EPT17 civilians beheaded... for dancing? - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:36 Warlock40 wrote: It's a shame SayGen was temporarily banned. I was looking forward to seeing how he could possibly defend himself against overwhelming reason. But it was probably the right thing to do, since I'm kind of wondering whether or not he actually believed what he was saying or if he was trolling. He must be terribly mad right now. | ||
|
MiQ
Canada312 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:36 Warlock40 wrote: It's a shame SayGen was temporarily banned. I was looking forward to seeing how he could possibly defend himself against overwhelming reason. But it was probably the right thing to do, since I'm kind of wondering whether or not he actually believed what he was saying or if he was trolling. I rarely get pissed over different opinions but this guy lives on another planet. I'm all for freedom of speech and discussion but that guy has no idea what he's talking about. Saying stuff like "If they had the ability to dance, they had the ability to walk. Why couldn't they leave?" is simply ignorant and childish. For him moving country is just the same as moving appartment. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
| ||
|
Bahamut1337
Ghana205 Posts
On August 28 2012 09:36 DrThorMD wrote: Have you got a source or a quote from the Quran that says punish sins with death? I would very much like to see that. Nah just to kill infidels and converts ^^ lovely religion isnt it  I wonder when we get behadings in the UK and the rest of Europe with our already formidable Islamic No go zones | ||
|
DrThorMD
Canada359 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:52 Bahamut1337 wrote: Nah just to kill infidels and converts ^^ lovely religion isnt it I wonder when we get behadings in the UK and the rest of Europe with our already formidable Islamic No go zones The point I was trying to make by asking the question on the first page was that as far as I know as a fairly well versed Muslim living in Canada, is that there is no order to kill people for their sins unless it is during war (which is as it should be and is all over the world, not just in Muslim wars) or as a punishment for Murder after due trial and conviction beyond doubt (Capital Punishment; still exists in the US). Killing innocent people for their "sins" without proof and due trial and the minimum amount of witnesses required against them (4) is an addition to the religion by extremists and terrorists which is not condoned my most Muslims. | ||
|
amd098
Korea (North)1366 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:52 Bahamut1337 wrote: Nah just to kill infidels and converts ^^ lovely religion isnt it I wonder when we get behadings in the UK and the rest of Europe with our already formidable Islamic No go zones oh look a paranoia freak. just to let you know there is talk of NASA reaching out to the muslim world, they might even be in space. english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2010/07/201071122234471970.html | ||
|
NewbieOne
Poland560 Posts
On August 28 2012 09:36 DrThorMD wrote: Have you got a source or a quote from the Quran that says punish sins with death? I would very much like to see that. I'm pretty sure one can't really find a strong enough justification given that actual adultery (much less simpler frivolities) were not really sure-shot capital crimes under the early caliphs, who took things seriously. | ||
|
DrThorMD
Canada359 Posts
On August 29 2012 05:23 NewbieOne wrote: I'm pretty sure one can't really find a strong enough justification given that actual adultery (much less simpler frivolities) were not really sure-shot capital crimes under the early caliphs, who took things seriously. That is the point I am trying to make. | ||
|
bK-
United States326 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:27 SayGen wrote: Your about to get reported... 15 posts to your name. You've PM'd me with insults. Your not adding to the conversation, your only attacking me. TL may not be for you. WTB a mod. User was temp banned for this post. Thank you mods for doing what was right. At first his arguments were actually valid points and were constructive. Now they just turned out to just derail the thread into something it isn't. Back on topic. Regardless of how or why the murders occurred it is just not right by any means. Taking lives should be so "easy" for people and especially for people with faith. Like I mentioned in the previous posting in this thread. If the world really wanted to help they could as the earth is rich with resources. There are plenty of people on the planet that could help I am sure. Just most countries are worried about their pocket books or international political image. All in all its pretty sad on how far we really came. | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:45 Warlock40 wrote: I think the real issue in play here over this incident is not whether the Taliban had the right to behead these civilians (they didn't), but what it means for ISAF progress in the region. It's been ten years, yet things like this are still going on. I was once a fervent supporter of the 2001 invasion, but it's becoming more and more clear that armed intervention has not had the astounding success that any of its proponents thought it would. It's remarkable people are so stupid and out of touch with reality that they could have actually bought into the idea that armed intervention would work. The people that you occupy will resent and subvert you at every turn. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:59 DrThorMD wrote: The point I was trying to make by asking the question on the first page was that as far as I know as a fairly well versed Muslim living in Canada, is that there is no order to kill people for their sins unless it is during war (which is as it should be and is all over the world, not just in Muslim wars) or as a punishment for Murder after due trial and conviction beyond doubt (Capital Punishment; still exists in the US). Killing innocent people for their "sins" without proof and due trial and the minimum amount of witnesses required against them (4) is an addition to the religion by extremists and terrorists which is not condoned my most Muslims. Not condoned by most Muslims does not make it untrue to scripture. Wahhabism has a very thorough grounding in scripture, as does Qutbism. Both can permit the murder of an individual in certain cases. Readings are based on a combination of the Quran and the hadiths. The problem with this is that the hadiths vary between very reliable, and less reliable than a Fox News show, but much like Fox News, people will ignore the bias if it suits their needs. Whilst it is easy to prove when Fox news makes something up, it is less easy to prove that his sister's, barber's, brother's, little sister's, best friend, was saying the truth or not. So, does the majority of muslims want to chop my head off? No, but be honest, the people that do want to kill me aren't making it up as they go, they simply read the book differently, and it isn't invalid at any point. Muslim's have a tendency to instantly dismiss any differing reading as un-islamic. It's made somewhat ironic that that tendency to dismiss different readings is exactly what extremist denominations (like Qutbism) use to permit the murder of other muslims, because they dismiss them as fakes, thus reaching the conclusion that they are permitted to kill them. I don't mind it when people say that Islamic terrorism is fringe, but you can't be honest and say that it isn't Islamic, or a perversion of Islam. Is is scripturally sound. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On August 29 2012 06:10 architecture wrote: It's remarkable people are so stupid and out of touch with reality that they could have actually bought into the idea that armed intervention would work. The people that you occupy will resent and subvert you at every turn. I might agree that I and anyone who thought the idea of armed intervention in Afghanistan would easily succeed in bringing about a stable democracy were indeed out of touch with reality, but it should not be taken as a general axiom that armed intervention never works, nor that armed interventions will always fail because of resistance from the people. It just so happens that this tends to be the case most of the time. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
the solution is access to a free and solid level of education free from religious superstition. note that after the enlightenment europe made lots of progress towards social justice. the more education there is, the less religion there will be (in terms of fanaticism anyway, getting rid of religion altogether will take far longer) use books to fight ignorance, not guns. that will just rile up the religious people more. by making them not religious, solves a lot of problems. | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
On August 29 2012 06:14 Warlock40 wrote: I might agree that I and anyone who thought the idea of armed intervention in Afghanistan would easily succeed in bringing about a stable democracy were indeed out of touch with reality, but it should not be taken as a general axiom that armed intervention never works, nor that armed interventions will always fail because of resistance from the people. It just so happens that this tends to be the case most of the time. Armed intervention works for the purpose it's optimized for: which is the destruction of population. If that is not your goal, to go to total war, then you are very likely using the wrong tool for the job. You don't use a hammer in the place of a screwdriver. The very simple fact of life is: you can't make someone do something unless they want to do it themselves. If the only reason they are doing it is because they have a gun pointed to their head, then you can be sure that when your back is turned, everything will be undone. The trick is to find a way to make the benefits so natural and obvious that the right direction is undeniable. We never did that with Afghanistan, we never intended to, and never had a gameplan in that manner. | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
All religions are stupid and have a ton of issues, but they are not all equally stupid. At this point in history it's painfully obvious that Islam is pretty dang high up on that list. And before you post 5000 examples people from other religions doing retarded or violent things, don't bother, we know, like I said all religions have bad eggs, but it's ridiculous to view them all as 100% the same in every way. | ||
|
hyptonic
2155 Posts
On August 29 2012 06:12 zalz wrote: Not condoned by most Muslims does not make it untrue to scripture. Wahhabism has a very thorough grounding in scripture, as does Qutbism. Both can permit the murder of an individual in certain cases. Readings are based on a combination of the Quran and the hadiths. The problem with this is that the hadiths vary between very reliable, and less reliable than a Fox News show, but much like Fox News, people will ignore the bias if it suits their needs. Whilst it is easy to prove when Fox news makes something up, it is less easy to prove that his sister's, barber's, brother's, little sister's, best friend, was saying the truth or not. So, does the majority of muslims want to chop my head off? No, but be honest, the people that do want to kill me aren't making it up as they go, they simply read the book differently, and it isn't invalid at any point. Muslim's have a tendency to instantly dismiss any differing reading as un-islamic. It's made somewhat ironic that that tendency to dismiss different readings is exactly what extremist denominations (like Qutbism) use to permit the murder of other muslims, because they dismiss them as fakes, thus reaching the conclusion that they are permitted to kill them. I don't mind it when people say that Islamic terrorism is fringe, but you can't be honest and say that it isn't Islamic, or a perversion of Islam. Is is scripturally sound. That's the thing. Islam isn't just one entity. The different schools all believe in very different things, even the schools of sunni islam that often get clumped together are very different and originate from surrounding culture, not entirely from scriptural interpretation | ||
|
Clow
Brazil880 Posts
On August 29 2012 04:02 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Ok ok. I did kind of a joke post trying to learn info on the culture that dislikes dancing. But it turns out that people don't realize something basic. I've seen people say the word "law" here and not realize that there wasn't a law broken. It was a culture issue, a "de-facto" not a "de-lexo" that occurred. The dancers didn't break a law. They didn't break any law, not with the music not with the dancing. The only LAW broken was when they were killed. They are saying it was a MURDER not a punishment. Those that are saying the dancers broke the law and got what they deserve don't understand what the article is saying, or are just trying to troll people (they might be idiots, i'm not sure.( I'm not calling anyone an idiot. I am simply saying you might have spoken before reading.)) The murderers broke the law. The Dancers did not. Don't think this is the dancers fault. No one in the article says "the dancers broke the law" or any variation of that. It was a culture issue done by extremists, who chose murder as their way of sending a message, kind of extreme if you ask me. But that is probably why we call them extremists. Why are people ignoring this post? They (the dancers) didn't commit a crime or break any law, they were murdered. | ||
| ||
