Sharia Law. She's buried chest high.

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by Thetawave

 

Sad and sick that these things happen in the name of islam. What makes me even more sick is ATS members who are muslim saying its propaganda or trying to defend these things.

Islam is in a crossroads nowadays and trying to defend its barbaric old and outdated ways instead of trying to fix or modernize it, will keep Arabs and Muslims stuck in the middle ages and at war with themselves and the west.

The world has had enough...

Islam can't be "fixed". It was founded by a pedophile warmongering monster which ofcourse is the reason for all the atrocities in the name of their so called "god".
The only way to "fix" islam is to abolish it completely, just like all the other abrahamitic religions.

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by Thetawave

 

Islam is in a crossroads nowadays and trying to defend its barbaric old and outdated ways instead of trying to fix or modernize it, will keep Arabs and Muslims stuck in the middle ages and at war with themselves and the west.

What is that supposed to mean? "Outdated"? According to what? Your own ethical framework which they obviously do not share with you? What, may I ask, makes your own moral views "more correct", other than your opinion that they are of a more recent development than those of culture you criticise, despite the historical fact that mores and customs comes and go, and often in circles. What in our own ethics is not contained, for instance, in the doctrines of the Stoics, that wasn't lived by many a Roman and tossed aside by their Germanic successors? Stuck in the "Middle Ages"? Islamic culture passed its zenith in your so-called "Dark Ages" at which point it had far surpassed our degraded "modern society" in its development of an aesthetics and ethics. Compare Lady gaga to Bach or Andres Serrano to Michelangelo and tell me we have "progressed" ourselves because we use mobile phones, drives cars and build nuclear power plants.

The world has had enough...

Oh please. What on earth is "the world"? Universal consensus? Does that include the Muslim world, the Chinese world and the African world?

Originally posted by Durchlaucht
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Your Yaweh is just as bad as Allah. Re-read your so called bible and tell me your god is not just as cruel.

I think Allah is Lucifer and i'm not afraid to say it...

Originally posted by relpobre000

Originally posted by blocula
An analogy...We use to fight wars with brass knuckles as in ww1 and ww2,now we fight wars with boxing gloves on as not to upset the enemy too much...

You might want to rethink your 'analogy'.

Look at that; a guy on the floor with his willy out. Some blood as well. Please elaborate on this seemingly ludicrous point which appears to compare counter-insurgency to the branding of all human beings as legitimate military targets and the subsequent and almost arbitrary obliteration of entire cities.

reply to post by PoeteMaudit

Islamic culture passed its zenith in your so-called "Dark Ages" at which point it had far surpassed our degraded "modern society" in its development of an aesthetics and ethics.

According to who? Your value judgement? Isnt it what you are criticising in the first place?

Moral relativism / nihilism ideology is self-defeating. You are saying that it is not our place to judge or interfere, you have no leg to stand on, because Id say majority of people would disagree with this notion, and according to your own logic, you cannot judge their views as wrong, too.

Compare Lady gaga to Bach or Andres Serrano to Michelangelo and tell me we have "progressed" ourselves because we use mobile phones, drives cars and build nuclear power plants.

Again, who are you to judge according to your own ethical framework which many obviously do not share with you? What, may I ask, makes your own views more correct?

And if you take the worst from one culture with the best from the other you will come up with biased comparison. Try to compare the best music of today (there is a lot of great music nowadays, you just have to find it) with the worst of medieval times. People have a tendency to irrationally idealise the past.

I know moral and cultural relativism, idealising of the past as well as hipsteric bashing of all things "western"or "modern" is, irronically, in now, but that does not make it superior to other opinions.

reply to post by Soshh


To insinuate that the US has somehow 'lightened' up with its military tactics is the only thing in this thread that's ludicrous. This picture shows a man that has most likely been kidnapped and placed in a prison where he was tortured at the whim of the American military.

I chose to use this particular picture because I'm not sure how well the pictures of Afghan children after a misplaced Apache helicopter attack would have gone over.

Characterizing the 'counter-insurgency' as somehow more humane or less strong-armed is pure fallacy.

The USA could and should have taken care of this whole Middle Eastern mess back in 1945-1946 when we had the golden opportunity to do so.We should have taken over the entire region and we could have done so without firing a shot,because we were the only country that had the atom bomb...

"Sign this surrender document or you'll wish you were never born" Thats all we had to do and they would have, then we would own and distribute the oil instead of having to bow down and accept it at their price from a bunch of satan worshiping muslims...


How soon we forget and most people probably dont even know that...

England invaded and occupied Iraq in 1941...

England and Russia invaded and occupied Iran in 1941...

Here is the true law that the people of The Earth must follow to escape eternal damnation.
The Law
Now that you've seen the movie, why not pick up some souvenirs?
souvenirs

reply to post by blocula

Originally posted by blocula
The USA could and should have taken care of this whole Middle Eastern mess back in 1945-1946 when we had the golden opportunity to do so.We should have taken over the entire region and we could have done so without firing a shot,because we were the only country that had the atom bomb...

"Sign this surrender document or you'll wish you were never born" Thats all we had to do and they would have then we would own and distribute the oil instead of having to bow down and accept it at their price from a bunch of satan worshipping muslims...

This is the most arrogant and ignorant thing that I've read in months. I don't even have words to describe how wrong you are....

Originally posted by blocula
How soon we forget and most probably dont know at all that...

England invaded and occupied Iraq in 1941...

England and Russia invaded and occupied Iran in 1941...

Did you ever stop to consider, in your infinite wisdom, that there's a reason that England and Russia aren't still in Iran and Iraq? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that permanent occupation of a foreign country is unsustainable could it?

Double post

Originally posted by blocula
The USA could and should have taken care of this whole Middle Eastern mess back in 1945-1946 when we had the golden opportunity to do so.We should have taken over the entire region and we could have done so without firing a shot,because we were the only country that had the atom bomb...

"Sign this surrender document or you'll wish you were never born" Thats all we had to do and they would have, then we would own and distribute the oil instead of having to bow down and accept it at their price from a bunch of satan worshipping muslims...


How soon we forget and most people probably dont even know that...

England invaded and occupied Iraq in 1941...



England and Russia invaded and occupied Iran in 1941...

edit on 16-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Somebody with brains among so many brainless answers! This makes me think of what my dad told me. He was in Patton's 3rd army and Patton wanted to take care of the Soviet Union as he (Patton) had the best fighting force in the world at that time. My dad said they (the solders of the 3rd) was against it but he said they talked among themselves and the general consensus was our sons will probably have to fight these guys in the future so he (Patton) was making sense!
He also said we gave up a golden opportunity to control the mideast as we were the only country with an nuclear bomb at the time and we gave up that and slowly let the whole world catch up with us (some in part to some treasonous Americans giving secrets to the Russians).We missed our golden chance and have paid the price every since, no 9-11, no terrorist groups, etc. would have been our reward!

Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by Soshh

 

To insinuate that the US has somehow 'lightened' up with its military tactics is the only thing in this thread that's ludicrous.

Please go on.

The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) and as part of the Allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, altogether 3,600 planes, of which 1,300 were heavy bombers, dropped as many as 650,000 incendiaries, together with 8,000 lb. high-explosive bombs and hundreds of 4,000-pounders.[1] In all more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices were dropped on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony.

The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.

en.wikipedia.org...

Did you ever stop to consider, in your infinite wisdom, that there's a reason that England and Russia aren't still in Iran and Iraq? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that permanent occupation of a foreign country is unsustainable could it?
______________________________

The Europeans had no problem maintaining their permanent "occupation" of the Native Americans homeland that was re-named the USA...

Originally posted by wulff

Originally posted by blocula
The USA could and should have taken care of this whole Middle Eastern mess back in 1945-1946 when we had the golden opportunity to do so.We should have taken over the entire region and we could have done so without firing a shot,because we were the only country that had the atom bomb...

"Sign this surrender document or you'll wish you were never born" Thats all we had to do and they would have, then we would own and distribute the oil instead of having to bow down and accept it at their price from a bunch of satan worshipping muslims...


How soon we forget and most people probably dont even know that...

England invaded and occupied Iraq in 1941...


England and Russia invaded and occupied Iran in 1941...

edit on 16-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Somebody with brains among so many brainless answers! This makes me think of what my dad told me. He was in Patton's 3rd army and Patton wanted to take care of the Soviet Union as he (Patton) had the best fighting force in the world at that time. My dad said they (the solders of the 3rd) was against it but he said they talked among themselves and the general consensus was our sons will probably have to fight these guys in the future so he (Patton) was making sense!
He also said we gave up a golden opportunity to control the mideast as we were the only country with an nuclear bomb at the time and we gave up that and slowly let the whole world catch up with us (some in part to some treasonous Americans giving secrets to the Russians).We missed our golden chance and have paid the price every since, no 9-11, no terrorist groups, etc. would have been our reward!

We already had millions of battle hardened troops close to the middle east and we already knew that we depended a lot on oil and so we should have most definitely taken over the oil producing middle eastern regions and they would have been able to do nothing to stop us...Nothing at all...Now look at the hornets nest of chaos and evil that is runnung rampant all over the middle east...

And if the muslims had destroyed the empire state building in 1945,killing thousands of innocent American civilians in the process,all done in the name of Allah,i mean Satan...Our vengeance upon them would have been like an asteroid strike.We would have sent over a million men into their country and brutally crushed them beyond recognition,carpet bombed their towns and cities and smashed them with seige artillery,massed tanks and flame throwers so terribly and completely,they would never again dare to touch us and the oil would be ours.

Originally posted by Maslo
[According to who? Your value judgement? Isnt it what you are criticising in the first place?

No. I haven't valued a thing. What I meant should be apparent by the use the word development, at least if you possessed enough of a comprehension of the English language to not be the sort of person who insists despite the protestations of a thick red line upon spelling "judgment" as "judgement". Just as the works of medieval Scholasticism or Renaissance art rested upon highly developed intellectual systems which leave the simplistic materialistic scribblings of a Richard Dawkins or throwing of paint on a canvas of Jackson pollock far behind them, so too the Arabs, Moors and Persians of the 8th and 9th centuries had woven an intricate and refined mode of life out of the fabric of their culture, of which every aspect was ruled by a thoroughly developed ethic and aesthetic. All that lies in the dust.

Now, let us please distinguish between trying to present a value as a truth, and asserting the truth of a thing conforming to a particular value. If I take the traditional meaning of the English word "beauty" to hand - and we do point to the use of that word, and by Englishmen - and announce the "universal", "absolute" or "objective" and "true" status of judgments which assume its value, that is a very different thing from asserting that a particular thing is "beautiful" and that this can be factually determined, without any implied valuation. If you can't understand this, then I'm afraid our conversation has to end here.

Moral relativism / nihilism ideology is self-defeating.

Relativism is a but statement of fact, and nihilism is not its synonym. As it is, you are wrong. Not moral relativism, nor even amoralism, precludes one logically from passing judgments of value; it is only that these being mere expressions of the sentiment of the subject is acknowledged. Yes, these are my values; the fact that you would contest them proves the case for relativism. "Moral truth" is a nonsense, a meaningless stringing together of words.

Originally posted by MasloYou are saying that it is not our place to judge or interfere,

Please point out where I said that. That's right, I never did. I haven't issued a single imperative, contra "Maslo".

you have no leg to stand on,

Oh, right, thus far you have only manage to misrepresent everything I have said, yet I am the one without a leg to stand upon.

because Id say majority of people would disagree with this notion, and according to your own logic, you cannot judge their views as wrong, too.

It is not their view that something is immoral that is "wrong", or indeed "right", but their view that a moral statement can be ascribed any truth value that is factually false. Moral relativism is not epistemological relativism, but apparently you missed that point in your advanced philosophy courses.

Again, who are you to judge according to your own ethical framework which many obviously do not share with you?

I presented a question, not a proposition. It's up to the reader to make the comparison and pass the judgment. All that he will have expressed thereby is his own taste

What, may I ask, makes your own views more correct?

My judgments of value? Nothing. They are neither correct nor false, and I at least have never described them as such. That I may share them with a Baudelaire or a Nietzsche or a WiIde is inconsequential. They are merely aristocratic; those of modernity are plebeian. But, again, your kind values the tastes of the mob, and thinks "aristocracy" is a dirty word.

Incidentally, please learn to distinguish between ethics and aesthetics before you bring into question my valuing of art by appealing to my apparent moral relativism.

And if you take the worst from one culture with the best from the other you will come up with biased comparison. Try to compare the best music of today (there is a lot of great music nowadays, you just have to find it) with the worst of medieval times.

Such as? You have my ear.

People have a tendency to irrationally idealise the past.

I obviously don't share your tastes, so you are in no position to determine whether my opinion here is rational or not, though the choice of those words, "rational" and irrational, is admittedly questionable.

I know moral and cultural relativism, idealising of the past as well as hipsteric bashing of all things "western"or "modern" is, irronically, in now, but that does not make it superior to other opinions.

Oh, why don't you just go ahead and call me a "leftist" you cad? The "West" is a mere abstraction, and I for one would never level any criticism at it, still less claim the superiority thereof.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I didn't say I was offended, just that I thought it was distasteful, which I stand by. It sounds smug, presumptious and partizan at the least.

Yeshua ha Meshiach will conquer islam and throw down Muhammad, for there is none greater than he.

Are you #ing kidding me? "Conquer"? You lambast these people for stoning a woman to death then celebrate the potential murder of many, and at least the murder of one.

He will return and conquer the world and there will be no more barbaric practices nor murder, nor war. He is the Prince of Peace and peace will come to all, especially the brokenhearted.

So peace will come to those who stoned the woman to death also? You did say all, unless you simply didn't mean it.

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


That is my point!

You said it better.

Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by Soshh

 

To insinuate that the US has somehow 'lightened' up with its military tactics is the only thing in this thread that's ludicrous. This picture shows a man that has most likely been kidnapped and placed in a prison where he was tortured at the whim of the American military.

I chose to use this particular picture because I'm not sure how well the pictures of Afghan children after a misplaced Apache helicopter attack would have gone over.

Characterizing the 'counter-insurgency' as somehow more humane or less strong-armed is pure fallacy.

edit on 16-11-2011 by relpobre000 because: (no reason given)

Whens the last time we carpet bombed or fire bombed entire cities?

Whens the last time we used flame throwers?

Whens the last time we dropped 10,000 paratroopers?

Whens the last time we approached the coast of an enemy with 100's of ships?

Whens the last time we dropped a nuclear bomb?

Whens the last time we used seige artillery?

Whens the last time soldiers were allowed to take home war souvenirs?

Whens the last time we gave an enemy what they really deserved?

Whens the last time we put foreign spies against a wall?

Whens the last time we invaded an enemy country with millions of men?

I could go on and on...

reply to post by dontreally


Interesting ...im scholar of nothing but I do know a man who could very well enjoy this type of disscussion with you as his roots are Jewish and then hindu and he studies very much the similar source of these .

Hes on my FB if you have one I can give you his profile name if you wish to disscuss with him .

And to the woman who was somewhat horrified by my allussion to females being somewhat competitive on a primal level for male attention as a survival mechanism ....Im sure today that far more women are closed in ranks with support of each others than the women in these more primative systems that are still forced to compete .

Namaste

Quoting PoeteMaudit:
"My judgments of value? Nothing. They are neither correct nor false, and I at least have never described them as such. That I may share them with a Baudelaire or a Nietzsche or a WiIde is inconsequential. They are merely aristocratic; those of modernity are plebeian. But, again, your kind values the tastes of the mob, and thinks "aristocracy" is a dirty word."

An aristocrat talking of Baudelaire? What spleen! I like your choice of words; but am concerned, given the views of most here, that you'll end up in this crowd (of Arabs) here:

"Au gibet noir, manchot aimable,
Dansent, dansent les paladins,
Les maigres paladins du diable,
Les squelettes de Saladins."