Terrorist (namely muslim) cowards

[Mikkel]

Not my preconceived idea, the Geneva convention's preconceived idea. Oh, but these soldiers are members of a religion, not a nation, so they aren't bound by the Geneva convention? So they are terrorists.

This whole geopolitical boundaries idea is so last century. The Internet, terrorists, and pirates are classic examples of how our world struggles to cope with things that don't have a country of origin label on them.

Western Nations contravene that convention all the time.

But that is the thing. The establishment is unable to deal efficiently with this nebulous threat of Terrorism... so they adapt. Unfortunately they adapt by throwing their standards out the window.

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question. The establishment is doing quite well by milking the public's fear and using it to increase their power.

Make people afraid enough and you'll have them begging for the state to take away their freedom in order to "protect" them.

[Jantar]

....

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question.

......

You may be right. Maybe Finn's friend wasn't killed by terrorists, its only a perception that he is dead.

[Oscar]

I completely agree with this. Personally, I'm against organised religion of any kind. No matter what the individual follower may believe organised religion is only about one thing: Power, power through control of thought and behaviour. No matter how beautiful and benevolent the dogma may appear, that power is the only reason behind organised religion.
And the Roman-Catholic church is the most centralised and organised of all religions today and as a result they have the largest influence.

My previous posts were just to point out that the methodology of Islam is quite different from that of e.g. Christianity. Christianity has "grown-up" and adapted to the conditions that are prevalent for its followers. The same is true for Islam, however the followers of Islam are mainly situated in countries where the conditions are vastly different.

The tensions today arise because of the difference in these conditions. E.g. Mr. Ali Blogs in Islamistan sees all of these sinners live in luxury and can not make it fit into his idea of how the world should be. And on the other hand you have Mr. Joe Blogs in Capitalistan who hears about all of these atrocities taking place in Islamistan and it doesn't fit with how he perceives the world should be.
Of course neither Mr. Blogs nor Mr. Blogs is more or less right than the other... it's just how the world IS right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religion either, as long as they don't try to impose their values on others.

What gets me wound up, is the (lack of ) logic that abounds. Stuff like:

• All Arabs are Muslims (quite a few are Christians).
• All Muslims are Terrorists (there are 1b Muslims on the planet, if they were all terrorists, we'd be dead).
• 9/11 was the first day of this war. (the first day probably goes back a millennium)
• Saddam supported Al Queda. (no evidence at all for this - in fact US incompetence made Iraq into Club Med for Terrorist Nutters).
• The war in Iraq was related to 9/11 (see above)
• Al Queda (doesn't actually exist, it's a label made up by the CIA for all Muslim Terror Groups).

[Oscar]

But that is the thing. The establishment is unable to deal efficiently with this nebulous threat of Terrorism... so they adapt. Unfortunately they adapt by throwing their standards out the window.

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question. The establishment is doing quite well by milking the public's fear and using it to increase their power.

Make people afraid enough and you'll have them begging for the state to take away their freedom in order to "protect" them.

You got it.
How do we defeat them without sinking to their level?
A victory in this war could hurt the very freedom we're trying to protect.

[Winston001]

Yeah I did get that. My response was both a pot shot at some in here who demonstrate extreme intolerance but it was also a general statement which I believe to be true.

SC- you are eminently capable of carrying an argument. Unfortunately when words are used which others perceive as personal attacks, your points get lost in the ensuing flames.

Just argue the issues which will keep the thread on-track.

[Thumper]

While religion is often the nail, the desire for unconditional power is nearly always the hammer.

Those with strong fundamental religious leanings make ideal nails as they have already proved to be open to suggestion and controllable on mass (Christian and Muslim alike). For those who seek power there are many readymade armies out there. Get to the very top of any religion based terrorist organisation and it’s all about power, not religion. This has always been the way.

[Mikkel]

You may be right. Maybe Finn's friend wasn't killed by terrorists, its only a perception that he is dead.

Ah blimey, I thought you'd be too smart to misconstrue what you quoted. Not fair to be trolling as a moderator...

I am sure you are well aware that there's no substantial proof that increases in national security that compromises civil liberties actually helps to abate the real terrorist threat.

I'm not on the conspiracy theorist bandwagon claiming that 9/11 was organised by the Bush administration or whatever incredulous claims they are making these days.
However, neither am I naive enough to not realise that an unscrupulous administration could benefit immensely by getting rid with a couple of their subject's more bothersome civil liberties nor do I fail to see that this "goal" would be easier to reach if you played up the terrorist threat. I am not saying this is happening, I am merely saying that it is very important to be aware of this.

[slowpoke]

How do any of us expect to understand any other culture when all we listen to/see is spruiked by a handful of western media agencies.

We are puppets and we are happy to be puppets. Very few of us are remotely interested in researching an issue to form a balanced, informed opinion. We argue out of ignorance and intolerance on here and we fight for the same reasons on a larger scale.

The same goes of course for the impoverished people searching for answers and lashing out, only their sources of information are even more limited than ours.

They see "us" as bloated, greedy, unprincipled and incaring.....and they are right. Why do we have borders and immigration control after all? God forbid (pun intended) we should compromise our sheltered lives in the slightest to help out those less fortunate than ourselves.

[NOMIS]

[QUOTE=MisterD;1831635]Yeah whatever. As far as I am concerned there are two types of "belief systems" in this world; Those that are based on fact and "faiths" which by definition require no factual basis.

Hi MisterD , Can you please explain to me this, Proof that Jesus christ existed ( the basis for my christian "faith" ) its a fact but my belief in what he said is my faith. can you please explain the conflicts there,

He also said he would arise from Death, there was not fact that this happend because his body was never found once put in a tomb ( spelling ) and I bas my "faith" in what 100's of people sworn was a "fact" also base my faith in what he said.

If you could explain that then I would be very happy

[Jantar]

Ah blimey, I thought you'd be too smart to misconstrue what you quoted. Not fair to be trolling as a moderator.......

That is a bit below the belt. I am not trolling, and as I am actively participating in this thread I haven't carried out any moderation on it since the first page. Moderators do not moderate in threads they are active in.

I am sure you are well aware that there's no substantial proof that increases in national security that compromises civil liberties actually helps to abate the real terrorist threat.

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

[Oscar]

[QUOTE=NOMIS;1831850]

Yeah whatever. As far as I am concerned there are two types of "belief systems" in this world; Those that are based on fact and "faiths" which by definition require no factual basis.

Hi MisterD , Can you please explain to me this, Proof that Jesus christ existed ( the basis for my christian "faith" ) its a fact but my belief in what he said is my faith. can you please explain the conflicts there,

He also said he would arise from Death, there was not fact that this happend because his body was never found once put in a tomb ( spelling ) and I bas my "faith" in what 100's of people sworn was a "fact" also base my faith in what he said.

If you could explain that then I would be very happy

Catch 22 Alert.

If you base your faith on fact, then it's not faith anymore.

Notwithstanding that, the only fact you have that can go anywhere near proven is that Christ existed. Most of what he may have done or said is based on accounts written a long time afterward.

I'm not trying to belittle your faith here, I'm just saying that if you claim it's based on fact I'll wanna see some proof.

[Winston001]

While not all religious fanatics are terrorists, the overwhelming majority of the worlds terrorists are religious fanatics, and mainly from a single religion (Islam).....

Mmmm.........but no. Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, Black September, Shining Path, Euskadia Ta Askatasuna (ETA), Tamil Tigers, FLN, Mau-Mau, Japanese Red Army........

Some of these are historical in that they are not active today, but they do show that terrorism (or armed struggle against oppression - take your pick) is not new or particularly religious. Indeed much of the so-called Islamist terrorism is simply a war to gain political power and control. You'll note that more Islamics are killed by each other than any other group.

[Oscar]

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

How can you respond if you don't know the reason for the terrorism in the first place? Would you have advocated an "Operation Freedom" type response in Ulster?

[cold comfort]

" Finn - Im sorry to hear you have lost another friend/collegue to the unrest in India. It must be a sad and frustrating time for you.
I understand where you are coming from.
I believe if there were no religion the the world would be a much happier and safer place. Mankind is their own destroyer.
But everyone has their own beliefs because of their culture, and sadly it is going to get much much worse.
Why is it we need to force our beliefs onto others? "

I'm with Trumpess on condolences to Finn and the viewpoint. I sadly cannot see any resolution whilst formalised religious beliefs are held, due to the requirement that 'the other guy is always wrong". (The basis for the Inquisition and Holy Wars). Islam is also (IMO) seriously flawed in that the Koran is wriiten before and after Mecca was taken back, whereby the preceding (peaceful) verses are superseded by the later (violence condoning) verses. Thus they have a text that convieniently provides justification by the radical elements to eliminate the "infidels". This is not helped by of course by the right wing Christian and Jewish support for Americas version of state supported genocide!

[SPman]

Under todays definitions, the US founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc, would all be classed as "terrorists".