Useless fucking twot of a religion. >:mad What the hell would it be like it it WASN'T "peaceful"?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mus...135600351.html
Printable View
Useless fucking twot of a religion. >:mad What the hell would it be like it it WASN'T "peaceful"?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mus...135600351.html
Yeah screw those people
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/
I suppose there all mad aint they...Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
horrible bastards
More or less,then on top of it,they blame each other for their lunacyQuote:
Originally Posted by Tins06
Religion might help some people,but to me its just killing in the name of god,whatever you call him this week
The Snakehandlers of West Virgina are pretty weird themselves.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMP-CQ_bvSM
That stuff is all through Appalachia,and its weird as hellQuote:
Originally Posted by BoxingGorilla
All through the mountain chain theres these little churches that barely have electricity for the organ.
Idiot, inbred morons who are brainwashed to the point of being sheep. Alot of those snakes they are holding are harmless ratsnakes, but some of them are Canebreak rattlers that will do some serious bad damage. Jesus won't save them if they get bit, only about 25 vials of antivenin. Alot of those people remove the fangs before their shows. Some use copperheads and cottonmouths, which won't kill you but will leave some nasty necrosis to deal with. I would love to see them do that with some of my cobras, or taipans or mambas. That church wouldn't last too long if they were ::**
As far as that poor girl who got killed by her dad; very sad. Just another of many I have heard about having their life ended by their psycho dads. Happens on a daily basis in Iran.
We need to be thankful for the generations of liberalism and secularism in the west otherwise we'd be no different. If our societies were still dominated by religious conservatives we'd still be burning witches. They'd be stoning gays to death in the southern states.
.....there is a joke you'll find extremely sad yet funnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Q: "Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?"
A: "Because people might think they are dancing"
A long loooooong time ago in the Roman Empire Christianity turned from a belief system into a political position and Christianity had numerous instances of sectarian violance, just as bad as Islam in most cases, check out the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions. And KL is correct, thank God that happened so long ago because it took forever to quell violence between Catholics and Protestants and then to get them thinking "in the now" took a long time too.
I think most Christians feel that they have control of their fate....I am not so sure most Muslims feel that.
But also secularism can lead to violence as well as there were numerous wars fought before Christianity and Islam became popular.....and many wars fought between the Persians/Arabs and the West before these religions were popular
Its fanatacism Lyle,not religion
Jonestown happened because of a church that had Christ in the title,the shooter in COlorado last week was a devout christian
But show me where its says "And thee shall put the cyanide in to the flavor-aid(common misconception it wasnt Kool Aide)and force the children to drink it first"
.....are you going to argue with me in every thread??? ;D
I agree with you...I am not anti-religion....I myself figure to be more "spiritual" than "religious"....Religion brings some good things about but yes as you say fanatics seem to ruin it for everyone
Your starting to see what Im angling atQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
The two concepts that have probably caused the greatest human misery over the ages,are
A)Them and us,somehow those people are a little less human then us
combined with
B)My gods bigger then your god,and thats WHY
It allows scumballs who are only in it for their own prestige and power to get people who are oppressed and desperate enough to do some truly heinous things int the name of whatever god their following
But somehow those guys never go out the same way as their followers
Osama Bin Forgotten wasnt on any of the planes
George W Bush has yet to do a legitimate tour of duty
Jim Jones died of a gunshot wound not cyanide laced Flavour Aid
Hitler never had to pull the lever on the showers
Ariel Sharon was far in the back,and let the Lebanese Christian Militias do the killing at Sabbra and Shatilla
If it was such a holy cause,why werent any of the above willing to do it themselves?
Secularism doesn't lead to violence. Leaders arrogating religion for their own personal ends however does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
....not specifically but not having religion at all doesn't mean the end of all violence and you had better understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Wars have been fought long before religion as we know it was around and wars will be fought if religion is not around.
More wars are fought over money and national pride than religion....hate to disagree with you once again but I figure you're about used to it by now
I'm not saying that wars are fought over religion, I'm saying there are leaders who use religion to create popular support for war and violence in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Understood...the main thing is there is a unifying cause that people rally behind and that can be anything....but those things sort of fall under the relm of group psychology instead of politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
When politicians use religion to get their illegal wars on it's very much a part of politics. If we really were democracies instead of plutocracies that hold elections every few years we'd have accountability for doing so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
[img width=700 height=425]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/400280852_c2a7b6d6fa_o.jpg[/img]
...there was no "illegal war" on Iraq, we just called them out for failure to follow the lack of an OFFICIAL treaty that had been set up after the first Gulf War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
On 17 March 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the US and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action.
We did not use RELIGION to attack Iraq.....we used shitty ENGLISH intelligence and a "wait and see" United Nations
Even Bush admitted he didn't have any authority to go to war. Here's a history lesson :Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
War looms as Bush issues final warning
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.
Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader.
Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.
Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
....well that can just be countered by this simple fact
IRAQ VIOLATED SPECIFIC UN RESOLUTIONS SET FORTH BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
The UN Security Council didn't agree that Iraq had violated resolutions to the extent that war was justified and refused to authorise a preemptive invasion of Iraq. The war criminal Bush then declared that the authority from the UN wasn't necessary and got his illegal war on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
....Iraq kept UN inspectors from their job of making sure Iraq had no WMD's and if they had nothing to hide then they should have played ball.
They let them back in,and unlike the original Gulf War inspectors,this set had unfettered access.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
BTW Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular govt(something that really bent the Iranians) the head of the military was a Christian
The American conservative version of history strikes again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
It's understandable though :
President Bush: "Saddam Hussein said, I'm not going to expose my weapons, I'm not going to get rid of my -- I'm not going to allow inspectors in, he said." February 26th, 2004.
President Bush: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..." July 14th, 2003.
Here's what actually happened :
The United States administration has dismissed as a stunt Iraq's offer to admit CIA agents to assist United Nations arms inspectors.
On Sunday, Iraq said it was ready to answer any questions raised by the US and UK governments on its weapons declaration to the UN.
An adviser to the Iraqi leader, General Amir al-Saadi, said all available information had been provided. He invited CIA personnel to direct arms inspectors to any suspect sites.
Iraq insists it has nothing to hide.
"After 24 days of inspections covering practically all the sites [...] the lies and baseless allegations have been uncovered," General al-Saadi said.
He said Washington and London had convinced the "IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] and the whole world to believe they have iron-clad evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and promised to provide the evidence".
Referring to UK and US allegations that the Iraqi declaration omitted to account for banned materials, General al-Saadi described them as "a hodgepodge of half-truths, naive short-sighted allegations and lies", and "rehashed allegations" from the time of Unscom - the previous UN monitoring mission.
On Sunday, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq continued their search for prohibited weapons programmes.
They visited six sites, including the al-Battani company - a space research centre near Baghdad.
Meanwhile, the US is continuing its massive military build-up in the region in anticipation of a possible strike against Iraq.
UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to present a full report on the work of his teams to the UN by 27 January.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2600207.stm
I know Saddam lead a "secular" Iraq....but it didn't stop SECTARIAN VIOLENCE....the gassing of the Kurds, the brutal treatment of the Shi'a.....this is why the Sunnis are catching shit now that the Shi'a have the power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
We help put Saddam in power
...then please explain the British Intelligence reports which stated that Saddam did have WMD's
Lyle,your really digging yourself in nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Iraq isnt a real country,its 3 different ones,that got thrown together by another occupying force
The Kurds are really a part of Turkey,Turkey doesnt want
The Shi'ites are Iranians
And the Sunni's are more or less Syrians
If we had gone in with the idea,he's a scumball and kills people,we'd have a very,very busy military,because there are alot of them.
We'd bomb Israel back to the stone age for starters
This has been a Neo COn wet dream for years,and the Nixonites were right there for it
The Neo Cons thought it would disrupt a power base that had threatened Israel,and the Nixonites wanted to prove that we could have won Vietnam with enough ordinance and public support.
Well guess what,they were both wrong again
Iraq's more volataile then its ever been
.....I'm not a Neo-Con, I don't like the Neo-Cons.....creating one big nation of Persians or Arabs would NOT be good as history tells us all.......well everyone except you
You pay for them and obviously support themQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Me personally,I think Iraq should be split in to three sectors,these people have never liked each other,it took a ruthless SOB like Sadaam to keep the whole fake country together.Its not something I care to emulate.
....Iraq COULD be split into three sectors......and we would have to deal with a much stronger Iran OR Iraq could wake the fuck up and stop the sectarian violence and start working together for their country.....but then again that's a HUGE cultural difference to overcome.
If peace in the Middle East was easy it would have been achieved by now....and I think we can agree on that
Wont happen,Mennonites and Baptists dont live peacefully next to each otherQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Those folks have a hundred years time out,the Iraqi's havent had 30 years of one yet.And our little lets play them off each other war between Iraq and Iran certainly didnt help matters,let alone the Kurds wanting there own state because they trust us not one iota after Bush the elder encouraged them to rebel and let Sadaam blow the rest of his armorment on them
I dont know if our leaders meant well over the years in the region,but I do know they didnt do well. Now to you and me its a discussion of foriegn policy,now to an Iraqi its,"See that,thats where gandma lived until the Americans blew it up,now lets go visit your sister who died at Abu Ghraib's gravesite"
The Sunnis and Shi'a and Arabs and Persians have had FOREVER to figure their shit out.....but while the Christians had the Reformation and grew out of their sectarian violence, the Muslims haven't had their Religious "eureka moment" they haven't stood up and said "Oh I see clearly now, even though you are Persian and I am Arab we DON'T have to fight, we can be brothers and celebrate our religion differently and celebrate our cultures differently"
I await the day that happens though....Persians and Arabs were as mean to each other as they ever were to Christians or Westerners.......they had slave Armies which is why they vastly outnumbered the Greeks and Romans and I think hell if they feel so strongly about the Crusades even to this day I am sure they feel strongly about the ancient times as well.
It is in the best intrests of the World and those societies that they learn to get along....and how and when that happens no one knows
Your kidding right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Catholics and Protestants have had how long(hint,longer) and that doesnt stop the bombs in Ireland,it certainly didnt stop a kid I was friends with informing my catholic ass growing up that the "Pope was a minion of Satan" and my best friend agreeing with him
Take the trunk out of thy own eye
Whenever anybody is convinced of anything other then simple human kindness,and the humanity of others,the whole ediffice of society comes crashing down
....I don't think they need RELIGION to fight in Ireland
Wait,you just excused your religous slur with a racial one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
How big of a hole do you want to be in son,because youve gone pretty deep here
#1 Irish isn't a race...I don't mean to be a smart ass and I didn't mean to be insultingQuote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
#2 They have more issues (the Irish and the Northern Irish and England) than JUST religion
How's this for a mind blowing thought.....by Henry the 8th creating the COE he basically AUTOMATICALLY ensured that Ireland would remain loyal to the Pope and remain Catholic.
Actually yes it is,it IberianQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
....that's an ethnicity, by race I mean caucasasian, african, hispanic, asian, etc.
and Iberian would refer to someone from the Iberian Penninsula which is the area in the far southwest of Europe
Hibernian might refer to Ireland or an Irish "race" but even then it's no different than English....other than twice as stubborn ;D
Yes actually it is,different races and tribes have washed over the British IslesQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Iberian,or the misspelled common Hiberian came first
Then came the Celts
The came the Romans
Then came the Saxons,and the Normands
With the exception of the Saxons and the Normands,none of these are really the same race,thats like saying Morrocans and Zulus are the same race
who gives a shit. They're all fucking nuts over there. Bring our boys home and let em kill each other.