Audie
Veteran Member
Oh yeah? Well what comes in #2? (Has to be global to count)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is Islam so dangerous?
- Thread starter Raymann
- Start date
Oh yeah? Well what comes in #2? (Has to be global to count)
Audie
Veteran Member
A likely answer is that it is simply impossible to
be a fundamentalist, and intellectually honest
at the same time.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
What do you mean?
sooda
Veteran Member
Even the title of this thread is asinine.
What if the title was , "Why is Charlie sc so dangerous?"
Stop and think...
Audie
Veteran Member
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
I don’t think you’re used to someone not letting you deflect and redirect the conversation.
Your post to which I responded was this one:
This was in response to post #17 in which I suggested that a possible solution to the situation painted by the OP was for the West to pull out of the MIddle East and leave those countries alone.
You realize, of course, that the argument you're making has been used by hawkish politicians for decades. "If we do X (or if we don't do X), then we will be sorry." It's been used to justify military adventurism all over the world, all because various agitators and doomsayers spread fear about how "sorry" we would be if we didn't do that.
In the context of this thread, we're talking about our Middle Eastern policies. As an example, there were those back in 1953 who thought "we would be sorry" if we didn't overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah. Because of this projection based on speculation, we did indeed install the Shah of Iran, who ruled that country as a tyrant until 1979, when he himself was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. Iran has been a thorn in our side and a threat to stability in the region ever since. (Then, there was that arms for hostages deal which is a whole other story altogether.)
We have also supplied weapons and technologies to regimes which, in hindsight, don't appear all that reliable or loyal to Western interests (even as Western leaders wanted to portray them as our "friends"). 100 years ago, most of the region was technologically backward and undeveloped compared to the industrial West, but now we're worried that they could develop WMDs and become an even greater threat than they ever would have been if we had just left them alone.
Granted, most of these problems weren't really created by America, as other countries (such as Britain and France) had been traipsing all over the Middle East long before we ever came on the scene. (Of course, that was also the same for Africa and Asia, too.) But somehow, we felt the need to take responsibility, or else we might be "sorry."
But my question to you would be: How "sorry" can we possibly get?
You said that the West would be sorry if we pulled out of the Middle East, but what seems evident is that the people of that region spend more time fighting each other than mounting any serious offensive against the West. But we can still contain them without having to directly interfere.
We have technologies to keep a close eye on them, along with the ability to respond quickly if and when something does happen. We don't really need a permanent military presence or boots on the ground - unless we want to annex these territories and make them American colonies.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Authoritarian ideologies come pretty close. I also think Christianity was close but it's been totally reformed. It's much more fluffy now. Cults also
IMO, the oligarchy that has sprung up throughout "the west" in recent decades is perhaps the biggest threat we face. I have posted about this many times on this forum.
But THIS thread is about Islam, and the existence of a horrific oligarchy does not excuse Islam.
Check these Wikipedia pages for some evidence that reform is already underway:
Liberalism and progressivism within Islam - Wikipedia
Liberal and progressive Islam in Europe - Wikipedia
Liberal and progressive Islam in North America - Wikipedia
Islam is not one monolithic thing.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
got em
shmogie
Well-Known Member
So, I guess your point is that if the Jews do something it is right for both they and the Muslims ? Moral equivalence ?
Audie
Veteran Member
Dont we all. You are kinda stingy with yours, though.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Who wants to be a second-class citizen?
Shad
Veteran Member
Raymann
Active Member
I didn't imply that you lie but that you're misinformed but knowing the truth and twisting the answer to hide the truth is a form of lying.
5% of Muslims are fundamentalists.
Very reliable sources place that figure closer to 25% but I preferred to be conservative and leave it at 5%.
To be clear this figure shows the number of radical islamists and not the number of active terrorists.
An example are the followers of Anjem Choudary who supports the actions of ISIS but are not active terrorists themselves.
The number you show I assume only represents the number of active terrorists I supposed.
The IRA was not a religiously motivated group but rather political and it aimed at the liberation of Ireland from what they perceived to be imperialism from Britain.
Militarily they haven't been active for many decades now.
The KKK for your information is an ANTI CATHOLIC organization and I suppose you know Catholicism is the largest denomination of Christianity. To call it a Christian terrorist group is a BIG FAT LIE or an ignorant misrepresentation, your pick.
So you equate anti abortionists groups with ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al Qaeda?
How many abductions, beheadings or other atrocities have they committed?
None in my count other than causing some damage to some clinics but you might have some information I missed.
The rest of the groups you listed are mostly local groups fighting against oppression or injustice, anyway they are far from being at the level of the international threat that are ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.
Your attempt to somehow equate the danger coming from Islamic terrorism to Christian terrorism is laughable to say the least.
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope. IRA does not cite Bible verses in it's attacks, does not use the Bible for justification. It does not reference Jesus. It does not reference heretics or infidels. The IRA is a nationalist group not a religious one. More so if you want to look at who used religion it was the English Protestants not the Irish Catholics. Try again.
Shad
Veteran Member
You know books do come in the same size right? You know that the Bible is a collection of books not a single book right?
Last edited:
Stating "this is false" to my statement is an implementation of lies.
Yoo obviously do not know the history of ireland. The motivation was sectarian, catholic v protestant
Protestants are still christian, look it up and learn. And
again the accusation lies, I am done with you
As a final note
It is estimated that during the last century christisns have been responsible for around 50 times the number of violent deaths than muslims
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope it was a long history of English invasions, occupations and crimes dating back centuries. The motivate was never sectarian but independence from England. Your grasp of history, as always, is poor. Also you misidentify the radical religious element which was from the English Protestants not the Irish over the course of centuries.
Do you know there is a difference between someone doing something in the name of X and someone that commits a crime that happens to be X.