' the tops blown off and I was like, "Uh huh! Gurl you know dat be some of that terrah shit." and then in like an hour (I was still up, six AM here...) they're all it's a confirmed organized terror report lalala... and then they were talking about how it's probably 'cause the G 8 thinger. And then Tony Blaire (SP) popped up on meh TV and was all talking about how it was barbaric 'cause they were trying to stop debt relief and global warming stuff...he said he was gonna fly back to London and then return later, and that the G8 summit was 'onna continue. Yay for G8.  ::  Nay for Terrah.  ::  
Go London. -Does the uh...don't-let-the-playa-hatas-bring-ya-down-London dance.- 
I think my lack of sleep and the work I have to do today has really brought an interesting account of the event to you, but you'd probably already heard them fancy repoootahs and their fancy talk. I'm outty.

----------


## Dogboy182

I was awake talking to a girl in australia so i saw the whole thing too. Bad times.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Along with the shock of seeing the sun for the first time in two weeks.  ::  
It was really kind of shocking, but I couldn't sleep. And now I have to go out and find a job! :'( And clean, but pff. 
Yes, bad times indeed.

----------


## luvmonsta

I knew this would happen sooner or later, my family are in London, but thank god my eldest brother was not working today, as he is a London bus driver. I think that its about time that all our countries (Russia, UK< and USA) work together to get rid of these evil bastards, they dont deserve to live.

----------


## Cyphyr

Yeah, and I hope the G8 leaders are not distracted from the big issues that they have to reach agreement on. The heartless monsters who planted those bombs don't care about the poverty and suffering of the people in Africa or what happens the environment. Seems like they deliberately wanted to upset the whole thing. Yet they claim they're carrying out these atrocities because of injustices in the Middle East and Africa. I think they're just doing it out of a blind nihilistic hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with their warped view of the world. 
I just hope there isn't a massive backlash now against the Muslim community in Britain. That would only play into the hands of the terrorists. They would love to alienate the mainstream Muslim community from the rest of British society, create bitterness and resentment and try to gain more recruits to their 'cause'.

----------


## DDT

> I think that its about time that all our countries (Russia, UK< and USA) work together to get rid of these evil bastards, they dont deserve to live.

 I agree. Every time I drive by a shopping mall or a Starbucks I wonder if it wil lbe targeted. I don't see a way to stop  terrorists.

----------


## waxwing

Terrorism is never stopped "head on" (in the way that Bush and other world leaders insist we must try to do). It is only ever undermined. 
We have sown the wind of "asymmetric warfare" and "precision bombing" and "collateral damage", so we must reap the whirlwind of suicide bombers and indiscriminate terrorism. The owning classes consider the former an unfortunate necessity as much as extremists do the latter, but it's innocent and defenceless ordinary people that have to deal with the consequences of both. 
The "War on Terrorism" is a ludicrous fantasy.

----------


## nightfaerie

> I agree. Every time I drive by a shopping mall or a Starbucks I wonder if it wil lbe targeted. I don't see a way to stop  terrorists.

 Yeah, when I ran the Los Angeles Marathon in March, I kept thinking how easy it would be to target such a thick concentration of people. Same with the Rose Parade on New Years. It's scary.

----------


## DDT

> I just hope there isn't a massive backlash now against the Muslim community in Britain. That would only play into the hands of the terrorists. They would love to alienate the mainstream Muslim community from the rest of British society, create bitterness and resentment and try to gain more recruits to their 'cause'.

 I think that you grossly underestimate terrorism. The type of people who plant bombs in restaraunts, schools and busses and such are not influenced by anything other than what is already in their own souls. These people will kill us no matter how we treat them.

----------


## Cyphyr

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr  
> I just hope there isn't a massive backlash now against the Muslim community in Britain. That would only play into the hands of the terrorists. They would love to alienate the mainstream Muslim community from the rest of British society, create bitterness and resentment and try to gain more recruits to their 'cause'.   I think that you grossly underestimate terrorism. The type of people who plant bombs in restaraunts, schools and busses and such are not influenced by anything other than what is already in their own souls. These people will kill us no matter how we treat them.

 You don't think it makes things any worse if people start to direct their anger at the Muslim community in general? If people feel alienated from the state they live in, they're less likely to provide information to the authorities about any terrorist groups that may be operating within their community. That doesn't make anyone any safer. I also believe it can influence some people to join terrorist movements but you clearly disagree. 
I guess you think all terrorists are born evil and regardless of the political situation, would carry out terrorist acts. Personally, I think that's a rather simplistic view of the problem. I believe there's more than one type of terrorist. Sure, there is a hard core who would carry out mass murder no matter what foreign policy Western Nations adopted, but there are also others who are drawn into these movements because they feel 'their people' are under attack. I'm not saying they're right to believe that, but their life experiences and the sources of information they have access to, may make it seem right in their mind. 
I think the al-Qaeda mindset/ideology is essentially irrational and people like Zarqawi or Bin Laden cannot be negotiated with, but they carefully manipulate legitimate grievances among the Muslim community to their advantage. Thinking that how we treat Muslims has no effect on the situation whatsoever seems like a totally ludicrous idea to me.

----------


## Pioner

As I wrote on another forum: 
We need to execute everyone who has circumsisions. That will eliminate all possible islamic terrorists. Yes, there will be some side effects (like Jewish) as well, but then we will be living in kind, mercyful Christian world. Right? 
==
Disclaimer: that was a sour irony, in a case if some one did not understand.

----------


## Cyphyr

> As I wrote on another forum: 
> We need to execute everyone who has circumsisions. That will eliminate all possible islamic terrorists. Yes, there will be some side effects (like Jewish) as well, but then we will be living in kind, mercyful Christian world. Right? 
> ==
> Disclaimer: that was a sour irony, in a case if some one did not understand.

 I don't want to think about how many people might take that idea seriously.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  As I wrote on another forum: 
> We need to execute everyone who has circumsisions. That will eliminate all possible islamic terrorists. Yes, there will be some side effects (like Jewish) as well, but then we will be living in kind, mercyful Christian world. Right? 
> ==
> Disclaimer: that was a sour irony, in a case if some one did not understand.   I don't want to think about how many people might take that idea seriously.

 Unfortunately you are right. We got fasism in Germany once, but people got short memory.

----------


## DDT

It is already known that terrorists operate within the local muslim community. This is why agencies such as FBI place high proirity on recruiting people who speak Arabic. So far the local muslim community has done little to report these bad apples among them to proper athorities. There needs to be some incentive given to those who may see suspicious activity  or hear of plots to kill innocent people in our country. To do nothing and just hope that someone will do the right thing is  just nuts.

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr  
> I just hope there isn't a massive backlash now against the Muslim community in Britain. That would only play into the hands of the terrorists. They would love to alienate the mainstream Muslim community from the rest of British society, create bitterness and resentment and try to gain more recruits to their 'cause'.   I think that you grossly underestimate terrorism. The type of people who plant bombs in restaraunts, schools and busses and such are not influenced by anything other than what is already in their own souls. These people will kill us no matter how we treat them.

 Cyphyr, DDT... 
Unfortunately I must agree with DDT.  We could be the kindest, most benevolent, sweetest people on earth...and it would make no difference to the militant terrorists. 
Cyphyr, I understand your counterargument, responding to DDT, and I do agree that there are many styles and types of terrorists.  The Basque ETA, and the IRA are far different than Al-Qaeda. 
However, we only have to witness the horrific killing of absolutely innocent civilians...children, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons, who have done no wrong to the terrorists, _or more importantly have done no wrong to the Muslim community_...to understand and agree with DDT's statement that these terrorists who bombed today do not care at all how nice, kind, _innocent_, or benevolent any of the victims are.  These guys will keep killing, regardless of the Muslim community.  
My 2 kopeks.

----------


## Pioner

> However, we only have to witness the horrific killing of absolutely innocent civilians...children, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons, who have done no wrong to the terrorists...to understand and agree with DDT's statement that these terrorists who bombed today do not care at all how nice, kind, _innocent_, or benevolent any of the victims are.    
> My 2 kopeks.

 Would do you have to say about coalition troops who bombed Bagdad, for example, the houses where "...absolutely innocent civilians...children, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons..." were living? Or american airplanes 2 weeks ago bombed wedding party in Afganistan?  
Not that I think that those terrorists are bad, but there are killing going both directions. We shouldn't go to Iraq, to start with, Saddam was holding that country tightly with no terrorists there. Now it is a training camp for terrorists, thank you mister Bush and mister Blair.

----------


## Pioner

Just a few days ago: 
Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why. Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Dobry  However, we only have to witness the horrific killing of absolutely innocent civilians...children, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons, who have done no wrong to the terrorists...to understand and agree with DDT's statement that these terrorists who bombed today do not care at all how nice, kind, _innocent_, or benevolent any of the victims are.    
> My 2 kopeks.   Would do you have to say about coalition troops who bombed Bagdad, for example, the houses where "...absolutely innocent civilians...children, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons..." were living? Or american airplanes 2 weeks ago bombed wedding party in Afganistan?

 Pioner, 
The difference is this...the deaths of innocents caused during the bombing campaigns were *not intentional (absolutely accidental)* ...the deaths today of innocent civilians *were intentional and not accidental*. 
I know soldiers who have done service in the Gulf...and I know Russian soldiers who have served in Chechnya...Not one of the soldiers I know would ever say or feel *Oh, yes, we purposely killed innocent woman, children and men.  That was our purpose and that was our mission.* 
That, however, _was_ the mission of the terrorists today.  Clearly and without question.  No accident today.  ::

----------


## Geoduck

Come on people... such shameless pop-punditry...such anecdotiallity.  We're all (yes, all of us) so contaminated with news-room "expert" jargon that we can't help but see ourselves as satisfactorily informed.  Why, if this issue is so important to you all, does it only pop up in discussion once something happens to jog your memory of it's existence?  Can we all please remember that it takes decades before academics finally concedes to a semi-stable interpretation of an event?  Can we all practice a little more awareness of our own ignorance?  Thank you.

----------


## Pioner

Well, try to explain this to a kid whose parents die from explosion of an american bomb in Iraq. Something like: "You know, shit happens, that was a collateral damage, nobody wanted to kill exactly your parents, do not think bad about American/British". Will it work. Or some mullah saying: "See, those christians started new Crusade against us, here is the bomb, go and revenge for your parents"? 
And you get another terroristic attack. And more people in USA/UK get angry, and send more troops to show them muslims who is the boss in the house. 
What, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair got no idea that civilians, and many civilians would die? Soviet Union did a great mistake invading Afganistan in 1979, that was a very good lesson for whole world, but Bush and Blair did not study history properly I guess, now we got another Afganistan, only bigger. We should not start that war at all, Al-Queda would not have that support like it got now. This circle of violence should stop somehow and sending more troops to kick some asses does not work here.

----------


## Партизан

Its really sad for the dead and hurt civils and inconnect people in London, but Bush & Blair deserved that, especially Mr.Blair.. I got sick when I listened today to Blair and his ironic sentences like this one: "They dont respect human lifes".. Does he respect human lifes? Does he respected human lifes in Iraq, Afghanistan or even in Serbia six years ago? Serbian children listened to Tomahawks 78 days and nights, but nobody was crying and thinking of them (excluding our Greek and Russian friends/brothers) like the whole world is doing today for London.. On the other hand, this attacks could be also positive for the Blair-Bush side and they have also a new reason for a new "preventive" war.. I am sure there will be a new war very soon so we can expect a lot of propaganda at CNN and Euronews which will strength the seats of B&B, and the world must be prepared when the next shit starts.. Maybe Iran is the next? I hope this will stop one day, but it wont.. Blair really deserves things like this one today, but dont think that I am supporting terrorists, I am against them.. Terrorism must be exterminated! But we have also to try to understand why they are doing such a things?! Maybe this is a way (maybe wrong, maybe the only one) to fight against the new World Order?! Anyway, the politicle heading in London deserved more than six bombs I think, but not the inconnect people.. But its sad that the same inconnect people will go tomorrow and vote for Blair and his British way of life at the next fucking elections.. On the other hand, the biggest mistake of these terrorists is that they kill always people that arent doupt for anything that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, they should try to get the millitary and politicle heading of the United States and UK, but they are too stupid for to do such a thing and its easier for them to kill inconnect people.. I hope you understand that I am not supporting stupid terrorists and I never did, but its truly sad that a life of a British and an Iraqi child arent equivalent worth in the 21 centenary and thats the problem.. This shit happens everyday in Iraq, but nobody opens special topics for and that hurts me.. When an Iraqi is killed its not murder, its collateral damage for them, but when a British is killed, the whole word has to mourn.. You know, when Chechenian idiots, extremists, terrorists (call these pics however you want) attacked buildings in Moscow or when they took hostages in the theatre, nobody was shocked in Western Europe for Moscow, like you are for them, nobody.. They were laughing at you.. I have no reason to support mujahideens and muslims in general, they went to Bosnia in the '90ies, raped and killed Serbian woman and childs, cut down heads of men etc.. I should hate all muslims from the deepest point of my heart, but I dont do it, I like justice and truth, thats the reason why I am saying all that.. I dont support any side here, becouse both sides are wrong and both are bad.. Anyway, lets pray for the inconnect people in London and not write too much, because it doesnt change anything.. Greetings, brothers!

----------


## Pioner

BTW, the only american mariner, who I know personally told me once: The war in Iraq is good even for one reason, a lot of muslim are being killed.  
I do not want to make any point out of that, but I really felt emberraced that I was sitting at the same table with such an a$$hole.

----------


## Cyphyr

> The difference is this...the deaths of innocents caused during the bombing campaigns were *not intentional (absolutely accidental)* ...the deaths today of innocent civilians *were intentional and not accidental*.

 I agree with Pioner 
If your brother, father or child has just been blown apart by a stray US missile, you're not going to be concerned about whether it was intentional or accidental, you're going to be angry and in a mood for revenge, particulary if you're a young male. Some fundamentalist comes to your village looking for fighters, there's a good chance you'll join up. In ordinary circumstances, you might never even dream of having anything to do with the al-Qaeda movement, but brutal experiences like that can change people. The murderous maniacs like al-Zarqawi love this, it provides them with a steady stream of recruits. I'm not saying that because of this you can never undertake military action, but it really has to be the last resort because this type of situation can develop. 
I accept the US army, more than most armies, really does try to minimise casualties, but at the end of the day, it's an army, and civilians will always die in military engagements in populated areas. The terrorists know this too and will deliberately choose these areas to fight, thus making the problem worse.   

> Unfortunately I must agree with DDT.  We could be the kindest, most benevolent, sweetest people on earth...and it would make no difference to the militant terrorists.

 I'm not saying that by being nice and kind and sweet to people like Bin Laden or the bombers today, you're going to stop them from doing what they do. That would be ridiculous. They're too far gone down that road to insanity, but you have to address intelligently the issues that will lead the children and teenagers of today into joining the movement and becoming the next wave of suicide bombers. Just describing them as evil and leaving it there doesn't advance things much. It might make you feel better, for having such a nice simple explanation but it doesn't even come close to really dealing with the problem.   

> It is already known that terrorists operate within the local muslim community. This is why agencies such as FBI place high proirity on recruiting people who speak Arabic. So far the local muslim community has done little to report these bad apples among them to proper athorities. There needs to be some incentive given to those who may see suspicious activity  or hear of plots to kill innocent people in our country. To do nothing and just hope that someone will do the right thing is  just nuts.

 I don't think I ever said we should do nothing and just hope someone does the right thing. That's where I think the real effort and cooperation among governments has to go - into intelligence gathering and tracking down the terrorist cells. I just think it's better to have the majority of the Muslim community on your side, if you can. But you seem quite suspicious and distrustful of the entire Muslim population. I suppose that attitude is, perhaps, understandable given what's happening but I believe there is no basis in reality to justify it.

----------


## DDT

> But you seem quite suspicious and distrustful of the entire Muslim population. I suppose that attitude is, perhaps, understandable given what's happening but I believe there is no basis in reality to justify it.

 You must keep in mind that they were killing us BEFORE the US went into Iraq. So it is not like we have brought this attack on ourselves as someone has said. 
Yes I do have a mistrust for muslims. I have read enough of the Koran to know that it clearly calls for the conversion  or death of unbelievers. Saying that true Islam is benign is the same as saying true Christianity accepts homosexuals. Many people call themselves Christians but they have never read the bible and don’t know much about their religion. As you can imagine many muslims appear to have the same poor study habits.  Muslim terrorists do have good study habits and are simply taking the Koran literally. That’s why they are so eager to die for their cause.   
I have also seen  hours of footage of “sermons” being preached in mosques in the West calling for holy war against their host countries. It has been reported that muslim communities had prior knowledge of the 9 11 attack.  Just one example:  A week before the attack  one muslim  kid, in a school in New York told his teacher and class, as he looked out the window towards The Twin Towers, “See these buildings? I tell you they won’t be there in a week.”  After the attack his teacher went to the FBI but the boys father had already disappeared unexpectedly back to the Middle East. 
You had better understand that this IS a religious war and it will not stop until Israel is no more. If at all.. 
But I suppose that you all will just keep saying that “we brought it on ourselves”.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr   But you seem quite suspicious and distrustful of the entire Muslim population. I suppose that attitude is, perhaps, understandable given what's happening but I believe there is no basis in reality to justify it.   You must keep in mind that they were killing us BEFORE the US went into Iraq. So it is not like we have brought this attack on ourselves as someone has said.

 who? Iraqies were killing americans? on 9/11, or there was other terroristic attacks I am not aware of? Most of hijackes on 9/11 were saudies, why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia?   

> Yes I do have a mistrust for muslims. I have read enough of the Koran to know that it clearly calls for the conversion  or death of unbelievers.

 Do you want I give you quotas from Bible declaring exactly the same thing? About killing unbelievers and wrong believers? Or that raping a woman is totally acceptable thing? There are many of them in the Bible.   

> I have also seen  hours of footage of “sermons” being preached in mosques in the West calling for holy war against their host countries. It has been reported that muslim communities had prior knowledge of the 9 11 attack.  Just one example:  A week before the attack  one muslim  kid, in a school in New York told his teacher and class, as he looked out the window towards The Twin Towers, “See these buildings? I tell you they won’t be there in a week.”  After the attack his teacher went to the FBI but the boys father had already disappeared unexpectedly back to the Middle East.

 Or, I can give you a lot of Ubran Legends. More then that, I can even write of them myself if you want. In Russian we call in OGS sourse. One Grandma Said. Or One Bloke in Bar told me. Do not read pulp fiction.   

> You had better understand that this IS a religious war and it will not stop until Israel is no more. If at all..

 Yes, and it was Bush who declared Crusade on that. And then he never mentioned that again ever, do you know why?   

> But I suppose that you all will just keep saying that “we brought it on ourselves”.

 Well, one small question, who was sponsoring Osama in 1980-s? Who paid islamic extrimists when they were killing Russians in Afganistan? Osama wanted 2 things from USA, that american troops to be withdrown from Holy Land - Saudi Arabia, and that Saddam is taken out of power. And Bush done that. Good Job. Now there are more volunteers to join Al Queda. They go to England, Europe, USA and kill inocent people. then we go back and kill not those who kill our people, but just inocent people as well. What is that? Holy Revenge?

----------


## VendingMachine

??

----------


## Scorpio

I want to express my condolences to victims of terror attack in London. 
However, I have *no* condolences to Blaire and his government, neither sympathy to them. Not only they lured their country into the dirtiest colonial war of the new century, they are also themselves sheltering terrorists (Zakayev) as well as sponsors of the terrorism (Berezovskiy).

----------


## DDT

> [
> who? Iraqies were killing americans? on 9/11, or there was other terroristic attacks I am not aware of? Most of hijackes on 9/11 were saudies, why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia?

 .
 Who? Muslims. Muslims have been killing us who are not Muslims for long before 911. Suicide bombers are quite common in Isreal or did you forget? It has always  only been a matter of time before bombs went off in Britain, Australia and USA.    

> Do you want I give you quotas from Bible declaring exactly the same thing? About killing unbelievers and wrong believers? Or that raping a woman is totally acceptable thing? There are many of them in the Bible.

 You're stepping in a deep hole here buddy boy. Yes I do want you to give quotes. And while you're looking for them I will have time to become fluent in Arabic and Chinese because you won't find any.   

> Or, I can give you a lot of Ubran Legends. More then that, I can even write of them myself if you want. In Russian we call in OGS sourse. One Grandma Said. Or One Bloke in Bar told me. Do not read pulp fiction.

 A prudent man will do a little research before he  dismisses that which displeases him. You must have no knowledge of Frances problems with their muslim community. They have had to kick out countless radical muslim clerics.   

> [
> Yes, and it was Bush who declared Crusade on that. And then he never mentioned that again ever, do you know why?

 Yes. Because he doesn't have the guts.   

> Now there are more volunteers to join Al Queda. They go to England, Europe, USA and kill inocent people. then we go back and kill not those who kill our people, but just inocent people as well. What is that? Holy Revenge?

 It's war . What's your solution? ......or did you just want to use this London Bombing as an opportunity to bash Bush? 
Its time for us to get over political differences and find a way to put an end to terrorism.

----------


## Kamion

@ DDT, I can

----------


## Dobry

(heavy sigh)  _"He who is without guilt may throw the first stone."_ 
This is a fundamental principle of my faith. 
Has America done wrong?  Yes.
Has Russia done wrong?  Yes.
Has Iraq done wrong?  Yes.
Has France done wrong  Yes.
Has Germany done wrong?  Yes.
Has U.K. done wrong?  Yes.
Has Spain done wrong?  Yes. 
...and the list goes on and on. 
No nation is clean and blameless.  Are you arguing, then, that "terrorists" are justified?  No, I don't think this is your argument. 
It pains me as an American, living in Europe, to constantly be told.."The U.S. is bad, and deserves to be hurt."    Or, "The U.S. has caused most (or all) of the World Problems. 
Every nation has blame.  And terrorists are evil, in my opinion. 
The U.S. is not perfect...and it never will be.  But most Americans are normal, nice, kind, and decent people...same as Russians, French, British, Spanish, etc....who do not deserve to be blamed for everything wrong in the world, and all of the problems.   
Does anyone here really believe that most Americans sit at home, watching ther children play, or reading a book, or spending time with friends...and also are wishing non-Americans to die, or to suffer tragedies??? 
Anyone believing that knows very little of the American people.  ::

----------


## Cyphyr

> Yes I do have a mistrust for muslims. I have read enough of the Koran to know that it clearly calls for the conversion  or death of unbelievers. Saying that true Islam is benign is the same as saying true Christianity accepts homosexuals. Many people call themselves Christians but they have never read the bible and don’t know much about their religion. As you can imagine many muslims appear to have the same poor study habits.  Muslim terrorists do have good study habits and are simply taking the Koran literally. That’s why they are so eager to die for their cause.

 I'm guessing from your comments, you're Christian and take your religion very seriously. Thankfully, I'm not religious and don't see this conflict in the same black and white, good and evil, apocalyptic terms. But if you're coming at it from that perspective then I don't think there's anything I can say that will change your view of things. Your understanding of the conflict is closely tied up with your religious beliefs.    

> It has been reported that muslim communities had prior knowledge of the 9 11 attack.  Just one example:  A week before the attack  one muslim  kid, in a school in New York told his teacher and class, as he looked out the window towards The Twin Towers, “See these buildings? I tell you they won’t be there in a week.”  After the attack his teacher went to the FBI but the boys father had already disappeared unexpectedly back to the Middle East.

 Could you please direct me to the source for this information. Just casually saying 'It has been reported...' isn't good enough for a story like that.   

> You had better understand that this IS a religious war and it will not stop until Israel is no more. If at all..

 Israel is a regional superpower with nuclear weapons. Oh, and by the way, it's not just an innocent victim who has never done anything wrong. It continues to pursue an aggressive policy of settlement and expansion in the West Bank (regardless of what's happening with the Gaza strip) but I suppose you believe the Palestinians have no right to be there anyway as God gave all the land to the Jews.

----------


## Партизан

Dobry, in every nation are individual pupils who are nice and who are bad.. Nobody can say that all Americans are bad, or that all Iraqis are good, and nobody can say that all Americans are good, or all Iraqis bad.. But the point is that at the moment (and in the last 16 years) America is maybe the badest country in the world or one of them.. In times of the cold war you had a rival country, but now you are doing alone and you do only bad things.. The EU isnt better too, they have same ideologies like your country (conquer, conquer and conquer for interests), but they are doing it in a diplomatic way.. I agree with you that all countries have made wrong things, but not all were blamed in the same way.. I dont want to add again facts about my country, but its true that the U.S. are the world policeman since the SU doesnt exit anymore and that you did many many bad things, but you wernt blamed as far as it was Serbia for and Serbian people (for example) in the times of the civil war in Yugoslavia.. I can imagine how you feel when people are telling you about your country, but dont forget that your country made me feel sick 10 years of my life during the war in Yugoslavia.. I think I felt far bader than you, and it pains much more when your uncle is on Kosovo fighting against Albanian terrorists during your older brother is shooting on your jets which are bombing Serbian children (you are going on the other side of the world to fight against terrorism, but we are allowed to fight against it in the own country).. Sorry that I say it, but in these 16 years, your country made the wars in Yugoslavia, you made the first and second Golf-War, you made a war in Afghanistan, you made some more little conflicts and you put economic embargos on several countries in the world, your country did only bad things, so you shouldnt expect that someone like the U.S... I believe that mostly Americans are nice people, and I dont attack you personally, but your country is a bad one in these new times..

----------


## Dobry

I understand, and I'm sorry for your pain in Yugoslavia.  Very sorry.  And I find myself apologizing often for the U.S. 
Often, a person tries to do a good thing, and it turns bad.  Good intentions, bad results.  Unfortunately, this is part of life.  Each of us suffer this, even me.  I know I cannot feel your pain from those years in Yugoslavia...but I also have my own pain, and troubled past which you also cannot understand.  My past years also have much pain. 
The U.S. could stay completely away from the rest of the world...isolate ourselves, and allow other nations to fight and solve their conflicts.  By your debate, the U.S. should not have entered World War II/ The Great War.   
Nor, the U.S. should have not, and should not, provide hunger relief or aid in the world?  Should we avoid U.S. aid to other countries? 
My ex-sister-in-law works for U.S. Aid to assist Eastern European countries to establish new businesses, to give EE citizens help for work and earning money.  She is Belarussian, and she is very proud that she is seeing EE happy and earning money, and living better than in Soviet times.  This is one of the U.S.'s "involvements" in other countries.  And this is a good thing for the FSU satellite countries, now independent countries.  Many happy EE citizens. 
I am very sorry for Yugoslavia.  But please try to remember that there are also good things done by the U.S.    Not everything from the U.S. is bad.

----------


## Cyphyr

> (heavy sigh)  _"He who is without guilt may throw the first stone."_ 
> This is a fundamental principle of my faith. 
> Has America done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Russia done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Iraq done wrong?  Yes.
> Has France done wrong  Yes.
> Has Germany done wrong?  Yes.
> Has U.K. done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Spain done wrong?  Yes. 
> ...

 You're right, I would never argue that those attacks are justified. I'm arguing that there are more complex reasons behind the conflict than just "they're evil". That's not the same thing as saying the actions are justified.    

> It pains me as an American, living in Europe, to constantly be told.."The U.S. is bad, and deserves to be hurt."    Or, "The U.S. has caused most (or all) of the World Problems.

 I am sorry that you are meeting people who say the USA deserves to be hurt. I don't think those kind of attitudes are helping any of us. I have never said anything like that.   

> Every nation has blame.  And terrorists are evil, in my opinion.

 I'm happy to use the term evil to describe these movements and what they are doing but what I'm saying is there are real political issues which they are manipulating and exploiting to fuel the conflict. In the same way that there were political issues and circumstances which allowed a virus like Nazism to flourish in German society in the 1930s. To think that evil just springs up out of nowhere and thrives without any causes just doesn't make sense in my view.   

> The U.S. is not perfect...and it never will be.  But most Americans are normal, nice, kind, and decent people...same as Russians, French, British, Spanish, etc....who do not deserve to be blamed for everything wrong in the world, and all of the problems.   
> Does anyone here really believe that most Americans sit at home, watching ther children play, or reading a book, or spending time with friends...and also are wishing non-Americans to die, or to suffer tragedies??? 
> Anyone believing that knows very little of the American people.

 You said earlier you agreed with DDT. Do you still agree with DDT and his opinions on Muslims in general? I'm afraid that many people in America do, I think people with those views are making the wrong decisions in these difficult times.

----------


## Партизан

Of course, the United States did a lot of good things in the past, but I am talking about the last 16 years.. You went back to the 2nd WW.. As far as I know the U.S. were also attacked by Hitlers submarine and you didnt entered the war ONLY because you wanted to help Europe.. I dont think that a conquered Europe was in Americas interests in this times and after the war you earned also money by the Marshal-Plan and you could take over the domination in the world.. Anyway, your army has got a lot of honour in the 2nd WW which will be never forgotten by the remaining world.. On the other hand you are talking about the help which EE countries get of the U.S.. Dont forget that your companies are coming to the same EE countries and buy big companies of the communist times very very cheap and later they earn millions of that when those firms start to grow.. The people will live better, but their children will work for the Americans and wont be free again, like in the Soviet times.. The EU is doing the same things.. Anyway, I agree that the U.S. arent the badest thing that ever happened to this world and I think that you got my point.. At least I must say: Thank you for your apology and respect that I could feel in your sentences! I also excuse me if I was a bit unrespectful to you, but I have mixed feelings when I remember all the shits that happened in the '90 and that are still happening.. I think that at least I can understand also your pain (which isnt small for sure, each pain is big for a human who has a soul).. I am also sorry for bad things that happened to you personally and I hope that all these bad things will stop one day.. And this will happen when the globalisation of the social world starts I think, but we have to go a hard way till this happens.. Greetings my friend! PS: Dont be sad, better times will come!   ::

----------


## TATY

> Dobry, in every nation are individual pupils who are nice and who are bad.. Nobody can say that all Americans are bad, or that all Iraqis are good, and nobody can say that all Americans are good, or all Iraqis bad.. But the point is that at the moment (and in the last 16 years) America is maybe the badest country in the world or one of them.. In times of the cold war you had a rival country, but now you are doing alone and you do only bad things.. The EU isnt better too, they have same ideologies like your country (conquer, conquer and conquer for interests), but they are doing it in a diplomatic way.. I agree with you that all countries have made wrong things, but not all were blamed in the same way.. I dont want to add again facts about my country, but its true that the U.S. are the world policeman since the SU doesnt exit anymore and that you did many many bad things, but you wernt blamed as far as it was Serbia for and Serbian people (for example) in the times of the civil war in Yugoslavia.. I can imagine how you feel when people are telling you about your country, but dont forget that your country made me feel sick 10 years of my life during the war in Yugoslavia.. I think I felt far bader than you, and it pains much more when your uncle is on Kosovo fighting against Albanian terrorists during your older brother is shooting on your jets which are bombing Serbian children (you are going on the other side of the world to fight against terrorism, but we are allowed to fight against it in the own country).. Sorry that I say it, but in these 16 years, your country made the wars in Yugoslavia, you made the first and second Golf-War, you made a war in Afghanistan, you made some more little conflicts and you put economic embargos on several countries in the world, your country did only bad things, so you shouldnt expect that someone like the U.S... I believe that mostly Americans are nice people, and I dont attack you personally, but your country is a bad one in these new times..

 You are however biased. The UN bombed Serbia because Serbia was murdering Albanians in Kosovo. And don't forget the Bosnians in the early 90s. Let's not have to compare the small number od deaths the UN caused in Serbia with the hundreds of thousands of dead Kosovans and Bosnians.

----------


## Cyphyr

Партизан, have you seen the video that was shown recently on Serbian TV of the Scorpions murdering young Muslim men at Srebrenica in 1995? I believed they showed the men being shot but I don't know if they showed the full film where the last remaining two had to carry the bodies of their friends away and then were tortured to death by these sick monsters.

----------


## Партизан

> You are however biased. The UN bombed Serbia because Serbia was murdering Albanians in Kosovo. And don't forget the Bosnians in the early 90s. Let's not have to compare the small number od deaths the UN caused in Serbia with the hundreds of thousands of dead Kosovans and Bosnians.

 The history of Serbia, the Serbian nation and Kosovo is very long and hard to understand for people who are far away like you.. First of all, the NATO bombed Serbia and not the UN.. If you would know anything about politics, you would know that the UN isnt a millitary pact.. UN troops are now in Kosovo because the Serbian heading didnt want NATO troops in our country, so UN troops came to Kosovo after the resolution 1244 was sign.. On the other hand, they should save the freedom and peace, they didnt, 260.000 serbs became fugitives and left their homes in Kosovo, 2.000 were killed and over 200 churchs (a lot were over 600 years old) were destroyed by Albanian terrorists.. And I must inform you that the reason for the war wasnt that Serbs are killing Albanians, the reason was that we fight against terrorism.. As I said, the U.S. are going on the other side of the world to fight against terrorism, and we werent allowed to do it in the own country.. I told you before, the history of Kosovo is long and difficult to understand, especially for people like you.. I least I will tell you some more fact.. First of all, Kosovars and Bosniacs doesnt exist! The so called Kosovars are Albanians who emigrated to Serbia (Kosovo) in and after the 2nd WW when the Albanian fashists exclaim the republic of GREAT ALBANIA which included Albanian (today), parts of Montenegro, parts of Macedonia and whole Kosovo.. After the 2nd WW in Kosovo lived 240.000 Albanians and from 1946 to 2006 (60 years) this number grew to over 2 million.. Mostly of them emigrated in the times of Tito when the borders between Yugoslavia and Albania were opened, lots were born in Kosovo and grew up there.. They had an authonomy from 1968 and almost a republic after the constitutional law from 1974.. This law was also one of the reason for the civil war in Yugoslavia and it was maden to make the Serbian influence in Yugoslavia smaller after Titos death.. In the period between 1968 and 1998 near 600.000 serbs left Kosovo (while 2 million Albis emigrated).. After 1968 (and the first authonomy), serbs started to flee from Kosovo because of Albanian "forces" which raped woman, hurt young boys, and had something like a war with everything that was Serbian.. Albanians had everything in Yugoslavia, schools on Albanian language, universities on their language, radio and tv stations on there language.. Kosovo was only on the paper a part of Serbia and Yugoslavia.. When the so called Kosovars jumped over all possible borders and Slobodan Milosevic came on the seat in Belgrade (1989) their illegal republic was dissolved and their authonomy was brang back to the law of 1968 (which was very good, they still had school, unis, tv, etc etc etc).. But such an authonomy wasnt enough for making a new great Albania like in the 2nd WW (which is the main idelogy of all Albs), so they started to force the terroristic group UCK (which was born already 1980).. In the next eight years (1990-199 ::  nobody took even one hair of an Albanian civil in Kosovo, and Serbs could live again better.. But when the wars in Croatia and Bosnia ended and the ecnomic embargos were relaxed the Albanian terrorists started their senseless ofense against Serbian police stations and civils (again).. After one year of a little war between our police and Albanian terrorists (only terrorists), the European partnership and the U.S. put their hand in the mental matters of Yugoslavia (or that what remained of this great country).. We killed a lot of terrorists, and I say it open, but not civils.. The NATO searched for a reason to bomb us, but couldnt find anyone.. The OSCE was also on Kosovo, and they said that all human right are respected in Serbia.. So, after the conflict between our police and some UCK extremists in Racak, the Albanians put the inuforms of the dead terrorists down and dressed them in civils.. The whole word was talking about a masacre, but the OSCE prooved that the dead men were UCK terrorists.. Anyway, nobody recognized that in Western Europe and the U.S. and on the 24.03.1999 started a big genocid against the Serbian nation.. In the bombadements were destroyed only civils object and cilled thousends of people.. Nearly no millitary object was destroyed, only civil targets.. Hospitals, towers, firms, bridges etc.. You killed also Albanian civils that were fleeing from the bombs.. Its prooved that our army didnt force the Albanian civil to flee from Kosovo, they started it firstly when the bombs came over Kosovo.. I can show you hundrets of pictures.. After 78 days of killing Serbs, our army and the NATO found an agreement (resolution 1244) about the so called armistice.. Today, six years later, nearly no serbs are living on Kosovo, and those who try to live there, live without human right, always in danger, without fresh water, storm or fresh foot.. St.Petersburg in 2nd WW was a joke for Kosovo today.. Serbs are on circle there and live very bad, but nobody talks about this.. The resolution 1244 in which is standing that our police must come bach to the borders and to Serbian cities in Kosovo is respected by the UN.. I hope you learned now a little bit about Kosovo.. I could tell you much more, but I am not sure if this can stand in your little head TATY.. Ciao!

----------


## Партизан

> Партизан, have you seen the video that was shown recently on Serbian TV of the Scorpions murdering young Muslim men at Srebrenica in 1995? I believed they showed the men being shot but I don't know if they showed the full film where the last remaining two had to carry the bodies of their friends away and then were tortured to death by these sick monsters.

 First of all, this wasnt Srebrnica on the video.. It was a city 60km far from Srebrnica.. I saw this, and it was a crime, but an individual one.. These pay for their acts.. But on the other hand, you cant say that only Serbs did bad things.. Muslims also killed Serbs and raped our woman, Croats did the same with muslims etc etc.. It was a civil war, and a civil war is far different from a normal war.. Our army didnt come from Serbia and fighted in Croatia and Bosnia.. There were special paramillitary groups which fighted and made war crimes.. The JNA (Yugoslav National Army) never did such things.. And dont forget that there were also Croats who killed muslims, not only Serbs killed 200.000 muslims in that war.. But there were also mujahideens who came to fight for their muslims in Bosnia and they did far bader crimes.. I have videos and pics how they cut down heads of Serbian hostages and carry the Koran in the other hand.. Dont tell me that only Serbs did bad thing.. Also about Srebrnica, nobody said that between 1.400 and 1.600 serbs were killed in the villages arround Srebrnica before our army came into this city.. Nobody said that muslim soldiers were in Srebrnica, and that the UN saved them.. Nobody said both sides of view, only serbs are bad and only we made war crimes, all other are angels and very very fine people.. hehehe.. Dont lie yourselves.. I am happy and proud to be a serb.. We stay behind our mistakes and we are open for the truth and justic, we try to talk about our mistakes.. We arent shy to say that we made mistakes, but others are.. Others doesnt admit that they did the same crimes like these "scorpians" on the video.. There is a big difference between Serbia and the cowards arround, trust me.. People that know history will understand what I am talking about.. Greetings!

----------


## Партизан

Bye the way, can someone explain me the reason for the 1 million dead Serbs, Gypsies and Jewish in Jasenovac (Croatia) in the 2nd WW.. This is a far bigger war crime than all crimes in the '90 together, but nobody punished Croatia for this  genocid (and this is genocid, believe me).. I think that there is no truth and especially no justice in the world, so I can only laugh when I read your arguments.. Try to find a point of view from both sides, and dont listen to CNN like dogs to teenager.. I think I am done with this topic and I wont answer anymore (I also dont have the time to do it).. You have your own opinion, I have my own one, nobody can change that, but only one is truth.. Justice will win one day.. Better get back to the topic, and this is about London.. Ciao  ::

----------


## Cyphyr

Everyone has their own version of history, haven't they? And sadly it looks to me like most people are condemned to always see the world in terms of 'them' and 'us' whether defined by religion or nationality. It's not surprising the world is awash with human blood while people are trapped into these narrow ways of defining themselves. The smallest misunderstanding or incident can snowball into a major conflict when different communities regard each other with such suspicion, distrust, and ignorance of each other's common experiences. I'm not posting on this topic anymore either, it's just too depressing  ::

----------


## DDT

Exellent posts Партизан. I was appauled at the way Serbs were portraied on western media. The Serbs had always been friendly towards the USA. You were allied with us against Hitler. Then one day President Clinton annouces that he is going to bomb you. CNN reported only what they wanted us to believe. Most American people had never even heard of your country and believed whatever they were told. I was disgusted. You are right. You have been subjected to a double standard.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  Do you want I give you quotas from Bible declaring exactly the same thing? About killing unbelievers and wrong believers? Or that raping a woman is totally acceptable thing? There are many of them in the Bible.   You're stepping in a deep hole here buddy boy. Yes I do want you to give quotes. And while you're looking for them I will have time to become fluent in Arabic and Chinese because you won't find any.

 Well, what always amazed me is that so many religios people are totally ignorant about their own religion. Here we go:   

> Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

  

> A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

 here is the exact quotes I told you, will you consider Bible as evil as Koran now?   

> Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

  

> They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

 Here is a nice ones:   

> A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

  

> But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

 Here is murdering all population of a town who worship to wrong God (new borns included, I believe):   

> Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

 Here is more on killing followers of other religions:   

> 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)   
>     2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

  

> If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.  (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

 Here is about killing helpless children and raping women:   

> Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

  

> (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came.  He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors."  The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day.  Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing."  (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

  

> While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women.  These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab.  Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people.  The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel."  So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor.  Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle.  When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly.  Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach.  So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died.  (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

 is that enough?

----------


## Pioner

ooops, sorry, I promised to give quotes about rapings:   

> If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

  

> If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

 Sex slavery approved by Bible:   

> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

 And Gods approves raping again:   

> Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 Find similar quotes in Koran for raping. Just to equal that out. I am not sure if you find any. But I did not study Koran as deeply as you did.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by DDT  It has been reported that muslim communities had prior knowledge of the 9 11 attack.  Just one example:  A week before the attack  one muslim  kid, in a school in New York told his teacher and class, as he looked out the window towards The Twin Towers, “See these buildings? I tell you they won’t be there in a week.”  After the attack his teacher went to the FBI but the boys father had already disappeared unexpectedly back to the Middle East.   Could you please direct me to the source for this information. Just casually saying 'It has been reported...' isn't good enough for a story like that.

 I can give sources for DDT, I hope he appratiate my help. I did not find anything about arab kid, but I personally heard stories about Bulgarians who worked in WTC and none of them came to work on 9/11, Jewish the same way, and just now I found about cabs in NY:  http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm http://www.snopes.com/rumors/taxi.htm

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  [
> who? Iraqies were killing americans? on 9/11, or there was other terroristic attacks I am not aware of? Most of hijackes on 9/11 were saudies, why we attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia?   .
>  Who? Muslims. Muslims have been killing us who are not Muslims for long before 911. Suicide bombers are quite common in Isreal or did you forget? It has always  only been a matter of time before bombs went off in Britain, Australia and USA.

 Oh, them, muslims. Well, let's look into history. Shall we start with Crusades? When they slaughtered whole muslim cities? Or with Afganistan, where them, Russian Christians were killing muslim? Or with Chechnya, starting in 1991 when they murdered whole vilages? Or shall we remember 1945 when Christians dropped 2 nuclear bombs on resident areas of large Japanese cities murdering hundreds of thousands inocent people at once? 
Or British invasion into India, where Christians were killing thousands of muslims? 
Or shall we remember a little bit about torturing people in inquisition in Wesrn Europe? 
Not that I say that muslims are good and christians are bad. But if we categorize people like that, by their religion, I am afraid, no one look nice.    

> Now there are more volunteers to join Al Queda. They go to England, Europe, USA and kill inocent people. then we go back and kill not those who kill our people, but just inocent people as well. What is that? Holy Revenge?

 It's war . What's your solution? ......or did you just want to use this London Bombing as an opportunity to bash Bush? 
Its time for us to get over political differences and find a way to put an end to terrorism.[/quote] 
The way you propagade is totally wrong. We invaded Iraq for no reason. We got pay back, and terrorism will increase if we do not stop and go other countries.

----------


## DDT

> [ terrorism will increase if we do not stop and go other countries.

 That is the only thing that you said that makes any sense. The rest is not worth responding to. I don't have time time anyway. I will be away from a computer for a few days. 
However I think that the west should completely leave the Middle East as soon as Iraq is somewhat stable. I mean completely get the hell out of their affairs.

----------


## Dobry

> You said earlier you agreed with DDT. Do you still agree with DDT and his opinions on Muslims in general? I'm afraid that many people in America do, I think people with those views are making the wrong decisions in these difficult times.

 What?? 
No, I fear you misunderstand what I tried to say.  Or I did not make it clear.  I agree with DDT that the terrorists will kill anyone, for no reason, no matter how nice we treat Muslims.  Terrorists don't care.  And there could have been Muslims killed in these bombings...just as there were many Muslims killed in the 9/11 Twin Towers attack.  So, I don't think the terrorists care about the Muslim majority. 
Muslims in general?  I'm not sure what you mean.  I do not think the Al-Queda terrorists are true Muslims.  They are crazy sociopathic/brainwashed zealots, _similar to other militant factions that have popped up in most religions during history._   Name me one major faith that has not had a militant faction, or a group of crazies, in human history. 
And regardless of what is heard on the Press (I don't believe everything the American press says)...I think most Americans are comfortable with Muslims and the Muslim faith.  We should be, because many Americans ARE Muslim. 
Most Americans are educated and smart enough to know that the terrorists DO NOT represent Muslims or Islam.     
Anymore than the the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity (which is a very peaceful faith...trust me, it truly is about peace and kindness).   The KKK does NOT represent Christians.  LOL 
There are intelligent Americans that think for themselves.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  [ terrorism will increase if we do not stop and go other countries.   That is the only thing that you said that makes any sense. The rest is not worth responding to. I don't have time time anyway. I will be away from a computer for a few days. 
> However I think that the west should completely leave the Middle East as soon as Iraq is somewhat stable. I mean completely get the hell out of their affairs.

 On first place we should not be there at all. And yes, we need to leave. 
But what about Bible? Or you learned Chinese already?  ::

----------


## Dobry

Pioner... 
You're quoting old Judaic Law...but some of it is out of context.   
Interestingly you're not quoting anything from the New Testament...which is what Christianity is all about...and which releases humans completely from the old Law you're quoting. 
Not sure why you're Bible/Christian bashing, but I think I understand that you're countering DDT's observations of the Quran laws, in a fair debate. 
Anyway, no need to, because I think you're point has been made.  And I hope you don't believe literally that the Judeo-Christian God approves of any of the activities you've illustrated.

----------


## mp510

What happened in London yesterday was awful. When I heard about it, shortly after I woke up, I was deeply saddened. These terrorists should be stoped. They have NO right to kill a bunch of innocent people to spread whatever it is that they want to impose on people. Hopefully England won't meet their new demands to stop fighting terrorism or else...   ::

----------


## Pioner

Dobry, I am a non-believer in any religion, so Christianity and Islam look quite similar to me. 
I understand that the main one is New Testament, but the old one is still a part of Holly Bible. But I can find some "nice" quotas from New Testament as well, not that extrime, but still not quite acceptable by modern life. 
I do respect religious people, regardless their religion, as long as they do not try to convert me, or as long as they say that they are better then other religion people or atheists. And I interacted a lot with both Christians and Muslims. Not with many Budda people.

----------


## Dobry

Pioner, 
I understand.  And I understand your counter-argument to DDT.  He "threw down the gauntlet", and so you answered logically, and with reason. 
But, you will get no conversion attempt from me!   *laughs out loud*  
That's another principle for me...I don't proselytize.  Everyone has the freedom to believe (or not believe) what they wish.   
But I will defend my faith when questions are raised in an argument.  I hope you understand. 
I would be a worthless minister/priest!   *laughs*

----------


## Pioner

Dobry, just respect to you.  ::

----------


## Dobry

Pioner, 
Thanks.  And respect to you.    ::    
And "Friends, Romans, Countrymen"....I think perhaps this is a good time to end this thread.  It has grown way beyond the initial thoughts of the first poster. 
That is, about the bombing, and feeling bad for the victims.  I think we all feel bad for the people who were injured and died.

----------


## Pioner

Yes, I agree, it is a good time to close the topic.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

I came too late for some real action   ::   ::   
So come on everybody: Koombaya, my lord! Koombaya!   ::

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Run while you can. 
-Runs-

----------


## DDT

Ok, I’m Back.
I am well aware of all the quotes you gave, Pioner. I could have told you not to waste your time using coming back at me with those Old Testament quotes. They have little to do with Christian doctrine compared to Koran doctrine. 
Firstly, Dobry is correct when saying that your quotes come from Mosaic Law (not Judaic because Jews didn’t exist apart from the Tribe of Judah at that time)  and many, if taken in context,  make a lot of sense. The others you quoted actually are prophecies set in a  future time, some of which have already happened. And prophecies are simply telling people what will happen. Same thing for one of your rape scenarios. It was a prophecy and not the bible telling us to rape.  The other one about rape does not condone rape but  does exactly the opposite. A girl who had been raped in that day and age would never have found a husband. She would have lived a lonely and shunned life. The Mosaic Law forcing the rapist to marry the girl was a victory for her. You don’t know the first thing about that which you have posted. These laws, at the time that they were written, were extraordinary and they were humane, written for a hard people in a barbaric time. These laws were also for a people who had submitted themselves to them by a covenant and were not to be subjected on those who lived out side of  Israel whereas, Islam was to be spread by the sword to all lands. Israel was given specific borders and God did not tell Israelites to spread their religion outside their land. Those inside Israel that were destroyed to the last child (everything that breathes) were specific cases and not the general. These people were burning alive their babies and children in rituals, among other savage practices. Perhaps 3,000 years ago these drastic measures of annihilation just needed to be taken in order to set up a civilized people. It seems pretty harsh to me but we don’t have all the details anymore. We don’t know what life was truly like so long ago. Who’s to say, now? In any case it should not be taken that God was ordering his people to convert with the sword as is the case in Islam.
And Jesus never condoned any of this but  Mohammed did:- 
Mohammed, at age Twenty-five married his boss, a forty year old rich woman named Khadijeh, after she proposed to him. They had four daughters together but we know a lot about one daughter named Fatemeh. When Khadijeh died Mohammad at age fifty-six asked to marry Ayesha, daughter of his friend and first follower Abobakr. She was just a seven years old baby. 
Abobakr requested from Mohammed to wait till she reached the age nine before consummating their marriage. So at age fifty-Eight the great “Prophet”, raped a nine-year-old child. This is a sick act of an animal today and it was back then also. 
That is the reason for marriage age for girls age is nine years old (and sometimes younger in Islam).
Mohammad even asked his own adopted son, Zaid Ebn Hares, to divorce his wife, Zeinab, so that he could marry her. When the members of tribe protested this marriage, because the daughter-in-law was considered like one's daughter, Mohammed answered that he received a revelation from God, that "A Moslem man cannot adopt another man's child." Hence Hares was not his real son, therefore he could marry his adopted son's wife. 
When Mohammad and his wife Khadijeh adopted Zaid they were not Moslem. Prophet must obey God's word and therefore, Zaid is not his son and Zeinab is not his daughter-in-law (according to Mohammad). That is why adoption is prohibited in Islam.   
If you really wanted to slam Christianity or equate it to Islam you should have been looking for quotes in the New Testament since this is the basis for Christianity. But you did not look there did you? Then you would have found that Jesus had taught respect for women (unheard of until then) while 700 years later Mohamed is treating women like animals.
You would have found that Jesus taught to turn away from violence when possible by “turning the other cheek”,  whereas Mohamed 700 years later was still killing anyone he did not like. 
And your ridiculous equation of terrorism and the Crusades? Islam had already killed their way all across the Middle East and then  up into Europe and you are upset because Europeans fought back with crusades?    Duh!     
Now, in the year approx. 30 AD a teaching spread across the known world teaching respect for women, monogamy, do unto others as you would have them do to you, help the poor and give help to strangers who are in need. These were radical ideas back then, spread by Christians many of whom were killed for their efforts. 
Now I’ll contrast this with the teaching of Mohammed 700 years later (when he should have known better} This is from Koran. It is a war manual from start to finish, provoking Muslims to kill Christians and Jews.   
"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-) 
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-) 
"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17) 
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
“for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (Koran 22:19-22) 
 It is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with pagans and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so (Koran 9:3).  http://craom.net/comparedtothebible.htm http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftrut ... anual.html

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Koooooooombayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

----------


## VendingMachine

> Then you would have found that Jesus had taught respect for women (unheard of until then) while 700 years later Mohamed is treating women like animals.

 Have these women complained to you in person? According to many surveys, Arabic women are among the happiest in the world. Perhaps Mohamed taught men to be men, not sissies, and treat their women as women? Maybe that's the reason why so many of them are happy in their marriages?

----------


## Dobry

> Have these women complained to you in person? According to many surveys, Arabic women are among the happiest in the world. Perhaps Mohamed taught men to be men, not sissies, and treat their women as women? Maybe that's the reason why so many of them are happy in their marriages?

 It's not good when faiths get into a pi**ing contest.  But, I think there are many established accounts of severe abuse and neglect of Muslim women by their husbands, fathers, society.  Afghanistan, Iraq, as examples.  "Beneath the Veil" by Saira Shah (from an Afghani background), which details many neglects and abuses of Muslim women in that society.  Iraq...I won't even go into some of the horror stories, but I know a few Muslim men from the Middle East, and yes, they've verified that some of these things did happen.   And no, these women are not happy, but they are unable to do anything about it, or even communicate because of their husbands' draconian treatment. 
But it's not the Muslim faith...anymore than abuses of Christian women are part of the Christian faith.  There are men, and cultures, that develop what we in the West would consider an abusive nature.  Lack of medical treatment, refusal of books or an education, physical abuse.  There are men who do bad things, and men who do good things.  In every culture, and in every religion.   
The men who do good things are often inspired to do good by their faith and their holy texts.  The men who do bad things often try to find some justification in, or twist the meanings of, their holy texts, to relieve their guilt, or persuade/propogandize/control others.  
The Muslim men I know would never consider doing some of the abuses seen elsewhere, or perhaps interpreted from the Quran.  They respect their wives and treat them with dignity and love.  They are good men.  And, there are good Christian men also.  Just as there are unfortunately bad men, from every faith and from no faith. 
Maybe the most enlightened view of respecting and honoring women came from an obscure faith, that grew out of ideas of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam...women became equals, and given the same respect as men...Sikhism.  Over 500 years ago.   
Can we get back to language study now??  ::

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by VendingMachine  
> Can we get back to language study now??

 Study language on the other threads, this thread is supposed to be about the London Bombing.

----------


## Dobry

> Study language on the other threads, this thread is supposed to be about the London Bombing.

 Sorry, DDT.  Just trying to inject a bit of light-heartedness into an otherwise painful thread.  No disrespect intended.
I'm going to my local for a pint.      ::

----------


## VendingMachine

And where did I say that, DDT? That quote's been fabricated!

----------


## VendingMachine

I'm sorry, Dobry, you must have been misinformed - Arab women are the happiest in the world in their marriages. Arab men know how to look after their wives. The West's got a lot to learn from them.

----------


## DDT

Well chingas du madra mate! I have no flamin' idea how that quote got attributed to you, the venerable Vendingmachine. Must have been a glitch down at the headquarters of Master Russian as it is quite obviously a Dobry quote.
Please accept my sincerest apologies for the mixup. I am already sending you six lovely Middle Eastern ladies ( who are used to first class treatment) as a gift who are experts in the art of apology. So, there will be no need to have your ex KGB turned mafia buddies pay me a visit now, will there?

----------


## Dobry

> I'm sorry, Dobry, you must have been misinformed - Arab women are the happiest in the world in their marriages. Arab men know how to look after their wives. The West's got a lot to learn from them.

   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   
Time for another pint!  Must have walked into the twilight zone...or a Dali painting...actually no!!!   
It's a Goya firing squad!  ::

----------


## Dobry

> ... as it is quite obviously a Dobry quote.

 A добрый quote!  Oh, thank you, DDT.  That is so _kind_ of you to say so.    ::

----------


## Pioner

> Ok, I’m Back.
> I am well aware of all the quotes you gave, Pioner. I could have told you not to waste your time using coming back at me with those Old Testament quotes. They have little to do with Christian doctrine compared to Koran doctrine.

 Well, you said that Bible does not contain such statements. Is the Old Testament not a part of Bible?  
And I can see that you are an expert in Koran and interpretation of it. What part of Koran contains any mentioning about raping women?  
You probably did not read my quotas carefully, there are a lot of statements there where God APPROVE raping.

----------


## Haksaw

Pioner,  could you please give me the verses in the Bible where "there are a lot of statements there where God APPROVE raping." I'm interested in reading them.

----------


## DDT

Sure, Pioner there is much killing in the Bible but there is nothing mentioned about the "conversion of infidels by the sword"  in it, or in your quotes. Those are the words that originally inspired out debate. The Israelis were the only people required at that time to obey God. They kept to themselves and did not spread  out of the small piece of land along "the fertile crescent".  
Yes they killed people inside their own lands. The instance with the Israelite men and the Moabite women was when one where the Israelites had partaken in Moabite ceremonies of the murder of babies by burning them alive in a sacrifice to Baal. That’s why the Israelites who partook in this and the entire town was destroyed. 
The quotes from the Koran clearly advocate the killing of Christians and Jews, by name. Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca so he went to Medina. There he preached in the streets. The Jews who already peacefully lived there mocked him and his sayings. He made war on Mecca and was repelled so he made a peace treaty with them which he later broke  with a sneak attack and killed many Meccans. He  went to war with Jews in Medina . The Jews fled to another city. Mohammed asked them to send a peace delegate to Medina. On their way back to Medina Mohammed had them slaughtered  In the Koran Mohammed defends his treachery by saying it is acceptable to do this to “unbelievers”. All I am saying is that is easy to see how some Muslims want to plant bombs in London after reading Koran doctrine. Whereas the christian Bible tells us to "Love your enemies". 
I don't see anywhere in your Quotes where God condoned rape. Again, your quotes of rape are bogus. You quoted from Isaiah in one instance. It was telling of what would eventually be done to the House of Israel after they had been captured by Babylonians and set free by the Medes. This actually happened after Isaiah wrote it. The other is telling what will be done by others to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the future.  Much of the Bible is simply someones writing of Israeli history which includes good things and bad things. And there was much bad! God allowed customs of the day to prevail. In instances he allowed for the capture of the women after a battle. But there were restrictions placed on the Israelites, unlike other peoples of the day. The women were not to be taken as slaves. They were treated as wifes and were not to be humiliated any further. 
The Koran is written in a different way by one man over relatively short time. Much of it the sayings of Mohammed. It reads more like a war manual.

----------


## Pioner

> Pioner,  could you please give me the verses in the Bible where "there are a lot of statements there where God APPROVE raping." I'm interested in reading them.

 Well, I already did give quotes on the 3rd page, I believe, here them one of them again:   

> Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 and this one is about sex slavery (which is a form of raping I believe):  

> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

 Please, do not bring all that nonsense that it is Old Testament, Old Testament is a part of Bible.

----------


## DDT

Your quote from Zechariah is not an order from God. It is Simply a prophecy of future events. 
Your quote from Exodus is Mosaic Law for Israelites only. It is not about rape. It is against Ten Commandments to rape or even have sex outside of marriage.
In that day it was quite common for people to sell themselves into "slavery" . Though it was not what we would call slavery today. It was sevantude in exchange for protection. The fact that an Israelite man must treat his servant girl with the full benefits of a wife if he marries her, is a step above the customs of non-Isrealites.

----------


## Pioner

> Sure, Pioner there is much killing in the Bible but there is nothing mentioned about the "conversion of infidels by the sword"  in it, or in your quotes. Those are the words that originally inspired out debate. The Israelis were the only people required at that time to obey God. They kept to themselves and did not spread  out of the small piece of land along "the fertile crescent".

 Well, I gave them before and you answered that you already knew them, and you already forgotten? Man, it should tough for you to learn languages with such short term memory problems. Here coupla of them again:   

> Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

  

> They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

  

> The quotes from the Koran clearly advocate the killing of Christians and Jews, by name.

 Please, give me quota from Koran supporting what you said. I never heard of such thing in Koran.   

> Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca so he went to Medina. There he preached in the streets. The Jews who already peacefully lived there mocked him and his sayings. He made war on Mecca and was repelled so he made a peace treaty with them which he later broke  with a sneak attack and killed many Meccans. He  went to war with Jews in Medina . The Jews fled to another city. Mohammed asked them to send a peace delegate to Medina. On their way back to Medina Mohammed had them slaughtered  In the Koran Mohammed defends his treachery by saying it is acceptable to do this to “unbelievers”.

  

> All I am saying is that is easy to see how some Muslims want to plant bombs in London after reading Koran doctrine. Whereas the christian Bible tells us to "Love your enemies".

 What book people who droped A-bombs on Japan read?   

> I don't see anywhere in your Quotes where God condoned rape. Again, your quotes of rape are bogus. You quoted from Isaiah in one instance. It was telling of what would eventually be done to the House of Israel after they had been captured by Babylonians and set free by the Medes. This actually happened after Isaiah wrote it. The other is telling what will be done by others to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the future.  Much of the Bible is simply someones writing of Israeli history which includes good things and bad things. And there was much bad! God allowed customs of the day to prevail. In instances he allowed for the capture of the women after a battle. But there were restrictions placed on the Israelites, unlike other peoples of the day. The women were not to be taken as slaves. They were treated as wifes and were not to be humiliated any further.

 Taken a woman as a wife without asking her is a rape. Did God change with time? It was OK to him those days and something changed now?   

> The Koran is written in a different way by one man over relatively short time. Much of it the sayings of Mohammed. It reads more like a war manual.

 Who was the man who wrote Koran? You are such a laughable expert of Koran, the best I ever contacted to.

----------


## Pioner

> Your quote from Zechariah is not an order from God. It is Simply a prophecy of future events. 
> Your quote from Exodus is Mosaic Law for Israelites only. It is not about rape. It is against Ten Commandments to rape or even have sex outside of marriage.
> In that day it was quite common for people to sell themselves into "slavery" . Though it was not what we would call slavery today. It was sevantude in exchange for protection. The fact that an Israelite man must treat his servant girl with the full benefits of a wife if he marries her, is a step above the customs of non-Isrealites.

 what is "prophecy" in your understanding of this word?

----------


## DDT

In prophecy God is telling his people what will happento them. Or what it will be like to be living in the time that the prophecy will take place. This is not  something that the people are ordered to do. This is what will happen to the people if they continue down the path they have chosen.  
The House of Isreal ( the Ten Norethern Tribes) had turned away from God and even elected their own king. God was telling them what would happen to them, in one instance. That their women would be raped by invaders from Babylon and that the people would be carried away into slavery. He was telling them that if they left his covenant with him they would be leaving his protection from invaders also.

----------


## Pioner

> In prophecy God is telling his people what will happento them. Or what it will be like to be living in the time that the prophecy will take place. This is not  something that the people are ordered to do. This is what will happen to the people if they continue down the path they have chosen.  
> The House of Isreal ( the Ten Norethern Tribes) had turned away from God and even elected their own king. God was telling them what would happen to them, in one instance. That their women would be raped by invaders from Babylon and that the people would be carried away into slavery. He was telling them that if they left his covenant with him they would be leaving his protection from invaders also.

 yep. I got it. It is like mafia boss speaking. "You know, if you do not pay me that contribution, I am afraid I will not be able to protect your people, to protect you famaly, and horrible things can happen, like strangers broke in your house, raping your wife and daughters etc."  
Right?

----------


## CTPEKO3A

> yep. I got it. It is like mafia boss speaking. "You know, if you do not pay me that contribution, I am afraid I will not be able to protect your people, to protect you famaly, and horrible things can happen, like strangers broke in your house, raping your wife and daughters etc." 
> Right?

 Not exactly. Your mafia boss is going to send those rapers to the house and God is not.
You got the whole idea wrong. Sorry.

----------


## Vesh

> Not exactly. Your mafia boss is going to send those rapers to the house and God is not.
> You got the whole idea wrong. Sorry.

 How do you know? Both about God and mafia boss?

----------


## CTPEKO3A

From personal experience, of course!

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

This killing of Christians and Jews doesn't make sense to me.
Granted, I didn't make it through the Koran 'cause I sort of...got bored, but while I was reading it all I saw was them being "People of the Book" and friends and such. I don't know. I'm going to go find a Koran, translated by an athiest or someone who is neither Christian or Jewish, and then read it. Just to be sure.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  
> yep. I got it. It is like mafia boss speaking. "You know, if you do not pay me that contribution, I am afraid I will not be able to protect your people, to protect you famaly, and horrible things can happen, like strangers broke in your house, raping your wife and daughters etc." 
> Right?   Not exactly. Your mafia boss is going to send those rapers to the house and God is not.
> You got the whole idea wrong. Sorry.

 well, VESH asked right question.  
And what about God ordering murdering (stoning to death) the rape victims? Is there a different way to interprate the phrase?

----------


## Pioner

> This killing of Christians and Jews doesn't make sense to me.
> Granted, I didn't make it through the Koran 'cause I sort of...got bored, but while I was reading it all I saw was them being "People of the Book" and friends and such. I don't know. I'm going to go find a Koran, translated by an athiest or someone who is neither Christian or Jewish, and then read it. Just to be sure.

 I read some Koran (although I do not claim to be an expert in this question as DDT), I read some about history of that time, and that time muslims really considered Christians and Jews as brothers, because they are "people of the Book" and they believe in one God. Unfortunately it changed later all, starting with Crusades or something else, I am not sure.

----------


## DDT

> I read some about history of that time, and that time muslims really considered Christians and Jews as brothers, because they are "people of the Book" and they believe in one God. Unfortunately it changed later all, starting with Crusades or something else, I am not sure.

 Their hatred for Christians started at the begining of Mohammeds "ministery" when the Jews taunted him in the streets of Medina for his rediculous utterances. He preached that Christians and Jews were "people of the book" (the Bible) but at the same time denied that the Bible was the true word of God but that his personal book (Koran) was the only true word. Since he could not get the Jews and Christians to side with him he decided that they should be killed. In this fashion he converted Arabs accross the lands. Arabs at that time worshiped spirits who lived in inanimate objects such as rocks and also in  that big black box in Mecca. One of the spirits that they worshipped there was a Moon god called, Allah.  
One of the things that Muslims did was to claim that Mohammed ascended to heaven at the site that the Jewish Temple was already built in Jerusalem. They then built their mosque on top of the Jewish holy temple. This is the cause of much contention between the religions and which is now a political issue.

----------


## Pioner

DDT, attempt № 10. Sources???

----------


## Pioner

And who was the men who wrote Koran? 
Just a name would be enough.

----------


## DDT

Mohammed wrote the Koran or more likely his scribes since he was illiterate over a period of 23 years. Of course Muslims claim that Allah wrote it. 
As far as sources, they are everywhere. You can easily find them if you want to understand. Here is one to get you started. There are so many on this subject I don’t have time to find them all. http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/jewish_ci ... _koran.pdf

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

How many ways is that that people have used religion to @@@@ the world?

----------


## DDT

It is "pride" that @@@@'s the world. Religion is just the excuse.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Nah, "pride" is not the key. It is ignorance! Bliss my a$$!

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

::

----------


## Prince of Persia

Hi every body
I'm from a Muslim country . 99% of my people are Muslim mostly shiah.
I'm not religious.
DDT , you have good information about Islam and history of Islam , but I assure you there are only a few Muslims who know that things about Islam and Mohammad , because if they know those things they won't be Muslim anymore and they will change their religion (like me).
So the Muslims (especially non Arabic language Muslims , like Iranians , Turks and ...) think there are only good things in Koran . In every house in Iran you can find Koran but I'm sure bellow than 1% of Iranian have read the whole Koran , and those who's read because they have a good view about Koran when they read they only get good things . I don't think nobody after reading Koran had been so angry to go to kill Americans. If Muslims only want to kill Christians why don't they kill Armenians or Greeks , they are very near to Muslim's world . Why Muslims go to USA or England to kill Christians . 
I think all these terrorist attacks and war against terrorist is a political play .
Why Muslims weren't terrorist 30 years ago , even 10 years ago , Koran was written 1400 years ago , but why Muslims became terrorist only 5 years ago? ( I don't deny religious wars during these 1400 years , Iran was the first victim of this kind of war in 1400 years ago , but they were wars not terrorist attacks) .
Why Muslims became terrorist only after there wasn't USSR anymore ? because USA needed another enemy . Now American soldiers are in every where in the whole Middle east (except Iran) . They're looking for Ben-ladan , Al-zarghawi and.... but they don't find them .Do you know what's the best way to don't find somebody? it's to know where he is , then you can easily don't search there . USA needs Ben-laden , USA needs Al-zarghawi , USA needs terrorist attacks and USA needs Muslims terrorists .
I admit those terrorists who hijacked on 11sep or who blow up themselves to kill people are true Muslims . I admit Islam has serious problems but as I told before I think all of these attacks and wars are only a political play. Those terrorists are only Marionette.

----------


## Rtyom

A twist in the discussion.  So, does many of us believe in such a conspiracy? I admit some people playing but playing so open?

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

::  PLEASE NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> PLEASE NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

 This is no conspiracy theory, this is the most obvious answer to the question "Cui prodest?". And the most frightening thing here is that it may indeed be true. At least it's got a potential. But on the other hand, what does it change for us? Bugger all.

----------


## Pioner

No, I do not think it is possible. It more simple and more complicated. USA and CIA nursed islamic fundamentalism movement for long enough time in Afganistan, now that Geenne from the bottle got out. 
But kamikadze type attack are nothing new for Islamic world, remember about India, who British there had to deal with it.

----------


## Dobry

> PLEASE NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

 Yep, I agree.  "Conspiracy theories"...nope.

----------


## DDT

You make some good points Prince, but you are forgetting how far back in history muslim attacks have been going on. Some say that the first attack that USA was involved in was in the 1700’s. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38200
While you are there click on “Palestinean TV Sermon” 
 I can also post a list of some of the major Muslin terror attacks that started about 50 years ago up until now. You seem to have forgotten all the hijackings across the globe  and hostage taking  and assassinations. As a matter of fact, didn’t the word “assassin” come into to English language through an Islamic people called Assassins?  This list has countless attacks on countries other than America and Israel. It would take up quite a few pages on our forum if I were to post it, though. It seems that the last wave of terror attacks  from WWII on, are in response to the formation of Israel. 
 In Syria, in 1947 anti-Jewish pogroms caused almost 10,000 Jews to flee in terror. In Iraq, 'Zionism' became a capital crime. Bombs in the Jewish quarter of Cairo killed more than 70 Jews. After the French left Algeria, the new Islamic leadership issued a torrent of anti-Jewish decrees, prompting nearly all of the 160,000 Jews to flee the country. When the United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution on the Partition Plan, Muslim rioters launched pogroms in Aden and Yemen killing 82 Jews.  
This is for anyone who thinks that only the West has been targeted by terror. Or that it is a recent problem. http://voi.org/books/siii/ch6.htm http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftrut ... oiaia.html http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/fac ... -kula.html

----------


## Dobry

DDT, 
Your opinion...do all Muslims, everywhere, follow this idealogy...or are there differing factions, differing viewpoints and interpretations.  Similar to Christians?   
Sorrow to break it down into simplistic views, but I'm getting the sense that you're lumping Muslims into one big group, with the same ideology. 
Dangerous waters...

----------


## Pioner

"Those who are not with us are against us" - that is a simple aproach many people like that use. After 9/11 there were cases when singhs were beaten, because they look like muslims.  
Islam got a lot of different branches, as christianity. Johova witnesses, mormons are Christians as well, right? Look at this from position of uneducated muslim. I do not see any difference with DDT for this case.

----------


## Dobry

> "Those who are not with us are against us" - that is a simple aproach many people like that use. After 9/11 there were cases when singhs were beaten, because they look like muslims.  
> Islam got a lot of different branches, as christianity. Johova witnesses, mormons are Christians as well, right? Look at this from position of uneducated muslim. I do not see any difference with DDT for this case.

 /
But,  I do see a difference.    Pioner, you're missing my point.  Unless you wish all humans to be categorized and stereotyped.   I am not  speaking to reality...I am speaking to justice. 
Does it help some humans to be "categorized and grouped"?   Maybe, but not me.  I don't think things operate that way.  That's part of my faith.  So, I disagree with DDT to categorize  and group other faiths, and beliefs (or non-beliefs). 
Yep, I know...I'm setting myself up for another Goya firing squad.    ::

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  "Those who are not with us are against us" - that is a simple aproach many people like that use. After 9/11 there were cases when singhs were beaten, because they look like muslims.  
> Islam got a lot of different branches, as christianity. Johova witnesses, mormons are Christians as well, right? Look at this from position of uneducated muslim. I do not see any difference with DDT for this case.   /
> But,  I do see a difference.    Pioner, you're missing my point.  Unless you wish all humans to be categorized and stereotyped.   I am not  speaking to reality...I am speaking to justice. 
> Does it help some humans to be "categorized and grouped"?   Maybe, but not me.  I don't think things operate that way.  That's part of my faith.  So, I disagree with DDT to categorize  and group other faiths, and beliefs (or non-beliefs). 
> Yep, I know...I'm setting myself up for another Goya firing squad.

 The problems is in Generalization. "All Blacks are lazy", "All muslims are evil", "All Jews are greedy", I can write a long list.

----------


## Cyphyr

> You make some good points Prince, but you are forgetting how far back in history muslim attacks have been going on. Some say that the first attack that USA was involved in was in the 1700’s. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38200
> While you are there click on “Palestinean TV Sermon”

  ::   ::   
So the Barbary pirates motivation was 'strictly religious' and this was part of the first Muslim attack on America. Oh dear, if this is the kind of garbage you base your opinions on, then there really is no point arguing with you.  
WorldNetDaily looks like a great place to get your news, by the way. I particularly like the ad on one of the pages: 'The amazing true story of miracles surrounding Mel Gibson's movie'  ::  Gives you a pretty clear idea of the kind of people who visit this site.

----------


## Dobry

> The problems is in Generalization. "All Blacks are lazy", "All muslims are evil", "All Jews are greedy", I can write a long list.

 My point, exactly!  "All Muslims are this...", "All Christians are this...", "All Americans are this...", "All Russians are this..." 
And yes, the list grows very long.  This is my point.   
We're all individuals, with individual personalities and characters, good and bad.  I disagree to group people based on faith, nationality, or heritage.   
This includes making generalizations about a person, based on a holy text or culture.

----------


## Cyphyr

> Originally Posted by Pioner  
> The problems is in Generalization. "All Blacks are lazy", "All muslims are evil", "All Jews are greedy", I can write a long list.   My point, exactly!  "All Muslims are this...", "All Christians are this...", "All Americans are this...", "All Russians are this..." 
> And yes, the list grows very long.  This is my point.   
> We're all individuals, with individual personalities and characters, good and bad.  I disagree to group people based on faith, nationality, or heritage.   
> This includes making generalizations about a person, based on a holy text or culture.

 I couldn't agree with you more Dobry. You're restoring my faith in people who have faith  ::

----------


## DDT

> So the Barbary pirates motivation was 'strictly religious' and this was part of the first Muslim attack on America. Oh dear, if this is the kind of garbage you base your opinions on, then there really is no point arguing with you.
> WorldNetDaily looks like a great place to get your news, by the way.

 I have pointed out that 9/11 was not USA's first skirmish with the Muslim world and all you can do is attack the messenger by be-littleing the web-site quoted. I could have chosen a dozen sites to get that story from. I chose that site because the story there was written by an Arab. Here you can read it here again if it  will make your halfwittical brain happy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... -2001Oct14

----------


## DDT

See, guys like Cyphyr want to apologise for Islam. One can only wonder if they have any historical knowlege at all when they equate Christianity to Islam. The "both religions are as bad as each other routine" doesn't cut it since Jesus, the founder of Christianity did not routinely do and say the savage things Mohammed did.  Here is a little slice of Mohammad's history for you. Pay attention Pioner because these two have to do with "rape".  
Massacre, Rape and Plunder of Banu-L-Mustaliq
Date: December 626 A.D.
Place: The well of Muraysi near Red Sea
Victims: The Tribe of Banu-L-Mustaliq  
Mohammed attacked the Banu-L-Mustaliq because of their wealth. In a surprise raid, the Muslims drove them to the Sea. They slaughtered many members of the Banu-N-Mustaliq Tribe and looted away a booty of 2000 Camels, 5000 Sheep and 500 Women! 500 women were captured screaming and crying after they had watched their husbands and sons being slaughtered. The most beautiful captive was Juwayriyya, daughter of the chief of the Banu-L-Mustaliq. Mohammed snatched her to satisfy his own animal lust. The captured women were supposed to be returned by the Muslims upon payment of a ransom. But the night after the battle itself, Mohammed and his army raped each and every one of them. One of the men Abu Sa'id Khudri of Mohammed's army reported :  
"We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we wanted to get the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use the "Azl" (Coitus Interruptus- where the man withdraws before ejaculating)...We asked the Prophet about it and he said: "You are not under any obligation to stop yourselves from doing it like that.." Later on the women and children were given for ransom to their envoys. They all went away to their country and not One wanted to stay although they had the choice.."  
So the Great Prophet of Peace told his men it was perfectly FINE to rape women as long as you didn't ejaculate inside them (which made them pregnant). What supreme logic! Any human being with the slightest shred of morality has to be nauseated by this Man and the religion he preached. Mohammed, the supreme religious figurehead of Islam sanctions RAPE, pure and simple. Not only did the Muslims commit this horrifying crime, they decieved the Tribesmen into paying Ransom for their womenfolk, who only paid the money in a desperate attempt to save their women's honor. To call such a Prophet and his followers the epitome of Evil is probably an understatement.  
 Massacre of the Banu -Qurayza
Date: April-May 627 A.D.
Place: Medinah
Victims: The Last Jewish Tribe left in Medinah The Banu-Qurayza.  
By this time, Mohammed had murdered or driven out all of the Jewish Tribes of Medinah, except the Banu Qurayza. It was time to eliminate this last thorn in his flesh. The Banu Qurayza had been reluctant in helping Mohammed against the Quraysh. Conveniently once again, Mohammed claimed that he had divine knowledge about a conspiracy by the Banu-Qurayza to kill him. He beseiged their fortress for Twenty-Five days. When the starving Tribe surrendered, Mohammed forced an old man from their own Tribe to pronounce Mohammed's sentence. The sentence was death to every male member of the Tribe, Slavery for every woman and child and Plunder of all their property.  
The Prophet had an immense trench dug around the main market of Medinah. The men of the Banu Qurayza were rounded up & their hands twisted tightly behind them. Then one by one, they were shoved to the edge of the trench and forced to kneel. They were offered a last chance to convert to "The True Faith" and if they refused, had their heads chopped off. As soon as one head would roll off, the corpse would be kicked into the ditch, and so it went. By the time Dawn had colored the sky red in Medinah, hundreds of corpses piled up in a heap in a tangled cesspool of blood, hair and shreds of flesh. Despite the horrific end in front of their eyes, none of the Jews chose to convert to Islam and faced death valiantly. The blood of 900 innocent Jews stained Mohammed's hands on that black day.  
Their only crime was that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, of choosing their own God and the religion of their ancestors. Hysterical women & children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands & sons die. The majority of them were raped savagely and then bundled off to be sold as "used goods". The Prophet had the husband of the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr hacked to pieces before her very eyes, hours after he had murdered her father. No doubt this was the Prophet's perverted version of a wedding present, because after these atrocities he raped the mortified girl and tried to force her to convert to Islam.  
Muslim historians still describe the savage rape of Raihana Bint Amr as her "willing submission to Islam and wifehood to the Prophet"  
Apparently according to them it is very natural to imagine that a woman who has just seen her husband, father, brothers and Tribe slaughtered violently before her very eyes, would CHOOSE to convert to the religion of the murderer and marry him! In actual fact Raihana REFUSED to convert to Islam and also refused to marry Mohammed the murderer of her family. He kept her as a lowly concubine all his life. So much for the "Apostle of Peace" and his unbounded RESPECT for women. Mohammed was nothing but a serial rapist, who acquired his victims by killing their families first.  
Allah as usual has provided yet another timeless Divine revelation which gives his Prophet the Right to rape and torture women of other religions.  
Koran 4:24 
"And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..."    
In short Allah the All Merciful is saying "Hey Muslims, it's a crime to go after married women, but IF they happen to be your captives (which obviously all the non-Muslim women were) feel free to indulge yourself in rape and sexual torture of them. "lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned" Allah is making it LEGAL for Muslims to go ahead and rape Non-Muslim women by Divine Law!  
One shudders to imagine what kind of minds invented such utterly sadistic and disgusting ideas.  
Mohammed justified all his crimes against the Jews with more of Allah's revelations. Although the following Surahs were not revealed at the same time as the Massacre of Banu Quraizyah, they nevertheless give a general idea of the Prophet's views on Jews and why it is perfectly fine to kill, loot and rape them. 
Now, everybody! This is the example that the founder of Islam set. How can you expect the poor people under the influence of what should be described as a "cult" act any other way than to set off bombs in London subways? Come now, this is not the normal response to political grievances.

----------


## Rosa Anna

::  OH GOD. I can't believe I am saying this. At least THEIR freakshow isn't prostelyzing spilling their nasty ass seed INSIDE the woman, YO?  ::

----------


## scotcher

I suspect DDT gets his info on Islam from the _Big Bigoted Christian Book of Why All Other Religions are Bad._

----------


## Prince of Persia

> PLEASE NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

 Yes , maybe I'm wrong , but maybe I'm right . I don't know , but in playing chess sometimes for victory you have to immolate your own chessmen. 
The only thing I know is that all these kind of terrorists are Muslims but all Muslims aren't terrorist.

----------


## Cyphyr

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr  So the Barbary pirates motivation was 'strictly religious' and this was part of the first Muslim attack on America. Oh dear, if this is the kind of garbage you base your opinions on, then there really is no point arguing with you.
> WorldNetDaily looks like a great place to get your news, by the way.   I have pointed out that 9/11 was not USA's first skirmish with the Muslim world and all you can do is attack the messenger by be-littleing the web-site quoted. I could have chosen a dozen sites to get that story from. I chose that site because the story there was written by an Arab. Here you can read it here again if it  will make your halfwittical brain happy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... -2001Oct14

 Thanks DDT, great link, it did make my 'halfwittical' brain happy because IT COMPLETELY PROVED MY POINT! 
"For one thing, although the Barbary pirates were good at instilling terror -- using cannons and scimitars -- *they were not waging a holy war against Americans. They were opportunists*, historians say."  *"They didn't have political objectives, they just wanted money."* 
It also states that the US received Muslim support in the campaign against the pirates. 
"In calling on Muslims for support, Eaton, as a U.S. naval agent and the operation's leader, denounced "cruel and savage" despots who oppressed their own people -- and *defiled the true teachings of Islam* (Eaton had studied the Koran): 
Our religion teaches us to fear and worship God and to be kind to all his creatures . . . Be assured that the God of the Americans and of the Mohometans [Muslims] is the same; the one true and omnipotent God."   
The first site you linked to stated that the pirates motivation was "strictly religious". This is what I found so funny, that there were retards out there who would try to present the Barbary pirates as jihadi religious fighters akin to the modern al-Qaeda movement. And you chose it because it was written by an Arab? Yeah right, you chose it because it suited your prejudices so well. The fact that it was written by an Arab doesn't mean anything, only that you can find an Arab idiot if you want. Unfortuately, idiocy affects all peoples of the world!

----------


## Cyphyr

> I suspect DDT gets his info on Islam from the _Big Bigoted Christian Book of Why All Other Religions are Bad._

 I think he's hoping to get a job as a contributor to the new edition  ::

----------


## DDT

> I suspect DDT gets his info on Islam from the _Big Bigoted Christian Book of Why All Other Religions are Bad._

  In case you didn't notice Scotcher ol boy, I was pretty hard on  the Pope and Popery a while back too!  
I have posted enough historical documentation on the formation of Islam here, that if one still see's this as a religion of peace or even a healthy set of principles to style your life around after reading, then I can only conclude that you suscribe to, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".
Religion of peace, sheesh! Isn't there another religion out there more deserving of that title? 
I mean, when was the last time you heard anyone yell, Lookout! Here comes Buddah and his band of big bellied believers."

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> I mean, when was the last time you heard anyone yell, Lookout! Here comes Buddah and his band of big bellied believers."

 Actually there are Buddhist terrorists (aka freedom fighters) in Tibet, fighting for freedom from China...  
Hindu terrorists too, in India vs the Mulims...  
Let's see, what is left of the major religions?

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

GAH! Maybe I'm just young...but organized religions, and maybe just religions in general...how can I phrase this? 
NEED TO BE DESTROYED.  :: 
The best thing that could happen in my life would be complete and utter destruction of the Christian church.  ::  
That's not to say it's the only religion I hate, but it's the religion with the largest, most depressing grip on the place I live.  
Now, I'm flipping running for my life before my head is torn off for not being all about Jesus, or Mohammud (SP) and Moses for that matter. 
Edit: Oh, and here's my turn at a biased-religion-slashing link.  ::  http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

----------


## Cyphyr

> GAH! Maybe I'm just young...but organized religions, and maybe just religions in general...how can I phrase this? 
> NEED TO BE DESTROYED. 
> The best thing that could happen in my life would be complete and utter destruction of the Christian church.  
> That's not to say it's the only religion I hate, but it's the religion with the largest, most depressing grip on the place I live.  
> Now, I'm flipping running for my life before my head is torn off for not being all about Jesus, or Mohammud (SP) and Moses for that matter. 
> Edit: Oh, and here's my turn at a biased-religion-slashing link.  http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

 I used to really despise religion and think that all the world's problems would be solved if it just withered away. Now, I think that's a bit simplistic and may in fact have negative consequences. There are many different varieties of religion and one that is moderate, tolerant of other viewpoints and at ease with science and modernity should not harm anyone. I remember seeing a lady on television who said she didn't believe her prayers could influence events in the physical world but believed that through them God gave her the insight and strength to deal with her problems. I thought 'Wow! now that's the kind of religion I can deal with' Unfortunately, you don't seem to see many of those people. I see loads of people who think they can change the weather on particular days or get miracle cures if they visit certain places or say certain prayers. 
But what really makes me dispair is when I see people in the 21st century in the world's most technologically advanced nation trying to get creationism taught in science class. Thankfully, even the really religious people in Ireland haven't formed a movement to do that.

----------


## DDT

> [ 
> But what really makes me dispair is when I see people in the 21st century in the world's most technologically advanced nation trying to get creationism taught in science class.

 You could say the exact same thing about Darwinism.

----------


## Rosa Anna

See.. that's why I love this forum.. Yall really gets down to the shits of the matter.... whatever they are. Sex. Religious bias. Maybe a little honest racial unease... 
Science in it's assumed accurate perfection can fit perfectly well in a creation theory pinned on a Christian or Judeo (or the other way around-or how ever that works) God.  
The world came into formation how ever many billions of years ago...ok..
A GOD flipped the switch.... ok 
CREATION!
ok...groovy     ::  
So what's with your GOD and my GOD and their GOD-- GOD=GOD 
I don't see GOD jumping in with how he or she or it wants to be worshipped. Or even if she or he or it does. 
Well the bible...well the Quran... 
I see GOD saying... KIDS. shoo shoo go play.. 
And I see HUMANS making a big ol rediculous fuss of this.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by DDT  I mean, when was the last time you heard anyone yell, Lookout! Here comes Buddah and his band of big bellied believers."   Actually there are Buddhist terrorists (aka freedom fighters) in Tibet, fighting for freedom from China...  
> Hindu terrorists too, in India vs the Mulims...  
> Let's see, what is left of the major religions?

 Atheism?   ::

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr  [ 
> But what really makes me dispair is when I see people in the 21st century in the world's most technologically advanced nation trying to get creationism taught in science class.   You could say the exact same thing about Darwinism.

 Darwinism is a science and got a lot of facts to support it. 
Creationism is a religion, got no facts to support that, outside of one or 2 books written as you said yourself by humans. By Constitution of US, religion is separeated from state, so creationism should not be taught in state schools.

----------


## Cyphyr

Oh no Pioner you've got him started again. This thread is never gonna die  ::  
Well, I'm staying out of it this time. Just to say, that in Europe there is by and large a consensus among the religious and the non-religious alike that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on earth. It's just not an issue and people of faith don't feel threatened by it. Like Rosa Anna said, they believe that 'God flipped the switch'. The fact that the whole thing is still an issue the other side of the Atlantic is one of those things that makes America look very strange in European eyes.

----------


## Pioner

Cyphyr, you are right, but my biological education forced me to post this, although I already gave up urguing with DDT regarding religion, as he does not listen to any arguments unless they support his point of view.  
Problems with teaching Darwinism exists only in Jesusland, which is far from being majority of America (not by size of the states but by population).

----------


## Cyphyr

Yep, I understand that. It's not an issue for many Americans but there still seems to be a sizeable chunk of the population who have a big problem with it. I remember reading some frightening statistic about the number of people who favoured Creationism over Darwinism. Can't remember exactly what it was but I remember feeling quite shocked at the time when I read it.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> . Yet they claim they're carrying out these atrocities because of injustices in the Middle East and Africa.

 If this was the case, I don't think it would make much sense to hold up the G8 Convention. I feel very sorry for those who live in London.   ::   It's sad, and I'm glad nothing worse happened. Whether this has anything to do with the situation in the Middle East or not, I think they still would have done something like this. It is a very poor and barbaric way to speak out against those things you don't agree with.

----------


## Pioner

> Yep, I understand that. It's not an issue for many Americans but there still seems to be a sizeable chunk of the population who have a big problem with it. I remember reading some frightening statistic about the number of people who favoured Creationism over Darwinism. Can't remember exactly what it was but I remember feeling quite shocked at the time when I read it.

 It depends where statistic was collected, if it was in some Jesusland state, the percent can be shocking, if here in California - not as much. And again, here in California there lives about 20% of USA population. Another 15% in NY state, that gives 35% of all. So, if you go nationwide average for USA, I think the difference with Europe will not be that stricking.

----------


## DDT

Yeah that's right, quit stirring me up. I have't picked on Atheism yet and I need to study Russian. 
I'll just say this though. If one has ever really dug into the subject of Evolution and i mean by studying the arguments against it by educated scientists who disagree with the status quo of mainstream science, (which by the way many of sciences best dicoveries have come from outside the mainstream), one  would have found many legitmate conscernes over the validities of so called dicoveries that are said to support the Theory of Evolution.  
To just dissmiss anyone who disagrees with Evolution as foolish, is foolish in it's self as there are debates on this subject frequently, by some of today's greatest minds in the scientific community. 
I will leave you now a link for anyone who is interested in investigating further. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.html

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> (heavy sigh)  _"He who is without guilt may throw the first stone."_ 
> This is a fundamental principle of my faith. 
> Has America done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Russia done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Iraq done wrong?  Yes.
> Has France done wrong  Yes.
> Has Germany done wrong?  Yes.
> Has U.K. done wrong?  Yes.
> Has Spain done wrong?  Yes. 
> ...

 I agree with Dobriy... it's sickening to constantly hear that Americans are to blame for everything, even if it has nothing to do with us. People need to learn the difference between the average American person and the American government. Or the average Spanish person and the Spanish government. So on and so forth. Many people in the United States are against the coalition forces in Iraq. Not the soldiers themselves, but the cause. Thinking that Americans fully support this is wrong. I'm against war, but what other resort do you really have? Do you really think that Hussein, bin Laden, Zarqawi, or any other extremist leader is going to calmly sit there and discuss things in a civilized way? Any time there is a conflict between Russia, Germany, the US, France, etc, you never see them sending suicide bombers to the opposing country. They have a meeting to discuss things. They may not agree at first, and may leave the meeting in a bitter mood, but they wouldn't send a missile or hijacked planes to kill innocent people.  
If there was something accidental on US soil from Russia, for instance, a plane went down, or a missile was accidently sent off, or something else, the US wouldn't retaliate. Differentiating between accidental and intentional are actually very important. Thinking about those things before you act is what keeps a war from developing and prevents one.

----------


## Pioner

> Do you really think that Hussein, bin Laden, Zarqawi, or any other extremist leader is going to calmly sit there and discuss things in a civilized way?

 We could have civilized discuss with Hussein in Iraq, but now we got Zarqawi and ben Laden there.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> I dont want to add again facts about my country, but its true that the U.S. are the world policeman since the SU doesnt exit anymore and that you did many many bad things

 Many countries turn us into the world police though. If we help out another country because they ask us, we're accused of being wrong, bad, evil.. Many times Bush has even been called a dictator. If the US doesn't help, then it's because "there's no interests in that country", the US is evil, bad, wrong, and a dictatorship. For instance, the discussion with N. Korea. We're helping Russia, China, and Japan (I think they're involved right?) to hold meetings with Jong Il. But, many people say the US should mind their business. The other side says, do something, do something. If something goes wrong, the US will be the one to blame. If N.Korea withholds everything, the US is then accused of controlling other countries and not minding their own business. It's a no win situation.

----------


## Cyphyr

::  Oh my god! This is turning into the thread from hell!  ::  We've got the Darwinism v Creationism and the Causes of Terrorism debate running at the same time. All we need now is Vending Machine to step in and start talking about how to treat women again  ::

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

On first place we should not be there at all. And yes, we need to leave. 
But what about Bible? Or you learned Chinese already?  :: [/quote] 
Out of all the sermons I have been to in church, not one priest or one passage that they've quote has said anything about killing anyone from another religion, or killing anyone as a matter of fact. According to our religion, in the 10 Commandments, which are the basic laws of the Christian religion, killing is one of the things it's against. So please, really, point out where it says that killing someone is approved of by God. And if there is, I don't see anyone in the 21st century from the religion or 20th century at that, killing in "the name of God" or because of the Bible.

----------


## Pioner

> On first place we should not be there at all. And yes, we need to leave. 
> But what about Bible? Or you learned Chinese already?    Out of all the sermons I have been to in church, not one priest or one passage that they've quote has said anything about killing anyone from another religion, or killing anyone as a matter of fact. According to our religion, in the 10 Commandments, which are the basic laws of the Christian religion, killing is one of the things it's against. So please, really, point out where it says that killing someone is approved of by God. And if there is, I don't see anyone in the 21st century from the religion or 20th century at that, killing in "the name of God" or because of the Bible.

 Well, I participated several muslim ceremonies in Mosques, never heard a single word for killing. 
Didn't church bless soldiers going to war in Iraq? Or pilots dripping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? More examples?

----------


## DDT

> Well, I participated several muslim ceremonies in Mosques, never heard a single word for killing. 
> Didn't church bless soldiers going to war in Iraq? Or pilots dripping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? More examples?

 I  posted a link to sermons in Palestinian mosques where such sermons were being preached. Didn't you bother to click on it? 
Some of us on this forum would not be alive today if   we had not have blown the crap out of Japan.

----------


## Pioner

> Some of us on this forum would not be alive today if   we had not have blown the cr@p out of Japan.

 Oh, really? What was a military use of murdering tens of thousands of japanese, most of them civilians? The Japan was already loosing the war.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

"What book people who droped A-bombs on Japan read?" 
Wow, that's a really stupid question to ask Pioner. The United States, (which is really off topic by the way, because we're discussing religion here, not specific countries), didn't declare it as an "act of God" or "in the name of God" and posted it in newspapers or on websites. These extremists commit these acts and then declare that it is in the name of their god. You can't even compare the two.

----------


## Pioner

> "What book people who droped A-bombs on Japan read?" 
> Wow, that's a really stupid question to ask Pioner. The United States, (which is really off topic by the way, because we're discussing religion here, not specific countries), didn't declare it as an "act of God" or "in the name of God" and posted it in newspapers or on websites. These extremists commit these acts and then declare that it is in the name of their god. You can't even compare the two.

 well, I perfectly can. Imagine if you are a muslim, and you see the world the same way DDT sees world, us good muslims, them bad everybody else. Do you have enough imagination? And for you that will clearly see that the bomb was dropped by christians.  
Anyhow, what difference it does make for civilian japanese who died in that attack? Oh, they did not posted that it was from God? Well, I died from taht. Or my childeren died in that attack. The attack was totally useless from military point of view, Japan was already loosing the war, and was about to sign peace with USA.

----------


## Dobry

> Well, I'm staying out of it this time.

 I'm with you, Cypher.  I'm sitting this one out, on the side-lines.  ::

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> Hi every body
> I'm from a Muslim country . 99% of my people are Muslim mostly shiah.
> I'm not religious.
> DDT , you have good information about Islam and history of Islam , but I assure you there are only a few Muslims who know that things about Islam and Mohammad , because if they know those things they won't be Muslim anymore and they will change their religion (like me).
> So the Muslims (especially non Arabic language Muslims , like Iranians , Turks and ...) think there are only good things in Koran . In every house in Iran you can find Koran but I'm sure bellow than 1% of Iranian have read the whole Koran , and those who's read because they have a good view about Koran when they read they only get good things . I don't think nobody after reading Koran had been so angry to go to kill Americans. If Muslims only want to kill Christians why don't they kill Armenians or Greeks , they are very near to Muslim's world . Why Muslims go to USA or England to kill Christians . 
> I think all these terrorist attacks and war against terrorist is a political play .
> Why Muslims weren't terrorist 30 years ago , even 10 years ago , Koran was written 1400 years ago , but why Muslims became terrorist only 5 years ago? ( I don't deny religious wars during these 1400 years , Iran was the first victim of this kind of war in 1400 years ago , but they were wars not terrorist attacks) .
> Why Muslims became terrorist only after there wasn't USSR anymore ? because USA needed another enemy . Now American soldiers are in every where in the whole Middle east (except Iran) . They're looking for Ben-ladan , Al-zarghawi and.... but they don't find them .Do you know what's the best way to don't find somebody? it's to know where he is , then you can easily don't search there . USA needs Ben-laden , USA needs Al-zarghawi , USA needs terrorist attacks and USA needs Muslims terrorists .
> I admit those terrorists who hijacked on 11sep or who blow up themselves to kill people are true Muslims . I admit Islam has serious problems but as I told before I think all of these attacks and wars are only a political play. Those terrorists are only Marionette.

 Muslims were not perceived as terrorists only 5 years ago. They were placed in that position when the conflict between Israel and Palestine began after WWII. You all also forget about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which was also conducted by bin Laden. Except that time, it didn't affect the towers like they had thought it would. So, in 2001, they decided to try again with 2 fully fueled planes. I'm sorry, but if you think it's humane to do something like that in the name of your god, then maybe you should have seen the buildings smoldering with your own eyes in person like I did. Maybe you should have seen constant videos of people jumping from windows. Or those few that survived who have psychological problems now, maybe you should talk to them. 
Over time, the image of Muslims being "evil" will slowly fade away, if this war with extremists ever comes to an end. The same thing happened with the Japanese during and after WWII. It also happened during the time of the Soviet Union when the world was in fear of communism. Unfortunately, the war has already begun and it would be very difficult to just turn your back on the whole situation. Many of you think it would be simply to just pull the troops out, and everything would be finished. But, it will just continue, even if no troops were sent in.

----------


## Pioner

well, enjoy: 
The Second World War finally came to
an end in 1945 with the atomic bombing of
Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A plane, piloted by
Catholics and blessed by a Catholic chaplain,
dropped a bomb on Nagasaki, and the epicentre
of the explosion was the Catholic cathedral,
annihilating Japan’s main community of
Catholics. Not only have Christian churches
tended to take the side of the wars waged by
the countries in which they find themselves,
they have exhorted their members to kill fellow
Christians elsewhere.  http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/nwm20/crit_geog_chr.pdf

----------


## Pioner

> "What book people who droped A-bombs on Japan read?" 
> Wow, that's a really stupid question to ask Pioner. The United States, (which is really off topic by the way, because we're discussing religion here, not specific countries), didn't declare it as an "act of God" or "in the name of God" and posted it in newspapers or on websites. These extremists commit these acts and then declare that it is in the name of their god. You can't even compare the two.

 here, for you and DDT, written by a Christian: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/d ... moke.6.htm

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> Originally Posted by rgkatyaisashaukr  Do you really think that Hussein, bin Laden, Zarqawi, or any other extremist leader is going to calmly sit there and discuss things in a civilized way?   We could have civilized discuss with Hussein in Iraq, but now we got Zarqawi and ben Laden there.

 Maybe with Hussein... but the other 2.   ::   Nevozmozhno!

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> Didn't church bless soldiers going to war in Iraq? Or pilots dripping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? More examples?

 Again people need to seperate soldiers from cause. Soldiers do not have a choice and our sent out for whatever reason the government wants them to be sent out for. That's the way armed forces work. I see nothing wrong with blessing soldiers for their well being. It's not like those Muslim extremist maniacs who march around on the streets covered in all white or all black, carry rifles, chanting how they can't wait to kill us.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> well, I perfectly can. Imagine if you are a muslim, and you see the world the same way DDT sees world, us good muslims, them bad everybody else. Do you have enough imagination? And for you that will clearly see that the bomb was dropped by christians. 
> .

 Dropped by Christians only?   ::   That's really amusing considering the US is known as the world's mixing pot and is of all different religions. You're obviously not understanding my point. Even though we dropped that bomb, we didn't say God told us to or the Bible said so. That's like a child doing something wrong and saying "oh well he/she told me to do it." That's called partly not taking responsibility for your own actions. Now with the Muslims, they are actually claiming that they were told to do it by Allah.. or whoever their god is. THAT'S the difference!

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner        Originally Posted by rgkatyaisashaukr  Do you really think that Hussein, bin Laden, Zarqawi, or any other extremist leader is going to calmly sit there and discuss things in a civilized way?   We could have civilized discuss with Hussein in Iraq, but now we got Zarqawi and ben Laden there.   Maybe with Hussein... but the other 2.    Nevozmozhno!

 well, who took Hussein out of power, so, instead of him we have to deal with those 2 guys? Who is that genius of strategy?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  
> well, I perfectly can. Imagine if you are a muslim, and you see the world the same way DDT sees world, us good muslims, them bad everybody else. Do you have enough imagination? And for you that will clearly see that the bomb was dropped by christians. 
> .   Dropped by Christians only?    That's really amusing considering the US is known as the world's mixing pot and is of all different religions. You're obviously not understanding my point. Even though we dropped that bomb, we didn't say God told us to or the Bible said so. That's like a child doing something wrong and saying "oh well he/she told me to do it." That's called partly not taking responsibility for your own actions. Now with the Muslims, they are actually claiming that they were told to do it by Allah.. or whoever their god is. THAT'S the difference!

 Sorry, I still do not see any difference for people who died in terroristic attacks. If I shoot you, and say afetwards that God told me to do that, will it improve you condition? Or it is better if I kill you, and say that I did it myself. What is better?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  
> Didn't church bless soldiers going to war in Iraq? Or pilots dripping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? More examples?   Again people need to seperate soldiers from cause. Soldiers do not have a choice and our sent out for whatever reason the government wants them to be sent out for. That's the way armed forces work. I see nothing wrong with blessing soldiers for their well being. It's not like those Muslim extremist maniacs who march around on the streets covered in all white or all black, carry rifles, chanting how they can't wait to kill us.

 Soldiers who go to kill civilians and children? Sorry, I do not see any difference between you and those palestinians who selebrated bombing WTC in 2000.

----------


## Cyphyr

> Originally Posted by Cyphyr  
> Well, I'm staying out of it this time.   I'm with you, Cypher.  I'm sitting this one out, on the side-lines.

 Yup, seems like the smart move  ::  
If this thread could talk, it would probably request to be put out of its misery  ::

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Ha.

----------


## DDT

> Darwinism is a science and got a lot of facts to support it.

 Really? I am afraid that it will always only be a theory since the fossil record does not support it. As a matter of fact the fossil records are more likely to support creationism. You really need to catch up on your reading.   

> Creationism is a religion, got no facts to support that, outside of one or 2 books written as you said yourself by humans. By Constitution of US, religion is separeated from state, so creationism should not be taught in state schools.

 Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory is the only other alternative to Evolution and is not in of itself neccesarily  connected to religion. Even Albert Einstein was investigating the possibilities of this theory before he died and somehow I imagine him to be a lot smarter than you or I. For you to say that it should not be taught in schools is just plain uneducated or predjudiced.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT  Some of us on this forum would not be alive today if   we had not have blown the cr@p out of Japan.   Oh, really? What was a military use of murdering tens of thousands of japanese, most of them civilians? The Japan was already loosing the war.

  

> Japan was already loosing the war, and was about to sign peace with USA.

 Duh! How about because it saved an estimated 1 - 2 million allied lives not having to fight building to building with the Japanese who would only willing to surrender *on their own terms*, if at all. The Japanese people had been hoodwinked into believing that their Emperor was related to the gods and as such they could not fathom the idea that Japan could actually be wrong. Sound familiar? They were in full support of their war machine. They had just killed hundreds of  thousands of people accross Asia, raped half the women in Nanking. They held members of my family in barbaric camps in Burma and Thailand who were horrendously tortured and forced to build a railway with little or no food. One of whom was awarded the Victoria Cross and recently put on our 50 cent coin for his bravery in standing up to his Japanese overlords in the prison camp. These people looked like walking skeletons when they finally were released. 
So nice of you to sit there as a revisionist and say we were wrong to stop the war with FAT BOY! 
Why are you not complaining about the deaths incurred in cities like Dresden? Allied bombing killed more people there than in Hiroshima with just conventional bombs. Why is it that we only hear about the death of civilian Japanese and not civillian Germans? I suspect that the words  "politics" and "nuclear" will have something to do with it.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

> So nice of you to sit there as a revisionist and say we were wrong to stop the war with FAT BOY!

 Hey hey hey, take it to the obesity forum.  ::

----------


## DDT

Hey Trig, who's on your avatar now?

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Trent Reeeeeeeeznor.
I'm on a Nine Inch Nails fix. 
KINDA I WANT TO! DOODOODOODOO!

----------


## DDT

Hurry up and get over this kick. I miss Shirley!

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

I have like, more than forty Garbage icons.  ::  
Garbage is my favorite band and I listen to them constantly.   ::  
Slight obsession...but there's so many songs, now I have to choose an avatar and then pick a Garbage lyric for my SN...oh the work!
Be back in like, ten minutes.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

I have like, more than forty Garbage icons.  ::  
Garbage is my favorite band and I listen to them constantly.   ::  
Slight obsession...but there's so many songs, now I have to choose an avatar and then pick a Garbage lyric for my signature...oh the work!
Be back in like, ten minutes. 
Edit: She's dressed pretty damn whorey in the Sex Is Not The Enemy video.  ::  www.garbage.com

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Wow, pioner.. i'm just amazed at your stupidity.... i'm done discussing anything with you.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by Pioner  Darwinism is a science and got a lot of facts to support it.   Really? I am afraid that it will always only be a theory since the fossil record does not support it. As a matter of fact the fossil records are more likely to support creationism. You really need to catch up on your reading.

 Uh, DDTushka, can you expand on this a bit? I thought the fossil findings support the evolution theory... I mean how does finding neanderthal fossiles support creationism? Dinsoaurs? Wake up and smell the fossil fish, DDTushka... oooh... I feel the wrath coming!! lol!

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  Darwinism is a science and got a lot of facts to support it.   Really? I am afraid that it will always only be a theory since the fossil record does not support it. As a matter of fact the fossil records are more likely to support creationism. You really need to catch up on your reading.

 Oh really? I am really impressed with your knowladge in each field. You are an expert in Koran, as you were showing here, now you are are an expert in paleontology. You are a man with many surprises! 
Any hope to get a hint on sources you used for such declaration?   

> Creationism is a religion, got no facts to support that, outside of one or 2 books written as you said yourself by humans. By Constitution of US, religion is separeated from state, so creationism should not be taught in state schools.

 Albert Einstein was a biologist? I never heard about that, please let me know a little bit more about that. Works in biology he published? Please, I am so eager to find out. 
And you still keep in secret the name of the man who wrote Koran. So many people are really willing to find out, you will be honored for that. Please do not be shy and share your knoweldge.

----------


## saibot

> Wow, pioner.. i'm just amazed at your stupidity.... i'm done discussing anything with you.

 Didn't your mother ever teach you, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all?" 
You shouldn't insult poor Pioner like that.  We are like a FAMILY here!  If you insult one, you insult us all! 
And trust me, the last thing you want is an angry e-mob on your tail.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner        Originally Posted by DDT  Some of us on this forum would not be alive today if   we had not have blown the cr@p out of Japan.   Oh, really? What was a military use of murdering tens of thousands of japanese, most of them civilians? The Japan was already loosing the war.         Originally Posted by Pioner   Japan was already loosing the war, and was about to sign peace with USA.   Duh! How about because it saved an estimated 1 - 2 million allied lives not having to fight building to building with the Japanese who would only willing to surrender *on their own terms*, if at all. The Japanese people had been hoodwinked into believing that their Emperor was related to the gods and as such they could not fathom the idea that Japan could actually be wrong. Sound familiar? They were in full support of their war machine. They had just killed hundreds of  thousands of people accross Asia, raped half the women in Nanking. They held members of my family in barbaric camps in Burma and Thailand who were horrendously tortured and forced to build a railway with little or no food. One of whom was awarded the Victoria Cross and recently put on our 50 cent coin for his bravery in standing up to his Japanese overlords in the prison camp. These people looked like walking skeletons when they finally were released. 
> So nice of you to sit there as a revisionist and say we were wrong to stop the war with FAT BOY! 
> Why are you not complaining about the deaths incurred in cities like Dresden? Allied bombing killed more people there than in Hiroshima with just conventional bombs. Why is it that we only hear about the death of civilian Japanese and not civillian Germans? I suspect that the words  "politics" and "nuclear" will have something to do with it.

 Well murdering of Dresden was not nice neither. Let me understand that clearly, about Japanese, all horrible crimes they did, I know about that quite a bit, but, that was the reason to drop the bomb on their civilians? On children and women who never participated in that war? Did I understand you properly?

----------


## Pioner

> Wow, pioner.. i'm just amazed at your stupidity.... i'm done discussing anything with you.

 Well, it is your choice. Switching to personalities, what I can reply? I better keep on polite level. Good luck.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

I'm picking my nose.   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

The reasons why America dropped the bomb was many: 
A) A quick end to the war, without having to lose time -> american lives, resources, equipment, etc. JAPAN CAPITULATED as a direct result of the second atomic bomb
B) Experiment. The bomb had never been tested live before. They planned on dropping two, using two different technology
C) Politcal Power. Showing the world what might America has, it certainly scared Russia! 
Now, whether it is morally right is another question. 
What is certain is that it wasn't dropped on the Japanes because they were NOT christian.

----------


## Pioner

I am not saying that they dropped the bombs for religion reason, but they dropped it for other then military reasons. Such actions have a term - TERRORISM. Am I wrong?

----------


## Pioner

Anyhow, christian terrorist, just seen in the news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01293.html 
any more questions?

----------


## Pioner

disclaimer: I do not want to show that Christians are bad and Muslims are good. I just want to show that the world is not black and white, and there are us good guys and them bad guys.  
You can call my opinion about the world - stupid. But it does not change anything. The world is really multicoloring and there is no perfect Good and Evil in this world, what ever holly books like Bible and Koran say.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

"Iz u sayin i ain guud!? DO YOU NOT SEE LIGHT COMING FROM MY HEAD!?"   ::   
GOD I LOVE GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH! 
Edit: Wait, he's pointing to the seventh comandment isn't he...which one's that. CONSPIRACY! LYK OMG

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> I am not saying that they dropped the bombs for religion reason, but they dropped it for other then military reasons. Such actions have a term - TERRORISM. Am I wrong?

 Yes and no. Military reasons was very much part of the reasoning to drop the nukes. It took away the need for a land invasion of Japan that would have cause alot more US casualties and Japanese too. Some estimates were in the millions... AND showing the USSR the military power America was capable of was also immensly important militarily and politicaly in the aftermath.  
As you said yourself, it's never black or white. It is always a shade of gray.

----------


## DDT

Will you stop doing that Trigger Happy, I'm trying to think!!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Will you stop doing that Trigger Happy, I'm trying to think!!

 Overstatement alert!!!   ::

----------


## saibot

> "Iz u sayin i ain guud!? DO YOU NOT SEE LIGHT COMING FROM MY HEAD!?"    
> GOD I LOVE GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH! 
> Edit: Wait, he's pointing to the seventh comandment isn't he...which one's that. CONSPIRACY! LYK OMG

 I would say he's pointing to the first or the second...or better he's "thumbing" to it...look at the angle his finger is coming off his hand.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Mwahahaha...
Lol, well what are they!? I bet they're really important.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Ok, yes, the Americans did bomb two of Japans cities. But, didn't the Japan send kamakazis to Pearl Harbor first? Hmm... and their Emperor claimed that if they sacrificed their lives for their country and Emperor it would do them good in "heaven"? Is this not the same thing as the Muslim religion that the extremists claim it says to do? 
Pioner- you have to understand that the discussion, and this is what i've been trying to explain, are those who act out for religious purposes. The bombings done in Japan were not done for religious beliefs. This was an actual war. a WORLD war.. so singling out one country is not the right thing to do. Many countries were involved. Why aren't you talking about Germany? The country who committed the most atrocities out of the entire war. How does a war, started by mainly one country, committing all sorts of horrible crimes, be turned to a religious war, claiming the US is at fault   ::   
It's amazing how a discussion starts out one way, and then turns into pointing a finger at the US.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT        Originally Posted by Pioner  Darwinism is a science and got a lot of facts to support it.   Really? I am afraid that it will always only be a theory since the fossil record does not support it. As a matter of fact the fossil records are more likely to support creationism. You really need to catch up on your reading.   Uh, DDTushka, can you expand on this a bit? I thought the fossil findings support the evolution theory... I mean how does finding neanderthal fossiles support creationism? Dinosaurs? Wake up and smell the fossil fish, DDTushka... oooh... I feel the wrath coming!! lol!

 Well it is like this:
Those graphs that you see in your evolution 101 textbooks of the earth's strata are only in the order that was decided on according to the theory. In real life the strata could be in any order. With rocks containing fossils of "supposedly" early life forms at the top and newer fossilized life at a lower level. Evolutionists are aware that these discrepancies don't fit with their charts and theories so they give the "phenomenon" a scientific sounding name and say it will be explained at at later date when they discover new knowledge. 
They are not willing to accept that their theory does not hold water because the alternative is what?........Intelligent Design. So they keep searching for facts that are not there. 
The fossil record shows an abundance of life that appeared suddenly. There is nothing.....then there are heaps of fossilized life forms. Whets more the life forms that  they find first are quite similar to plants and small life forms that we see today and are organically complex..
There is no indication of life starting slowly from single cell life forms. 
Mathematicians have computed the odds of life being able to start on its own and grow into even a simple life form as a figure with an infinite number of zeros behind it and admit the odds make it "impossible". 
There are fossilized trees still standing upright through supposedly millions and millions of years of strata. There are fossilized footsteps of what looks like human footprints in the strata that contains the evidence of dinosaurs. 
Part of the problem is that the biologists date the age of the life form by the date the geologists give the rocks and the geologists date the age of the rocks by the date the biologists give the life forms. 
AS far as the fossilized remains of Neanderthal or Australopithecus or Java Man and the likes. Some have been found to be nothing more than an extinct ape  (Australopithecus) . Or in one case an elephants knee cap. Yes that’s right. A whole "early man" constructed out of an elephants knee cap. Another, Java , I think was a scull cap, a few teeth and a thigh bone found about 50 feet away. The thigh bone is from a woman so they put them all together and called it Pithecanthropus Erectus. 
An entire family of “cavemen” was produced from what turned to be One Pigs Tooth and called Nebraska Man.  
I won’t even bother with Piltdown man. The point is one by one evolution is running out of ideas. Neanderthal Man is considered by many to really only be as different as the bone structure between the races of “modern day man” and other discoveries the deformed skulls of some degenerate bone disease. 
 There are plenty of good reasons to keep your options open on this issue.

----------


## Pioner

> But, didn't the Japan send kamakazis to Pearl Harbor first?

 LOLOLOLOLOL 
Man, I am not even an American citizen yet, we did not study it in the school, but educated person should know some basic history facts. Like - there was not a single kamikadze used in attack of Perl Harbor. And again, nuclear bombing was a revenge for Perl Harbor? Hmm, again, sounds like terrorism to me, doesn't it?   

> Hmm... and their Emperor claimed that if they sacrificed their lives for their country and Emperor it would do them good in "heaven"?

 Again LOL. Japanese got no conception of "heaven" at all.    

> Is this not the same thing as the Muslim religion that the extremists claim it says to do?

 Well, were christian extremists, who sacrificed their life for some "right" thing, like blowing up abortation clinic, will go? What they claim? That they go to Hell?   

> Pioner- you have to understand that the discussion, and this is what i've been trying to explain, are those who act out for religious purposes. The bombings done in Japan were not done for religious beliefs. This was an actual war. a WORLD war.. so singling out one country is not the right thing to do. Many countries were involved. Why aren't you talking about Germany? The country who committed the most atrocities out of the entire war. How does a war, started by mainly one country, committing all sorts of horrible crimes, be turned to a religious war, claiming the US is at fault

 Ok, I got the idea, murderring a lot of inoncent civilians because of religion purposes is a horrible terroristic act. Murdering a lot of inocent civilians for any other reason is not a terroristic act but defending peace in the world. Do I undestand that right?   

> It's amazing how a discussion starts out one way, and then turns into pointing a finger at the US.

 As I said it is not that I put a blame on Christians, I hate generalization, when I hear "them muslims evil" - that really disappoints me. В чужом глазу увидит соринку, а в своем не замечает бревна. That what it is. "Кто сам без греха пусть первым бросит в меня камень" (с) Jesus. You guys do not feel ashamed throwing stones to other sinners?

----------


## Pioner

DDT, where did you study paleontology?   ::   ::   ::   
Why you never give us sources? One pig tooth - that's brilliant! You made my day, really man. Thanks.

----------


## scotcher

In spite of the fact that I do love witnessing just how deep the creationist rabbit hole really goes,  I've never personally felt the slightest inclination to refute anything that one of them has said.  
Some beliefs are simply beyond the reach of reasoned answer, and I'm affraid my contempt for creationists is such that I have to concentrate _really_ hard just to avoid suffering premature dismissal. 
You know, 'cos _premature_ dismissal is just rude. 
So, where other people may like to argue with the flat-Earthers, I prefer to just watch.

----------


## Pioner

> It took away the need for a land invasion of Japan that would have cause alot more US casualties and Japanese too. Some estimates were in the millions...

 Well, let us think about that a little. We kill tens of thousands Japanese civilians including children and women to scare Japan, and put them on their knees. Fair enough. I agree. But scare - means terror. We scared them, we terrorised them. What is the difference? ben Laden attacked WTC to scare Americans, to show them that they are not safe in their own country. Show me the difference between those 2 acts? Outside of religion and numbers of murdered people.   

> AND showing the USSR the military power America was capable of was also immensly important militarily and politicaly in the aftermath.  
> As you said yourself, it's never black or white. It is always a shade of gray.

 Again, we killed tens of thousands inocent civilians to scare Commies. Right enough, and it did work, I know about that, but again we kill civilians to scare someone else. Terro-rism. 
Right, it is not black and white. America is a great county, I love it. But no nation is Saint and if some christian says "them muslim are evil", or some muslim says "them christian are evil" they both will piss me off.

----------


## DDT

> DDT, where did you study paleontology?      
> Why you never give us sources? One pig tooth - that's brilliant! You made my day, really man. Thanks.

  Why do you want sources? If you were already current in the Evolution/Intelligent Design controversy you would know of what I am talking about. The points I have made are well know to the proponents of Evolution. And there is debate amongst themseves over some of these very issues. 
I suppose that I could search the internet for you and supply you with links that support my view but somehow I suspect that if you really were open to debate on this you would have already found them on your own. I think that if you were serious  about dicovering both sides of this debate you would have already thoroughly explored the one link I provided in an earlier post and started your quest from there. 
I do not make these post in hopes of convincing someone. I make them in hope that someone will become curious enough to convice themselves.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  DDT, where did you study paleontology?      
> Why you never give us sources? One pig tooth - that's brilliant! You made my day, really man. Thanks.    Why do you want sources? If you were already current in the Evolution/Intelligent Design controversy you would know of what I am talking about. The points I have made are well know to the proponents of Evolution. And there is debate amongst themseves over some of these very issues. 
> I suppose that I could search the internet for you and supply you with links that support my view but somehow I suspect that if you really were open to debate on this you would have already found them on your own. I think that if you were serious  about dicovering both sides of this debate you would have already thoroughly explored the one link I provided in an earlier post and started your quest from there. 
> I do not make these post in hopes of convincing someone. I make them in hope that someone will become curious enough to convice themselves.

 why I need sources? that is really an iteresting question. Because I want to know if you made up this, or you used facts taking from proper source, neutral or scientific magazin, not recent "Church bulletin" or something like that. If you cannot provide sources, everything you wrote here is a piece of bullsh1t. Sorry for my Klatchian.

----------


## Pioner

And DDT, you are such an expert in Koran, but you still do not provide name of the person who wrote it, why?

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

> Originally Posted by rgkatyaisashaukr  But, didn't the Japan send kamakazis to Pearl Harbor first?   LOLOLOLOLOL     
> 			
> 				Man, I am not even an American citizen yet, we did not study it in the school, but educated person should know some basic history facts. Like - there was not a single kamikadze used in attack of Perl Harbor. And again, nuclear bombing was a revenge for Perl Harbor? Hmm, again, sounds like terrorism to me, doesn't it?
> 			
> 		  Hmm Kamikazis weren't used to attack Pearl Harbor? Umm since when? I stated the attack on Pearl Harbor because you are making it seem like the Japanese are innocent, that we attacked them for no reason.  Obviously you aren't a very educated person, and don't know the basic facts. 
> [quote:2303a9yo] Again LOL. Japanese got no conception of "heaven" at all.

 My goodness... you really need to learn how to read and understand that marks like this -->  " , . /  aren't marks for the hell of it.  ::  I quoted "heaven" for a reason. you try and figure out why. good luck! don't strain yourself!   

> Well, were christian extremists, who sacrificed their life for some "right" thing, like blowing up abortation clinic, will go? What they claim? That they go to Hell?

 Again, when will you learn the difference?! The bombings in Japan were not for religious purposes.  That's the difference between the Muslim extremists and WWII.    

> Ok, I got the idea, murderring a lot of inoncent civilians because of religion purposes is a horrible terroristic act. Murdering a lot of inocent civilians for any other reason is not a terroristic act but defending peace in the world. Do I undestand that right?

 Again, learn to read because I never said I agreed with any of this.   

> As I said it is not that I put a blame on Christians, I hate generalization, when I hear "them muslims evil" - that really disappoints me. В чужом глазу увидит соринку, а в своем не замечает бревна. That what it is. "Кто сам без греха пусть первым бросит в меня камень" (с) Jesus. You guys do not feel ashamed throwing stones to other sinners?

 [/quote:2303a9yo]  
You hate generalizations? You could've fooled me!   ::  That's all you've been doing is blaming things on Christians.  Taking a few sentences out of context to support your absurd accusations of God saying rape is allowed, killing people of different religions, so on and so forth. Even a Christian person who hasn't read the Bible knows that it's filled with prophecies. At least DDT gave the whole story, unlike you, when he was quoting the Kuran.

----------


## Pioner

> Hmm Kamikazis weren't used to attack Pearl Harbor? Umm since when? I stated the attack on Pearl Harbor because you are making it seem like the Japanese are innocent, that we attacked them for no reason.  Obviously you aren't a very educated person, and don't know the basic facts.

 well learn history, I do not have much time to find articles of full history of usage of kamikaze during WWII, but here is short sentence from Japanese dictionary of history:  

> The third meaning is "special suicidal fighter pilots" used at the *last* phase of WWII.

 I just hope that your English is better then your knowelge of your countries history, and you know the meaning for "last phase", and I hope that the WWII for US started with Perl Harbor, so it could not be at the last phase.   

> [quote:ikp96m3e] Again LOL. Japanese got no conception of "heaven" at all.

 My goodness... you really need to learn how to read and understand that marks like this -->  " , . /  aren't marks for the hell of it.  ::  I quoted "heaven" for a reason. you try and figure out why. good luck! don't strain yourself![/quote:ikp96m3e] you better read a little about Japan and their religion, do not limit yourself to Bible only.   

> [quote:ikp96m3e] Well, were christian extremists, who sacrificed their life for some "right" thing, like blowing up abortation clinic, will go? What they claim? That they go to Hell?

 Again, when will you learn the difference?! The bombings in Japan were not for religious purposes.  That's the difference between the Muslim extremists and WWII. [/quote:ikp96m3e]
What about bombing abortation clinics? And A-bombing inocent civilians in Japan, just because it was not religious act makes it better? I do not get it.   

> You hate generalizations? You could've fooled me!   That's all you've been doing is blaming things on Christians.  Taking a few sentences out of context to support your absurd accusations of God saying rape is allowed, killing people of different religions, so on and so forth. Even a Christian person who hasn't read the Bible knows that it's filled with prophecies. At least DDT gave the whole story, unlike you, when he was quoting the Kuran.

 LOL, my replies were just to show how anyone can generalise about any religion. DDT generalazed about Muslims, I just showed that it is easy to do the same accusations on Christians. And I brought quotas from Bible, DDT did not even bother to bring quotas, less then that, he just gave some interpretation he prefered. Double standards? It is OK to get something out of context from Koran, and prohibited to do the same with Bible? At least, let's have equal rights and play fair in this argument.

----------


## Pioner

Well, here I found it, kamikaze appeared during WWII in 1945, what year Perl Harbor was?  http://mtmt.essortment.com/kamikazeinforma_rglb.htm 
here more links: http://www.rotten.com/library/death/kamikaze/ http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History ... /jonas.htm

----------


## Cyphyr

Pioner, you're doing a great job. But I fear no matter what you say, they're just going to believe what they want to believe.

----------


## Pioner

> Pioner, you're doing a great job. But I fear no matter what you say, they're just going to believe what they want to believe.

 yes, I know. Thanks for complementing.  
I just always hope that I may touch some strings and help people to see the world in non-primitive black and white colors. But it is rarely worked.  ::

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Umm why are you sending me links about this? It's already known information. Not only did I study it in school, but I've also watched several documentaries on the subject.   

> Like - there was not a single kamikadze used in attack of Perl Harbor.

 I was not the one who said that... you did.   ::  So, I guess the links were actually for your own purposes.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

who said that i said that Pearl Harbor was the start of WWII?... I stated that the Japanese weren't innocent. That they had sent kamikazis here to attack our harbor. The reason I stated this was because I was showing that we didn't involve them for no reason. the end of WWII was in '45.. There were many events that led up to the war.. such as Germany occupying Czechoslavakia in 1939... but you already knew that because you know everything.

----------


## Pioner

> Umm why are you sending me links about this? It's already known information. Not only did I study it in school, but I've also watched several documentaries on the subject.     
> 			
> 				 Like - there was not a single kamikadze used in attack of Perl Harbor.
> 			
> 		  I was not the one who said that... you did.   So, I guess the links were actually for your own purposes.

 Hmmm, I do not get it. You said that kamikadze were used in attack on Perl Harbor. I said that you were wrong. You said that it is me who is not educated, I do not know simple facts and such. Ok, I provided facts that kamikadze appeared in very end of 1944, mostly 1945, and now you are laughing at me, saying that you already knew that? 
Once again, to put all facts clear, I understand that I talk to very religious people, so I have to put everything clear and repeat twice:
* Perl Harbor happened in 1941
* Japan started to use kamikadze in 1945 
That means that Japan could not use kamikadze in Perl Harbor attack.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Actually no, your posts were not to show examples of *generalization* (learn how to spell by the way). Since the beginning of this post you have been generalizing Christians.. what do DDT's posts have to do with mine? Any time I spoke about people involved in the terrorist attacks from the Muslim religion, I've always specified who I was talking about. In none of my posts has it said "all Muslims". You're a delusional person, and put words in people's mouths. 
Somehow, though, the topic of Christians and Muslims has turned to a discussion solely about the US... simply amazing as I've said before.   ::   And again, I'll say that *both during war or terrorist attacks are not right*. Maybe if I bold the print for you, it'll make you understand more clearly because you ask the same questions.   ::   
If you have a problem with the US, since you're so fixated on bashing it, then maybe you should back to your "motherland", which is probably Russia... Because as you know, Russia has such an honorary history, slaughtering their own people, starving them, making them slaves, etc.   ::

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Wow! Are you crazy?! Yes, kamikazis were used to attack Pearl Harbor. Or is this one of conspiracies, where you're saying it really didn't happen? Are you like one of those people who also doesn't believe the Holocaust happened?  
Attack At Pearl Harbor, 1941  *The surprise was complete. The attacking planes came in two waves; the first hit its target at 7:53 AM, the second at 8:55. By 9:55 it was all over. By 1:00 PM the carriers that launched the planes from 274 miles off the coast of Oahu were heading back to Japan.* 
Poster commemorating
the attack, 1942
Behind them they left chaos, 2,403 dead, 188 destroyed planes and a crippled Pacific Fleet that included 8 damaged or destroyed battleships. In one stroke the Japanese action silenced the debate that had divided Americans ever since the German defeat of France left England alone in the fight against the Nazi terror. 
Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder." 
On Monday, FDR signed the declaration of war granted by Congress. One day later both Germany and Italy, as partners of Japan in the Tripartite Pact, declared war on the US.  
Here's the link too: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm 
Talk about a frikin' crackhead!   ::

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Here's another source: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm 
The bombing of Japan was in the last phase.

----------


## rgkatyaisashaukr

Cyphyr- 
you're rooting for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. If you had any knowledge either, you would know he was wrong.

----------


## Pioner

> Wow! Are you crazy?! Yes, kamikazis were used to attack Pearl Harbor. Or is this one of conspiracies, where you're saying it really didn't happen? Are you like one of those people who also doesn't believe the Holocaust happened?  
> Attack At Pearl Harbor, 1941  *The surprise was complete. The attacking planes came in two waves; the first hit its target at 7:53 AM, the second at 8:55. By 9:55 it was all over. By 1:00 PM the carriers that launched the planes from 274 miles off the coast of Oahu were heading back to Japan.* 
> Poster commemorating
> the attack, 1942
> Behind them they left chaos, 2,403 dead, 188 destroyed planes and a crippled Pacific Fleet that included 8 damaged or destroyed battleships. In one stroke the Japanese action silenced the debate that had divided Americans ever since the German defeat of France left England alone in the fight against the Nazi terror. 
> Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder." 
> On Monday, FDR signed the declaration of war granted by Congress. One day later both Germany and Italy, as partners of Japan in the Tripartite Pact, declared war on the US.  
> Here's the link too: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm 
> Talk about a frikin' crackhead!

 Well, I looked for the words kamikaze and kamikadze, and they were not mentioned anywhere. Doctor, is everything ok with me?

----------


## scotcher

The first confirmed Kamikaze attack didn't take place until October 1944, and it was an attack on an Australian ship, the HMAS Australia. The first attack on a US ship, the USS St.Lo, took pace a few days later. 
Not that I can figure out what the fcuk that has to do with militant islamist bombers in London, but there you go, at least my highschool history classes weren't totally wasted.

----------


## Pioner

> The first confirmed Kamikaze attack didn't take place until October 1944, and it was an attack on an Australian ship, the HMAS Australia. The first attack on a US ship, the USS St.Lo, took pace a few days later. 
> Not that I can figure out what the fcuk that has to do with militant islamist bombers in London, but there you go, at least my highschool history classes weren't totally wasted.

 thanks. 
those were spontaneous attacks, the kamikadze movement appeared close to end of 1944. 
I can see that you study that in high school. But probably rgkatyaisashaukr was busy with something else, more important then history.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

JESUS FLIPPIN CHRIST! IT'S KAMIKAZE! >.<
dhjsth;sth;hswth >.<
joshrilewhtielhlt;  
Ahem, continue.

----------


## scotcher

The_ kamikadzes_ were the less-well-known Georgian contigent of the Japanese air force. 
Perhaps.

----------


## Vesh

In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.

----------


## DDT

> And DDT, you are such an expert in Koran, but you still do not provide name of the person who wrote it, why?

  
Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Koran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Koran to his followers and many of them memorized the Koranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Koran. 
After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Koran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Koran? 
Muslims claim that Koran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that KOran is the word of God 
There!  Happy now?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  And DDT, you are such an expert in Koran, but you still do not provide name of the person who wrote it, why?    
> Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Koran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Koran to his followers and many of them memorized the Koranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Koran. 
> After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Koran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Koran? 
> Muslims claim that Koran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that KOran is the word of God 
> There!  Happy now?

 yes. But I still do not see anything saying that it was written "by one man", as you wrote before.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Wow! Are you crazy?! Yes, kamikazis were used to attack Pearl Harbor. Or is this one of conspiracies, where you're saying it really didn't happen? Are you like one of those people who also doesn't believe the Holocaust happened?  
> Attack At Pearl Harbor, 1941  *The surprise was complete. The attacking planes came in two waves; the first hit its target at 7:53 AM, the second at 8:55. By 9:55 it was all over. By 1:00 PM the carriers that launched the planes from 274 miles off the coast of Oahu were heading back to Japan.* 
> Poster commemorating
> the attack, 1942
> Behind them they left chaos, 2,403 dead, 188 destroyed planes and a crippled Pacific Fleet that included 8 damaged or destroyed battleships. In one stroke the Japanese action silenced the debate that had divided Americans ever since the German defeat of France left England alone in the fight against the Nazi terror. 
> Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder." 
> On Monday, FDR signed the declaration of war granted by Congress. One day later both Germany and Italy, as partners of Japan in the Tripartite Pact, declared war on the US.  
> Here's the link too: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm 
> Talk about a frikin' crackhead!

 Sorry, rgkatyaetc., but you seem to be missing the point Pioner is trying to make. You are confusing kamikaze and regular japanese airplanes. 
KAMIKAZE is a suicide air plane, that the Japanese used during the last year(s) of WWII. They were rigged with explosives to create more damage on impact, the pilot comitted suicide in the process. 
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (nobody is refuting this) occured with regular Japanese air planes/bombers. Kamikaze wasn't invented by then. 
That's it. Pioner only wants to say that there was no Kamikaze attack on Pearl Harbor, but a very real Japanese attack. This was to prove a point that you didn't know what you were talking about. IMHO, just because one get's one fact wrong, doesn't mean that everything one says is wrong...

----------


## Pioner

> That's it. Pioner only wants to say that there was no Kamikaze attack on Pearl Harbor, but a very real Japanese attack. This was to prove a point that you didn't know what you were talking about. IMHO, just because one get's one fact wrong, doesn't mean that everything one says is wrong...

 yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.

----------


## DDT

> Originally Posted by DDT  [ 
> yes. But I still do not see anything saying that it was written "by one man", as you wrote before.

 Use your head man. Without Mohammed it would not have been written. Unless you actually believe Allah wrote it.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Well it is like this: 
> ... 
> They are not willing to accept that their theory does not hold water because the alternative is what?........Intelligent Design. So they keep searching for facts that are not there. 
> The fossil record shows an abundance of life that appeared suddenly. There is nothing.....then there are heaps of fossilized life forms. Whets more the life forms that  they find first are quite similar to plants and small life forms that we see today and are organically complex..
> There is no indication of life starting slowly from single cell life forms. 
> Mathematicians have computed the odds of life being able to start on its own and grow into even a simple life form as a figure with an infinite number of zeros behind it and admit the odds make it "impossible". 
> There are fossilized trees still standing upright through supposedly millions and millions of years of strata. There are fossilized footsteps of what looks like human footprints in the strata that contains the evidence of dinosaurs. 
> Part of the problem is that the biologists date the age of the life form by the date the geologists give the rocks and the geologists date the age of the rocks by the date the biologists give the life forms. 
> AS far as the fossilized remains of Neanderthal or Australopithecus or Java Man and the likes. Some have been found to be nothing more than an extinct ape  (Australopithecus) . Or in one case an elephants knee cap. Yes that’s right. A whole "early man" constructed out of an elephants knee cap. Another, Java , I think was a scull cap, a few teeth and a thigh bone found about 50 feet away. The thigh bone is from a woman so they put them all together and called it Pithecanthropus Erectus. 
> ...

 I think you have been reading too much of this "revolution against evolution" Whose references are all creationist research centres. 
Let us take the "Nebraska Man" as an example. Sounds like a terriffic story doesn't it? A whole entire family of cavemen from one pig's tooth! 
The counter argument I can find from this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html 
"Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs." 
"The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett 1985; Gould 1991). Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii." 
"The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor: 
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."  
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)" 
You can read more on the above mentioned website. 
DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism, so I am assuming that you just want to show the inefficiencies with the Darwin evolution. but please, use real arguments and facts, and not half-truths and twisted information. I can go to my local political office for that. And stop generalizing!!!!  
I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.

 well, a terrorist attack, by definition, is killing innocent people to achieve a politcal purpose. So... if the Japanese civilians are to be considered to be innocent, then yes, dropping nuclear bombs in their tea-gardens is considered a terrorist attack. I have a hard time explaining how Japanese civilians can be legitimate targets... so I conclude that, yes, it was a terrorist attack... unless someone can convince me otherwise? 
I don't think revenge is any legitimiate reason for any attack.

----------


## DDT

> [ DDT generalazed about Muslims, I just showed that it is easy to do the same accusations on Christians.

  Actually you have not showed this at all except perhaps to someone who has little knowlege on the subject.    

> And I brought quotas from Bible, DDT did not even bother to bring quotas, less then that, he just gave some interpretation he prefered.

  You received from me the same answer you would have from any theologan. You are simply not equiped to understand the reply.[/quote]   

> Double standards? It is OK to get something out of context from Koran, and prohibited to do the same with Bible? At least, let's have equal rights and play fair in this argument.

 If you knew anything you should know that the Koran is written very poorly. Mohammed is all over the map with his statements. THIS IS WHY I HAVE GIVEN EXAMPLES of his ACTIONS. His actions are what give away the errors of Islam. I base my opinions of Islam on the example that Mohammed set. That is all we really have to go on. 
The example that Mohammed set is one of a Murderer a Rapist and Child Molester. THose facts are historically undisputable. He was a cult leader of the worst kind and was hated by all who had the misfortune to be come into contact by him. 
Even bringing Christianity into this subject is quite stupid as this thread is about terrorism in London and it shows that you can't wait to to find an opportunity to show your contempt for Christians.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.   well, a terrorist attack, by definition, is killing innocent people to achieve a politcal purpose. So... if the Japanese civilians are to be considered to be innocent, then yes, dropping nuclear bombs in their tea-gardens is considered a terrorist attack. I have a hard time explaining how Japanese civilians can be legitimate targets... so I conclude that, yes, it was a terrorist attack... unless someone can convince me otherwise? 
> I don't think revenge is any legitimiate reason for any attack.

 thanks, that is what exactly what I meant.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

> In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.

 Why would they spell it like that? It doesn't even sound like that.  ::  
It's pronounced Kah Mah Kah Zeh.  But then again a lot of Americans pronounce it all dumb like... KAMAKADEZE! Or flippin SOONAMEE.   ::

----------


## DDT

> [ 
> I think you have been reading too much of this "revolution against evolution" Whose references are all creationist research centres.I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!  
> DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism, so I am assuming that you just want to show the inefficiencies with the Darwin evolution. but please, use real arguments and facts, and not half-truths and twisted information. I can go to my local political office for that. And stop generalizing!!!!  
> I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!

 Well where else would one go for infomation on an oppositional theory to Evolution, since as stated there is only one alternative and that is that there was Intelligence behind the formation of life? 
And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is?  You?  Do you think that only  an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.  
I am well aware of the debate over Nebraska Man. The point is there are debates over almost all evolutionist assertions. They don't have any proof of bones of ape-men to date, yet one would not know it by the assertions  made in our textbooks.  
Why should I not generalize? Scientists who push evolution do it all the time. Double standard! They also have their own half truths.      

> DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism

 What? Of course I am the sort of person to promote Creationism. It is the more logical choice. 
Well here is a link but it won't do you any good since you seem to have little patience. Nothing good ever just falls into your lap, you have to dig around a little. Same with knowlege. BUt maybe some one will get something out of it, so here. http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm

----------


## Анатолий

> Originally Posted by Vesh  In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.   Why would they spell it like that? It doesn't even sound like that.  
> It's pronounced Kah Mah Kah Zeh.  But then again a lot of Americans pronounce it all dumb like... KAMAKADEZE! Or flippin SOONAMEE.

 In Japanese these words are pronounced exactly as in Russian (consonants). Especially "tsunami" (цунами) - we have no difficulty saying correct TS at the beginning of the word - цапля, цирк, центр. Japanese Z (as in Romaji - Japanese romanization) is always transliterated as ДЗ, not З in Russian to reflect the Japanese pronunciation. Although, Z between 2 vowels doesn't have a strong D part as in the beginning of the word.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Well where else would one go for infomation on an oppositional theory to Evolution, since as stated there is only one alternative and that is that there was Intelligence behind the formation of life?

 Well OK, the point I am trying to make is this (and this also adds to the bias discussion that will follow under this): The Evolutional Theory is, as you say, a theory. There are many people, christians, atheists, muslims, and so on, who are scientists that follow the scientific theory. They discover fossiles and interpret the results. They don't have an agenda (at least if they are following the scientific theory), they are not out there trying to fit their findings to a defined theory. They find something, try to find out what it is, where it came from, how old it is, what color it would have liked the most, etc. etc. Then, if it happens to fall in the overwhelming heap of evidence supporting evolution (supporting, not proving) then so be it. They don't say, "look an old bone! This proves that a fish named bob turned into a semi-hyperactive koala!" (well, at least not the vast majority) If they were all fitting it to a defined theory, our knowledge of the field wouldn't be expanding. Recently they found a new type of human species on some island in your neighborhood (don't recall the details) which changes the way we thought of where man originated from. This just shows that the scientific community is willing to adapt to new evidence. It is far more accepting than Creationism, which, without significant evidence, claims that the world was just _there_. Please feel free to dispute that last sentence. 
Hmmm, that was a long point. More of a line, than a point.  
Yes, there are scientist who fudge evidence, but you can not ignore the work of millions of honest scientists that work honestly.     

> And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is?  You?  Do you think that only  an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

 Excuse me, you are saying I am an atheist? You are making assumptions, my friend.  
I compare what the Creationist information tells me, versus what The Evolutionists tell me. I did a search on your "Nebraska Man" and all the Creationist sites I visited only had a short description of what happened, exactly enough to fit the point they were trying to make. What is important to me is to know all the facts, so I can decide for myself. The story made more sense when I read the whole situation. Unfortunately, this method can never work 100% because you still have to believe the place you get your facts from. So you pick your sources, according to who you think you can trust. I am always willing to hear both sides of the story. 
A good site I have found regarding the sensetive issues of religion is this:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/ They list the facts on both sides of the story fairly accurately. I would trust them more than www.creationistissomuchbetterthananythingelse.com   

> I am well aware of the debate over Nebraska Man. The point is there are debates over almost all evolutionist assertions. They don't have any proof of bones of ape-men to date, yet one would not know it by the assertions  made in our textbooks.  
> Why should I not generalize? Scientists who push evolution do it all the time. Double standard! They also have their own half truths.

 Well you should not generalize, because you are better than them. I try hard not to generalize, and I know creationists have some valid points, but I feel like when I discuss this this to people who believe in Creationism, they tend to be defensive.    

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism   What? Of course I am the sort of person to promote Creationism. It is the more logical choice. 
> Well here is a link but it won't do you any good since you seem to have little patience. Nothing good ever just falls into your lap, you have to dig around a little. Same with knowlege. BUt maybe some one will get something out of it, so here. http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm

 Thanks DDT, I will try to read it later...

----------


## DDT

I did not mean that you were an atheist. I just mean atheists in general. BY the way I have close friends who are atheists so don't anyone get the idea that I have grudge against atheists. I'll bet Shirley Manson is an atheist and I like her.

----------


## saibot

I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets!  There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism.  In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution.  He can counter almost anything you throw at him.  If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com  Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this.  I don't care how we got here.  But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.

----------


## Pioner

Kalinka, my respects. 
DDT, once again who the hell is biologist Einstein? You keep on mentioning him, never explaining who he was. I know only about physists Einstein, and never heard that he published any works in biology. Can you provide any links to that? I am so curious.

----------


## Pioner

> I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets!  There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism.  In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution.  He can counter almost anything you throw at him.  If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com  Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this.  I don't care how we got here.  But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.

 Actually there a lot of fossil evidence of supporting Evolution theory. And what about artaficial selection? How does Creationism explain that?

----------


## Pioner

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

----------


## Dobry

> And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

 Excellent point.  
Evolution in it's simplest, scientifically proveable form.

----------


## scotcher

> but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

 "God works in mysterious ways." 
That answers pretty much everything and anything.

----------


## Dobry

As a Christian, I have never understood why so many Christians refuse to accept the idea of evolution.  I know many of them want a "literal" reading of Genesis (where "Creation" is narrated...7 days and all that)...but... 
Why is it, for some Christians, so difficult to believe that God could have engineered the fundamental "rules"  of the universe (physics, mathematics, biology, botany...EVOLUTION), constructed the universe with these "equations" and rules, and then allowed Time to work for Him as He sat back sipping a beer and watching the fireworks...formation of suns, worlds, galaxies, and the "evolution" of animals, plants, and us...DDT included  ::  ? 
Anyway, that's what I believe.  I think "evolution" cannot disprove the existence of God, the initial "Engineer" (my opinion)...and religion cannot disprove the existence of the Theory of Evolution.  Personally, I think the two co-exist in harmony...that evolution is a part of the initial blueprint. 
My Bachelor degree is in agriculture.  Sorry, but we've been using principles of evolution and genetics for the last hundred years to create better plants, crop yields, insect and disease resistance, etc., etc.  Too many examples exist of "natural" and "forced" selection.  The theory of evolution continues to prove itself successfully in the science of agriculture.   
And the theory of evolution has been important in understanding disease, viruses, and plagues, and how to fight them and create vaccines and medicines that fight them.  Pioner's example may be the best proof of evolution. 
Anyway, my 2 kopeks.

----------


## Cyphyr

> Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory is the only other alternative to Evolution and is not in of itself neccesarily connected to religion. Even Albert Einstein was investigating the possibilities of this theory before he died and somehow I imagine him to be a lot smarter than you or I. For you to say that it should not be taught in schools is just plain uneducated or predjudiced.

  

> And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is? You? Do you think that only an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

 Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry?  ::  
Well, I just want to say that this constant association of Einstein with creationism/intelligent design is really getting on my nerves. This is typical of the kind of approach proponents of creationism take to try and make their loony 'theory' seem credible. Mention someone famous and well-respected in science and try to imply they had some time for this nonsense. Well, like Pioner said, Einstein's work was in PHYSICS not BIOLOGY, what the hell would he be doing trying to come up with a theory to challenge evolution?? But it's not just that, the idea that Einstein would have anything to do with creationism is just absurd beyond words. People like DDT try to pretend Einstein had some sympathy for a whole host of their views because he mentioned God on several occasions. But Einstein  did not believe in the Judaeo-Christian personal God nor in the survival of the individual consciousness beyond death. He did believe there was an order and structure to the universe and that human life was not meaningless but his conception of an impersonal God was totally different to the kind of thing creationists have in mind. Mentioning his name in the same breath as creationism is about as misleading as you can get. 
Now DDT, please quit peddling misinformation about Einstein and creationism!

----------


## Dobry

> Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry?

 Very true, Cyphyr!     ::

----------


## DDT

I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator. http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html 
The Intelligent Design Theory does not neccesarily believe in a personal God either.  
Speaking of faith. Somehow it seems that evoluionists require more of it. 
The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

----------


## Pioner

> The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

 Well, DDT, you impressed me with your stubborness. Non of living people saw a god, or Satan, or hear their voices, none of them saw creation of animals by God, but you believe in that, and when scientists speak about natural selection which creates species in MILLION years you scream that no one saw that. Well, again, what about artaficial selection? Did you see all those variations of dogs? God created all of them? 
I worked as an archeologist for several years, and when we found a brocken vase, we glue it together, and it damn may miss some pieces, but we still glue it together and get general idea who the vase looked like, although somebody may speculate that we came with a wrong theory. 
Regarding bacterias, what is your definition of new species?

----------


## CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

----------


## Pioner

> Do not mix evolution with breeding.
> Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

 where did I mentioned breeding? I talked about artaficial selection. Which is human made copy of natural selection.

----------


## CTPEKO3A

OK. If you insist - I will refrase
Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

----------


## Pioner

> OK. If you insist - I will refrase
> Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
> And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

 thanks for correcting my spelling.  ::  
I will do mix it. Because it is almost the same. If I decide to create a dog with long ears, I will start to select dogs with longer ears and breed them together, generation after generation. In nature, let's say some conditions create favor for surviving wolfs with longer ears, so wolfs with longer ears got more chances to survice and produce cubs. Those with shorter ears do not survive (got out of breeding pool). So finally we got wolfs with longer ears. 
So, what is the difference?

----------


## CTPEKO3A

см. выше.
Wolf is still a wolf.
Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it? 
Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

----------


## Pioner

> см. выше.
> Wolf is still a wolf.
> Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it? 
> Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

 no, it is not, it is just a part of Theory of Evolution. Microevolution process is very intensive inside of the species as well, and being studied very thouroughly all the time. And to create a new species it takes million years. And such a huge change, like fish to "frog" even more then that.  
Have you seen small fish which lives in mangroove forests? It spends most of the time out of water, it climbs trees etc. Remove all frogs, lizards, birds and beasts from land and you will see that that fish will move futher to land, and will turn to some type of "frog" in several miillion years. We just need some patience to wait and see that.

----------


## CTPEKO3A

Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

----------


## Pioner

> Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

 I do not have any faith. I have logic and I know some facts. That is it.  
Nothing else to reply? Well. I draw a picture of Dragonfly on my monitor.  ::

----------


## CTPEKO3A

I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

----------


## Pioner

> I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
> And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

 No, you have no right to draw kids (and those are not bananas  ::  ), because you quited from argument, as you have nothing to say. 
Logic and knowing fact does not interfare with faith. But it does not mean that everyone got a faith. Some people survive without any.

----------


## Vesh

> Do not mix evolution with breeding.
> Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

 Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

----------


## Cyphyr

> I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator.

 Well, he sure as hell didn't believe that the earth was created in 7 days or that God designed each species separately from each other and then placed them upon the earth. Nor did he seek to calculate the age of the earth from studying the Bible. 
If you're talking about evidence of intelligence behind the structure and development of the universe, then that's a different argument. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I don't think it's an outrageous position to take. It's important not to confuse the debate over the origin of the universe with that concerning the origin of living organisms on earth.   

> http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

 Well, all I can say from reading some of these is that some people must be very insecure in their 'faith' if they need to try and misrepresent Einstein's concept of God and pretend it supports their own. 
"I am grieved that no one ever offered Einstein the clear, biblical resolution to the paradox he posed. I am also sad that Einstein did not live long enough to see the accumulation of scientific evidence for a personal caring Creator" 
Yes, of course, poor old Einstein was obviously misguided in not believing in a personal God  ::  Missed his place in heaven as I well I suppose  ::

----------


## CTPEKO3A

Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why. In such "argument" thruth will not be revealed. It's just a matter of opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. Neither of us can prove that he(she) is right or neither of us is going to change his(her) mind, so - why bother? 
Red bananas around necks - it is a funny picture, I admit. But I said bandanas. It seemed the closest analog to пионерский галстук in English-speaking american culture to me, anyways.

----------


## Vesh

> Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why.

 Why бы и not?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A  Do not mix evolution with breeding.
> Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.   Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

 did you see it yourself?   ::

----------


## Vesh

> Originally Posted by Vesh        Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A  Do not mix evolution with breeding.
> Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.   Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.   did you see it yourself?

 I'm not THAT old.   ::

----------


## DDT

Damn, 17 pages already! Is that a record? 
I think that this whole debate over the "Did I make myself or did someone make me?" question boils down to whose "experts" one is willing to believe. 
One thing is for sure. People usually change their minds over years rather than days, if at all.

----------


## Cyphyr

Well, if it's not a record, we should probably keep going until it is, now that we've come this far  ::

----------


## DDT

We should ask Dogboy or Scotcher if we are close to the record yet. They have been here for long enough to know. 
Truthfully, I had more fun when I was picking on the Pope.

----------


## Darobat

I just thought I'd post in this thread, seeing in how its 17 pages and I haven't posted here yet.

----------


## Cyphyr

Everyone will want to get their place in this thread now  ::

----------


## Moongazer

Here's my contribution.  I meant to post a lot sooner on the original topic, but became caught up in some things.  I'm curious to find out what the record is, too.    ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

So, you guys are really agreeing with me that the nuclear attack on Japan was a Terrorist attack by the United States?   ::  Please, I want to be wrong on this!!!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> We should ask Dogboy or Scotcher if we are close to the record yet. They have been here for long enough to know. 
> Truthfully, I had more fun when I was picking on the Pope.

 That is because you were _winning_ THAT argument   ::

----------


## DDT

You wanna go again , boy, do ya, huh?   ::

----------


## saibot

> And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

 You have a very good point Pioner.  But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration.  Quite the opposite of evolution.  I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.   
A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's.  But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.   
Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K.  This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.   
The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died.  Duh! 
But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K.  The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin.  Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity.  On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature. 
So, this is for SURE evolution.  Or is it? 
The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K.  It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin. 
So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite).  The enzyme became less functional, not more functional.  This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all! 
Another example. 
In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium.  Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.   
The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything.  He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment.  Obviously, the worms survived.  He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium.  After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant.  The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution. 
Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium.  But how can this be? 
Easy.  Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died.  If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died!  Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.   
So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium. 
Wow, that drained my energy.  Im gonna go drink a red bull.   ::

----------


## kwatts59

Just thought I should post something here since everybody else has.   

> London terror attack, yo. :O

 Terrorists are stupid.

----------


## saibot

> Originally Posted by saibot  I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets!  There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism.  In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution.  He can counter almost anything you throw at him.  If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com  Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this.  I don't care how we got here.  But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.   Actually there a lot of fossil evidence of supporting Evolution theory. And what about artaficial selection? How does Creationism explain that?

 I didnt see this question. 
Hmm..artificial selection.  That's the thing that Darwin used as a model as natural selection right? 
How could he so surely say that what we see in artificial selection, is what happens in natural selection.  In order to confirm this, he would have had to study in great detail natural selection, and how well artificial selection mocks it.  But if this could be done, there would be no point in artificial selection mocking natural selection, because in studying natural selection, he would have accomplished his original goal! 
And as for your fossils, which proof were you talking about?

----------


## Rosa Anna

Stating the obvious   ::    
What was the topic; the topic or the length of the topic, or a solution to the topic; or general dismay at the existence of the topic's topic. Is this   ::     
Don't answer that. 
Yo Baby   ::

----------


## DDT

> Stating the obvious     
> What was the topic; the topic or the length of the topic, or a solution to the topic; or general dismay at the existence of the topic's topic. Is this      
> Don't answer that. 
> Yo Baby

 Actually it is not off topic. The reason you ask? 
Because if you follow all arguements in life to there source you will arrive at the question that all thinking men and women sooner or later ask. 
How did I get here? or Was I made or just an accident. There are only two ways to answer this question and that is what we are disscussing here. 
The way each of us answers this question determines how we will answer all the rest of lifes questions.

----------


## Rosa Anna

Yah, well God said.... that I shouldn't worry so much about it.

----------


## DDT

Hey, Saibot. Have you noticed Rose Anna's "location"?

----------


## saibot

I have!  And the crazy part is...ITS TRUE!   ::

----------


## Rosa Anna

::  http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... 2&start=15 
loves me new flat   ::   
Thank You Sai  
Here....have some poptarts off this velvet gold threaded pillow.

----------


## Rosa Anna

GAWD DDT,  
Where have _you been_  ::   
Can't read all, not even all of them?   ::        
Disclaimer: Author reserves the right to infer God talks to her while denying it solidly.

----------


## DDT

Oh it is to me  coming back now.

----------


## Rosa Anna

> Oh it is to me  coming back now.

 Almost to another page  ::   
And the best part is.... 
(Saibot, I'm going to Roll off my chair if you are endowed with something other than a penical apparatus...) 
I get the house. Saibot gets to "Not be Married!" 
Does this mean I get to bed freely too??  
Questions one should ask....when dragging on.....such the long.... 
Women I think have been trying for ages to discover the secret....who'd a thunk...poptart assasination. Finally. My own home. I'm gonna order out a ...well damn Saibot, this a nice place-self fixing everything. Self cleaning pool. What about my delivery men!!!!!!!!!!  ::   ::    
Sneaky Saibot. Sneaky.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

So it seems to me that the anti-pioner forces have this conception: 
- Evolution within a species is fine (Giraffe evolved long neck to reach higher (short neck -> long neck)
- Evolution from one species to another is not fine. Fish -> Lizard -> Man -> Error
- Man is a separate species. He is not ape.
- Ape can not evolve into Man. 
Am I getting this right?

----------


## Rosa Anna

> So, you guys are really agreeing with me that the nuclear attack on Japan was a Terrorist attack by the United States?   Please, I want to be wrong on this!!!

   ::  
Bite your tounge Kalinka Vinnie!   ::    
Selfishly, I retract comment or otherwise keep opinion...very very...
Ssssshhhhhhhhh. 
speaking such a thing almost certainly in a round about way depending on the context and the cultural reasoning validates stupid stinking terrorist attacks... 
This is getting faaaaaaaaaaaaar to close to a discussion on Voyager's Prime Directive theory. What the hell, this is Trigger Happy's thread. 
Have at@!

----------


## saibot

I dont consider myself anti-pioner, but you got it for me mostly   ::   
I can deal with mutations (or evolutions as you say) within a species, because frankly there is evidence for that.  You can find fossils of gradual changes over time, WITHIN the species.  But when the species "jump" the line?  Missing links. 
Man IS a separate species.  Take homo neanderthalensis, and homo sapien.  Those of you who know your binomial nomeclature will know that its (genus,species).  You can see the genus names are the same, but the species name are different. 
*About the giraffe thing.  That was more of a "what the hell is the probablilty of this happening." thing. 
But here is another example. 
The Bombardier Beetle.  This is a beetle (duh) that defends itself by mixing two chemicals together (a chemical from the hydroquinone group and hydrogen peroxide, in the presence of asbestos and two or 3 enzymes to speed up the reaction, for those of you who care) to cause an explosion to ward off enemies.   
Now, the creature has two sacs containing the two different chemcials, separated by a sac in the middle, containing an asbestos lining, and the enzymes needed to make the explosion.  
Now, the beetle fires secretions from all 3 chambers towards the enemy, scaring off the enemy.  But if the secretions were a continuous stream, the bug would be killed by its own defense mechanism.  So it has a gland, that fires short bursts of chemicals rapidly.  Sort of like an автомат калашникова model 47.   
Now what are the odds, that these two complex systems (storage system, and firing) system would evolve at just the right pace, and at just the right time, so that eveything would come together perfectly in the end?  Not very good. 
So either it was an EXTREME change (like 1 to billions), or the beetle came with the parts already there.  
Now im not saying i believe creation, in fact, i believe neither theory.  I believe is saibots theory, stating that I made everything.  mwaahaaa.  ::

----------


## DDT

The number of scientists who reject evolution is growing fast. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... winism.htm 
Someone here at MR said that they like numbers didn’t they? Here’s one for you http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html 
The number of chromosomes do not seem to follow the evolutionary pattern.
Plant/Animal No. of Chromosomes
Fern 480
White Ash 138
Carp 100
Goldfish 94
Sweet Potato 90
Turkey 82
Chicken 78
Dog 78
Duck 78
Horse 64
Cow 60
AMOEBA 50
What? An Amoeba has more chromosomes than man does?
Chimp 48
Tobacco 48
HUMAN 46
Bat 44
Wheat 42
Soybean 40
Cat 38
Starfish 36
Apple 34
Alligator 32
Onion 32
Opossum 22
Redwood Tree 22
Kidney Bean 22
Carrot 20

----------


## saibot

Interesting!  I never looked at it that way...

----------


## Pioner

What number of chromosomes has to do with evolution? And Amoeba cell is much larger then human's cell, what is this surprise about?

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Here's something...
If it all started out with two people, disregarding Lilith, 'cause discussing her would make us BAD BAD Christians, then we are all incest.
Adam and Eve bump uglies, and then they have children.
Their children BUMP UGLIES!? :O
AND THEIR CHILDREN!
So then we have like...
Well...Adam would be someone's great uncle and grandfather at the same time. O_O And there would be freaky looking deformities and such.
Same with that bottle-neck shit. Explaining similar features in a race. INCEST!?  ::  I dunno. Point is...like...I don't think I have one.
If creationism were true, more than two flippin people were made.

----------


## Pioner

> The number of scientists who reject evolution is growing fast. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... winism.htm

 Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!

----------


## DDT

> Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!

 Yes, 11 people more knowlegable than you on the subject signed it!

----------


## saibot

> What number of chromosomes has to do with evolution? And Amoeba cell is much larger then human's cell, what is this surprise about?

 Well here I think we need to decide which human cells are we talking about?  Some human cells (egg cells) are bigger than amoebas.  A human egg cell is about 250 microns, while an average amoeba is 100 microns.  But yet, a human egg cell has half the number of chromosomes as a normal human cell, becuase it is a sex cell.  So cell size really has nothing to do with the number of chromosomes. 
As for your other point, chromosome number is just another argument against evolution.  If you take the number of chromosomes for certain organisms, and align them in the order of that organisms "appearance" on earth as a result of "evolution", you find that the numbers have no specific pattern.   
Here's a simple one: 
Humans 46
Monkeys  48
Dogs  78
Sheep  54
Rats  42
Flies  12
Lizards  46
Lobsters  100 
Removing a certain number of chromosomes or adding them for that matter, will not create a whole new species.  Removing chromosomes would completely destroy the individual.  To remove a chromosome would literally be to remove millions of parts of the organism. 
So I guess my point is, following the logic of evolution, simpler organisms should have smaller chromosomal counts.  As the complexity of the organism increases, so the does the amount of information in the DNA, which calls for more DNA, which calls for more chromosomes.   
A simple algae called the Cosmarium can have around 140 chromosomes. 
A very simple protozoa called Radiolaria has around 800 chromosomes! 
But yet a human has only 46. 
Something isn't right here.  This does not follow evolution at all....

----------


## Pioner

> The Bombardier Beetle.

 saibot, that story about the beetle is so old, that it is not even funny to mention it here. There is nothing special in that beetle. First of all, the description you gave is slightly wrong, and all creationist articles repeat the same mistake about anatomy and mechanism of that beetle a lot. I believe they just re-write it from each other, like they re-write the Bible. Anyhow, below I give a link to an article which, I hope, put away the question about that beetle  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!   Yes, 11 people more knowlegable than you on the subject signed it!

 I personally know more then 11 biologist who support evolution theory. So what? 
Have you ever heard about theory of big numbers?

----------


## Pioner

saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?

----------


## saibot

Ok.  That website describes hardly anything about the anatomy of the beetle, but more of the chemicals involved.  But the point is not the chemicals.  The point is that it involves several highly complex systems,  that just happened to evolve at the same time.  I didnt see much mention of that. 
What say you about giraffes though?  Same thing basically.  Do you have a website about that for me?

----------


## saibot

> saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?

 Of course I know what chromosomes are.  Tightly wound strands of DNA.  That's a simple definition, but that's it.

----------


## Pioner

> Ok.  That website describes hardly anything about the anatomy of the beetle, but more of the chemicals involved.  But the point is not the chemicals.  The point is that it involves several highly complex systems,  that just happened to evolve at the same time.  I didnt see much mention of that. 
> What say you about giraffes though?  Same thing basically.  Do you have a website about that for me?

 Actually try to read the article again. The anatomy is being explained there.  
And, the most important:
Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87)

----------


## saibot

Ok I read it again and found it.  I should have read more closely.  But I'm still not impressed. 
And I'm not sure I wanna trust a source in which the author has no self-confidence.  He goes through and explains a whole page about how it could have evolved, and then he goes to say:   

> The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that.

 But why did you want to know if I knew what a chromosome was?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?   Of course I know what chromosomes are.  Tightly wound strands of DNA.  That's a simple definition, but that's it.

 So, it is containers for storing DNA, broadly speaking? What is the difference if a cell contains 46 of those containers or 100 or 200 of them? Not talking about their size.  
BTW, a lot of plants contains chromosoms part of which are identical to each other. Like plant can contain 100 pairs of chromosomes but in realty it is just 50 pairs which are functional. I really do not understand, what you mean that it fact agains evolution. 
If my computer got 2 CD-ROMs, and yours contain 8 CD-ROMs, does that mean that you have more complecated and more powerful computer?

----------


## saibot

Well, the more chromosomes, the more complex the organism, would you not agree?  So why do some of the simplest organisms have many more pairs of functioning chromosomes then humans, when humans are undoubtedly more complex? 
Even if half of the 800 chromosomes in the Radiolaria are functional, that is still 400.  And lets say that half of the functioning ones are repeats, that just support the structure of the chromosomes.  That's 200.  And lets say that even just HALF of those are functional.  Thats still 100. 
And your little analogy about CD-ROMS dont really apply here.  CD ROMS arent essential to functioning of the computer.  But chromosomes are required by the cell. 
RAM on the other hand is essential to a computer.  If you have 2 sticks of RAM, and I have 8 sticks, then yes, mine is more powerful.

----------


## Dobry

> Point is...like...I don't think I have one.
> If creationism were true, more than two flippin people were made.

 Yep, this is a good point, and one that causes difficulty for anyone attempting a literal view of Genesis.  Strangely, I know more than a few Creationists who, in frustration, will say "well...then these paragraphs are literal...but these one's aren't!"...to avoid your question. 
And I still think that it is possible for "evolution" to be a design plan by You-Know-Who.  Why wouldn't He?

----------


## Cyphyr

I think it's perfectly acceptable to subject the theory of evolution to critical scrutiny and examine the evidence closely. Most people would say evolution requires more evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is an accurate explanation for the development of life on earth. But there's a big difference between that and trying to draw an equivalence between it and the Biblical account of creation. The creationists don't have a theory, no explanation for where the species came from, it's just an impenetrable mystery, so God is invoked as the only solution to that mystery. Their argument consists in pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in the evolution  account and then saying, 'See, it's not perfect, so you can all relax and continue on believing what you've always believed because it said so in the Bible'.  
But what about if someone says they believe aliens landed on earth, designed all the species, set up factories to produce them and then cleared off removing any signs of their presence. If someone said that was their explanation for life on earth, would you feel their 'explanation' was equally as valid as the evolution account? that the people who favoured evolution were no better than all the others?? This sort of attitude allows any kind of superstitious and irrational nonsense to flourish. 'Hey, cos we haven't got absolute certainty about evolution, anything goes, if it feels good, believe it'  ::   
The march of unreason continues apace  ::   ::

----------


## Malen'kayaKatinka

> Originally Posted by Pioner  And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?   You have a very good point Pioner.  But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration.  Quite the opposite of evolution.  I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.   
> A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's.  But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.   
> Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K.  This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.   
> The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died.  Duh! 
> But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K.  The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin.  Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity.  On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature. 
> So, this is for SURE evolution.  Or is it? 
> The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K.  It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin. 
> So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite).  The enzyme became less functional, not more functional.  This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all! 
> Another example. 
> ...

 Well, if you think about it, humans have become more resiliant to certain bacterias over the years. And I'm not talking about with vaccines. Does that mean we've evolved? Hmm not really. It's more like being called adaptation.

----------


## Pioner

> Well, the more chromosomes, the more complex the organism, would you not agree?

 no. Who said that? Where it was said?   

> RAM on the other hand is essential to a computer.  If you have 2 sticks of RAM, and I have 8 sticks, then yes, mine is more powerful.

 Ok, lets go with memory. I used to have 486dx-66 computer, it had 4 sticks (if I remember corrrectly) of memory, each 4mb, 32 mb total. 
Right now I have computer AMD-2800xt with 1 stick of the memory - 1 GB.  
What computer is more powerful and more complecated?

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?   You have a very good point Pioner.  But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration.  Quite the opposite of evolution.  I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.   
> A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's.  But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.   
> Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K.  This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.   
> The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died.  Duh! 
> But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K.  The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin.  Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity.  On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature. 
> So, this is for SURE evolution.  Or is it? 
> The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K.  It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin. 
> So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite).  The enzyme became less functional, not more functional.  This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all!

 You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?   

> Another example. 
> In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium.  Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.   
> The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything.  He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment.  Obviously, the worms survived.  He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium.  After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant.  The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution. 
> Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium.  But how can this be? 
> Easy.  Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died.  If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died!  Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.   
> So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium. 
> Wow, that drained my energy.  Im gonna go drink a red bull.

 Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared. 
once again. Darwinism is not about that organisms change because of change of environment, but some organisms survive (got selected) if they got better set of genes for changed environment.

----------


## CTPEKO3A

complications, complicated, ...
it is a language forum after all..

----------


## Pioner

> complications, complicated, ...
> it is a language forum after all..

 я пизграматный

----------


## CTPEKO3A

Let's switch the discussion towards cars!
I liked the Pioner's word "eastereropean". What manufacturers exactly disappeared? could you shed more light on that, please?

----------


## DDT

I heard there has been another bombing in London, today. Apparantly bombs did not go off, though.

----------


## Pioner

> Let's switch the discussion towards cars!
> I liked the Pioner's word "eastereropean". What manufacturers exactly disappeared? could you shed more light on that, please?

 maybe manufacturers survived (I am not sure about eastern German) but the models of those cars are really gone. 
BTW GM got biiig problems on sales last year. The company may be closed or sold.

----------


## Pioner

> I heard there has been another bombing in London, today. Apparantly bombs did not go off, though.

 yes, unfortunately. that is something new for Al-Queda.

----------


## Lampada

http://www.radiomayak.ru/interview/05/0 ... audio.html  ::   
"*Новые теракты в Лондоне*
2005/21/07 | 17:52
Информационная служба (радио "Маяк") 
Тревога в Лондоне возникла через две недели после взрывов в метро и автобусе, когда погибли более 50 человек и около 700 получили ранения. На этот раз взрывы не были такими серьезными. Подробности - от корреспондента газеты "Лондон-Инфо" Дмитрий Дроздов.  
ДРОЗДОВ: ... и полиция, и транспортные организации Лондона говорят только об одном человеке, который находится в близлежащем госпитале. Станция оцеплена. Говорится о том, что в поезде метро взорвался рюкзак, потом было задымление, паника и эвакуация пассажиров. По версии полиции, 21 июля в обед произошло три взрыва одновременно на трех станциях. Это станции "Уоррен-стрит", в центре столицы, станции "Овэл", на юге Лондона, и "Шепердс Буш", на западе. В принципе, они находятся в пределах первой зоны, это самый центр Лондона. Также была взорвана небольшая бомба на втором этаже автобуса ? 26, который двигался по Коламбиа-Роуд на востоке британской столицы. И в результате этого взрыва были выбиты стекла в автобусе, о пострадавших не сообщается... Лондонские госпитали работают в экстренном состоянии...  
- Дмитрий, как только появились первые сообщения о ЧП, полиция стала успокаивать людей, говоря, что речь может идти о незначительных происшествиях. Так было и в прошлый раз. Сначала полиция говорила, что это не взрывы, а сбой в электроснабжении. Что сейчас заявляют полицейские?  
ДРОЗДОВ: Сейчас совершенно четко говорится о том, что все-таки сработали небольшие взрывные устройства. И, действительно, ситуация очень напоминает такую же, какая была две недели, опять три взрыва в метро и один в автобусе, снова начинается перебой с мобильной связью, уже практически нельзя никуда дозвониться. Но сейчас, мне кажется, транспортные и спасательные организации, полиция больше готовы к этим событиям. Да и сами лондонцы меньше паникуют, потому что все это было две недели назад.  
- Дмитрий, приходят разрозненные сообщения о том, что видели человека с рюкзаком. В его рюкзаке что-то взорвалось, он бросил рюкзак и побежал вверх по эскалатору. У вас что-то говорят об этом?  
ДРОЗДОВ: Насколько я знаю, действительно, взрыв произошел в рюкзаке одного из пассажиров метро...  
Премьер-министр Великобритании Тони Блэр заявил, что погибших в результате взрывов, прогремевших в Лондоне 21 июля, нет. На пресс-конференции на Даунинг-стрит, 10, он заявил, что организаторы взрывов преследовали целью запугать народ Британии. В то же время премьер подчеркнул, что в этой ситуации "полиция проявила себя наилучшим образом". Он заявил, что необходимо предпринять все, чтобы жизнь в Лондоне нормализовалась уже в ближайшее время."

----------


## saibot

> You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?

 Evolution - "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" 
OK. Building a resistance to poison seems like a positive.  But did you see the after-effects?  The enzyme was completely useless basically.  So they weren't killed by poison anymore, they were killed by their defense against the poison.  How is this a positive?  How is a useless enzyme a good trait to pass on?

----------


## Pioner

> You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?
> 			
> 		  Evolution - "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" 
> OK. Building a resistance to poison seems like a positive.  But did you see the after-effects?  The enzyme was completely useless basically.  So they weren't killed by poison anymore, they were killed by their defense against the poison.  How is this a positive?  How is a useless enzyme a good trait to pass on?

 saibot, there is no such conception as positive and negative in Darwin's evolution. Those words are for humans. There is conception of surviving and adaptiveness. If this feature helps to survive and produce next generations, it is positive, if not, it's negative, that is it.

----------


## saibot

> Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared.

 Oh I disagree.  Environment has a very big effect on organisms.  http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html   

> Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

----------


## Vesh

*saibot*, they are *not* killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

----------


## saibot

> *saibot*, they are *not* killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

 My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless.  This will kill the organism. 
Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

----------


## Pioner

> Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared. 
> 			
> 		  Oh I disagree.  Environment has a very big effect on organisms.  http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html 
> [quote:2ik4c11l]Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

 [/quote:2ik4c11l] 
DNA is a huge but nevertherless regular chemical molecula. And some chemicals effect it, changing it's structure, those chemicals are called mutagens. But, those changes are not directed, spontaneous, and does not develop resistence to that mutagen, unless by some luck there appear a mutation protecting against that. Mutagens increase variations in DNA, mutations, most of them fatal. But, things like, for example cold climate do not change genes that animals start to produce thicker fir. No, it is just so happen that animals with thicker fir have more chances to survive and produce babies with thicker fir. But environment does to change genom of animals directing it going in "right" direction. I hope I am clear here. Quite busy at my work right now.

----------


## Vesh

> Originally Posted by Vesh  *saibot*, they are *not* killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.   My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless.  This will kill the organism. 
> Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

 Well, if they won't survive, they'll extinct. It had happened to a lot of species. No surprise here. No contradiction to Darwin's theory.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Vesh  *saibot*, they are *not* killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.   My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless.  This will kill the organism. 
> Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

 well, organism got into problem. If by some luck it gets mutation in gene which protects against poison but not kill itself, we'll see a new form. If not, that species (in this environment) will desappear, like dinosourus.

----------


## saibot

> Originally Posted by saibot     
> 			
> 				Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared. 
> 			
> 		  Oh I disagree.  Environment has a very big effect on organisms.  http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html 
> [quote:keru33fb]Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

 DNA is a huge but nevertherless regular chemical molecula. And some chemicals effect it, changing it's structure, those chemicals are called mutagens. But, those changes are not directed, spontaneous, and does not develop resistence to that mutagen, unless by some luck there appear a mutation protecting against that. Mutagens increase variations in DNA, mutations, most of them fatal. But, things like, for example cold climate do not change genes that animals start to produce thicker fir. No, it is just so happen that animals with thicker fir have more chances to survive and produce babies with thicker fir. But environment does to change genom of animals directing it going in "right" direction. I hope I am clear here. Quite busy at my work right now.[/quote:keru33fb] 
Ok.  All the posts on the last 3 pages of this argument are all about nit-picky little details.  We could sit here and argue all day about it, and get nowhere.  You say something, I counter it, then you counter that.  And so on.   
So Im gonna make it broad again.  In your example above, about developing thicker fur, that is natural selection.  I have no problem with natural selection.  But when does natural selection CAUSE evolution?  Natural selection - change in allele frequencies.  Nothing new added to the gene pool.  Darwinism is defined as evolution THROUGH natural selection.  I may be missing something here, but If nothing is added to the gene pool, when and how does a completely new species arise?

----------


## Pioner

> Ok.  All the posts on the last 3 pages of this argument are all about nit-picky little details.  We could sit here and argue all day about it, and get nowhere.  You say something, I counter it, then you counter that.  And so on.   
> So Im gonna make it broad again.  In your example above, about developing thicker fur, that is natural selection.  I have no problem with natural selection.  But when does natural selection CAUSE evolution?  Natural selection - change in allele frequencies.  Nothing new added to the gene pool.  Darwinism is defined as evolution THROUGH natural selection.  I may be missing something here, but If nothing is added to the gene pool, when and how does a completely new species arise?

 keyword=mutation

----------


## saibot

How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale? 
Take corn.  Mutate the hell out of it.  What do you get?  New corn!  Take a banana.  Mutate it till your head hurts!  What do you get?  A new type of banana!  Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms?  ...There are none. 
Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist.  Not adding more like evolution suggests.

----------


## Pioner

> How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

  That is impossible, but the main idea... *a* mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.  
In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children. 
I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.

----------


## saibot

> Originally Posted by saibot  How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?    That is impossible, but the main idea... *a* mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.  
> In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children. 
> I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.

 Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.  When I see it, I'll believe it.  The information you gave is no doubt a mutation, but is the girl now a zebra?  No she is still the same organism!  It was a variation within a current species.

----------


## Pioner

> How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale? 
> Take corn.  Mutate the hell out of it.  What do you get?  New corn!  Take a banana.  Mutate it till your head hurts!  What do you get?  A new type of banana!  Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms?  ...There are none. 
> Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist.  Not adding more like evolution suggests.

 as I said, it takes million years. And there are fossils of transition organisms, for example:  
or more about transition of birds: http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049052056055 ... 53124.html 
sorry, I have no time for searching in English, but you can have a look on pictures, without reading much Russian. 
There is similar fossils for a lot of transition species.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner        Originally Posted by saibot  How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?    That is impossible, but the main idea... *a* mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.  
> In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children. 
> I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.   Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.  When I see it, I'll believe it.  The information you gave is no doubt a mutation, but is the girl now a zebra?  No she is still the same organism!  It was a variation within a current species.

 I said, it takes million years. How old are you?

----------


## saibot

> Originally Posted by saibot  How?  Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale? 
> Take corn.  Mutate the hell out of it.  What do you get?  New corn!  Take a banana.  Mutate it till your head hurts!  What do you get?  A new type of banana!  Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms?  ...There are none. 
> Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist.  Not adding more like evolution suggests.   as I said, it takes million years. And there are fossils of transition organisms, for example:  
> or more about transition of birds: http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049052056055 ... 53124.html 
> sorry, I have no time for searching in English, but you can have a look on pictures, without reading much Russian. 
> There is similar fossils for a lot of transition species.

 First of all, you can't be sure that mutations cause a change of organism type, since it has never been observed.  Have you watched for millions of years while organisms change from one thing to another?  Doubtful.  Your "factual" information is based on a hypothesis. 
And secondly, bring that fossil into a courtroom.  Lay it on a table and tell the judge, "This creature is a half-dinosaur, half-bird, and it is the great great great uncle, 4 million times removed, of all the humans on the earth."  See how far you get.  How do you know that creature had any children?  And how do you know it can do something that no living thing can do today, and that is to produce something other than its kind.

----------


## Pioner

saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right? 
This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

----------


## Dobry

I leave for a few hours, only to return and see the "evolution" of the debate!   ::

----------


## saibot

> saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right? 
> This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

 The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false.  If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing.  Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true.  Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that.  Hitler wanted to create the perfect race.  He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors.  The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him.  Look for it.  It wont be on his body."  And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it. 
Case and point:  Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world. 
PS.  I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism.  Please give me some.

----------


## Vesh

> Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.

 Because they do not exist. It's a statistical process.  
Horse does not turn into zebra overnight. In a result of a mutation a gene of white stripe appears in a horses population. And those stripes apparently not that bright, and appear not on the whole body of the horse, just, let’s say, on legs or shoulders. If this horses population happens to live in Africa savannah where stripe give some advantage, those horses who have them, live longer and have more descendants. Those horses, who happen to have genes that facilitate stripes to be brighter (all mammals have genes that modify their skin and fur color), live longer and have more descendants. They basically outbreed horses. At some point of the process stripped horses (zebras) do not mate non-stripped horses any more. This process takes tens of thousands years.

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Pioner  saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right? 
> This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.   The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false.  If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing.  Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true.  Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that.  Hitler wanted to create the perfect race.  He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors.  The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him.  Look for it.  It wont be on his body."  And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it. 
> Case and point:  Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world. 
> PS.  I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism.  Please give me some.

 Evolution has been proven false??? 
Saibot, I've only seen theories, opinions, and conjectures.  Not one definitive, or "mathematical" proof.  Not one. 
You cannot prove "evolution" is "false"...anymore than you can prove that "creationism" is true.  Simply not possible.  Therefore, the possibility of evolution continues to exist. 
You may have a good argument, but that is not a "proof" or the disproving of a proof in scientific or mathematical logic.

----------


## saibot

> Originally Posted by saibot  Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.   Because they do not exist. It's a statistical process.  
> Horse does not turn into zebra overnight. In a result of a mutation a gene of white stripe appears in a horses population. And those stripes apparently not that bright, and appear not on the whole body of the horse, just, let’s say, on legs or shoulders. If this horses population happens to live in Africa savannah where stripe give some advantage, those horses who have them, live longer and have more descendants. Those horses, who happen to have genes that facilitate stripes to be brighter (all mammals have genes that modify their skin and fur color), live longer and have more descendants. They basically outbreed horses. At some point of the process stripped horses (zebras) do not mate non-stripped horses any more. This process takes tens of thousands years.

 Yes I realize this...but my point is very, very simple.  How do you know 100%, that it takes that long?  No one has ever been able to live that long to see it! 
I'm moving for an end to this discussion.  I've said just about all I want to say.  This is pointless.  It's not like a few people arguing in a forum will solve this mystery.  You have your opinion, and I have mine.  Nothing you can say will make me change my mind, and I'm sure you feel the same way. 
This is my last post in this discussion. 
For me, it's over. 
EDIT:  Dobry, I didn't say evolution was proven false.  I said all the "proofs" (aka arguments, that people like to say are proofs) FOR evolution have been proven false. 
Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false.  Not the entire theory itself.  But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?   
You can make the call.

----------


## Dobry

> Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false.  Not the entire theory itself.  But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?   
> You can make the call.

 I don't see "proofs" that "take away all support" for the Theory of Evolution.  Sorry, but I have seen no "absolute and irrefutable proofs" against Evolution.  Only more theories and opinions. 
Reminds me of Galileo's theories...Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion...Theories of a round, and not flat, world. 
All were considered absolutely false, and heresy...until our knowledge progressed and caught up with the concepts. 
In essence, our knowledge "evolved".    ::

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by Pioner  saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right? 
> This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.   The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false.

 'cuse me, what is "the only proof for evolution"?

----------


## Cyphyr

> The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false.  If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing.  Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true.  Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that.  Hitler wanted to create the perfect race.  He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors.  The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him.  Look for it.  It wont be on his body."  And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it. 
> Case and point:  Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world. 
> PS.  I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism.  Please give me some.

  ::  
Well, on the basis of this post, I can see there's no point trying to convince saibot of the merits of evolution theory. He clearly feels a deep hostility to it and not only considers it to be incorrect but also views it as somehow morally corrupting. I guess in saibot's view people who have been taken in by this false 'protected government religion' are not only dumb and misguided but also less moral than those like him who reject it.  ::

----------


## Dobry

> EDIT:  Dobry, I didn't say evolution was proven false.  I said all the "proofs" (aka arguments, that people like to say are proofs) FOR evolution have been proven false. 
> Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false.  Not the entire theory itself.  But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?   
> You can make the call.

 saibot, 
I understand what you are saying...but logically, you cannot prove a negative, or positive, by the mere absence of something.  "Proof" doesn't work that way.  Just because a "missing link" has not appeared, _does not prove_ that a "missing link" doesn't exist.  I think DDT must agree with me on this.   
And...not putting too fine a point on this, butttttt...a standard of "reasonable doubt" has only one, very narrow application...in American criminal trials.   
"Reasonable doubt" has no application, no relevance or meaning, in proving or disproving a scientific theory.

----------


## DDT

> [ less moral than those like him who reject it.

 Ah! I see the word moral has entered into things finally.
One of my favourite topics. So what is morality? Animals don't have it. Some people think that they have it. But who is to say what a moral is? Certainly not someone who is an accident from a puddle of slime. Why should I let him tell me. He could have just made them up. And my morals could tell me that I should thump you over the head with spiked club so I could steal your wife. But most of us  instinctually know that that is wrong, why is that?  So what makes his morals better than mine? Theory of Evolution tells me that my morals will ensure my survival. 
 The whole idea of morals must have come from somewhere else because survival of the fittest and morals don't seem to mix.

----------


## Pioner

What theory of evolution got to do with moral? When it rains - is that moral or not?  
Nature got no idea about morality, it just exists.

----------


## Cyphyr

That's a very deep philosophical question DDT  ::  I think it is possible to believe in certain universal moral truths which are part of the fabric of the universe, if you like, and to say they have an external reality of their own. If you ask where did they come from? why are they there? that could well lead you to a belief in the existence of God. Morality is a difficult issue to figure out and is usually a large part of what religion is concerned with. But I would say you could look at it like this, morals are not hardwired into us as part of the design, we acquire the ability to appreciate and understand them once we reach a certain level of evolutionary development and start to form communities with complex social relationships. We become aware of them and need to live by them (to a certain degree anyway) in order for us to function within a society. Society wouldn't be possible if everyone behaved completely selfishly all the time. Animal brains haven't evolved to the point where they can understand these moral truths in the same way that they can't understand fundamental mathematical relationships and concepts that humans can. 
I don't feel that belief in the theory of evolution and belief in universal moral truths are incompatiable. But I do feel that belief in moral truths and their value requires a kind of faith. In this respect, I suppose I am 'religious' even if I perhaps don't like to admit it   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Case and point:  Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world.

   ::  Just because some serial killers believed in the Theory of Evolution, it is blamed for destroying the moral fabric of the world?   ::   
Well, let's ban Islam then... oh and MTV! Heck, electricity is pretty bad too! And the whole theory of gravity? Nothing but a drag!

----------


## Biancca

> The whole idea of morals must have come from somewhere else because survival of the fittest and morals don't seem to mix.

 Agreed.  Looking around us, there is no reason why we should be moral, or even polite.  Yet those ideas are ingrained within us.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by saibot  Case and point:  Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world.     Just because some serial killers believed in the Theory of Evolution, it is blamed for destroying the moral fabric of the world?    
> Well, let's ban Islam then... oh and MTV! Heck, electricity is pretty bad too! And the whole theory of gravity? Nothing but a drag!

 - Yes, to fix that problem we need to execute all blacks and byciclists.
- Why byciclists?
- I knew that there would be no questions about blacks.  
kinda joke.

----------


## Pioner

> Originally Posted by DDT  
>  The whole idea of morals must have come from somewhere else because survival of the fittest and morals don't seem to mix.   Agreed.  Looking around us, there is no reason why we should be moral, or even polite.  Yet those ideas are ingrained within us.

 that is a solid proof agains Evolution.

----------


## Biancca

> Originally Posted by Biancca        Originally Posted by DDT  
>  The whole idea of morals must have come from somewhere else because survival of the fittest and morals don't seem to mix.   Agreed.  Looking around us, there is no reason why we should be moral, or even polite.  Yet those ideas are ingrained within us.   that is a solid proof agains Evolution.

 Also agree.  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

The only thing that I can concede to Creationism, just because it is impossible to disprove, is this:  
What if the world WAS create 4000 years ago, WITH all the fossiles and things already put in Earth? There is no way to disprove that. Evolution would be nothing but a fun puzzle buddy God put for us to solve!

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Pioner        Originally Posted by Biancca        Originally Posted by DDT  
>  The whole idea of morals must have come from somewhere else because survival of the fittest and morals don't seem to mix.   Agreed.  Looking around us, there is no reason why we should be moral, or even polite.  Yet those ideas are ingrained within us.   that is a solid proof agains Evolution.   Also agree.

 Perhaps.  Or perhaps morals result from the need for morals to allow social communities to exist and flourish, which enables a much higher chance of survival for all involved...rather than "every man for himself." 
Wolfpacks, horse-herds, etc.  All have social rules, similar to "morals" (traditions/instincts of social conduct) for their group that allows them to exist together, and not kill each other. 
Strength in numbers.

----------


## DDT

The trouble with saying that morals are just part of the evolutional process is that the first  early man to have morals would have been "marked for death".

----------


## Dobry

Oh, I agree...but if two men were cooperating together, then they could succeed against one man who was an enemy.  Most likely, socialization began with a man and woman together, with instincts.   
I think it is reasonable to think that at some point 2 men realized that cooperating they could take down a dangerous animal, for food and safety.   
Those humans that developed an instinct for socialization would naturally have a much higher chance of survival, and would pass-on these instincts...over the "lone wolf" human who would tend to die...hence there was a natural evolution of human socialization and community.

----------


## DDT

Excellent rational Dobry. But actually  all of the very first attempts at life  would have died right away anyway because they would not have been developed enough to reproduce let alone develope morals.

----------


## scotcher

The thing I love about this here interweb thingy, is that I can read all the blithering  nonsense written by bone-headed creationists and their ilk (any other kind of Flat-Earther really) and get a good laugh out of it, and yet I don't have to become agressive or impolite in order to dismiss them as I would have to do in meat-space (such as on the three or four days a year when I am randomly visited by deeply ill-advised Mormons). In here, one click of a button and  :: oof:, they are gone from my conciousness along with their staw men and circular (il)logic. In here, I only have to get agressive or impolite for personal amusement! 
If _that_ isn't proof that there is a God somewhere, I don't know what is.

----------


## DDT

Note to self: Send two guys on bicycles wearing white shirts to cranky ol' Scotcher's house.

----------


## Pioner

I do not think that moral is hardcoded into us. And a single man with a moral will not survive, that is correct. But a tribe which is moral, cooparating, helping one another does have a huge advantage of individualist stuck together. Biological evolution may stop there, but cultural evolution started. And here we are, that developed. Because of culture and moral.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

So we're getting up to cultural evolution?
YAY! It's almost over!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Umm... Abortion is COOL! MORE ABORTION! 
That should get things started again!

----------


## DDT

Actually I believe in individual choice on the abortion issue. This is where me and conservatives part ways.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

What? Why?

----------


## DDT

I don't believe that life starts at conception. There is nothing proving this in scripture and I have heard all the arguments and read all the verses. I think it is just more "Popery". 
If it  did then all miscarriages and aborted fetus's would have a free ticket into heaven. If that was the case then Christians should rejoyce at abortion clinics instead of picketing them. 
There probably should be some rectrictions on late term abortions but in reality it should be a womans choice. I believe that it is always better to save the  life of the mother and abort the child. The mother  especially needs to live for the sake of her other kids.

----------


## saibot

I agree.  A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her body. 
But last time I checked, the baby's body wasn't "hers". 
If we can kill it before it's born, why not after? 
I think women should be able to kill their children all the way up to the 18th birthday! 
Let's make it fair!  
Who's with me?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Well, the issue is when does the baby be considered a person and should be protected. Does a impregnated cell count as a baby? A person? Is it not part of the womans body at that point?

----------


## saibot

> Well, the issue is when does the baby be considered a person and should be protected. Does a impregnated cell count as a baby? A person? Is it not part of the womans body at that point?

 Well I think a zygote is considered a living individual. 
Is it alive?  Of course it is.  The sperm (hehe, god im immature) is alive.  The egg is alive.  There is life througout. 
Is it an individual?  Of course.  23 chromosomes from mommy, 23 from daddy.  It's not quite mommy, and it's not quite daddy.  It's something...else...something...unique. 
Sure, it's living _inside_ of mom, but a separate entity all the same.

----------


## Pioner

It happens that zigota start to develop, then mother's body decides that this zigota is worthless and it getting absorbed by mother's body. Should we consider the mother to be a murderer and a cannibal?

----------


## saibot

...if she eats it I guess she's a cannibal.....   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

(*secretly giving himself a high five for managing to rekindle the argument! ::  
If the sperm is life and the egg is life, people who mastrubate should be locked forever. Massmurders!

----------


## saibot

> (*secretly giving himself a high five for managing to rekindle the argument! 
> If the sperm is life and the egg is life, people who mastrubate should be locked forever. Massmurders!

 Well, then every guy is a murderer at one point.  Even if you are [immaturity] *hehe* having sex *giggle* [/immaturity] to PRODUCE a child, only one of the [immaturity] *holds back tears of laughter* SPERM *hahaha* [/immaturity] gets the job done.  The rest die!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

So your point is what? That sperm killing is fine. But if sperm and egg comes together for coffee, it should be protected by law?

----------


## saibot

My point is.... 
I can't say sperm without laughing.  Maybe I should go back to 7th grade....

----------


## scotcher

Cool, we're up to abortion issues now. 
Wake me up when we get to GM crops.

----------


## Pioner

> ...if she eats it I guess she's a cannibal.....

 wow, I thought that all women a sinners, but now I have prove for that. It happens with each woman. Now I understan why muslims are right about women, not given them Equal Rites.   ::

----------


## DDT

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-te ... 89118.html

----------


## a true arab

Ciao   ::   I noticed that most of the replies try to connect these an acceptable so called terrorist explosions to Isalm and Muslims. This is a clear extreme racism against Islam. There are hundredrs of Christian, Jewish, Bhudist groups of different nationalities that do thing worse than what happened in London. Jewish terrorists killed peaceful worshipping people in AL-Haram Al-Ibrahimi, Basque are killing innocent people in Spain, Russian soldiers are killing and massacring whole villages in chechnya, Amercians are killling armleess people in Afghansistan, and Irak every day, they are bombarding villages and they are not terrorists. British soldiers are killing people in Irak, etc. and no one dare to say "Christian Terrorism or Jewish Terrorism". If he said such thing, he will be an extreme or he will be claimed to be antisemitic " By the way we are more semitic than Jews   ::   ::   ::  " Great world full of fairness and justice.
In my own point oif view and as a Muslim I do not accept what happened in London. That is because Islam does not allow killing innocent people even if they are noon muslims. 
I think what happened in London is a natural consequence of what the stupid British policy is doing in the Islamic world. The British nad the Americans think that they can apply there principles and cultural codes to the Islamic world. They think that their own version of freedom is the best one for all the world. But they failed in all there efforts. Islamic culture is an old and strong culture from which the Euroopeans learned a lot. When British are acting against an enormous population of muslims in the world, when, they are helping Zionism in Arabian occupied Palestine, they should expect daily explosions. 
What have been taken by force will be taken back by force. 
My advice to the Western world is to take their barbarian soldiers back home to avoid more of these attacks. As we are seeing USA and UK with teir most advanced weapons and technologies are having a lot of troubles with Afghan and Iraki resistance. They should think about negotiaitons in stead of playing the role of Tyrant who will be soon defeated by the brave Afghan and Iraki resistants.

----------


## TATY

> They should think about negotiaitons in stead of playing the role of Tyrant who will be soon defeated by the brave Afghan and Iraki resistants.

 Brave?

----------


## Cyphyr

What is it with this thread??  ::  Am I ever going to escape from its grasp  ::  
True Arab, I don't think most of the replies tried to connect the terrorist attacks directly to Islam and Muslims. I think a majority of the replies were defending Islam (well, actually a majority of the replies were probably concerned with everything and anything other than what the thread was originally about, but that's another story  ::  ) 
I think the US and its allies have seriously messed up things and made a bad situation worse by invading Iraq. But I don't think it was intended as a war against Muslims although sadly it might appear like that now in Muslim eyes. Also, I find it hard to see the Iraqi insurgents as brave resistance fighters. It seems to me, a huge number of their attacks are deliberately aimed at murdering as many innocent Iraqi civilians as they can. There doesn't seem to anything noble or admirable about that. Many of these groups seem intent on provoking a bloody civil war between Sunni and Shia to create as much chaos as possible with the hope of driving the Americans out. That might achieve its objective but at what cost? both for the people of Iraq and for everyone else in the region. 
As regards Palestine, I think Muslim anger at the suffering and treatment of the Palestininans is justified. Most people in Europe understand what the Israeli government is doing in the West Bank: they want the land but they don't want the people. They continue to grab more land to build ever bigger settlements while leaving the Palestinians without a state and without a voice. Unfortunately the media in the US tend to see things only from the Israeli perspective. You have to ask though, what have the suicide bombings by Hamas and the other groups achieved? They have succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians and hardening public opinion there against compromise and strengthening Sharon's hand. Similarly, in the States, a media which is already sympathetic to Israel is not likely to change its position while both countries are under threat from suicide attacks. At the end of the day, if it's true that Arabs will not be beaten into submission, then it's also true for Israelis, Americans and everyone else. There has to be a better understanding of everyone's position and a more considered approach to dealing with the conflicts than just brute force. 
Again, it's not black and white, there's right and wrong on all sides. But it's probably misunderstandings more than anything else that drive the conflict.

----------


## DDT

> [they should expect daily explosions. 
> What have been taken by force will be taken back by force.

 This is the typical Muslim response. They see everything as a threat to their religion. They tell us that they *themselves* would never blow up people on a bus or pizza parlour but that we should *expect* to be mutilated by nails bombs by *other* Muslims. But in no way is this connected to Islam. Duh? (scratches head)   

> In my own point oif view and as a Muslim I do not accept what happened in London. That is because Islam does not allow killing innocent people even if they are noon muslims.

 You had better read all of my posts again, True Arab  because I am tired of putting up the historical facts about Mr Mohammed and the pathetic  example that he set for Muslims to follow. He was a liar, murderer, a rapist (of non-Muslims, that is, oh, and except for that 9 year old) and a child-molester. Sorry, but I'd call a 58 year old man asking his friend if he can marry his 7 year old daughter a "child molester". Wouldn't you? And you are going to take the word of this man that that you should pray towards Jerusalem? Somehow I think you have been hoodwinked and now Muslims have the whole world in turmoil over anywhere that Mohammed might have set his precious little toes. 
And by the way nobody took Palestine away from Arabs by force. 
Firstly Arabs rejected the mandate in 1948.
Then after Arabs attacked peaceful Jewish settlements with 7 armies and were defeated, Arabs were offered the Palestinian lands again, which they again rejected because they want ALL of Israel.The fact is the entire country of Jordan was set aside for Palestinians. 
 The Arab armies told all Arabs living west of the Jordan to flee out of Israel and Palestine territory while the Armies destroyed all the Jews. They were told that they would be able to return after the battle and take the dead Jews posessions and homes for themselves. That is why we have refugee camps today.  
The fact is that no one was really interested in Palestine until after the Jews there in the late 1800's started fixing up the land on order to make it productive and  Arabs started to go there in order to find employment. 
I suggest that you look and study the maps. http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

----------


## Dobry

> Ciao    I noticed that most of the replies try to connect these an acceptable so called terrorist explosions to Isalm and Muslims. This is a clear extreme racism against Islam.

 True Arab, 
Please calmly, and rationally read the whole thread.  You are wrong in your conclusions about this thread.  And personally, I would request that you use normal black-lettering, and not strong red-lettering.  I consider red-lettering the same as 'SHOUTING' in a post, and I consider it antagonistic.  There has been little anti-Islam feeling here, and what there is has been calmly and rationally presented.  I think most of us in our thoughts, and in this post, have clearly separated Islam from Terrorism.  The tone of your post is very antagonistic. 
What I cannot figure out is whether you are sincere...or are a "post-troll".  I think you may be "trolling", trying to incite anger where there is no anger. 
My 2 kopeks.

----------


## Cyphyr

Yet again DDT, your sources are biased and misleading. They also show a deep ignorance of Arab culture and history to try and say that Palestinians can just live in any 'Arab' country and have no right to live in Palestine. The only thing that I would agree with is that the Arabs should have accepted the U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 and after losing the subsequent war should have made peace with Israel and accepted its existence. But for Israel's own sake as much as for the Palestinians it should have prevented mass settlement in the territories after the 1967 war and retained them intact as 'bargaining chips' until a comprehensive peace settlement could be reached. Their current position makes no sense, they're trying to incorporate the territories into their own state while avoiding giving Palestinians citizenship or voting rights within that state. Of course, there are those on the political right in Israel who advocate ethnic cleansing of the territories to make way for further expansion. But the most likely outcome will be the creation of fragmented 'homelands' or ghettos where Palestinians will have nominal 'sovereignty' while Israel continues its settlement program. 
Here DDT, take a look at these links and you might actually learn something. It's from a group within Israel itself, not the kind of bigoted biased garbage you keep posting.  http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/ http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp  http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

----------


## a true arab

DDT. 
thank you for your soo polite reply and I tyhink this is the way you were brought up.
I think you know no thing about Isalm and regarding the unbelievable calims against Muhammad peace be upon him:"
 He was a liar, murderer, a rapist (of non-Muslims, that is, oh, and except for that 9 year old) and a child-molester." This implies your shalow mental power. I have the right to ask you for a proof? If you can?
Regarding, that he married a 9 years old. TheIsalmic historians have mentioned different ages for the mother of believers Aishah when she was married to the prophet peace be upon him. That is because Arabs do not have records for births at that time. The real fact that science support is that in hot climate countries the girls reach adultry as young as 9 years. and you can search for this to be satisfied. Regarding your other  lies about Muhammad peace be upon him:
A liar:
Muhammad was called among the non muslims Arabs As-Sadiq " the one who says truth" since he was a child. And in his teaching a pious muslim is not allowed to lie. I think a lier would not mind to let his followers do the same as him.
A Murderer:
can you prove this fact Mr. DDT. I want facts not something out of your head which I think full of hate against muslims.
a Rapist:
this is a nother lie from your side. 
you said: And by the way nobody took Palestine away from Arabs by force. 
Firstly Arabs rejected the mandate in 1948. 
Then after Arabs attacked peaceful Jewish settlements with 7 armies and were defeated, Arabs were offered the Palestinian lands again, which they again rejected because they want ALL of Israel.The fact is the entire country of Jordan was set aside for Palestinians. 
This shows that you do not have a solid historical background. You are mislead by the Jewish propaganda. Please go and read the history slowly read about the Balfore 'promise'  and then post your reply.
regarding the socalled Israili citizens. Those are COLONIZERS and all of them are part of THE STANDBY Jewish ARMY.
THEY ARE LAND THIEVES, WORSHIPPERS KILLERS.
you said: 
The fact is that no one was really interested in Palestine until after the Jews there in the late 1800's started fixing up the land on order to make it productive and Arabs started to go there in order to find employment.   
DO YOU THINK WE DO NOT KNOW OUR HISTORY. THERE WERE NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LAND TO BE FIXED CHUMMY.  
REGARDING the MAP, ARABs with there different nations ( KANaanitets, AMMORITS, ETC>) are the first people to sttle in PALESTINE. Our history is soo deep in this land that such a fake map can change. Try something else. 
DDT:
you have to have a lot of lessons in ETHICS, MORALS, HOW to DEBATE, and HOW to RESPECT OTHERS. 
[/quote]

----------


## Rosa Anna

> They think that their own version of freedom is the best one for all the world.

 I believe there you are wrong, Arab. 
They (why lump america with britian?) think in my opinion that each person in the world should have the right to practice thier version of freedom-and not be persecuted or killed for it. 
If terrorists want to hide behind the skirts of women and children in mosques and small towns.......well, then yes there are bound to be innocent casualties--and the terrorists know it. They also know that this is the safest place for them. So what kind of soilders are they?  
Collateral damage?? No it is not worth it for them, maybe certainly for the generations of children and grandchildren in the future.  
IF there were not any people in "your world" who wanted just "a little" more freedom from what they feel oppresses them, then you would not have this trouble of visitors answering the cries of human suffering. But, they suffer, it made the news, their is either A. money or B. power in it for us hidden beneath the obvious goodwill towards others, and so we show up. Isn't that the way of things? 
 Besides.
Wasn't this all really Saadaams and people like him's fault for discarding so many lives in the first place? 
One really should take it up with him. 
-------------------------------------

----------


## Rosa Anna

I'm reading this. And I'm thinking that from a laypersons (by the way...)
point of view the only people trying to say the war on terrorism is a war on Islam is terrorists (obviously) and islamics. Does anyone out there hold the opinion that the UN (or whatever) is out to "chistendize" those of other faiths? Come'on talk to me. I mean here in my country, although I deal with alot of white shirts (sticks out tounge) we are more taught that our rule book is the standard for living and that book says, come immagrints, live here, practice your religions. There are hundreds of different types of sects within the christian or judaic (I don't know about islam-there are a few?) trying their best to even get people who meet their qualifycation of "under the christian (with christ) or judaic (without christ)" umbrella to come and be THEIR flavor of THAT interpretation of belief.  
Even the animal sacrificing rights of a man I once knew (muslim) appear to be protected. Even though there are animal rights laws. Even though most feed off flesh.  
I don't see what the big deal is. 
I think that the issue is that someone is too close to liberating women and children from slavery-(ultimately) and that that is pissing off the slaver.

----------


## Dobry

> DDT:
> you have to have a lot of lessons in ETHICS, MORALS, HOW to DEBATE, and HOW to RESPECT OTHERS.

 Hmm...True Arab, if I am walking down a street in your town, and we meet as strangers...will you greet me as a potential enemy, or potential friend?, 
How much experience do you actually have with American, British or Aussie cultures?  I don't sense much experience.  I sense a regurgitation of things you have heard from others, a "party line" and not independent, free-thought based on experience and knowledge.  This is my own opinion, and if it's wrong then I am sorry.   
But...True Arab, you need to look at your own style and manners, before you chastise others.  You have a lot to learn. 
Again, your statement reinforces my thinking that you're simply forum-trolling.  ::

----------


## Dobry

> I think that the issue is that someone is too close to liberating women and children from slavery-(ultimately) and that that is pissing off the slaver.

 I tend to agree with you, Rosa.

----------


## Rosa Anna

Arab will not speak to that  ::  I have no penis nor spermies. (ie woman) It's a law or something. I learned it growing up in a muslim household in america.   ::  guess what? I did that too.  
Here is my review of the overall theme:  :: 
Here is my review of the customs:   ::  
Here is my review of the food:   ::  
Here is my review of the woman and old people:  :P    ::  
Doesn't matter. Where I come from I can believe what ever I want to believe. As humans we have a tendancy to do that anyway. Though laws and stuff may dictate what we choose to portray to others. 
I find this topic very enlightening. The depths of the posts leave me more educated on the points of view that are out there. I still have not been convinced that Britan and America are out to get Mohammad's people. 
The president here in my country is a Christian. Though if he were to take a loud stance and say, "Jesus wants me to free the people of Israel" for instance, he would be dethrowned in a heartbeat. Because the rule book he IS SUPPOSED to be living by (I don't know if he is or not, I don't pay much attention. He is boring) states that that is not how we are going to run this country.

----------


## Rosa Anna

::  I like you Dobry. I like all people who agree with me.  :P

----------


## DDT

> Again, your statement reinforces my thinking that you're simply forum-trolling.

  No. I don't think that True Arab is only forum trolling. I have met him before down in the Arabic Lounge and I think that he is legitimate. He and I just disagree on this issue.  I think that he does not realize how out numbered I am  on this forum though. 
I will answer his post later. Right now I just want to enjoy my afternoon without serious politics and religion.

----------


## Dobry

> No. I don't think that True Arab is only forum trolling. I have met him before down in the Arabic Lounge and I think that he is legitimate. He and I just disagree on this issue.

 Ah, O.K.  I wasn't sure...his posts seemed ...hmm...with a lot of apparent hate, which caused me to think he must be trolling. 
Thanks for clarifying, DDT.

----------


## DDT

Well he probably hates *me* now. If I had said that about Mohammed, in some Islamic regions they would be busy chasing me with their pocket knives.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Well he probably hates *me* now. If I had said that about Mohammed, in some Islamic regions they would be busy chasing me with their pocket knives.

 It is people like you that cause terrorism!   ::  
I mean, calling their profet a murderer, rapist and child molester, doesn't particulary envoke warm fuzzy feelings in muslims, does it?   ::

----------


## DDT

True Arab
If you had bothered to read anything at all you would know that there is overwhelming writings on the age of Aisha . Don’t bother with crap about her being old enough because there is no way that an old geezer like Mohammed should have had anything to do with a 9 year old. What was the purpose of that example for human kind? To show us the missionary position? The guy was sick. 
The story of Raihana Bint Amr was only one example of Mohammed’s propensity for rape. I have already posted her story. I guess you didn’t read it. Perhaps this is because if you look too close at the man called Mohammed you will lose your Faith.   
If you want proof of what Palestine was like in the 1800’s  you only have to read the writings of contemporary authors and news paper clippings. Here is an excerpt  of  writings from 1818 describing JEWS STILL LIVING IN  Jerusalem.: 
We are surprised no doubt when we observe the Jews scattered over the earth; but to experience an astonishment much more lively, we have but to seek them in Jerusalem.  The legitimate masters of Judea should be seen as they are in their own land-slaves and strangers; they should be seen
awaiting under the most cruel and oppresive of all despotism, a king who is to work their deliverance.  Near the temple, of which there does not remain "one stone upon another', they
still continue to dwell; and with the cross as it were, planted upon their heads and bending them to the earth, still cling to their errors, and labor under the same deplorable infatuation.  The Persian, the Greeks and the Romans have disappeared from the face of the Earth, and a small people, whose origins is anteriour to these mighty nations, still survives amid the ruins of their country, with no alteration of manners and no mixture of foreign blood.  If there is any thing among mankind which bears the name of miracle it is here to be found here most certanly.  
If anyone bothers to explore this site they will find the population figures of 30,000 inhabitants claiming to be Jewish out of 40,000 in Jerusalem in the year 1890. http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusale ... _1890.html

----------


## Rosa Anna

Well THAT was a quick afternoon DDT.   ::

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

My friend bought me a yamacha (SP) for my birthday. It's pimp.

----------


## DDT

> Here DDT, take a look at these links and you might actually learn something. It's from a group within Israel itself, not the kind of bigoted biased garbage you keep posting.  http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/ http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp  http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

 Sorry ol boy but I think that your sites are just as biased as you think mine are. Firstly they go by the premise that Israel stole land when in reality it was lost fair and square by Palestinians who waged war against Israel. These have been the rules of war for thousands of years all the way up into the 20th century.  
I remember when the first jewish settlers were encouraged by Israeli officials to settle the West Bank. 1) It was never referred to as "occupied territoriy" 
2) The settlers were given assurances that their settlements would never be taken away by a future  decision. Well, so much for that assurance! 
The fence that Israel is building is the most humane thing that they can do under the circumstances. In short I would say that your site is totally biased.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

DDT, could you link me on some information on that war. I'm a youngin' you know.  ::  But like, if the Palestinians attacked Israel then it'd be Israeli land since they WON. Or whatever...

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Let us not forget that Isreal was arbritarily created by the UN in 1945, not asking the local Joe's whether it was kosher or not.

----------


## Dobry

> ...doesn't particulary envoke warm fuzzy feelings in muslims, does it?

 Neither does shouting at me in bold red letters, calling me a barbarian and tyrant.    ::   
Not exactly the most friendly way to meet somebody for the first time, is it?  ::

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

Oh yeah, it was wasn't it.  :: 
Well...hmm...they still kicked their ass.

----------


## DDT

> DDT, could you link me on some information on that war. I'm a youngin' you know.  But like, if the Palestinians attacked Israel then it'd be Israeli land since they WON. Or whatever...

 When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. Its air force consisted of nine obsolete planes. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 8_War.html  
The 6 Day War  http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History ... chwab.html http://www.mideastweb.org/israelafter1967.htm

----------


## a true arab

> Originally Posted by a true arab  DDT:
> you have to have a lot of lessons in ETHICS, MORALS, HOW to DEBATE, and HOW to RESPECT OTHERS.   Hmm...True Arab, if I am walking down a street in your town, and we meet as strangers...will you greet me as a potential enemy, or potential friend?,
> By the way, ARABs ARE the most generous and hospitable nation ever, in our graet history, we had a lot of non muslims who took higher  positions in the Islamic dinasty. There were JEW ministers, christian ministers, and lot others  were having great bopportunity in our world. IF I meet you you will be my guest. You will change all the bad imoressions you have already about Arabs. We are a very peaceful nation but when we are attacked, we know how to fight back fiercely.
> How much experience do you actually have with American, British or Aussie cultures?  I don't sense much experience.  I sense a regurgitation of things you have heard from others, a "party line" and not independent, free-thought based on experience and knowledge.  This is my own opinion, and if it's wrong then I am sorry.   I have a lot of American, British, and Canadian friends and I do not have any bad impressions against Western People in general and so is all arabs. WE ARE AGAINST THE BARBARIAN POLICY THAT WANTS TO CONTROL OUR RESOURCES THROUGH CONFRONTING WITH ISLAM AND MUSLIMS. I READ HUNDREDS OF BOOKS ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE ARE VERY FRIENDLY BUT THEY ARE EASILY INFLUENCED BY UNJUST MEDIA.But...True Arab, you need to look at your own style and manners, before you chastise others.  You have a lot to learn.  Ok, Can you teach me. !   
> Again, your statement reinforces my thinking that you're simply forum-trolling. I do respect your openion, but  it is completely wrongful thinking.

----------


## a true arab

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  ...doesn't particulary envoke warm fuzzy feelings in muslims, does it?     Neither does shouting at me in bold red letters, calling me a barbarian and tyrant.      I am sorry if you missed understand me but I am talking about american and British Armies in our homelands. And I think there are no other suitable adjectives to describe them than barbarian and tyrant.
> Not exactly the most friendly way to meet somebody for the first time, is it?

----------


## a true arab

[quote=Rosa Anna] 

> They think that their own version of freedom is the best one for all the world.

 I believe there you are wrong, Arab. 
They (why lump america with britian?) think in my opinion that each person in the world should have the right to practice thier version of freedom-and not be persecuted or killed for it. Are they giving freedom to red Indians, eskimos, Black Americans,.
Can you have a Black PESEDENT.
Do you have the right to critisize ISrael?
If terrorists want to hide behind the skirts of women and children in mosques and small towns.......well, then yes there are bound to be innocent casualties--and the terrorists know it. They also know that this is the safest place for them. So what kind of soilders are they?   By the way, American Government is heavily involved in terroris actions in Irak specially those that have civilian causalties! YOU KNOW WHY?
Simply, TO GIVE A BAD IMAGE ABOUT IRAKI RESISTANCE AND TO CALL THEM TERRORIST! WE ARE NOT SO NAIVE TO BELIEVE AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.
Collateral damage?? No it is not worth it for them, maybe certainly for the generations of children and grandchildren in the future.  
IF there were not any people in "your world" who wanted just "a little" more freedom from what they feel oppresses them, then you would not have this trouble of visitors answering the cries of human suffering. But, they suffer, it made the news, their is either A. money or B. power in it for us hidden beneath the obvious goodwill towards others, and so we show up. Isn't that the way of things? 
 Besides.
Wasn't this all really Saadaams and people like him's fault for discarding so many lives in the first place? SADAAM WAS BROUGHT TO POWER BY AMERICA AND THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS HE USED IN KURDISTAN WERE AMERICAN PRODUCTS.
TRY to BE FAIR ! WE DO NOT PRODUCE NUCLEAR< CHEMICAL< BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. THESE ARE YOUR PRODUCTS AND YOIU SHOULD BE BLAME ABOUT IT.One really should take it up with him. 
-------------------------------------[/quote:1nw0sh3w]

----------


## a true arab

> True Arab
> If you had bothered to read anything at all you would know that there is overwhelming writings on the age of Aisha . Don’t bother with cr@p about her being old enough because there is no way that an old geezer like Mohammed should have had anything to do with a 9 year old. What was the purpose of that example for human kind? To show us the missionary position? The guy was sick. You should be polite in your answers if you are supporting freedom of others. Aisha was not a child when she married Muhammad peace be upon him, and our traditions are different from yours and it is not always true that yours are the right ones. She was adult enough to be a wife and regarding THIS ISSUE HERE IS the ANSWER :
> The Prophet married Aisha primarily for three reasons: 
> To reinforce the friendly relations already existing with Abu Bakr (his closest companion). 
> To educate and train Aisha so she may serve the purposes of Islam. 
> To teach her to utilize her capabilities for the sake of Islam. 
> Her Marriage with the prophet was a Wahi (Divine Revelation). She, herself relates from the Prophet, ‘He said, "I saw you in dreams three times. The angel brought you to me and you were clad in white silk. He (the angel) said that it was your consort and he (angel) showed me by opening your face. You are just like that..." Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, p.285. 
> Aisha ® was born after her parents had embraced Islam. Therefore, she was free from the defilement of polytheism right from her birth. 
> In her youth, already known for her striking beauty and her formidable memory, she came under the loving care and attention of the Prophet himself. As his wife and close companion she acquired from him knowledge and insight such as no woman has ever acquired. 
> ...

----------


## saibot

I feel it is my civic duty to lighten the mood of this thread; so I'll sing you a song! 
Bicycle bicycle bicycle!
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle!
I want to ride my bicycle!
I want to ride my bike!
I want to ride my bicycle!
I want to ride it where I like!

----------


## Rosa Anna

Mudder! I dislike quote quote quote right about NOW.[quote=a true arab][quote="Rosa Anna":l8woud3l] 

> They think that their own version of freedom is the best one for all the world.

 I believe there you are wrong, Arab. 
They (why lump america with britian?) think in my opinion that each person in the world should have the right to practice thier version of freedom-and not be persecuted or killed for it. Are they giving freedom to red Indians, eskimos, Black Americans,.
Can you have a Black PESEDENT.
Do you have the right to critisize ISrael?[/quote:l8woud3l][/quote:l8woud3l] 
giving freedom to:
red indians: oh please true_arab! That is so 100 years ago! Did the country's 3rd generations evacuate-no. We are all mixed blood now. I don't think you get it. I'm not saying you are not intelligent. But perhaps you could clarify what you are meaning to say. 
eskimos:as far as I can tell... alaska is not under any special restrictions..I could not speak as to the canadian eskimos however.
black americans: yes. since the 1960's
Yes. We can have a black president. We can have a black female lesbian pagan president. These are all protected under our national (dare I say :: religious book called the constitution. 
I absolutely have the right to critisize Israel. I happen to like Jews however. They are just fine all right dandy with me. I have the right to critisize my own country for that matter. To expound: I have the right to critisize Arabia, Mongolia, and my favorite   ::  France.  Again, my choice. Sure.. I am a little upset that my ansestors murdered my other ansestors. But what matters! Here we have today. 
You don't want them in your country trying to change things around any more than say I would want you in my country trying to dictate your view (which you are absolutely permitted to do as long as it does not violate the many laws) 
The only abridgement of human infrindgement so far that I can see in America is that adoptees are not priveledged to their own basic information. For instance, my birth family has a history of heart condition but I am to write down on my medical exams that my family has a history of say cancer--very disturbing! 
Sorry a little off topic.
But please, go on. Tell me what YOU see. I am happy to clarify any american rules or laws for you-such as freedoms.

----------


## Dobry

> Sorry a little off topic.
> But please, go on. Tell me what YOU see. I am happy to clarify any american rules or laws for you-such as freedoms.

 Ditto, agreed. 
To paraphrase something you said earlier, True Arab...and now I turn the table on you...I think Rosa Anna and I have better knowledge than you, as to the current laws and cultures of America.  You have been sadly misinformed, on apparently many things in America.  Your assumptions are dated, and wrong.   
Don't assume you know more than we do, as to how things operate in America.  Because...you don't. 
EDIT:  In fairness to True Arab, I must admit that do not have much knowledge of Iraq.  Only from the media, what I have read, and from a few close Muslim friends who are Iraqi, one of whom was a political exile from Saddam.  But I've never been there.

----------


## Dobry

[quote=a true arab] 

> Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":34vbuycb  ...doesn't particulary envoke warm fuzzy feelings in muslims, does it?     Neither does shouting at me in bold red letters, calling me a barbarian and tyrant.      I am sorry if you missed understand me but I am talking about american and British Armies in our homelands. And I think there are no other suitable adjectives to describe them than barbarian and tyrant.
> Not exactly the most friendly way to meet somebody for the first time, is it?

 [/quote:34vbuycb]   ::  
Ah...umm...I thought you were Saudi?  Are you Iraqi? 
But, whatever...I am an American, and I stand with American and British soldiers.  They are men and women doing a very difficult job, under government orders, all are sacrificing and some are dying.  They are not barbarians or tyrants.   Also, they are not the U.S. Administration.   
I know more than a few of them who have risked their lives to save or protect Iraqis, especially children.

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

-Sings with Saibizzle.- 
But uh, here's an idea...why don't they make like, a totally secular state in Palestine/Israel? One ruled by Arabs and Jews without any religion getting involved in the politics of the state? Oh wait, this is the Middle East. Nevermind.

----------


## DDT

[quote=Dobry] 

> Originally Posted by Dobry        Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":3rd5b4ka  ...doesn't particulary envoke warm fuzzy feelings in muslims, does it?     Neither does shouting at me in bold red letters, calling me a barbarian and tyrant.      I am sorry if you missed understand me but I am talking about american and British Armies in our homelands. And I think there are no other suitable adjectives to describe them than barbarian and tyrant.
> Not exactly the most friendly way to meet somebody for the first time, is it?

   ::  
Ah...umm...I thought you were Saudi?  Are you Iraqi?
[/quote:3rd5b4ka]
A freudian slip I'm sure. This what I mean when the claim is made that the Middle East and terrorist problems are stemming from Islam. It is Islam that is uniting the people regardless of state lines.  
Let Jews live in Jerusalem and all hell breaks loose amongst the whole Middle East!!! 
The religion of Islam is a sham and I have tried to show this to you by exposing the nature of Mohammed. The story of Aisha (no matter whos' version you read) should be enough to make you see the similarities between Mohammed and cult leader David Koresh. 
If Islam was truly the religion of peace Arabs would have welcomed the fledgling Jewish state as cousins. Or at the very least tolerated it and tried to show the Jews the benefits of Islam 
with peaceful and kind attitudes.
If all the borders of the Middle East were drawn by the Mandate, why is it that Arabs only have a problem with the borders of a Jewish state? (Yes, I know that Saddam had a problem with the borders of kuwait and with good cause I might add.)

----------


## DDT

> Aishah ® was one of the three wives (the other two being Hafsa ® and Umm Salamah ®) who memorized the Revelation. "A man penetrates his wife, but becomes listless and does not ejaculate. "She said, "When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part ghusl is obligatory."

  Are you nuts?    

> Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh." Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, Narrated by Abu Musa Al Ashari Hadith 4.643

 And who exactly was Mary the daughter of Imran?
Who was Asia, the wife of Pharaoh?
An example of Allahs' poor memory?  
And by the way matey, did you even read one newspaper clipping that I posted ?  Hmm? I think not. Obviously there were written reports from eyewitnesses in the 1800 all the way back to 1818.
Palestine was described as a "lawless land" and a place where Jews were subjugated.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

I like the little ® marks, so we know that these names are Registered!

----------


## DDT

If anyone is interested in a debate over the age of Aiesha at the time Mr.(I like ‘em young)Mohammed “married” her, here is an interesting forum on the subject. http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1997 
btw the age at which you can marry and have sex with a girl in Iran is in the process of being raised...to 13! (it was 9 till now)…………………………. Can anyone verify this? Prince of Persia?   
I was not originally going to post this but since T. Arab is still trying to justify child brides I thought that these quotes attributed to the most gracious fun loving guy around. Everybody, please welcome………..the  Ayatollah Khomeini!   
[color=violet]
Ayatollah Khomeini: 
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. 
The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister. 
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, 
Iran, 1990  
It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin 
menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. 
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, 
Iran, 1990  
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep

----------


## Rosa Anna

::

----------


## TriggerHappyJack

::

----------


## Dobry

This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.     ::

----------


## Biancca

> This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
> My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
> I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.

 Yeah my brother is in Iraq.  My other brother was there too but he's home now.  Can't say I'm happy about it.  
Oh yeah, and   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

::

----------


## Prince of Persia

Hi DDT ,
As I told you before it’s very surprising for me that you have these detailed information about Islam and now Ayatollah Khumeini ( do you know the meaning of Ayatollah , that means sign of God  ::   ) because most of lay people don’t have these information that you have .
According to Islamic rule girls can marry at the age of 9 , I don’t know whether this is happening in other Islamic countries or not , but in my country I’ve never heard that a girl married at this age. Maybe in some rural places girls marry at very young ages , for example 13-14 but in cities , especially in big cities such as Tehran( 10milion population ) girls marry at age of 20-30 ( 22 is average age of marriage for Iranian girls and 27 is for men). My grandmother got married when she was 14 (60 years ago ) , my mother got married when she was 19 (29 years ago ) , my sister is 22 years old now and she is still single . 
According to Islamic rule men can have 2,3 or 4 official wives and as many as they like have sighe( non-official wives ) , some Arabs say Iranians are not Muslim because they don’t have several women and they don’t obey Ghoran’s order ( Surah Nesa ) . 
Our nationality and our religions are against each other , we became Muslim by power of sword not by will , so there is a permanent conflict between Iranian nationalists and Iranian religious men .  
I want to put some pictures here but I can't , would someone please tell me how can I do that (those pictures are in my computer for example this is a path   D:\Documents and Settings\Arash\My Documents\My Pictures\iran\zanan\mode193br.jpg )

----------


## DDT

Thank you for the information you have provided, Prince of Persia. 
I will show you how to put up pictures, if I can. "Friendy" from this forum gave me the site back when I did not know how to put up pictures. 
Go to www.photobucket.com  or any other hosting site and place the pictures from your computer on this site. You then will be able to copy the "url" of the photo and post it on the Master Russian forum.  
I am not very good with computers so maybe someone else here will be able to give you better advice but this worked for me.

----------


## Rosa Anna

I will tell you. Another on here told me. I was very confused.
It is neccessary to form an account with an online image hosting company. IE: somewhere you can store photos online. 
This is the one I was given. It is free, and I think it is great.
It is called Photobucket. Here is the url: http://photobucket.com/
Goto the page and form an account. Then log into the account. Add pictures. Then the pictures will be both on your computer and on the image hosting account. When you want to place a photo into a forum thread, open another browser, log into the image hosting account, click on the picture, and in the case of photobucket copy and cut one of the 3 types of image tags. I believe all three work here but I always choose "img" because I am simple like that. EDIT.
1. Cut the "img" tag (or the one you choose) (highlight and "Control C")
(this is an invisible process are you familiar with it?)
2. Enter the forum. Reply to post. In the Reply to post box click "Control V"
This should paste the url img tag. 
After this go to the bottom of the screen and hit PREVIEW to see if it works. (you can always edit from there or edit the thread)
Let us all know if you have this working by posting a picture!  ::  
I hope this works for you too.   ::   
Thanks for that information about Iranians.

----------


## Prince of Persia

Thank both of you very much , it works.
I put some pictures of knowadays Persian girls. They have to wear scarf but they don't like it ,so they wear it like this

----------


## DDT

Scarf or not, those girls are "hot".
I think it is unfortunate that these women can not chose for themselves what to wear.  
Biancca looks good in a scarf!  ::

----------


## Biancca

> Biancca looks good in a scarf!

 Thanks DDT.  But I think I look better without it.

----------


## Rosa Anna

I was wondering...what the _heck_ are those??? they are drums....

----------


## Vesh

> This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
> My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
> I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.

 Well, it's a *war*, isn't it? And they are *soldiers*. It would be *really* surprising if their enemy didn't want harm to come to them.

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Dobry  This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
> My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
> I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.       Well, it's a *war*, isn't it? And they are *soldiers*. It would be *really* surprising if their enemy didn't want harm to come to them.

 Ah, tak... 
Vesh, are you classifying "True Arab" as an "enemy" of the U.S.??...against the U.S.??!! 
Be careful with words...they are important.

----------


## Prince of Persia

> I was wondering...what the _heck_ are those??? they are drums....

 It's <daf> , it's like drum but with other sound . unfortunately I can't write its sound  ::   .

----------


## Vesh

> Originally Posted by Vesh        Originally Posted by Dobry  This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
> My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
> I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.       Well, it's a *war*, isn't it? And they are *soldiers*. It would be *really* surprising if their enemy didn't want harm to come to them.   Ah, tak... 
> Vesh, are you classifying "True Arab" as an "enemy" of the U.S.??...against the U.S.??!! 
> Be careful with words...they are important.

 Угу. Так. 
Him personally? Don't know. It seems so, but I can't be sure. But ideology he represents... Definitely. 
And he does have a point. Unfortunately.

----------


## kwatts59

> Originally Posted by Dobry        Originally Posted by Vesh        Originally Posted by Dobry  This current thread is hitting too close to home now. 
> My niece and her husband, both active career U.S. Army, have just received orders for duty stations in Iraq.  They both are sweet and gentle people.   
> I truly hope that "True Arab" does not seriously want harm to come to U.S. soldiers.       Well, it's a *war*, isn't it? And they are *soldiers*. It would be *really* surprising if their enemy didn't want harm to come to them.   Ah, tak... 
> Vesh, are you classifying "True Arab" as an "enemy" of the U.S.??...against the U.S.??!! 
> Be careful with words...they are important.   Угу. Так. 
> Him personally? Don't know. It seems so, but I can't be sure. But ideology he represents... Definitely. 
> And he does have a point. Unfortunately.

 I hope no harm comes to your neice and her husband.
But they are soldiers, so...

----------


## a true arab

> Hi DDT ,
> As I told you before it’s very surprising for me that you have these detailed information about Islam and now Ayatollah Khumeini ( do you know the meaning of Ayatollah , that means sign of God   ) because most of lay people don’t have these information that you have .
> According to Islamic rule girls can marry at the age of 9 , I don’t know whether this is happening in other Islamic countries or not , but in my country I’ve never heard that a girl married at this age. Maybe in some rural places girls marry at very young ages , for example 13-14 but in cities , especially in big cities such as Tehran( 10milion population ) girls marry at age of 20-30 ( 22 is average age of marriage for Iranian girls and 27 is for men). My grandmother got married when she was 14 (60 years ago ) , my mother got married when she was 19 (29 years ago ) , my sister is 22 years old now and she is still single . 
> According to Islamic rule men can have 2,3 or 4 official wives and as many as they like have sighe( non-official wives ) , some Arabs say Iranians are not Muslim because they don’t have several women and they don’t obey Ghoran’s order ( Surah Nesa ) .  This is not correct because in Islam if you do not have several wives you will not be considered non muslims and if there is some arabs saying this -although I do not believe this - they do not know real Islam. Regarding, polygamy in Islam, it is not obligatory and it is highly restricted by two golden conditions:
> 1. Power: here we mean both financial situation of the man and the sexual ability to have more than one wife.
> 2. the just and fair behaviour toward his wives.
> if these two conditions are not valid, a muslim is not allowed to have more than one wife.
> Polygamy in Islam has solved several problems that is endangering other societies that do not allow polygamy such as:
> Adultery.
> ...

----------


## Prince of Persia

Salam a true arab,
Thanks for your reply.
As you may know about 3 million arabs live in south west of Iran I heard from them(I lived 8 years there) that Iranians aren't true muslim because they don't have several women . Most of them (Iranian arabs) are uneducated and poor but most of them have several women (they don't care about those 2 Golden conditions).
You wrote :<this is exteremly incorrect, and the simplest answer to your claim is why do we still have Zoroastrians, jews and other religions in Iran. were they so strong or muslims did not want them to become muslims?>
Yes , when muslims came to Iran they didn't oblige Christians and Jews to change their religion because in Islam Christianity and Jewish has been accepted as a theism religions but Allah didn't know that Zoroastrianism is another theism religion too . Muslims accused Iranians worshiping fire , they didn't know that Iranians pay respect to fire ( like cross for Christians) not worship it , so muslims invaded Iran , killed Iranians , raped Iranians women , took thousands Iranian girls to Mecca and Medina to rape them as a sexual slave , took thousands Iranian boys to slave Muslims ( what a peaceful religion!!) to teach us theism!! 
In this condition Zoroastrians had 4 choices  
1- not change their religion , fight with peaceful muslims , being killed , loosing their wives , their daughters , their boys , their having.  
2- Leaving their country ( more than 100.000 Iranians choose this choice and went to India , Queen (Freddie Mercury), American singer was one of them) . 
3- not change their religion but pay jaziyeh ( money which non-muslim must pay to muslim government to have right of living)
Nowadays Zoroastrians are from these group 
4- change their religion and protect themselves and their family from peaceful muslims .
I admit that some countries in east Asia or Africa became muslim by will but we Iranians became muslim by power of sword not will . If arabs hadn't invaded Iran , we never had became muslim , because we had own religion and we didn't need Islam . 
I say it one more time there is permanent conflict between Iranian nationalists and Iranian religious men.
I love my country So I hate Islam , please tell me how can I love my country and Islam at the same time?

----------


## DDT

> Islam has spread all over the world because of its strength, its peaceful meesage, its fairness, its equality, its justice.

  Oh really? That statement just flies in the face of history. It is not worth the time to respond to. Tell that to all widows made by Muslim warriors invading India and Spain and even France.  Muslims under Abd ar-Rahman   crushed Duke Eudo in battle,  sacked the city of Bordeaux and burned the cathedral at Poitiers.   

> No one can deny that Indonesian embraced Islam because of the great way Muslim traders coming from Yemen deal with them.

 While the Islamic conquest of the Pasisir was relatively peaceful, military campaigns had to be launched against the agrarian kingdoms. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, Majapahit, the last remaining one, was defeated by the sultanates of Demak and Surabaya. Islam could then spread inland, where it has since remained deeply implanted, especially in the Sunda region. 
The archipelago was not invaded by outsiders and forcibly converted. Yet states that had converted to Islam often waged war against those that adhered to the older, Hindu-Buddhist traditions.    

> In spain, the muslims ruled the country for 800 years and they did not force Chrestians to convert to Islam nor Jews.?

   This does not alter the fact that Arab armies still invaded Spain  in 711. 
As Prince of Persia has stated Muslims may not have killed all Christians and Jews when they conquered knew territory but they did treat those who survived  in a terrible manner. The thing is that in much of Islam things have not changed.
Christian churches are still being attacked and the people murdered in the Islamic world today.  http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia35.html http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia39.html http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia28.html

----------


## a true arab

> Salam a true arab,
> Thanks for your reply.
> As you may know about 3 million arabs live in south west of Iran I heard from them(I lived 8 years there) that Iranians aren't true muslim because they don't have several women . Most of them (Iranian arabs) are uneducated and poor but most of them have several women (they don't care about those 2 Golden conditions).
> You wrote :<this is exteremly incorrect, and the simplest answer to your claim is why do we still have Zoroastrians, jews and other religions in Iran. were they so strong or muslims did not want them to become muslims?>
> Yes , when muslims came to Iran they didn't oblige Christians and Jews to change their religion because in Islam Christianity and Jewish has been accepted as a theism religions but Allah didn't know that Zoroastrianism is another theism religion too . Muslims accused Iranians worshiping fire , they didn't know that Iranians pay respect to fire ( like cross for Christians) not worship it , so muslims invaded Iran , killed Iranians , raped Iranians women , took thousands Iranian girls to Mecca and Medina to rape them as a sexual slave , took thousands Iranian boys to slave Muslims ( what a peaceful religion!!) to teach us theism!! 
> In this condition Zoroastrians had 4 choices  
> 1- not change their religion , fight with peaceful muslims , being killed , loosing their wives , their daughters , their boys , their having.  
> 2- Leaving their country ( more than 100.000 Iranians choose this choice and went to India , Queen (Freddie Mercury), American singer was one of them) . 
> 3- not change their religion but pay jaziyeh ( money which non-muslim must pay to muslim government to have right of living)
> ...

----------


## a true arab

[quote=DDT] 

> Islam has spread all over the world because of its strength, its peaceful meesage, its fairness, its equality, its justice.

  Oh really? That statement just flies in the face of history. It is not worth the time to respond to. Tell that to all widows made by Muslim warriors invading India and Spain and even France.  Muslims under Abd ar-Rahman   crushed Duke Eudo in battle,  sacked the city of Bordeaux and burned the cathedral at Poitiers. I think you are so racist and extreme that you are thinking that Islam is the worst religion over the the earth not withstanding that it has more than billion followers. Regarding widows in India , Spain, France, it is so smart of you that you think muslims have made them so. Please, think about crusaders, Feudal Tyrants, Plagues, civil wars. By the way, in Islam killing children, women, animals, cutting trees, or destroying churches and worshipping places are extremely prohibited.[quote="a true arab":19c35u67]
 No one can deny that Indonesian embraced Islam because of the great way Muslim traders coming from Yemen deal with them.[/quote]
While the Islamic conquest of the Pasisir was relatively peaceful, military campaigns had to be launched against the agrarian kingdoms. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, Majapahit, the last remaining one, was defeated by the sultanates of Demak and Surabaya. Islam could then spread inland, where it has since remained deeply implanted, especially in the Sunda region.
[color=red]You are faintly trying to prove that Islam is a religion that spread by sword and force!!!! OK.. DDT: what about nowadyas, Hundreds of AMericans, Europeans are embracing Islam not withstanding the fiecre MEdia war against Islam in your countries! 
Islam is the second religion in UK,
Islam is the second religion in France.
Can you subjectively understand what are their reasons.?
Are Muslims forcing them?[/color] 
The archipelago was not invaded by outsiders and forcibly converted. Yet states that had converted to Islam often waged war against those that adhered to the older, Hindu-Buddhist traditions.  
[quote=a true arab]
 In spain, the muslims ruled the country for 800 years and they did not force Chrestians to convert to Islam nor Jews.?
[/quote]  This does not alter the fact that Arab armies still invaded Spain  in 711. 
As Prince of Persia has stated Muslims may not have killed all Christians and Jews when they conquered knew territory but they did treat those who survived  in a terrible manner. The thing is that in much of Islam things have not changed.
Christian churches are still being attacked and the people murdered in the Islamic world today. 
[color=red]This is not true and you can read the writings of objective Eorpean Historians to have a clear image. During the great history of Islamic culture and with the great conquests Muslims have done the number of cuasualtiies is so small compared with other great civilized nations. Specially, the WWI and WWII.   ::  [/color]http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia35.html
[url="http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia39.html"]http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia39.html[/url] http://www.persecution.net/news/indonesia28.html[/quote:19c35u67]

----------


## Prince of Persia

The spread of Islam in Iran was not because of the sword. It was a reslut of the great morality of Islam. Regarding slavery, the Persian, The Romans, The Greeks, and most of Great nations practised it but in Islam whenm a slave embraces Islam he will beee free and this dioes not happen in other religions
Do you know about Ghadessiye war (happened between Iranians and Arabs in north of Kuwait in 1400 years ago) and Nahavand war (in nowadays Iran ) , they were war not morality exercise . With these two wars Arabs could come to Iran and make people Muslim not by speeches and teachings . If really the aim of Muslim was spreading Islam with peace they could send some Muslim groups to advertise Islam in Iran , like other religions . In those days there were many Christians , Jews , Mazdakian , Manavian and even Buddhists in Iran . Why Muslims sent army to Iran but not messengers ? 
Did Christianity spread by wars or did it Buddhism ? In the world we have three international religions , Christianity , Islam and Buddhism , but it was only Islam that spread with wars and blood , so it is a shame for Islam and Arabs.
In Iran there weren’t any slaves before Islam , of course there were some Romans or Greek war prisoner but not any slave , Do you know Takht-e Jamshid is the first and only ancient memorial ( 2500 years old ) which not built by slaves but by workers . In 2500 years ago Cyrus the great freed all slaves and abandoned slavery in Iran but 1000 years later peaceful Muslims made thousands of Iranians slave’s of Arabs .  Regarding, worshipping Fire it is not accusation it is a real fact, it is not respect dued as you are saying, it is worshipping, prostrating in front of it. etc> which are clear signs of real worshipping.  
Have you ever read Avesta (sanctified book of Zoroastrians ) or have you ever spoken to a Zoroastrian ? First read Avesta , speak to a Zoroastrian , then make decision . That was the same fault that your ancestors did about Zoroastrians .
AhuraMazda is the name of Zoroastrian God , Ahriman is the name of Devil , but Arabs thought that all the people of the world must say Allah to their Gods . Fire is the Symbol of clearness and brightness in Zoroastrian so Zoroastrians pay respect to it , even now in some rituals they make fire and pay respect to it , but fortunately in these days nobody comes from another country and kill them for doing this . Only Ahuramazda is being worshiped in Zoroastrians not fire , but because arabs didn’t know that they named Iranians as fireworshiper and killed them , what a wise God!   At that time, Iran was the second greatest Dynasty in the world. It was extremely advanced in science, weapons, number of soldiers than muslims. Can you tell me why did Islam defeat it and why those proud Iranians embraced Islam? They could have fled to other countries ?  
At the time of Alexander , Iran was the greatest country in the world but Alexander with very smaller army could defeat Iran , At the time of Mongols , Monguls were very underdeveloped but they defeat Iran . Victories in the wars don’t prove that Islam is a good a peaceful religion . Was Alexander a Muslim ,or Mongols were Muslims ? .   They could have fled to other countries ?  !!!!  
What a great Idea !! 
Do you want to say that now Iraqis love Americans and love Christianity that don’t flee from their own country .   The rise of Islam as a religion replacing Zoroastrianism is one of the greatest events in world history.  
I don’t agree with you , I think it was the worst event that happened in all history , I think if arabs didn’t defeat us Ghadessiye war , now we’d have a better world , if Islam didn’t spread on the world and remained in Saudi Arabia , now we’d have a better world .

----------


## Rosa Anna

::  <daf>= "daf" http://www.drumdojo.com/world/persia/daf.htm  
Sorry prince_of_persia, when I see <> it usually means somebody has mistyped an emotion. 
I understand now that you were actually giving me the name of the drum.
Thanks!

----------


## a true arab

I do not like long debates specially those in which each party try to be the only correct party. 
regarding, The Isalmic conquest of Iran, I know it as it is part of my Islamic history. I know Qadisiyah and , Nahawand " Nahavand". Also, I know that Muslims did not force Persians to embrace Islam please check this Non muslim link: http://www.countriesquest.com/middle...an/history.htm
"From the time of Islamic conquest, Iranians gradually converted to Islam. Most had previously followed Zoroastrianism, the official state religion under the Sassanid dynasty, but minority groups had practiced Christianity or Judaism. " 
Regarding, the comparison of the war between Alexander and Sassanians with the Islamic conquest. This is extremely unfair and non logic. Alexander did not have any strong Impact on Persians. He defeated them and went home. But Arab Muslims defeated Persians with a great message of a new religion that does not deal with Persians as Kings and low classes " Poor and humiliated people" and as a result the Persian nation chose this new religion and they changed their life style in a drammatic way to be part of this new great Islamic nation. You can not deny the role of Muslims and Arabs in saving the Persian literature. Also, the Persian language uses the Arab scripts. Muslims took the good practices of Persian state and they apply it in their Islamic Empire. "Dawaween" On the other hand, they rejected practices that contradict with Islam.
So Islamic conquest was  military, religious, and cultural conquest not like Alexander. My Friend, Be fair.
you said:  I don’t agree with you , I think it was the worst event that happened in all history , I think if arabs didn’t defeat us Ghadessiye war , now we’d have a better world , if Islam didn’t spread on the world and remained in Saudi Arabia , now we’d have a better world . 
These are just day dreaming wishes. You can not prove it. And by the way, all these technologies nad civilizations of nowadays would not be existing if Muslim scholars spread the science to western nations through Andalucia " Spain"
Please, read history with an objective look.  
My regards to all.

----------


## DDT

> These are just day dreaming wishes. You can not prove it. And by the way, all these technologies nad civilizations of nowadays would not be existing if Muslim scholars spread the science to western nations through Andalucia " Spain"
> Please, read history with an objective look.  
> My regards to all.

  It is strange how the Muslim world still boast, "Muslim scholars spread the science", which was a 1,000 years ago. They have done absolutly nothing since then while the rest of the world has supassed them 100 fold. Take a look at any country where the people are oppressed by this religion. You will find nothing but the poorest conditions for the masses and a few wealthy people living in luxury. How many people are saying, "Hmm, I think i'm gonna move  me and the family to Yemen, for a better life"?

----------

