Mumbai

[Andre]

They are not Christians none of them are.
They use the name wrongly and they all have zero spiritual growth.

If they werereal Christians they would be shooting food and medical help at people not bombs.

Both sides use the name.
To use is the dead opposite of give.

This means both sides are anti the correct way.
Anti God and Anti Christ.

[Trainer Monkey]

They are not Christians none of them are.
They use the name wrongly and they all have zero spiritual growth.

If they werereal Christians they would be shooting food and medical help at people not bombs.

Both sides use the name.
To use is the dead opposite of give.

This means both sides are anti the correct way.
Anti God and Anti Christ.

My point being though, neither side has exclusivity rights to the "dangerous religious heretic" moniker.
And every time we try to make it that ,"Its just their evil religion" we drift further and further away from mutual understanding, and legitimate peace

[Youngblood]

They are not Christians none of them are.
They use the name wrongly and they all have zero spiritual growth.

If they werereal Christians they would be shooting food and medical help at people not bombs.

Both sides use the name.
To use is the dead opposite of give.

This means both sides are anti the correct way.
Anti God and Anti Christ.

My point being though, neither side has exclusivity rights to the "dangerous religious heretic" moniker.
And every time we try to make it that ,"Its just their evil religion" we drift further and further away from mutual understanding, and legitimate peace

Legitimate peace is not in our nature. C`mon now...it is a nice ideal, but hardly realistic. Our primitive animal instincts and tendancies won`t allow it. We are on a boxing forum...why is that. All about 2 people trying to hurt the other and show dominance.

Managing our instincts may be about as close to it as we come, and I suggest that management in and of itself is shown and helps explain the birth of religion.

We will always have violent tendancies. They will come in many shades of gray, and under many names. But overall, it is nature. Ugly sometimes, yes. Hard to understand, certainly. Part of who and what we are as a species, most definately.

[Trainer Monkey]

They are not Christians none of them are.
They use the name wrongly and they all have zero spiritual growth.

If they werereal Christians they would be shooting food and medical help at people not bombs.

Both sides use the name.
To use is the dead opposite of give.

This means both sides are anti the correct way.
Anti God and Anti Christ.

My point being though, neither side has exclusivity rights to the "dangerous religious heretic" moniker.
And every time we try to make it that ,"Its just their evil religion" we drift further and further away from mutual understanding, and legitimate peace

Legitimate peace is not in our nature. C`mon now...it is a nice ideal, but hardly realistic. Our primitive animal instincts and tendancies won`t allow it. We are on a boxing forum...why is that. All about 2 people trying to hurt the other and show dominance.

Managing our instincts may be about as close to it as we come, and I suggest that management in and of itself is shown and helps explain the birth of religion.

We will always have violent tendancies. They will come in many shades of gray, and under many names. But overall, it is nature. Ugly sometimes, yes. Hard to understand, certainly. Part of who and what we are as a species, most definately.

Dont buy it,it reaks of,"Cant win,dont try"
I cant tell you the last time I slugged somebody outside of the ring,and I have a very hot temper.
I just channel it, rather then act on it

[Kirkland Laing]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

[CGM]

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.


OK here's an edit. Say what you want about the US and it's bombing these days, it aint like the terrorism I speak of. Because if the States did want to kill lots of civilians, then by golly you'd see far far more dead civilians.

[Kirkland Laing]

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

[CGM]

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

We used to prop Saddam up too till he invaded another country where we prop up the ruilng family. Just because the other guys aren't as repressive as Sadders was (bloodthirsty dictators would quite happily be benevolent dictators, but this was impossible in Iraq due to the situation the Brits left the minority Sunni group to deal with when we pulled out in the fifties. Saddam was facing twin Shiite/Kurdish insurgencies and when you consider the number of people he killed in three decades of counterinsurgency compared to how many we killed in four years, Saddam was a humanitarian compared to what we just did.) doesn't mean that people aren't repressed quite violently living there.

We currently prop up Saudi Arabia, kuwait, the UAE and Jordan. Jordan in particular has a very nasty and repressive secret police regime that disappears thousands of Jordanians. They also torture terrorist suspects that the US have captured and sent to them in their spare time. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country. How keen would the Israelis be for a democratic election in a majority Palestinian country that borders the West Bank?

When we do see an outbreak of democracy in the region, as with Hamas's election victory recently, if it's somebody we don't like (like Hamas, peace be upon then) we ignore the will of the people and treat the government like a bunch of terrorists.

Here's Saudi Arabia :

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...piece-art.html

[CGM]

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

I don't accept that those four out of five countries that border Iraq that are supposedly "propped up" by the Americans, are ruled by dictatorships that repress their own people, to anywhere near the extent that Hussein repressed his.

Are you referring to presently propped up or in the past?

We used to prop Saddam up too till he invaded another country where we prop up the ruilng family. Just because the other guys aren't as repressive as Sadders was (bloodthirsty dictators would quite happily be benevolent dictators, but this was impossible in Iraq due to the situation the Brits left the minority Sunni group to deal with when we pulled out in the fifties. Saddam was facing twin Shiite/Kurdish insurgencies and when you consider the number of people he killed in three decades of counterinsurgency compared to how many we killed in four years, Saddam was a humanitarian compared to what we just did.) doesn't mean that people aren't repressed quite violently living there.

We currently prop up Saudi Arabia, kuwait, the UAE and Jordan. Jordan in particular has a very nasty and repressive secret police regime that disappears thousands of Jordanians. They also torture terrorist suspects that the US have captured and sent to them in their spare time. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country. How keen would the Israelis be for a democratic election in a majority Palestinian country that borders the West Bank?

When we do see an outbreak of democracy in the region, as with Hamas's election victory recently, if it's somebody we don't like (like Hamas, peace be upon then) we ignore the will of the people and treat the government like a bunch of terrorists.

Here's Saudi Arabia :

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...piece-art.html

OK Bud, food for thought, I'm gonna leave it at that, maybe check in here sometime down the road. cheers.

[Trainer Monkey]

Actually his points are relatively well made and factual
The mujahadeen were our buddies and pals in the 70's and 80's because they were fighting the evil Russian Bear,unfortunatly once they ran the Ruskies out of Afghanistan,we never followed up with aid or reconstruction money,and our beloved mujahadeed became the repressive Taliban Goverment,and Al-Queda
We gave Saddaam his nerve gas to fight the Iranians,and then turned on him when he wasnt useful to us anymore.
All to prop up a King Chosen By Allah in Kuwait in 91,and protect our buddies the House Of Saud
Every UN condemnation of Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been quashed by,well us
We propped up the Sha's brutal dictatorship for over 20 years.
Hell even the "threatening" Iranians got missile parts off of us,in a stunning case of double dealing,so we could funnel the money to Nicaraugen terrorists.
It isnt our freedom,or religion they hate,its the repression we pay for all too willingly and for far to long.
Your brother Achmed gets drug off in the middle of the night by the police,it might make you a wee bit testy,and these people arent savage idiots,anyone can follow the money trail back to who's paying for it,and that would be us.

[BoxingGorilla]

Amazing! Our President can't help an old man down the street without critics. Sad.

[Trainer Monkey]

Amazing! Our President can't help an old man down the street without critics. Sad.

Except that our President wouldnt even try to help the "old man down the road" unless that old man could afford an army of lobbyists,and represented a major financial concern.
And even then he'd give him a nickname.
Sad indeed

[pacfan]

I heard on the TV once that those suicide bombers were caught smiling on the video just before they blew themselves up. There must be something wrong there, right? I mean their beliefs. It's real hard to argue against someone's faith, particularly when it's almost absolute, rightly or wrongly. They just need re-education, just as the American's re-educated the Japanese after the war. (Some might argue they were 'brain-washed,' but it doesn't matter as long as it stops them from killling themselves trying to kill others.)

[Andre]

I heard on the TV once that those suicide bombers were caught smiling on the video just before they blew themselves up. There must be something wrong there, right? I mean their beliefs. It's real hard to argue against someone's faith, particularly when it's almost absolute, rightly or wrongly. They just need re-education, just as the American's re-educated the Japanese after the war. (Some might argue they were 'brain-washed,' but it doesn't matter as long as it stops them from killling themselves trying to kill others.)

Your right most of them dont know any different been brain washed since they were kids.
Some though, Hate the white races anyway and blame us for everything,which is as powerful as anything they have learned.

I think it allows quite a dark energy to run amuk in their mind and hearts, because it grows ,their numbers grow and so does the hatred,it feeds on itself.