the solution: put them all on an island and BTSOOT (bomb the shit out of them)* *disclaimer: the terrorists, not all Muslims i donno what to do with those fuckers.. the only thing that comforts me is that before people were sort of innocent re: Islamic extremism, but now this subject is in the center of things... i see MUCH tougher legislation coming to place within the next 10-20 years. there have been other periods in history when ppl were soft, and hten were forced to become hard... so i'm not worried. as some columnist said : imagine, at one point, all the hyperbole of the Muslim world about massacres and raping women etc. etc., becoming a reality...... that's the tip of the iceberg eventually the multiculti state will go back to a nation state.... countries will cleanse themselves from certain minorities either by internment camps or mass deportations, the PC era will be gone, just like in past times... and if push comes to shove, just remember what Hitler did to Jews for NO REASON. imagine there is a very good reason, and imagine a new Hitler coming to power... someone will have to yield eventually. if the barbarians refuse to be enlightened, they will be forcefully enlightened hopefully the Muslim world will cleanse itself from extremism before it ever has to come to something like that... hopefully there won't be a need for violence
You seem to have defined "recent history" as "since the Middle Ages." The boundary that defines the end of the Middle Ages is roughly the time when the Christians expelled the Moorish rulers from Iberia. As bad as those Muslim occupiers were by today's standards, their reign was breath of fresh air in medieval Europe with its relative peace, justice, and tolerance of diversity. The first thing the Christians did was launch the Inquisition! Within the last 500 years the Christians in European nations have: Obliterated the Inca civilization through violence. Obliterated the Aztec civilization through violence. Attempted to exterminate the Jews and got about halfway there. And these are just the atrocities that can be traced in large part to religious motivation, not counting the obliteration of the pre-Christian Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Americas, and the American Civil War and two World Wars that were primarily Christians killing each other. Jung summed it up concisely: "No wars in history have been as bloody as those among the Christian nations." I would amend that to "As long as people continue to believe in one god..." Jung made a convincing argument that the culprit is not religious faith, which whether we like it or not is archetypal--the manifestation of a pre-programmed instinct--and arises in all cultures. The fatal flaw is monotheism. Polytheism gives us a way to understand our complex natures. If I beat up the neighbor who made fun of my son, that part of me that is inspired by Jupiter got out of control, but fatherhood is a healthy emotion. If I call in sick with a hangover, that part of me that is inspired by Bacchus got out of control, but fun is a healthy emotion. If I let my secretary seduce me, that part of me that is inspired by Hathor got out of control, but love is a healthy emotion. (Yes, I've mixed Roman, Greek, and Egyptians gods. The paradigm of polytheism is universal, everyone dreams up the same gods. An archetype) A polytheist chides us for being out of harmony and urges us to meditate, take a vacation, or change jobs in order to balance the influence of the gods within us. Some of us hear the call of Asclepius the healer or Apollo the musician more loudly than others and we each have to find the person we're destined to be. But a Christian or a Muslim simply calls us wicked sinners for having done those things and tells us to cleanse ourselves of the will to do them, without trying to understand where they come from. Abrahamism squashes the human spirit, and a squashed spirit multipled by hundreds of millions of humans is a tragedy of global proportions waiting to happen, once every generation or so.
What's the solution to violent islam? Thats real simple ........ Dont fix it if it wasnt broke in the first place , in short dont meddle in other peoples countries .
Even if it is broken. Some of those conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the world have roots that go back more than a thousand years. Americans as a people have only existed for a little more than 240 years. On top of that we consider it a matter of pride to know as little as possible about our own history, and nothing at all about foreign history. To think that we know how to solve somebody else's problems is pure hubris.
Dont try and attempt to explain it away with the standard " it was well intentioned American involvement that backfired due to innocent American misunderstanding " . The US deliberately and intentionally armed Somali warlord factions to manipulate a desired result which would be a desirable outcome for US geo-political policy . What scares America about Islamic goverments are their nationalization of industry policies which undermine US Industrial/Financial complex polciy of expansion investment . You only have to look at Saudi Arabia which is ruled by a draconian royal family which the US supports to the hilt to see the double standard .
Yeah, that must be it for Jews and Muslims. For Christians, it's probably the men being pissed off for having to be "cut" when they're not Jewish and the females must be upset for having to wear those god-awfully uncomfortable chastity belts to save their virginity until marriage. - N
Wasn't there a minor ice age (is that right?) in Europe at that time? I was under the impression that stress from the cold climate change sort of pushed people in Europe over the edge so to speak? Archaeologists do a lot of digging. We pay for that. I think maybe now is the time this historic information was packaged to educate Abrahamists about the history that lead up to the invention / repackaging of their own religion. I think really that's all we can do, the human brain is a Type II error waiting to happen Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael
Forgive me for not being clear because that is not my position at all and I agree with everything you say. During the Cold War, America treated the Middle East, Africa, and other regions as chessboards for its deadly tournament with the Soviets. Don't get me started on our insane love affair with the despots in Arabia. Now we think it's a game of solitaire, when in fact the world Islamic community has stepped up as a trans-national opponent. I'm just offering additional food for thought to the many good people who believe our intentions are noble: Even if they are, it's arrogant to think we can help. I've read that it was just the opposite. In the 11th Century the weather was so warm that there was a wine industry in England and extensive inland waterways in Norway, both of which boosted the economy. Also, the Black Plague of the 14th Century was a macabre windfall of prosperity because the survivors got to divvy up the wealth of the dead. However... By today's standards post-Roman Europe was the Third World and the water was not drinkable. Coffee (which contrary to popular belief originated in Ethiopia) had not been imported yet. The only safe thing people had to drink was beer and wine. They were buzzed all the time. This depressed the economy and probably the people as well. It's anybody's guess whether life in Europe in the closing centuries of the Middle Ages was comfortable.
Q: ...As long as people continue to believe in gods, there will always be violence from religion. Only as long as they believe in gods? You mean country, land, resources, race won't count as a reason after the disbelief in god? Do you insinuate cain slayed his brother because of god and not because his brother was a suck-up?
No one is saying they won't, but which countries are currently warring due to those other reasons? That's a fairy tale and cannot be regarded for rational discussion.
Surely you're not serious?? The Moors were not the native inhabitants of Iberia, but rather vicious invaders that conquered a large proportion of that country and subjugated its citizens. You almost seem to imply that they had a rightful place there. They didn't. They were invaders. There is also certainly no defense of islam in Spain - trading feudalism for sharia strikes me as an "out of the frying pan into the fire" event. Ask yourself how much tolerance for diversity there was when people were sold off into slavery, or when massacres of Christians and Jews were enacted by these same "tolerant" rulers. You won't have to look far for evidence either.
Sounds good. From my perspective, I don't hear theists talking about one god, I hear a variety of gods all based on what each person imagines their god to be. I would agree, metaphorically speaking, but does a polytheist actually believe those gods exist? If not, "Up Jupiter, Down Mars!" Yes, but they also don't consider their gods to be strictly metaphors of themselves, but to actually exist and to have created all things. That would then return us to the culprit being religious faith. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's depressing.
How about a sense of history here? The Spaniards, Portuguese, and Catalonians are not the "native" inhabitants either. They are the descendants of Romans who conquered and occupied most of Europe and overran the Celtic people they found in Iberia. The Celts themselves were merely the first Indo-European tribes to spread across sub-Scandinavian Europe and they took Iberia from the earlier inhabitants of whom the still-marginalized Basques are the only surviving remnant. This sort of argument leads us to the same moral dilemma as the classic debate over whether Arizona rightfully belongs to the U.S. or Mexico--that completely ignores the Navajo. Every human being on Earth, except for some in Tierra del Fuego, the North American Arctic regions, some unidentified first-landing spots in Australia and Polynesia, and a vaguely possible undisturbed homeland of the first humans in Africa, is the descendant of "invaders." Our responsibility to atone for the sins of our distant ancestors and the mechanism for so doing is beyond the scope of this discussion, but to the average American the short answer is that anything that happened before the birth of our grandparents is not our problem. Perhaps you're more of an expert on the region and the era than I am. But what I've read argues that after the original conflict generated by the invasion subsided and was replaced by a peacetime government, Iberia was an oasis of tolerance, civility, order, and prosperity by the standards of Europe in the Dark Ages. As was the rule in most times and most places until very recently, Jews were treated better by the Muslims in Spain than by the Christians in Europe, and far better than the regime that replaced them and instituted the Inquisition which virtually obliterated the Jewish community through the choice of death or conversion. Sharia as we know it in its modern draconian form was not imposed on non-Muslims by the Moors. Slavery was hardly unique to Iberia or remarkable anywhere in Christian Europe among people wealthy enough to have servants of any type.
Q: which countries are currently warring due to those other reasons? I say all of them. God is used as a rallying guide, a ruse, a red herring. Q: That's a fairy tale and cannot be regarded for rational discussion. You're losing your sense of humor.
Well, great for the Celts. Go Cateduvillani! But seriously, the Reconquista was exactly and precisely that - a reconquest. The Spanish consider it a moral good, and so would I. We can hardly criticize them for taking back their country. Sharia is islamic law, and as such was most certainly imposed on the subject population. If there was any greater acceptance of Jews under islam in Spain, it ended utterly in 1148 with the invasion of the Almohades; although islamic law everywhere dictated second-class citizenry for them anyway. Toledo, which had been reconquered by the Spanish, was actually quite tolerant and open. I recommend this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Andalus and the quite reasoned words of Bernard Lewis: I do not argue at all that Christianity has nothing in apology to offer the Jews - it does, and has actually done so to some degree, which is commendable to some degree. (I note that apology from islam is still forthcoming. Maybe when the hidden imam springs up from his well in Iran, or when the Caliphate is re-established?)
So, if god is removed from the equation, what else would they use as a 'ruse?' Sorry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Democracy or some other belief or way of life. Governments and religion are quite the same. They're both used to control people and everyone thinks their way of government and life is better so they try and force it upon others to "save" them. - N
Q: So, if god is removed from the equation, what else would they use as a 'ruse?' Excellent question. I guess there wouldnt be one except fear of the other and the other's intentions if that makes any sense. I guess wihtout a ruse they would be forced to acknowledge their own greed, hatred and careless disregard for human life including their own. I mean take a look at Israel; people refer to the muslim-jewish issue or the race issue when it is really a land issue. Israel cannot admit it wants all the land and water for itself and couldn't give a rats ass what happens to the people anymore than the US can come out and publically admit 'we're coming to take your oil' ("What's our oil doing under your sand?" hehe). Fragglerocker: "I would amend that to "As long as people continue to believe in one god..." Jung made a convincing argument that the culprit is not religious faith, which whether we like it or not is archetypal--the manifestation of a pre-programmed instinct--and arises in all cultures. The fatal flaw is monotheism." Well if this is true please explain why it is Hindu's (polytheistic) can attack Muslims (one god folk)? How do you explain the incident at Ayodhya? Is it that the ancient Greeks were peacful? One god or a dozen hasn't made a bit of difference. There will always be cause for aggression Just in case no one here remembers Ayodhya: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/06/ayodhya.background/
