Yes, the group split and ISIS went off on their own agenda. Nobody's denying that. At this time, they are two separate groups, hence the dispute between Russia and the U.S. over the targets of Russian bombing.
There's ****loads mate YPG, YPJ, PKK, PESHMERGA, IRAQI ARMY, FREE SYRIAN ARMY, ISIS, AL-NUSRA, SYRIAN ARMED FORCES, SYRIAN RESISTANCE There's probably a hell of a lot more as well... I support the first 4 groups on there...
Wrong. Most religions preach they are superior. Stop looking at then as moral compasses and see then for what they are. Political parties. Each has its own agenda and while thousands of years on, those original agendas have been forgotten about by most, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. People are aware the world was a brutal place in Muhammeds time, Jesus time etc. People rarely had rights, the very poorest and worst off people were the easiest to recruit with promises of a better life. This better life often involved the forceful conversion of others, regardless of the religion. Created as a means of control, spread through violence, defended to the hilt. Religion. Pure Evil.
[/QUOTE] "And yet he says were all against him. Do keep up Page." Considering he's British and some British people agree with his view on the subject who are these "all" you're referring to and most importantly who are the us you're a part of?
Don't worry, the Jews will pony up £20 each and chip in for a nre puppet. That's what you believe right? That Jews run the world in secret. The current propaganda in the middle was revolves around Iran and Saudi Arabia claiming Israel is responsible for Isis. This is based solely on the fact they haven't attacked Israel... Now I know Israel isn't popular and most Muslims in that region are less than complimentary to Jews bit even Isis are not so stupid to bring Israel into it just yet. They are clearly building support. And if it held any truth, well Israel would have bombed itself and blamed Isis by now. That's how paranoid conspiracies work? Right.
I wouldn't bother with them....I've been where you are...at least with me he was not trying his version of Internet shouting and typing in bold
Possibly a little harsh. But yes, religion promised people that if they did what they were told they would go to heaven. It was the way to control them, and get the money to support and grow the religion. Plus, of course, nobody was going to come back and complain that they'd been conned.
"And yet he says were all against him. Do keep up Page." Considering he's British and some British people agree with his view on the subject who are these "all" you're referring to and most importantly who are the us you're a part of?[/QUOTE] All = those asking questions. Look, the way I see its Spurlock, Jonny and Highal are people. However they choose to be labeled as Muslims (if that's the case for Highal). I don't give two ****s about their religion, its nothing more that a personal choice they have made. If it wasn't a choice, well, that's a whole different debate entirely. If religion makes the man, then I don't want to know that man.
Christians threaten people with Hell.... Nowadays most would laugh but in the relatives dumb world of 2000 years ago, people would have shat themselves. People were sacrificing animals ffs. That world, or it's teachings have no basis in this world.
When did anyone but Page mention your Britishness? Were talking about your faith. You can choose one, the other not so much. Edit - to clarify, I dont mean your own faith personal to you, merely the umbrella term that is Islam. Incase anyone gets confused, Page...
Something makes us all....you need to accept that..it's obvious you have an underlying hatred for religion....maybe you was in the choir as a kid...I'm beyond rationale with you.
Sorry, I've got to step in here. I'm glad JB did make his post, but it only re-iterated what most of us had already posted re our experience of everyday Muslims. Please go back and see what I said re Muslim professionals and work colleagues, for example. That wasn't the point. Early in the thread a view was expressed that the Muslim community (albeit the French one, in this case - surely no-one believes every Muslim is part of some worldwide homogeneous blob, continuously plotting and communicating with every other Muslim on the globe) don't/isn't doing enough to condemn the perpetrators from their community. To be fair, it's the same reaction many had in the 70's with the Irish community after mainland bombings, oblivious, in most cases, that the Irish were mostly killing each other in Ulster at the time. Nevertheless, a terrorist group primarily identifying ITSELF with a version of Islam commits these atrocities - and analysing that link (in as much to dismiss it as invalidate it, as with the IRA and Roman Catholicism, or indeed Christianity and say the KKK) is seen as 'racist', in some quarters? This is ****ing insane. The problem with religious tracts written and based in antiquity and the Dark Ages is that power hungry group and individuals will try to use them to, er, gain power. We surely we have the right to critique them (or political ones such as Marx or Hayek, or Adam Smith) without their adherents throwing their teddies out of the cot?
****ing bingo, in my case. A deep seated SUSPICION, anyway. I don't term that racist, as I don't distrust your version of Sky-Goddism any more than the others, including the High Anglicanism I was brought up in and, hypocritically, Christened my daughter in. But let me ask you this then - if Humanists/Atheists committed this attack in, say, Mecca, do you not think Moslems may, perhaps, be catagorising the attack as a Secularist attack and questioning the involvement of and loyalties of non-believers in their community? FFS, riots and prison sentences have ensued when people have innocently given teddy bears the wrong name in some Moslem societies. Sorry you feel threatened, feller, I do. Heaven knows the fear you'd experience if this situation was transposed to some parts of the world. I'm truly glad that isn't the case.
