I actually agree with large parts here. Especially regarding Saudi Arabia. And yes, we and the US are in bed with them, but its a marriage of convenience, at least for the west. We want oil, we need pul, they have loads, they didn't have much else.... Perfect situation for the west to get some cheap oil. Now Saudi Arabia is the head nation in the middle east. They dictate everything. Their wealth plays both the political and religious sects against each other all the while pushing the anti west agenda. The way to end Isis, to bring relative peace to the middle east? Take Saudi Arabia out of the question, the royal family, not the innocents living under an oppressive regime.
ISIS is not a part of Islam. *****philia is not a part of Christianity I think you have a problem distinguishing between the religion and the people who practise it. Religion is the ideology or doctrine. Unless you're saying that the ideology of Islam is to bomb and kill innocent people. In which case I'm not surprised Spurlock or any regular muslim would find this offensive.
I didn't say paedphilia was part of it, but that *****phike priests were. A sad part that most would want to deny and did so, for 100s of years. Only in recent history has anything been done about it. These priests however represented and taught the catholic faith, and therefore are a part of Christianity. Just as Isis is a part of Islam.
And religion is nothing without its followers, treble. It doesn't exist. I dont know the full history of Islam but peace isn't always a running theme. Same with all religions, some of which deem all non believers will burn in hell... Peaceful stuff this religion lark.
They were hypicrites. They may have taught christianity but they clearly didnt practise it. So no they werent a part of christianity. Just as ISIS are hypocrites. Like I said, unless that is, you believe christianity instructs priests to have sex with kids or islam instructs muslims to bomb and kill innocent people.
ISIS are the bad apples in Islam while *****philia priests are the bad apples in Christianity. While they both exit they are going to continue to tarnish the image of both religion.
I couldn't be sure tbh, I dont have a copy of the original bible or qaran. However I suspect both differ from today's incarnations. Tbh the god in the original bible seems to despise humanity and spend his time trying to wipe us out. So I wouldnt be surprised if some frankly horrendus stuff went into the book. As for Islam, well technically Islam was spread through violence and war, early on, anyway. Personally not the best way to start a religion bit it was 1600 years ago, all anyone did was go to war. When in Rome...
No... Unless they are the daughters of your enemies and still virgins then it's OK. (there's actually several verses in the bible that says it's ok to rape girls as long as they are your enemies daughters). Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. BTW I bring this up not to say xianity is bad or that xians are evil. Clearly that is not true. I only quote these references to show how out of context and out of touch with reality it can be quoting religious texts from other religions. Certainly most Christians are not ok with rape. Well that and it amuses me how cringeworthy some verses are.
D'you know honestly, I have a bigger problem with the ignorance of arabs than I do with their religion Some are educated but most are fcking thick as pig5hit that I've come across and far too hot headed for rational thought - the ideal combination if you want to recruit nutters to blow up innocent ppl. A sweeping generalisation on my part but I think that plays its part in ISIS recruiting these idiots. If they were just blowing themselves up it would actually be darwinism at its practical best.
I simply mean that if NATO were to go in and remove the monarchies and root out the actual manufacturers of extremist militant groups. Most Saudis truth be known would prefer no monarchy surely. Same for Bahrain and some other Gulf States. That would do more for the fight against terrorism than destroying Iran Syria Lebbanon half of Africa and god knows where else, because as we can easily figure out, not taking on the root cause of a problem means you will fight hte problem indefinitely. That means profits profits profits for those who sell war. I wish the media would point out the actual difference between Islamic groups, because they are all just lumped together. In this scenario, a man beats his wife in public and it is on the news, footage n all, you know the truth here, if it's not a Muslim, he's a lowlife scumbag coward. You know well that if that bloke is Mulsim, a whole Islam thing kicks off, when really he could just be a scumbag. In Paris we had Wahhabi extremists carry out an attack and within hours the whole "Islam" thing kicked off. people just do not stop and think, and they don't want you to stop and think, they want you to support your own lock down and support war and above all be too afraid to think. I wonder how many peole at the Aviva in Dublin tonight are thinking of Paris and looking around the stadium? I bet quite a few. I am not saying this is not terrorism or not a real massacre at all here, I am saying it is not who we are being told it is. Let me loosley quote the Saudis over a UK investigation into Saudi UK Weapons deals "If the investigation is not called off we cannot prevent another 7\7 happening". http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/16/bae.armstrade "Investigators said they were given to understand there would be "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they carried on delving into the payments." "The high court has heard unchallenged allegations that it was Prince Bandar, the alleged beneficiary of £1bn in secret payments from the arms giant BAE, who threatened to cut off intelligence on terrorists if the investigation into him and his family was not stopped." I must poiny out that BAE have their man as vice chair of the BBC trust, BAE have a vested interest in Saudi Arabia, you need to wake up man, BBC has been providing war propaganda for the military contractors for years. IS are mercenaries, they do not do suicide missions, the ranks are paid wages ffs, Wahhabi religious extremists believe their rewards wait for them when they give their lives in a holy war.
I'd be disappointed. If I was a young soldier, I'd like the experience of an older woman who knows her way around, 30+ ideally. Virgins are overrated.
I've actually never been with a virgin. All my partners had been with people before me. That said the most skilled lady I was ever with was 12 years older than me at the time. (I was 20 she was 32). I can fully believe virgins are overrated based on experiences with experienced ladies.
Sorry, but I think your analogy is a poor one. I'm having trouble equating peadophile priests with a serious threat to global security. Agreed, these hypocrites that were ordained by the Catholic Church and then went on to commit these heinous crimes against children deserve any and all condemnation that falls upon them, but ISIS is a completely different kettle of fish. Firstly, ISIS only claims to be part of Islam. Yet they go against just about every teaching in the Quran. Secondly, they are a globally organised and financed criminal, terrorist organisation. The analogy with some kiddie fiddler priests doesn't stack up, IMO.
I find it hard to believe a religion that from day one, spread through violence, is now a peaceful religion. Wasn't Muhammed head of the Caliphate? Didnt he spend a decade as the leader of the Islamic army and bring war to the middle east. the Persian empire, oarts of India, the levant, North Africa and Andalucia were all converted through force. Later the ottoman empire slaughtered Christians throughout its empire. As far as I can see, Isis are taking Islam as literally as possible.
Depends how you frame it. This school of thought (and the puerile categorisation of Tobes as a racist for having the temerity to link ISIS and Islam) is the same hysterical defence of the Asian taxi drivers around the country abusing teenage girls. No one says they did that, or ISIS did what they did, or indeed Catholic priests did what they did, BECAUSE of their religion, per se. But surely we have the right, just as we did when that far-right nut was blowing up gay bars, or when the Bader-Meinhof were blowing up trains, to critique the association of a criminal's beliefs and their actions? I have two family members who work in the NHS. Both assure me the whole edifice would fall to ****ing bits overnight without Muslim doctors. Indeed, my sister was successfully treated for breast cancer at the Linda McCartney Centre eighteen months ago, by Moslem oncolagists. Moslem professionals are present in Law, engineering, education - well everything, just like Jews, Atheists, Chinese, (some) Woollybacks... A banal point, I know. But if we are not allowed to link members of a community to that community for fear of offending that community, how are we supposed to make any attempt to understand why it happened? Anyway, if you just close down this discussion you'll just supress it, not answer this. In fact, the discussion will get darker and scapegoats WILL be offered up, so this is all self-defeating.
Isis destroy lives. *****phile priests destroy lives. Both tarnish the many. I could have used the KKK or the worst kind of people, Jehovah's Witnesses
