Nazaroo
New member
no link? no photos? no evidence?
Islamic Terrorists France: 12 dead, police gunned down
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
no link? no photos? no evidence?
Evidence (verifiable)? Where is it? What i saw in Terhan was celebrations of what happened here. I can post evidence, show me yours and ill show mine.
PS, i watch all network news, including al jazeera, who btw, only showed islamic celebrations of what happened here... weird huh if its like you say...
I never heard of this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44b_1359356589
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/shadow-land
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
Why didn't FOX carry this? Do you really have to ask? The big question is "why didn't real news organizations carry it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44b_1359356589
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/shadow-land
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
Why didn't FOX carry this? Do you really have to ask? The big question is "why didn't real news organizations carry it?
Nazaroo
New member
It needs to be remembered that IRAN is really Persia,
and that ISLAM is an IMPOSED religion by force,
upon a people with a long civilization and history,
based on ZOROASTRIANISM and MAZDA etc.,
not the QURAN.
Many Iranians resent ISLAM as a foreign religion
imposed on them by the Saudi Arabians,
just as East Indians had the Muslim warlords invade,
and imposed their 'civilization' upon them.
A little thought of and little used fact that could be
employed to keep IRAN OUT of world war,
or a Muslim Jihad.
No, it's really Iran, not "persia" a name that was mistakenly use for Iran by Greeks who thought the territory of Parsis was the entire country. They have always called themselves "Iranians", a cognate for "Aryan", an Indo-European self-description.
The names Iran and Persia are often used interchangeably to mean the same country. Iran is the legal name. Persia, was an ancient kingdom within Iran. Iran came to be known as Persia in the West thanks to classical Greek authors during whose time Persia was the dominant kingdom in Iran. To call all of Iran 'Persia', would be like calling all of Britain 'England'.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/iranpersia/index.htm
Ironically the Italians (later Romans) made a very similar mistake for Greece:
The Hellines were first called "Γραικοί" ("Graeki" with the letter "G" pronounced "Y" as in "Yard") by the Illirians (present day Italians), when the former arrived in Italy from ancient Dodoni (city in Epirus, Greece) as colonists. According to another source, these colonists named Γραίοι or Γραίκοι ("Graii" or "Graeci"), came to Italy from Γραία ("Graia"), an ancient town in Viotia, Greece (maybe contemporary Tanagra) and founded a new Hellenic Colony there with the name Nea Polis (which means New City, later to become known as Napoli, or Naples in English). This was the very first time that the Latins came close to the Hellines (Greeks) and thus named them all "Graeci" after the citizens of Graia; and given that most modern European languages originate from Latin, the word "Graecus" became the root for all other respective names for Έλληνας and Ελλάς (Ελλάδα) ("Hellin" and "Hellas" or "Hellada"), e.g. Greek-Greece, Grec-Grèce, Grieche-Griechenland.
http://www.dolphin-hellas.gr/greece-hellas.htm
There are still a few of them, living in India, the Parsees. They fled there after the Muslim conquest.
As Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote, when a people become politically subjugated, they will usually insist on a religious difference. This is the source of the Sunni/Shiia division of Islam.
The resentment was reworked into a religious conflict within Islam.
Hence the fear in Tehran over ISIS, and Tehran's interest in some kind of understanding with the United States over a common concern. And yes, you are quite right, we could play that to meet our interests. This is what's behind the current U.S. responses to Iranian gestures.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I would ask, What doesn't offend Muslims? The only truthful answer from a faithful Muslim is that Muslims are offended by the existence of anyone who is not Muslim.
If you're not Muslim, you're an infidel. First and foremost–it's not what you say or do, but what you are, that's intolerable.
You could say nothing, or you could mouth all the right Islamic honorific titles in concersations with Muslims (empowering and emboldening) them), but even that is insufficient to placate Muslim sensibilities. For that matter, it's not even enough to be Muslim. After all, it is offensive to be the wrong kind of Muslim. Sunnis are offensive to Shiites, and vice versa.
Many Muslims still believe the Christian Trinity is “Father, Son, and Mother”. (Surah 5:116) Sigh. This caricarure of the Trinitarian doctrine in the Muslim's holy book is alone sufficient evidence that the book of Islam is not divinely inspired.
For if it were, the book would at least get the doctrine of the Trinity as believed by Christians correct. The fact that it does not is prima facie evidence of the questionable origins of the book. This fact is more pointed given that the book of Islam arrived on the scene in the seventh century, well after the church had declared the doctrine of the Trinity in answer to the numerous heresies that were prevalent at the time. Was God ignorant of what the Christian church was declaring about His one divine essence and three personal subsistences (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when Gabriel presumably revealed God to Muhammad at that time? One would think that this presumed corrective from God through Gabriel to Muhammad would at least have its facts straight about the Christianity being denounced therein.
That which is contained in the book of Islam is clearly denied by Muslims who profess their's is a peaceful religion. Any Muslim who gives their careful attention to the violence now part of the Sharia, Muhammad’s Sunna (e.g., 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:21, 33:50), and the sword and anti-Christian verses of the Qur’an (e.g., 4:74, 4:91, 8:12, 9:5, 9:29, 33:35-36, 59:2) should realize that their claims of "peace" are not supported by their book.
AMR
Last edited:
Hypocrisy is a very dangerous thing. Take the Pharisees for example.
Quite true. But given hypocrisy or murderous religious zealotry, I guess I'll go with the hypocrites.
To be clear, the west's hands are not clean, and American imperialism and adventures overseas have done us zero favors. But when push comes to shove there's one side that, in the words of one wag, is Team Civilization.
you noticed, eh?
didja happen to read the op in his self-celebrating often-locked blog? :darwinsm:
DilatedMind
New member
Really now?
It is a rather obvious conclusion to draw that morality is a consequence of evolutionary development. A phenomenon constructed over time by increasing density of social groups.
If it's not obvious, it's at least plausible.
And yet, and yet:
Says who? You, Kant, and a bunch of others. But by what authority do you state it as fact?
Your Own.
Sorry, mate, but no dice. You are stating as fact something you cannot prove. The authority is your own.
Cry me a river.
Also, check your sources. These days I split my time roughly evenly between London, Copenhagen, Berlin and Oslo. With lengthy stop-overs in Cairo and Riyadh. Most of my peers in all of those places are atheists. Everyone is happy as a happy thing. Presumably because we're mainly very well paid and more or less get to do whatever we want.
Outside of the social circle, the mainly atheist states of Scandinavia and Northern Europe score at the top of every list available for satisfaction and well-being, while the religious states of the middle east score at the bottom.
Presumably you'll argue that living huddled under a rug with all 19 members of your family under a repressive theocracy (but knowing that god loves you) is groovy. I tend to think otherwise.
You're just regurgitating Kant again. I mean, it's an opinion (a flawed and outdated one, and one without a single shred of evidence), but not one I share. And, really not one you can back up any more.
I'd agree. Obviously I argue that in the absence of a divinity, morality must be relative. But I argue that it is relative in the whole (to the universe). To humanity, I argue that we have a drive to ensure the survival of our genes and by extraction our species. As a result there is a (moral, by result of biology) compulsion to attempt to, without being overly poetic, build the Just City.
Since you've neatly avoided actually discussing my central point, it seems timely to bring it up.
What I'm saying is that these (memetic) impulses to order have been both aided and constrained by religious thought. Where the religious impulse and authority has been beneficial is well documented and not, in any way, denied by me. The social, political, economic and ethical structure of Europe and 'The West' has undeniably been sculpted by religion (the Judao-Christian tradition). But this tradition has been superseded. Where religion succeeds in positively influencing the culture is only by virtue of the religion adapting to the relative morality of the day. This is both undeniable and much to the benefit of both the society and the religion.
Islam is way behind its Abrahamic siblings in this regard, and all I am pointing out is that it is now rubbing up against a society that is simply not prepared to even consider re-living the last time it went through a reformation. Europe burned for 30 years under the flux of the protestant/catholic schism, and in some areas is still simmering. Various revolutions and the general secularisation of the continent is evident.
Pointing out that the muslim community needs to draw some secular lines is neither racist nor strident atheist rhetoric; it is a simple political truth.
FFS
It was a qualification, not an anecdote. Obviously it leaves out a huge portion of the folk that claim Islam as an identity. What's your point? The main issue with 'Islam' is that it succeeds in being a 'nation', an 'identity', a 'diaspora', a 'religion', and, apparently a 'race', too. Thus to even consider criticising anything it entails draws objection from any and every quarter. I'm not even sure that you're sure what you're complaining about. It strikes me that you're just complaining about perceived slighting of your own somewhat gilded view of the issue. Whatever you may think the issue is.
Aren't they all?
Pretty much every culture that exists sits on foundations that it barely even considers. That is is a surprise to you is frankly bizarre.
Turn on your TV (if you have one) and flick through the stations. Keep flicking and you'll eventually a news station performing a vox-pop. No-one will be basing their point on historical record. No one. Flick to your Parliament (or Senate, or whatever) station and you will find your representatives quoting history only to underline a populist sentiment. In the main, our history is subconscious; that which is truly valued is taken as given, even taken as granted, but it is not subject to popular scrutiny. I say it again, we do not observe our history, we layer upon it.
See above.
And in the absence of any evidence for any underlying truth, my context/atheism still seems rather reasonable.
Which is rather odd. I believe I have qualified this?
Tell, you what; I'll calm myself if you get a little bit excited. How's That?
Whatever.
What's wrong with getting enthused in a discussion or even an argument? Presumably neither one of us is going to burst into one another's office and unleash a volley of automatic assault rifle rounds?
Just for the sake of clarity, what's the difference in me using the phrase 'you people' to refer to religious apologists such as yourself and you using the term 'atheists' to refer to people such as myself? There's various stripes, bands colours, creeds, and philosophies?
Obviously I do understand that you are a beautiful and unique snowflake, and that you are manifestly above that sort of grouping. Bless your little cotton socks.
Well, yes, they are. You don't need to move past the primary. This isn't rocket surgery.
Stalin, Mao, Pott, et al positioned themselves as 'greater than' to the populous. They were then, as is the 'Dear Leader' of North Korea now, above the natural plane of existence. They both exploited and presumably experienced the numinous.
They were/are certainly not religious, and I would never even attempt to push their atrocities onto religion. But if you're even thinking about blaming their crazy on atheism, you and I will have a few stern words to exchange.
The numinous is not the exclusive realm of religion. We find it in art, and the extremes of experience. Therein lies some of the greatest beauty and profundity of the world, and also its abyssal crests and pits of despair. So, just like religion, it has its zones of danger.
Said the only one of us to use "idiot" in a conversation.lain: Actually, I enjoy repartee and I connect people via that to threads and debates they might otherwise miss, among other things.
Well, good for you. I called you an idiot once. You have a thread dedicated to your ego.
Hell, I'll call you an idiot again, idiot, should you be idiotic. But I'll not open my own thread dedicated to calling out all the other idiots (as I see it), which is what you've done.
Sure, you're doing a service and connecting folk. Please. Either you actually believe that (in which case you need help), or you think I'm prepared to believe it, in which case you're an idiot (hey, that didn't take long).
Frankly, I don't care that you massage your ego, I merely took exception to the pot calling the kettle black, by attempting to call the kettle black.
Either way, let me assure you that I am persuaded by your argument, and understand that this is of little consequence to you.
LOL
DilatedMind
New member
Yes.
Sadly, due to the acid, I can't read books (on account of their being full of words, and other propaganda), so I can't comment much further.
MKULTRA is a trigger my therapist says I shouldn't say out loud, and since I can't type without shouting what I want to say first, then bashing my face against the keyboard until the correct symbols appear on the screen, I'm pretty much stuck with just asking for your perseverance.
We live, we learn, eh?
In the same way it's obvious that cloud is shaped like a giraffe.
It may be that all men are hard wired to believe that left is bad and right is good, but it doesn't follow that the belief is truth, only true of men in inclination. Absent that arbiter the valuation of the exception is as valid and true as the valuation of the majority (from whatever root).
And that would be anecdotal. Only good to illustrate a truth. It isn't an argument. So no matter how many places you travel to in rain, it doesn't follow that anyone should build an ark.
See: anecdotal. It's not a rule.
Supra, though I didn't say atheists have to be or are miserable.
No, I'm a fairly staunch advocate of a secular government that leaves conscience to the individual so long as the exercise of that particular doesn't interfere with the rights of others. I like our Republic, flaws and all.
Then values can't be objectively true. My point and your error summed.
It's completely deniable. You're only stating your bias as truth. It succeeds where it always has and for the reasons it always has, only the empowerment that brought the wrong sort, the sort who would use any idea as a means to power for their own sake, has mostly been channeled elsewhere. Mostly into the body politic.
Islam is, in many parts of the world, struggling through their own divine right phase. But most of its adherents want what most people do, to live in peace and with sufficient means to meet their needs.
I don't actually have a problem with that at all and haven't stated an objection to that at any point.
That's an entirely different thread for you to segue through.
There's a thin line between enthusiasm and Amway.
We can both be certain we know what is meant by atheist. I'm less certain you can speak to my positions (see: your miscalculation above concerning theocracy and your ongoing about ego, which I'll address in a moment).
Re: defining the numinous
I did move past the primary. You might need to move past the first few words of a sentence.
lain:That's so thin a use of numinous that you're just inviting a head shake and someone loaning you a good thesaurus.
That's good, because, you know, they were atheists.
I don't blame what men do with an idea on the idea unless it's called for by the idea.
It by mostly is though, which is why you have to thinly slice the tertiary to approach another reading.
That was really well put. Doesn't alter my response, but it's well written.
You can call the moon a vegetable, so there's no harm, only a pointless want of civility that neither diminishes me nor elevates you.
Because nothing serves the ego quite like an anonymous thread in an internet chat room.
lain:Can you even go outside without serious sunblock or a dog?
And I'll ask you what snack your mother put in your lunchbox.
It was crackers, wasn't it?
Last edited:
Morpheus
New member
I've seen the conversational pattern a few times before. Common factors in those using it were: mental illness (more specifically schizophrenia or bipolar w/psychotic features), significant drug use (current or past), egocentric (typically to the detriment of those closest to them). Their insistence that they are happy because of their freedom to do whatever they like is more likely a coping mechanism to excuse, in their own mind, the damage they have done to family, friends and partners. When they go to great lengths to convince others of this they are actually arguing the point with themselves. Over time they all eventually had reality breaks, and most at some time eventually attempted suicide, generally upon reaching middle age. Whether or not DM fits this pattern is yet to be seen. Diagnosis from a few posts is impossible, so this is simply an observation. But if Fox News psych "experts" can do it, why not here.
-A-non y' mouse-Whore!!!
=M=
Are you a "Man", or a Mouse; I can't really tell by your Comments?
I've seen the conversational pattern a few times before. Common factors in those using it were: mental illness (more specifically schizophrenia or bipolar w/psychotic features), significant drug use (current or past), egocentric (typically to the detriment of those closest to them). Their insistence that they are happy because of their freedom to do whatever they like is more likely a coping mechanism to excuse, in their own mind, the damage they have done to family, friends and partners. When they go to great lengths to convince others of this they are actually arguing the point with themselves. Over time they all eventually had reality breaks, and most at some time eventually attempted suicide, generally upon reaching middle age. Whether or not DM fits this pattern is yet to be seen. Diagnosis from a few posts is impossible, so this is simply an observation. But if Fox News psych "experts" can do it, why not here.
=M=
Are you a "Man", or a Mouse; I can't really tell by your Comments?
Morpheus
New member
Posted @ 11:16 pmI've seen the conversational pattern a few times before. Common factors in those using it were: mental illness (more specifically schizophrenia or bipolar w/psychotic features), significant drug use (current or past), egocentric (typically to the detriment of those closest to them). Their insistence that they are happy because of their freedom to do whatever they like is more likely a coping mechanism to excuse, in their own mind, the damage they have done to family, friends and partners. When they go to great lengths to convince others of this they are actually arguing the point with themselves. Over time they all eventually had reality breaks, and most at some time eventually attempted suicide, generally upon reaching middle age. Whether or not DM fits this pattern is yet to be seen. Diagnosis from a few posts is impossible, so this is simply an observation. But if Fox News psych "experts" can do it, why not here.
Posted @ 11:18 pm
So just how many of us are you trolling on a regular basis? Have you missed your Risperdal dose again?
I can Hear all that Piggy Crying from here.
=M=
Can somebody please turn that Whiny Girl Down for me?
Why don't you tell us all about -A-non, and his plan to "Decolonize the Planet", Girl?
www.occupywallstreet.com
I wouldn't even Call you A "Woman"; if you were a Man!!!
Boo Hoo Doodle-Doodle Do.
Tears Tears, and Cry me a River while you are at it, Girl.
Can you define what a "Risperdal Dose" is to me?
I'm just saying, if it has Anything to do with "Crazy People"; that may Explain a little bit about your Background.
So, are you "Criminally Insane" like your Boss?
Or, are you just one of -A-'s "Mindless Minions" that wears a Mask to try and protect Himself?
=M=
Can somebody please turn that Whiny Girl Down for me?
Why don't you tell us all about -A-non, and his plan to "Decolonize the Planet", Girl?
www.occupywallstreet.com
I wouldn't even Call you A "Woman"; if you were a Man!!!
Boo Hoo Doodle-Doodle Do.
Tears Tears, and Cry me a River while you are at it, Girl.
Can you define what a "Risperdal Dose" is to me?
I'm just saying, if it has Anything to do with "Crazy People"; that may Explain a little bit about your Background.
So, are you "Criminally Insane" like your Boss?
Or, are you just one of -A-'s "Mindless Minions" that wears a Mask to try and protect Himself?
Morpheus
New member
Apparently you are sexually confused. Or 12 years old. Or both.
-A-pparently "soMeone" shut down your Boss's Site.
Did you know?
: D
LOL!!!
=M=
Bug Squashed.
Your "Boss", I mean.
"Squashed".
====================================
Well, Then; "Morpheus": How's the Weather been in "The Matrix", lately?
LOL!!!
Oh, and Yeah; Nice "Face/Mask": Girl.
: D
Do you want to talk to me about your "Childhood"; Morpheus?
I mean, we could talk about that for a While if you would like.
It seems obvious to anybody that the actions of these terrible extremists that have done such horrendous crimes do not reflect the vast majority of Muslims.
Without secular society the most dangerous thing for religion is when it's married to political power.
There is a growing group of atheists in the world and their numbers are increasing. Both Islam and Christian fundamentalism are getting squeezed out of the global culture. The other-worldliness, the bigotry, the hypocrisy and the patriarchal dynamics are no longer tenable.
Plus, the ancient theologies of the past are ridiculous in today's world.
Without secular society the most dangerous thing for religion is when it's married to political power.
There is a growing group of atheists in the world and their numbers are increasing. Both Islam and Christian fundamentalism are getting squeezed out of the global culture. The other-worldliness, the bigotry, the hypocrisy and the patriarchal dynamics are no longer tenable.
Plus, the ancient theologies of the past are ridiculous in today's world.