On 2 Aug 2002 at 20:23, Mark Collins wrote:
> On Friday 02 August 2002 7:04 pm, you wrote:
> > On 2 Aug 2002 at 12:02, Mark Collins wrote:
> > > People like Mr Dees are acting as if the only way to solve the
> > > problems in the Middle East is with military force. This is wrong,
> > > and is more likely to create more problems down the line.
> >
> > Allowing only one side to kill people means less problems, ayy?
> > Maybe for the one side doing the killing (in the name of their god).
> > Maybe for those on this list who would prefer to see the side they
> > are killing be completely killed off.
>
> It;'s a vicious circle. Somebody has to break the cycle. It takes one
> side to say "enough is enough. We will not tolerate any more killing,
> by either side". There will be resistance at first, but this will
> eventually pass.
>
neither sude seem willing to do so when the other side is perceived as
still engaging in same. Perhaps the default (as perceived and invoked
by the world at large) global cop US should endure another global
firestorm of condemnation and impose a two-stata solution on both
sides.
> > > First of all, what is the problem?
> > >
> > > Contrary to what some people would have us belive, it isn't Islam,
> > > it's abuse of the religion by some very charismaric people, such
> > > as Bin Laden and Hussein, through the use of extensive propganda
> > > which makes out the West uses military force to achieve its goals.
> >
> > That is a time-honored solution for the religion; twenty-two out of
> > twenty-four global conflicts presently happening on the globe have,
> > as their participants on one or both sides, Islamic regimes. And
> > guess why? Because the religion is a fascist, world-conquering one,
> > began by a murderous mercernary.
>
> You really do believe what you see in the media, don't you? You
> probably think "jihad" means "conquer", don't you? Guess again. A
> jihad is (by definition) a defensive war, intended to prevent foreign
> influences destroying the establishment of Islam.
>
Go to:
http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/exegesis.htm
then read
The Islamic Concept of Peace: Can the West Accept it?
By Abdul Maseeh
After much research and reflection, I have come to understand
the Islamic concept of peace as something like this: Peace comes
through submission, which is the meaning of the word Islam. This
submission, of course, is submission to Muhammed and his
concept of Allah in the Qu'ran, in other words, Islam once again.
Theoretically peace exists inside Dar-al-Islam, the House of
Submission. I say "theoretically" because we all know that
Muslims, even though they are not supposed to, do fight fellow
Muslims. Consider the Afghan civil war between the Pashtuns on
one side and the then-Northern Alliance (Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.) on
the other; Iraq's attack on Kuwait and its earlier war with Iran; or
the West Pakistani attack on East Pakistan, which subsequently
became Bangladesh. Peace with pagans, that is, people not "of
the Book", is impossible; they are all to be given a chance to
accept Islam or be killed. This is illustrated by the killing of
pagans in the south of Sudan, the north of Nigeria, and the south
of Chad, in each case by Muslims eager to impose Islamic law.
With regard to Christians and Jews, they too are to be fought
against until they are subdued and feel themselves subdued - that
is found in Qu'ran sura 9, verse 29 ("Fight those who believe not
in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been
forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the
Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued"). Examples of this are also found in Sudan, Nigeria and
Chad, and also in Indonesia - along with smaller atrocities against
Christians in Egypt and the heinous repression of all Christian
activity in Saudi Arabia by the Wahhabis. To say that Islam is a
religion of peace is not true. Islam is committed to war, both by
the example of Muhammed, who fought on until he subdued
Mecca and then other tribes, and by the Qu'ran's teaching
supported by numerous passages in the Hadith. According to
Amir Tahiri, aditor of Politique International in Paris, of the thirty
wars going on as of October 2001, twenty-eight involve Muslims
fighting either non-Muslims or even other Muslims! The Qu'ran
does teach that Muslims are never to initiate war. But Islam has a
strange way of putting this into practice. For example, Muslims
are supposed to offer non-Muslims an opportunity to embrace
Islam. If the non-Muslims, refuse, this is viewed as aggression
against Allah and Islam. Therefore Muslims are allowed to fight
these "aggressors" until they are converted or killed. Perhaps the
greatest proof that Islam is not a religion of peace is sura 4, verse
89, which proclaims that any who want to leave Islam (turn
renegade) shall be put to death: "But if they turn renegades, seize
them and slay them wherever ye find them." This makes Islam the
religion of fear, not of peace.There will be war in the world so
long as people believe in Muhammed, his example, and his
teaching. The islamic concept of peace, meaning making the
whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war.
and educate yourself.
>
> As long as there are nations attacking Islam from the outside, the
> jihad will continue. Simple as that.
>
And refusal to accept the Islamic faith and shari'a rule is itself
interpreted as such an attack, as noted above.
>
> In any faith structure, there are those who believe they alone are
> right, and there isn't enough space on the planet for anyone else.
> They will use any means to enforce their views. Damning the majoirty
> because of the actions of the minority is, well, idiotic.
>
In this case, those who do so have the express authority of the Koran
behind them; if an Islamic is NOT a fundamentalist, (s)he is an
apostate, for unlike the Bible, which was supposedly INSPIRED by God
and is in nonfundamentalist Christian circles considered to be leavened
with human error, the Koran (literally, the Recitation) was directly
DICTATED bu GOD's chosen messenger angel to Mohammed, and is
therefore literally true for all true Muslims.
>
> > > A much mroe reasonible plan of attack would be to destroy the
> > > propaganda, by sending teachers, doctors and medicine into the
> > > middle east. The costs of a single cruise missile can pay a
> > > teachers salary for a year, and I'm sure there are some who would
> > > even volumteer to go for free. The fuel for a single air-raid
> > > would cover expenses for an army of doctors.
> >
> > We have many such people and programs in place, or haven't you
> > heard? The occasional one is kidnapped or killed for the greater
> > glory of Allah and to prevent a nasty thing like knowledge form
> > corrupting faith, but still they go to teach, provide medical care,
> > and distribute food.
>
> And in the US the occasional abortion clinic is bombed by a far-right
> Chrisitan. Are you under the delsional that extremism is limited to
> Islam?
>
No, but it currently manifests in Islam at a rate that is exponentially
higher than for all other faiths combined.
>
> > > If the US and its allies acted as humintarians instead of
> > > warmongers, the warmongers in the middle east would have nothing
> > > to base their propaganda on.
> > >
> > > FIght the propganda, not the people.
> >
> > We are, by any measure, (money, food, medical materials, books,
> > volunteers) far and away the world's greatest humanitarian nation.
> > Obviously part of the propaganda that needs to be fought resides
> > inside you.
>
> These volunteers aren't there to help the people though, they are
> there to push ideas.
>
Actually, to bring a Bible into most Islamic countries is an imprisonable,
expellable or capital offence. Most of them are are in Islamic countries
to help their people, for to proselytize is expressly forbidden.
>
>Americans are good for one thing, and that's
> pushing America.
>
If that's true, they seem to be doing a piss poor job of it.
>
> The people in the middle east aren't that big on US
> ideals, so maybe you should have people out there who aren't there
> because they want to spread the word of the Chrisitan God, or push
> Democracy on the people..
>
Those in the first category are, as I noted above subject to harsh
punishment upon detection, and those in the second category are
equally so, as they are committing subversion and treason against
autocratic rulers. BTW, do you have a problem with participatory
democracy? If so, what is it (besides the fact that it may conflict with
fundie Mullah rule) and what are your fair suggested alternitives?
>
> And before you start on a rant about how everyone in the world wants
> democracy, just before WW2 a small nation that was given to France for
> a fixed term under the treaty of Versaille held an internationally
> monitered election to see what they wanted, independance, french rule,
> or german rule. 90% of the population voted for Germany, even though
> it was a fascist dictatorship at the time, and this was well known at
> the time of the elections.
>
Yep, under the influence of secular fascism and racial haterd and
scapegoating. Now, unfortunately, we see the same thing as regards
racial haterd and scapegoating in Islamic countries, and against the
same group, but the fascism is religious.
> --
> ===
> Mark 'Nurgle' Collins
> http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk
> Stupid IRC quote of the <variable time period>:
> <phoenix> insider, you'll have to excuse nurgle, he's the epitamy of
> evil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT