bewitched
Well-Known Member
well said.
if it's not in their backyard they don't believe it. safe in the US. not for long.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
if it's not in their backyard they don't believe it. safe in the US. not for long.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
In the last ten years? How about the last 5? Since the invasion of Iraq...which might...just maybe...have instigated a 90% of those attacks and the formation of many new jihadist groups...
when there is a war on, all bets are off and there is little difference between terrorists and militias.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Safe in the US?
We've long been insulated from world violence: communism, two world wars, conflicts in Africa, Asia, Balkans and now the Middle East. 9/11 was a wake up. But the wake up wasn't "Islamization" - it was globalization.
We are now part of the world whether we want to be or not. We can't just muck about in other countries and stay insulated from our actions anymore. Now we too have to pay the price for our policies.
The printing press allowed Christianity to evolve. Before then, an individuals relationship with God was a relationship with the Church. Religious doctrine was what the church said was doctrine. Gods given authority to rule over the people belonged to who the church ordained with that authority. As more people learned to read and copies of the bible became more common, the individuals relationship with God became a direct relationship with God. Religious doctrine was what people read in the bible. And they figured out that God didnt give the authority to rule over the people to whoever the church ordained with that authority, he gave it to the individual. We were endowed by our creator with certain fundamental rights including the right to govern ourselves.
Unfortunately in the case of Islam, individual access to the actual written doctrine isnt really helpful on account of what the doctrine says.
A probably even higher percentage in just the last 5 years. Whats yer point? And the difference between terrorist and militias is irrelevant if they are using terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
And all religious doctrine is inherently interpretative. This is the argument that we had months ago (I'm sure you remember - probably half your total post count was devoted to it). As you so expertly pointed out, there isn't a problem with personalization, as we are in the middle of the information age.
So the people read the books. This does not mean that they take them to mean what you take them to mean. The fact that the greater majority of Muslims do not commit acts of terrorism and violence suggest that they don't take the texts to mean what you take them to mean - or they're just working to establish new traditions, even if the "working" part is subconscious.
I don't have time to teach you guys Theology, so here's the basics: all religions are unified by beliefs and practices, both traditional and contemporary. Radical Islam = Archaic beliefs and violent practices. Mainstream Islam = Peaceful beliefs and peaceful practices. They share their roots; they differ in their interpretations. Neither has a more valid view than the other; however, for the sake of an empirical look at the religion, the majority viewpoint - the overwhelming majority viewpoint I might add - tends to look a bit more like the direction of the religion.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
War targets innocent civilians all the time. The idea that war can be sanitized and free of terrorism is a fantasy. It's never been. There is NO DIFFERENCE between terrorism and war.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
And that is what is so often ignored. The nature of the majority viewpoint.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I would disagree. The printing press allowed each individual to interpret the Bible directly. It did not change the nature of the text. As a result of this - you have Christian sects that are far more fundamentalist and extreme in nature then the original Church may have been.
Please try to understand the difference between a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and CIVIL RIGHTS.
There is NO WAY a government can trespass an individual's right of thought - only the manifestations of that thought.
The same way the us government can not trespass on an individuals right to believe in vodoo while reserving the authority to forbid certain rituals and practices of such a religion.
Capice?
Again, any government reserves the right and responsibility of collecting taxes within its sovereign domain. You did not actually believe european products are so much more superior than those manufactured locally, now, did you?
The reality, quite simply, is that people not only want, but NEED to coexist with one another - regardless of religion. The only thing incongruent around here is your insistence on recieving religious instructions from the demagougery of a band of ignorant misfits.
No.
The common mistake is the view that modern terrorism is a religious act. It is first and foremost, a POLITICAL ACT, however else anyone wish to paint it with religious colors.
Welcome to guerilla warfare 101. This style of warfare has been invented since god knows when. Surely, it was advocated by the military strategist sun tzu.
And if you have even glimpsed his military treatise, you would realize that there is NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT.
Odd arguement. You can credit TZU in whatever BC with documenting the tactic. That doesn't negate "the enemy" we face today having adopted that tactic. And they rely on a different treatise-
refering to
But I understand the need to insert ones head into the ground and just yell "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT."
Werbung:
Odd arguement. Their "POLITICAL ACT"s dont negate their "religious colors". It is Islam's "POLITICAL" aspects that cause such conflict with western concepts of government.
