US Presidential Hopeful wants to bomb Mecca

Post Reply New Topic

Having just read the whole thread again, i realise that i am mistaken. Apart from part of my statements near the start, in which i used the term muslim IN CONTEXT it occurs to me that the first person to use "muslim" as a blanket term was not me. I used terms such as Islamic Extremist and fundamentalist. And just to clarify.. I also explained "me" right back at the start as meaning me, my fellows, and anyone else who doesnt want to be muslim, and I'm not equating muslim with " people who want to kill me". If anything Im using it as shorthand for people who are terrorists fighting for the cause of Islam as they perceive it.

And again.. why is muslim bad as a blanket term, but christian is not? Do we have to start every thread with a glossary of terms? If I thought all muslims were mass-murdering scum I would say so quite clearly. My stance is: Islamic EXTREMISTS of any stripe, be they government sanctioned, or terrorists.. are bad, irritating, ignorant and superstitious peasants who need to get over themselves and actually READ the damn Quoran some time, and see where they are going wrong. I would not feel pity or horror when they killed other muslims, I would rejoice in the slaughter and do a little dance. BUT I DONT. The acts people perform in the name of Islam are shocking and wrong, and the fact christianity has performed similar acts does not justify islam doing it. Tit for Tat, eye for an eye bollocks like that is one reason why these offences propogate. "Theyre only doing what we did so we cant complain" does not justify slaughter.

There are also diometrically opposed differences between western/christian society and islamic society (and i have witnessed firsthand both) that lead me to the conclusion that islamic states are NOT a happy place, and that (barring certain breaches that are always reviled as wrong or illegal) western governments are more moderate than their islamic counterparts. example..
How many people protesting the illegal war in Iraq from the UK were hung or beaten and tortured?
How many people are executed for saying they dont believe in god? In Syria, you can be killed for listening to heavy metal... by the state. How many metal fans are hung in Times square or Trafalgar square?

The very fact that we are allowed to continue this conversation, or any other religious debate here is proof that western/christian governments are more tolerant.

Well, I would certainly agree that there is no justification for it. That really has nothing to do with the point that I was making, though. I was just being overly picky about precise language. Sorry, I sometimes do that.


Yes, there are very significant differences. None of which appear to have any basis in the fact that the west is largely Christian. One could make a solid argument that the improvements we have made socially and politically in the past few centuries were largely despite the religion, rather than due in any way to it.

At any rate, you seem to be confusing my statements about language with some sort of support for Middle-Eastern despotism, or at least turning a blind eye to it. I have no love for authoritarian government whatsoever.



Yes, western governments are generally much more tolerant. I see no historical evidence that Christian governments are, however. Governments, when built on religious principles, tend to be authoritarian and intrusive, whichever religion happens to hold the power. I really don't see Islam as being atypical in this regard. "Revealed Truth" is dangerous quite generally. We are simply quite lucky in the west to have evolved political doctrines that make it harder for a state to turn into a modern version of Calvin's Geneva.

Incidentally, I have not slept in 41 hours. I do hope this post made some sense.

What a ret*d moron. God help us if the US public elects him...

One certainly hopes they would have more sense. I think as long as he doesn't say he will fix the economy as well, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance of getting in.

To me, the lunatics have escaped the asylum and have been running the country for the past 40 years. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, now Tancredo. All should have been left in padded cells wearing strait-jackets and given high doses of Thorazine to keep them calm. Nutters, the lot of them, and lunatics should never be put in positions of power. Hitler proved that, and the biggest lunatic was Nero.

I'm not necessary supporting Islam here; what I am saying is that the US stance in the middle east has brought their problems upon themselves. Israel should never have been settled where they are, a small Judeo-Christian nation amongst a group of rabid Islamic fundamentalists is asking for trouble. Don't care about the 'promised land' crap in the bible, it's like saying we should give Australia back to the 2% aboriginal population, just because they were here first. Why should the other 98% be held to ransom? Beside the 'help' the Yanks are giving Israel anyway, the only other reason they want control of the middle east is oil. There were no WMDs, Saddam was never going to bomb America directly, and Al-Quaeda wouldn't have sunk the Cole or destroyed the WTC had it not been for the Yanks obsession with world (or middle eastern at least) dominance.

Put the loonies back in the nuthouse where they belong, and let's get some normalcy going. Oh, and forget about Hilary and Condy, the glass ceiling set up by the old boys' network will stop them.