BS: Torture in a civilised world

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:05 PM

""1.   I do not believe I have ever known of anything evolving for the worse, although I am sure that there are examples. The opposite of evolution of course is revolution, which involves rapid change, often with unforeseen and possibly undesired consequences. Mankind evolved but brought about the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution.

2. For there to be evolution there does not automatically or necessarily have to be any change in circumstance, the driver can often be just a simple desire to improve things and born of an enquiring mind.""

Thank you T, for taking the trouble to prove my point.

1. Revolution is not the opposite of evolution. That would be regression, or devolution.
2. The agricultural, and industrial, revolutions were in fact technological in nature. They took place against the background of ensuring survival of the burgeoning populations of humanity.
3. Evolution, by definition, is the action on species of survival enhancing mutation.

It is not a conscious, or rational, process.

In terms of mother nature, she is monumentally indifferent to the needs of individual species. She just doesn't care.

Mutation happens, and if the change is advantageous, a species thrives. If not, it dies.

What you describe as evolution is nothing more than technical innovation. It has enhanced human life, undoubtedly, but it hasn't enabled us to make even a noticeable dent in, for example, the population of unpleasant and harmful pests e.g. Locusts, Termites, Killer bees etc. etc.

They have evolved, we have advanced, but right now they look like a better bet for the future.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM

I must admit...it's more an exercise in mindless provocation than logic

Precisely how I would characterize your posting history as well, Teribus. Nice to see you man up and admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:25 AM

In the U.S. there are actually politicians (Republicans and Teapartiers) running for office on a platform of support for "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:19 AM

Really T, you're an intelligent bloke, try to look past the obvious. Sometimes I think you are taking the piss.

I must admit with the likes of CarolC, little hawk and DonT it's more an exercise in mindless provocation than logic, but it does help pass the time.

Problem with Hollywood doing "History" is that they can only ever reflect the attitudes of today on events of yesterday and that is where it all goes to hell in a handcart.

the whole film is a (admittedly hamfisted) big dig at the English by Mel Gibson, who has made no bones about his hatred of the past actions of 'the English'.

I suppose he feels as though he has to take it out on somebody for being vertically challenged and Australian and I dare say the English are good scapegoat as any, after all if thay hadn't colonised the place he would never have fetched up there.

Oddly enough though our Mel is about to do a historical epic on the Vikings. Now that should be interesting, either he will have to strap two beer crates to his feet or everybody else will have to run around in trenches. But what he apparently said was he wants evryone to come out of this new move absolutely scared stiff of Vikings, which would be true to form even if a bit stereotypical.

To address your question:

who was one of the countries (USA, UK, Israel) that supplied Iran and Iraq with the weapons that they could blow the shit out of each other with?

Well the Iran/Iraq War took most people by surprise not least the Iranians. US foreign policy towards the Persian Gulf area is simple. The USA does not rely on oil from there but lots of her allies do. Healthiest situation for the US and her allies is that no one country in the area dominates it. When the Iran/Iraq War kicked-off nobody (The world and its dog with the exception of course of Iraq and Iran) wanted either side to win.

In the beginning everything was going Iraq's way, Iraq and Saddam had no problems they got all their weapons from the USSR/Russia, China and France. Iran on the other hand was in shit street, as the only weaponry she had dated back to the Shah's time and was all from either the US or from the UK. And recently having held US diplomats hostage and yelling death to the Great Satan every Friday since meant that things were none too rosey. The US has to balance this war up and the US talks to Israel and deal is struck whereby, unlikely as it may seem, Israel provides the military hardware and spares that keeps Iran in the fight (Iran-Contras Scandal, arms for release of hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon)

Into the second phase and Iraq's offensive momentum slows and halts, Irans human wave attacks start taking effect and the Iraqi's are pushed back. Saddam starts losing equipment that he finds hard to replace.

To ensure that no side wins and that the war will end in a negotiated settlement and a stalemate, Iran was getting supplies from countries such as North Korea, Libya, and China. The Iraqis had more suppliers such as the USSR, the NATO nations, France, United Kingdom, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States (US's main contribution was intelligence not chemical weapons as most fondly but falsely believe). Soviet Union however - Between 1986 and 1988, the Soviets delivered to Iraq arms valued at roughly $8.8 to $9.2 billion, comprising more than 2,000 tanks (including 800 T-72s), 300 fighter aircraft, almost 300 surface-to-air missiles and thousands of pieces of heavy artillery and armored personnel vehicles.

So which country gave most the USSR without any shadow of a doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:10 AM

Well, Sugarfoot, it sure-as-shit was not Israel, was it? Can't quite see what they are doing in the equation. As far as I can see all they have done to exacerbate the situation is say to Iran, "Keep your nukes away from us, mate, or we shall surely make you regret it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:24 AM

"The trade offs required to allow consumerism to survive, may well lead to our complete destruction."

Too right - the problem with unlimited growth is . . . nothing's unlimited. Resources etc are finite.

"And to regard anyone stating that they do reflect real life as being someone who really has got to be joking. I mean come on Braveheart FFS!!!!"

They don't necessarily reflect real life, but hold a mirror up to the attitudes of society. Really T, you're an intelligent bloke, try to look past the obvious. Sometimes I think you are taking the piss.

As for Braveheart, interesting choice and one which goes to illustrate my point. On the surface, BH is nothing more than pure entertainment and so far from historical fact it's risible. But . . . the whole film is a (admittedly hamfisted) big dig at the English by Mel Gibson, who has made no bones about his hatred of the past actions of 'the English'. Another colonial having a dig.

"Hezbollah & Hamas backed by Iran, trained by Iran, armed by Iran. Remove their attacks from the equation and peace would have come to the region decades ago. What was the butchers bill for the Iran/Iraq War again? 1,5 to 2 million. No the US, UK and Israel have not caused a tenth of the damage that Iran and Iraq have in the region."

Shine on - who was one of the countries that supplied Iran and Iraq with the weapons that they could blow the shit out of each other with?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:48 AM

That's exactly what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:20 AM

Now Don being the educable and informed chap that you are, or at least think you are, why do you think that the "my view" was in between inverted commas?

Another of my supposed "views" in Sugarfoots rapid fire ten shots happened to be a view I did not even express.

Don'T worry sort a thing an educable man could easily miss when he's too busy rushing to "Have-a-go" and prove what a smart arse he is.

Evolution is about improving one's adaptation to changing circumstances for better or worse and is thus totally amoral.

In which case Dave MacKenzie - Embrace extinction, while guiltily enjoying and thanking whoever for benefits your forefathers bestowed on you to enable you to live the life you have lived.

But just a couple of observations:

1.   I do not believe I have ever known of anything evolving for the worse, although I am sure that there are examples. The opposite of evolution of course is revolution, which involves rapid change, often with unforeseen and possibly undesired consequences. Mankind evolved but brought about the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution.

2. For there to be evolution there does not automatically or necessarily have to be any change in circumstance, the driver can often be just a simple desire to improve things and born of an enquiring mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 09:43 PM

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:24 PM

""Sugarfoot are you telling everyone that "my view" perfectly reflects the majority opinion of the "West" towards the Muslim World""

I think you'll find he is referring to the majority of the uninformed, and the ineducable, such as youself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 08:18 PM

Save your colorful breath Teribus. The Afghan pro goverment forces are policemen who are often merely a gang of crooks who steal, kidnap and even murder for a buck.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM

He would note that the comparison there was to general Christianbeliefs in Europe which are more based on New Testament teachings as opposed to the Christian Sects in the USA who cling more to the Old Testament. Resulting from Royston and CarolC who rushed to list a load of bollocks from US translations of the Bible, all quotions bar one coming from the Old Testament.

Doesn't matter whether they come from the Old Testament or not, as long as there are Christians (and there are many) who use the Old Testament as a part of their holy text.

Teribus said, Anywhere in the Bible that instructs me to go out and kill anybody because they are not Christians?? No not even an hint of it

Teribus said, "Bible", not "New Testament". The Bible that is most commonly used by Christians includes both the New and Old Testaments. So just on the face of it, Teribus' statement is wrong. Then when we go back to his earlier statement...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

We can see that his wrongness is not confined to just himself as a Christian, but to everyone who is not Muslim as well as everyone who is. Because as has been shown, there are many Christians whose holy text calls for the death of non-believers, the Jewish holy texts call for the death of non-believers, and so far we are still waiting for Teribus to produce a quote from the Quran that calls for the death of Christians like Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:38 PM

The trade offs required to allow consumerism to survive, may well lead to our complete destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:36 PM

"If you don't think better survival is the core of evolutionary success, then what is?"

You agree with me then.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM

If you don't think better survival is the core of evolutionary success, then what is?

And if better survival is not the core of judgments about goodness and badness, then what is?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 05:48 PM

"evolution is about improvement" - still almost totally wrong!

Evolution is about improving one's adaptation to changing circumstances for better or worse and is thus totally amoral. I'm still glad I wasn't a member of any of my ancestors' generations. I'm also still glad (and guilty) that I'm not a member of my children's or grandchildren's generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM

But evolution IS about improvement.

The core value in all decisions and adaptations is better survival. Even a philosophy survives or fades to the degree it aids or lessens that vector.

Humans have a complex survival computation, in that they will sacrifice the survival of one thing for the survival of another, such as giving up one's life to save babies from a fire, or sacrificing physical comforts in order to acheive an artistic goal.

So the question "Survival of what" is much more multi-faceted in humans than it is in some animals who think of little more than their instincts for self-preservation and possibly their immediate herd or offspring. But the thrust is completely similar--individuals change in order to survive the present and appear in the future in one form or another.

And that pretty much defines betterment. Part of our calculations and discussions in this forum are about large-group survival (Western civilization, or The English Way, or human life on earth. Part of it is about the balances in play in the environment (multicultural survival, saving polar bears, immigration policies, for example). When we adapt to bring about stronger survival four ourselves and our symbiotes, we are doing better (if it works).

Even the trade-offs are believed to be for better survival. The problem is in calculating them correctly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:14 PM

Point 1
"OH I think history shows that Sugarfoot's "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" was rather good at understanding foreign culture and down through those 300 years he was wittering on about we got on rather well with foreign culture"

It amazes me the way history is taught in the schools of the UK, and the above statement just goes to prove history is written by the winners. Even the most cursory look in the activities of the Empire (start in our own Islands) shows there is another side to this tale and one we are still dealing with to this very day. The old colonialist attitudes die hard though.

Ever heard of a thing called The Commonwealth of Nations?

Point 2
"evolution is about improvement".

A popular misconception, but not actually true.

Sorry Sugarfoot but evolution can mean any of the following:

ev·o·lu·tion   /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
–noun

1.any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2.a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, andgenetic drift.

4.a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5.a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6.a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.

7.an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.

8.Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity.Compare involution (def. 8).

9.a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.

10.any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Point 3.
I will continue to labour under that massive misapprehension, while fully realising that history and true life are not things I must take from anything produced in Hollywood. And to regard anyone stating that they do reflect real life as being someone who really has got to be joking. I mean come on Braveheart FFS!!!!

Point 4.
"It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon."

No shit Sherlock. The point is who are we to tell them they can't have one?

As far as I was aware WE aren't telling them anything, the United Nations via their nuclear watchdog the IAEA are reminding Iran that a few years back they signed something called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that they have to leave before they start working towards building a nuclear weapon.

Point 5.
"With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power"

More than the US, UK and Israel? I don't think so.

Hezbollah & Hamas backed by Iran, trained by Iran, armed by Iran. Remove their attacks from the equation and peace would have come to the region decades ago. What was the butchers bill for the Iran/Iraq War again? 1,5 to 2 million. No the US, UK and Israel have not caused a tenth of the damage that Iran and Iraq have in the region.

Point 6.
Not surprised you do not wish to answer the questions asked about Child A and Child B. Too uncomfortabley close to the truth judging by what we have found out in Afghanistan. But please let me know when the father of a British child sells his daughter to someone who is going to train her to be a suicide bomber and shove her on her way with tales of God and Paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 01:36 PM

Excellent post T, but bordering on the overwrought in places. I did like the taking quotes out of context, which you accuse me of but can't actually resist yourself. Hmmm.

"OH I think history shows that Sugarfoot's "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" was rather good at understanding foreign culture and down through those 300 years he was wittering on about we got on rather well with foreign culture"

It amazes me the way history is taught in the schools of the UK, and the above statement just goes to prove history is written by the winners. Even the most cursory look in the activities of the Empire (start in our own Islands) shows there is another side to this tale and one we are still dealing with to this very day. The old colonialist attitudes die hard though.

"evolution is about improvement"

A popular misconception, but not actually true. Evolution is the process by which new species are created, and is driven primarily by natural selection. It's a messy, random and utterly unpredictable process that relies on contingency rather than any conscious direction, and it's outcomes are unknowable until they happen.

Of course, the sense in which you mean evolution is as slow, sure and steady progress to superiority; an expression of arrogance that expresses the view that some way we westerners have control over the processes the uneducated rest of the world population are the hapless victims of.

"HOLLYWOOD HAS NEVER PRESENTED HISTORY ANYONE WITH THE SIMPLEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COULD TELL YOU THAT."

No need to shout old boy! Of course, anyone with the simplest level of art school education will could tell you that all of the arts, film included, are a mirror of the society that produces them. Every cultural artefact created exists in context and Hollywood films are no exception, in fact they are a fascinating (and frequently disturbing) barometer of how modern societies see themselves and their place in the world. If you think film is pure entertainment then you are labouring under a massive misapprehension.

"It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon."

No shit Sherlock. The point is who are we to tell them they can't have one? The Empire's gone (thankfully) and we can't assume the only way we deal with people who don't agree with us in other parts of the world (particularly ones with rich natural resources) is by a) Invading and bombing them or b) Kidnapping them and torturing them.

"With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power"

More than the US, UK and Israel? I don't think so.

"OK then Sugarfoot let us take a couple of examples shall we"

No let's not. Your samples are typical of the pointless, ignorant and hackneyed depictions of people we are regaled with in the press and on the TV, in films etc. More unpleasant propagandist bilge designed to demonstrate our supposed 'superiority'.

"but it gives Sugarfoot something to grab hold off that his "right-on-lefty-socialist-anti-capitalist" pals can mindlessly and unquestionably accept, chant about and support in order to promote a feeling of solidarity."

As predicted in my post of 19 Feb 10 - 05:27 AM, point 1, penultimate line.

" . . .unlike you, does not believe that everything that is wrong in the world is automatically our fault"

So far my my opinion it's impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:07 AM

"evolution is about improvement" - wrong!

Evolution is about adapting changing circumstances. I'm glad I wasn't a member of any of my ancestors' generations. I'm also glad (and guilty) that I'm not a member of my children's or grandchildren's generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM

100 Up

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:58 AM

A) Teribus' viewpoint (which comes over as a bit hysterical Daily Mail harpy) perfectly reflects the West's attitude toward the Muslim world and other cultures unfamiliar to us.

Sugarfoot are you telling everyone that "my view" perfectly reflects the majority opinion of the "West" towards the Muslim World and other cultures unfamiliar to us? By the way what is "The Muslim World?" when its at home??

PS: We, "the-big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" seem to get on with the vast majority of the world, and we do not seem to be too shy in coming forward when disaster strikes or when financial assistance is required for development.

B) It's typical of the colonialist viewpoint the West has had for the past 300-plus years; it's anachronistic and backward but it persists in all levels of society, from government downward.

Really?? Haven't noticed it

C) But please let us have a good look at these perceptions you accuse the majority in the West of having:

1) Everything the West does, our economic systems, systems of government and cultural diversity is superior to everyone else's.

Astonished to hear you promote that opinion Sugarfoor Jack, I say you because I do not believe I have heard anyone other than you state that, certainly not on this thread. But let's face it that is pure supposition isn't it Jack, please do not attempt to present it as fact. Although, I would venture the opinion that in many instances on examination it may well prove to be verifiably true. One question though: how can one's cultural diversity be superior to anyone else's? As Royston is printing this and framing it, maybe he could enlighten us all on that subject.

2) We're right, they're wrong (with us, or against us).

Irrelevant rubbish, what on earth are you talking about?

3) If you doubt this, then a look at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking will provide you with enough material to keep you going for a lifetime - history is altered and re-written to make the greatest democracy in the world the dominant power for good. Suggest it's a tad out of order to present history in this way and you're a 'liberal' (not in the Clegg sense), pinko, leftist etc etc. Wear a turban and suggest it, and you're an terrorist.

Ah we are back to "Wag The Dog" are we Sugarfoot? I would suggest that anybody who forms an opinion on anything based on the output from "Hollywood" needs to have their bumps read.

Just in case you haven't cottoned on Sugarfoot:

HOLLYWOOD = PURE FANTASY = PURE ENTERTAINMENT

HOLLYWOOD IS NOT RELATED TO FACT

HOLLYWOOD HAS NEVER PRESENTED HISTORY ANYONE WITH THE SIMPLEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COULD TELL YOU THAT.


4) A complete inability to understand a foreign culture, a sad and rather embarrassing inability to attempt to see beyond the paper-thin stereotypes presented by government and media.

OH I think history shows that Sugarfoot's "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west" was rather good at understanding foreign culture and down through those 300 years he was wittering on about we got on rather well with foreign cultures, there again if Sugarfoot is taking Holywood as his historical reference then there would be little point in attempting to discuss this seriously. As to an inability to see beyond stereotypes, in his post Sugarfoot has shown that that very sin applies more to him than to me.

5) This manifests itself in the fear of a people that openly express their faith; they pray five times a day, eschew alcohol and pork, dress in a certain way etc.

Have I a fear of people who openly express their faith?? I cannot remember saying that or ever experiencing that in all of my travels and I have been working round the world since leaving school. Taking into account that I have spent more of my life outside the UK than living in it, I would back my experience of the world and understanding of foreign cultures against most writing here (particulary judging by what they write).

6) The media loves Muslims who dress western style, young Muslims who drink and go to parties (they've become 'civilised' as they buy into a vapid consumerist culture). Moderate Muslims don't outwardly express their religion, but keep it hidden, just like us. Extremist Muslims wear turbans, hijabs, burkhas, beards etc

Ah Sugarfoot the media, almost as reliable as Hollywood, more myth and entertainment. Do you actually believe what the media tells you Sugarfoot? If you do then all I can say is that I truly pity you, you should learn to be a bit more enquiring and question a bit more. I know that that is what you think you are doing but you are not.

This I found hilarious:

It's not difficult to find examples that illustrate this colonialist viewpoint, as this thread has proved. As T said, if we torture people it's a legitimate way of extracting valuable information, if they torture people it's because they are heartless and cruel and want to use it for propaganda or exacting bloodthirsty revenge.

Excuse me but when did I say that it is legitimate to torture people?

What was originally said and what I reacted to was the patently false statement:

That torture does not work

I merely pointed out the plain fact is that it does and has worked as a successful way of gaining vital information that has saved lives many times.

I have no idea how many of those contributing here have actually seen the decapitation videos sent out by the terrorists who proclaim themselves to be devout muslims fighting for their religion. The content of those videos can only be described as heartless and cruel, their only function was for propaganda purposes and their stated purpose was for exacting bloodthirsty revenge. The people killed in this cack-handed and particularly gruesome fashion had no information to give. So perhaps some of the apologists could offer up some other reason why those people WERE tortured.

A terrorist once caught can chose exactly how easy he wants to make it on himself, or herself, a choice he or she most certainly never gave their victims.

Our book, The New Testament is a fine example of how to live through the teachings of Jesus, meaning as a society "on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life." whilst the Quoran is apparently the source of universal Islamic hatred towards the west and it's people, a motivator for the conquering hordes to continue jihad "until I am politically subservient to Muslims".

Now if Sugarfoot Jack takes his foot out of his mouth or extracts his head from his fundament and goes back and checks the comment :

"on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life."

He would note that the comparison there was to general Christian beliefs in Europe which are more based on New Testament teachings as opposed to the Christian Sects in the USA who cling more to the Old Testament. Resulting from Royston and CarolC who rushed to list a load of bollocks from US translations of the Bible, all quotions bar one coming from the Old Testament. In short Jack you have quoted me out of context, there was no comparison to the Quran as you infer in your comment quoted above.

T's view "All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims" is so ignorant it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact people are dying because of it.

Really?? Well then Jack give me figures and statistics that prove that quotation ( Yes Jack it is a quotation it is not my view) to be incorrect.

Since 1970 Jack round the world there have been some 2016 Terrorist Incidents, Muslims have been responsible for between 60 to 70% of them. Not a bad proportion considering what else was going on in the world in those forty years, but the figures serve to support the claim in the quotation not counter it.

T's statement ". . . over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own" illustrates the colonialist viewpoint that the savages, blinded by faith even turn on their own, a view that seems to ignore the tens of thousands of Muslims that killed because of belligerent western foreign policy.

Please Sugarfoot Jack by all means prove the observation, and it is just that a simple straightforward observation based on fact, wrong. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan the percentages of innocent civilians killed (majority of them being Muslims) by fellow Muslims (Iraq - Foreign Jihadists; Ba'athist Insurgents; Sectarian Militias; Criminal Gangs) 80% and (Afghanistan - Taleban and Al-Qaeda) 79% Again tends to support that which you refer to as "the colonialist viewpoint" Of course it has got nothing to do with colonialism at all, but it gives Sugarfoot something to grab hold off that his "right-on-lefty-socialist-anti-capitalist" pals can mindlessly and unquestionably accept, chant about and support in order to promote a feeling of solidarity.

Iran, which has the temerity to attempt to defend itself when hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed and hostile regimes becomes a legitimate target for force when it doesn't do what we want it to (but then Iran is an evil state, as evidenced by the state-organised rallies that call for the demise of the US and UK, and apparently "In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years" . . . which may be true but certainly doesn't represent the views of the majority of this well-educated and modern country. Clue: it's meaningless state-run propaganda).

Oh the heartfelt indignation!! The temerity to attempt to defend itself - From what FFS!!

Hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed hostile regimes!!! - Complete and utter bollocks Have a look at the states bordering Iran.

Turkey - No threat, never has been
Iraq - Definitely a threat under Saddam Hussein but that threat has now been removed by the "big-bad-its-all-our-fault-west". Iran's Revolutionary Guards engages with subversive groups intent on destabilisation of the Iraqi Government.
Kuwait - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Saudi Arabia - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Bahrain - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Qatar - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Doha - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Dubai - No threat, never has been but Iran has threatened it
Oman - No threat, never has been
Pakistan - No threat although anti-Government groups in Iran are supported from groups inside Baluchistan.
Afghanistan - Threat greatly reduced since UN intervened in 2001. The number of casualties and fatalities in cross border incidents centred mainly around smuggling of drugs and weapons is staggering.
Turkmenistan - No threat, never has been
Azebaijan - No threat, never has been
Armenia - No threat, never has been

Iran has for the last thirty years been the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the region. With the exception of Iraq it has done more to destabilise the region than any other power and of course we all know who was responsible for removing Iraq from the top of the list. Iran has signed treaties and agreed to abide by international agreements and played fast and loose with them. At last, now that "apologist-in-chief" Mohammed El-Baradei has retired, we now have someone at the Head of the IAEA who is prepared to call a spade a spade - It is now the considered opinion of the IAEA that Iran is working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As long as Muslims are painted as some sort of inferior beings, unable to recognise what's good for themselves as we Westerners can then conflict will persist.

OK then Sugarfoot let us take a couple of examples shall we:

Child A: Carried to full term in pregnancy, with mother attended all the way through by a state funded free medical service. The child then grows up and enters first nursery school and then full-time education, where the child is taught to read, to write and to count. Further free education is available to that child who is computer literate and has at his/her command everything the internet can provide up to the age of eighteen. The child as he/she grows up is fully backed by the state and theoretically has every opportunity to do whatever he/she wishes.

Child B: Born premature to a child bride, with the most rudimentary attendance through pregnancy if indeed any, prohibited from receiving any medical help whatsoever. Child grows up and enters whatever education system is available, this normally is a Madrassa. If the child is female education stops at the age of seven (in a few years time she too will be a child bride and become pregnant) if a boy the education consists of learning to recite the Quran, this is a mindless chant in a language the boy will not understand, he is told what these ramblings mean by the Mullah or Imam in charge of his education. The child has no idea at all if what he has been told is the truth, he has no means or background to question or reason, he gets used to accepting what his religious leaders tell him believing it absolutely. The child as he/she grows is backed up solely by their own shadow on the floor and is to all intent and purpose a gullible fool to be manipulated as their religious betters see fit.

Extremes, yes certainly, but those conditions exist and have been documented. OK Sugarfoot which childhood would you opt for and recommend? Which childhood would any sane person opt for as being the more beneficial, not only for the child in question for mankind in general. Are you more likely to find Child A in the west?

You then have the unmitigated gall, nay the temerity to come out with this crap:

In truth, it's time we got our house in order and dragged our attitudes into the 21st Century, and then we might understand as a society how counterproductive it is to force our values on others who have contributed enormously to philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species.

Oh by the bye Sugarfoot - you know all these supposed contributions to:

"philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species"

It would pay you check up on how many of the ones claimed by Muslims that actually were the contributions of those the Moors conquered or pre-date the founding of their religion.

A colonialist view, anachronistic and backward?? Well Sugarfoot that sure as hell would explain the advances made over the last 300 years wouldn't it. Advances and benefits that you most certainly have taken full advantage of as evidenced in your ability to write and say what you do without fear of consequence. In comparing my life to that my ancestors of 300 years ago, have things improved? Most certainly they have, I can see that as plain as a pikestaff looking back only as far as my grand-fathers generation compared to that of my children and Sugarfoot, if you cannot do that then, basically old son, you're living in the wrong place, evolution is about improvement.

To you someone who has what you call a colonialist view and who is anachronistic and backward, is someone who, unlike you, does not believe that everything that is wrong in the world is automatically our fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM

as to carol c, she is totally misleading people as many pro islamic do that the status of "people of the book" means equality.

Please show me where I said it means equality, ollaimh.

they aren't killed and they can practice their religion but they cannot have any religious symbols appear in public, they must not walk on a side walk when a muslim is on the side walk, they can't hold any job with authority over a muslim, they cannot sue a muslim in court, they can't proseltize nor can they marry a muslim and they are restricted in their business occupations from most areas of higher learning or skilled trades. all this is in the koran or the hadith. many coutries have even more restrictive rules.   oh yeah they have to pay a head tax every year for being non muslims.

Where is this the case, ollaimh?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:05 PM

"Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies," which can be directed against both domestic and external enemies. The original general meaning of terrorism was of terrorism by the state, as reflected in the 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Academie Francaise, which described terrorism as systeme, regime de la terreur. Similarly, a terrorist in the late 18th century was considered any person "who attempted to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." The terms "establishment terrorism," "terrorism from above" (as opposed to "terrorism from below" (terrorism by non-state groups), and "structural terrorism" are sometimes used to denote state terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 06:44 PM

i have twodifferent issues.first how many realize that the uk was convicted of torture before the european court for water boarding and other ttechniques.it was british special forces units that tought the americans the techniques they used in gitmo. britain has not amended its laws to cindorm to eu human right standards and can hence not fully participate in the eu.

torture has no use for civilized society.   in bridges silly scenario that could never really hapen a soldier or police man would likely break the law, however the law should be the same for all.   powerfull regimes like the british and american empires always torture anyone once you give permission to torture the people who do it torture anyone they don't like. you cannot alow this and maintain a democratic society.

as to carol c, she is totally misleading people as many pro islamic do that the status of "people of the book" means equality. they aren't killed and they can practice their religion but they cannot have any religious symbols appear in public, they must not walk on a side walk when a muslim is on the side walk, they can't hold any job with authority over a muslim, they cannot sue a muslim in court, they can't proseltize nor can they marry a muslim and they are restricted in their business occupations from most areas of higher learning or skilled trades. all this is in the koran or the hadith. many coutries have even more restrictive rules.   oh yeah they have to pay a head tax every year for being non muslims.

all these are major human rights violatons. anyone interested should read"the legacy of jihad" an historical study that extensively quotes from the major islamic clerics and jurisat throughout history,it includes especially the liberals. you will be shocked by the positions taken by the mystic al gallali and others.   yeah they don't kill people of the book but that's a standard so low it does not pass any modern test.

i sometimes thinbk that peole who support these laws should reci8eve them in our democracies and if they want full civil rights they should have to sign a declaration of support for the human rights declaration of the united nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:25 PM

It's not even necessary to kill anyone to be committing an act of terrorism. Torturing is sufficient if it is being done to terrorize people into doing what you want them to do. Or maiming, or dissapearing people. All that's necessary for an act to be terrorism is for it do be done specifically to cause people to feel the emotion of terror for the purpose of controlling their behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:24 PM

look richard bridges justifying torture! on another discussion he was denying that anyone is responsible when british soldier murder un armed civilians. he will stoop to defend any evil

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:19 PM

by reasonable definition, 'terrorism' cannot be applied to an act of, or approved by, government The basis for the Afghanistan war was surely that the de facto government of that country backed Al Qaeda in its actions on 911. So according to that "reasonable definition" 911 was not an act of terrorism...

In fact the term "terrorist" actually appears to have been coined to refer specifically to government actions by those in the French government of the time who were responsible for the Reign of Terror. True, the way we use words changes over the years - but the essential element is common to those terrorists and to modern day terrorists - a policy of killing innocent people to achieve a political effect.

If someone explodes a bomb in a railway station in order to kill passengers as a way of affecting public opinion and morale it seems perverse to deny that that is a terrorist act just because the people carrying it out might owe allegiance to some government.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

Very, very well said Jack! I'd like to print and frame that.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:57 PM

Ten shots, rapid fire, straight into the bull Jack.

Perfect score.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:27 AM

Teribus' viewpoint (which comes over as a bit hysterical Daily Mail harpy) perfectly reflects the West's attitude toward the Muslim world and other cultures unfamiliar to us. It's typical of the colonialist viewpoint the West has had for the past 300-plus years; it's anachronistic and backward but it persists in all levels of society, from government downward.

This stems from two main perceptions:

1) Everything the West does, our economic systems, systems of government and cultural diversity is superior to everyone else's. We're right, they're wrong (with us, or against us). If you doubt this, then a look at mainstream Hollywood filmmaking will provide you with enough material to keep you going for a lifetime - history is altered and re-written to make the greatest democracy in the world the dominant power for good. Suggest it's a tad out of order to present history in this way and you're a 'liberal' (not in the Clegg sense), pinko, leftist etc etc. Wear a turban and suggest it, and you're an terrorist.

2) A complete inability to understand a foreign culture, a sad and rather embarrassing inability to attempt to see beyond the paper-thin stereotypes presented by government and media. This manifests itself in the fear of a people that openly express their faith; they pray five times a day, eschew alcohol and pork, dress in a certain way etc. The media loves Muslims who dress western style, young Muslims who drink and go to parties (they've become 'civilised' as they buy into a vapid consumerist culture). Moderate Muslims don't outwardly express their religion, but keep it hidden, just like us. Extremist Muslims wear turbans, hijabs, burkhas, beards etc


It's not difficult to find examples that illustrate this colonialist viewpoint, as this thread has proved. As T said, if we torture people it's a legitimate way of extracting valuable information, if they torture people it's because they are heartless and cruel and want to use it for propaganda or exacting bloodthirsty revenge. Our book, The New Testament is a fine example of how to live through the teachings of Jesus, meaning as a society "on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life." whilst the Quoran is apparently the source of universal Islamic hatred towards the west and it's people, a motivator for the conquering hordes to continue jihad "until I am politically subservient to Muslims".

T's view "All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims" is so ignorant it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact people are dying because of it. T's statement ". . . over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own" illustrates the colonialist viewpoint that the savages, blinded by faith even turn on their own, a view that seems to ignore the tens of thousands of Muslims that killed because of belligerent western foreign policy. Iran, which has the temerity to attempt to defend itself when hemmed in on all sides by Western-backed and hostile regimes becomes a legitimate target for force when it doesn't do what we want it to (but then Iran is an evil state, as evidenced by the state-organised rallies that call for the demise of the US and UK, and apparently "In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years" . . . which may be true but certainly doesn't represent the views of the majority of this well-educated and modern country. Clue: it's meaningless state-run propaganda).

In the real world, we need as a society to thunder against this old colonialist attitude and have the wit and perception to see a person beyond " who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.". As long as Muslims are painted as some sort of inferior beings, unable to recognise what's good for themselves as we Westerners can then conflict will persist. In truth, it's time we got our house in order and dragged our attitudes into the 21st Century, and then we might understand as a society how counterproductive it is to force our values on others who have contributed enormously to philosophy, art, science and literature, indeed to the universal culture of our species.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:32 AM

Operation "Shock and Awe" perfectly fits the definition of terrorism...


Main Entry: ter-ror-ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:25 AM

Now tell me CarolC if them as did the killing were such devout Muslims and their book, which I believe they reckon is the only book, specifically instructs and commands them not to kill, how come all those people died?

Same reason, I reckon, that people get killed by Christians and Jews and Hindus who believe their interpretations of their holy texts are the right ones. And such killings do take place. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is an example of one such killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:21 AM

As for no Muslim claiming that he has the right to kill me as a non-believer, I will err on the side of caution, as it all depends on who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.

Still trying to weasel out of what you said, I see. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that no Muslim would claim they have a right to kill you as a non-believer. What has been said is that this statement from you is wrong...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

The Muslim faith, as a religion, does not call for your death as a non-believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

I know you are not a fool, Don ~ that, if you look back, was my point.

I still think that, by reasonable definition, 'terrorism' cannot be applied to an act of, or approved by, government ~ ruling by terror is not the same thing ~ & that to call it so is linguistically & semantically counterproductive. There are, alas, far too many words once useful but which have now lost their effect by such over-definition. I am simply trying to defend the language, not the government.   I guess that, as in all such cases, it is a vain endeavour (as McG reemarks above, there are too many definitions]; but I still, as a well-known taxonomic pedant {"MtheGM's pedantry is legendary" wrote a correspondent on another MessageBoard site I am a regular on: she meant a putdown I suspect but I never tire of quoting it!}, think it a pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:49 PM

Lots of definitions of "terrorism" - the simplest and best to my mind is "killing non-combatants in order to achieve political objectives".

And the people who have done this on the largest scale are governments of one sort or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

""Don, as you well know, the term "Terrorist" has a specific meaning ~ of someone adopting certain recognised measures aimed against random members of the public to achieve political aims by clandestine destabilisation of public feelings of security:""

I do understand what you are saying Mike. I'm not a fool!

Wouldn't you say though that spending two years constantly linking a terrorist act with a regime which had absolutely nothing to do with it, purely in order to scare one's own countryman into giving up many of their civil rghts and freedoms, so that you can start an illegal war, fits your definition above rather too neatly to classified as anything short of terrorism?

The only difference is in whose public is having their feelings destabilised (having the shit scared out of them).

There doesn't seem to be another simple word or phrase that fits as well.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM

Because, Don, as you well know, the term "Terrorist" has a specific meaning ~ of someone adopting certain recognised measures aimed against random members of the public to achieve political aims by clandestine destabilisation of public feelings of security: it is a disingenuous misuse of the term, which confuses rather than enlightens, to use it simply for or of anyone who causes "Terror" of any sort: otherwise you might as well use it of a strict teacher or an overbearing husband ~ and any such use would serve to diminish the effectiveness of the word as used in its true meaning.

I am not disagreeing with you as to the culpability of some of the policies of the politicians you name; simply with your using an inappropriate term for them which serves merely to rob a useful word of its true meaning and so reduce its effectiveness when properly used. IN OTHER WORDS, TO SPELL IT OUT: MY DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU IS SEMANTIC, NOT POLITICAL. THE LANGUAGE NEEDS DEFENDING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO TENDENTIOUSLY MISUSE IT AND THUS REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A MEDIUM OF ACCURATE COMMUNICATION.

I reiterate that I think you know this really: you may pretend you don't but I think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:59 AM

""No, they are not, not in any MEANINGFUL sense of the term.""

Clandestine, as well as open, attempts to force regime change in sovereign states. Menacing a large portion of the globe with their military might, and lying to their own people to justify it.

In the case of Bush and Cheney, undermining the very foundation upon which their nation was built, the Constitution.

Cynical re-defining of words, in direct contradiction if international law, in order to justify the use of torture.

What precisely, in your estimation makes them better than those they are fighting?

And, since half the world is terrified of them as a result of their actions, why pray is terrorist too strong a description, for your liking?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 03:53 AM

Folks, just ignore Teribus. He really can't be for real. I'm pretty sure he must be pissing himself laughing every time he types something.

Trolls.

Only one way to deal with 'em

DNFTT

Do not feed the troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:17 AM

'Leaving religion aside, it is my opinion that Blair, Bush, Cheney et al were, and are, just as much terrorists as OBL.' DonT
                               ===========
No, they are not, not in any MEANINGFUL sense of the term. They might have behaved in politically and militarily irresponsible fashion: but that does NOT make them 'terrorists' in any semantically acceptable usage, in the same way as it can be used of OBL & his followers.

You are obviously a man of intelligence, Don; & must be aware that you are here over-defining the word 'terrorist' in a fashion sufficiently absurd as to rob it of all meaning. The trouble with such bandying of precise terms [the word 'terrorist' has a specific and accepted meaning as you are well aware] is that effective communication is thus much marred & reduced, without any really valid & worthwhile point having been made ~ no good purpose is served by using words thus Humpty·Dumpty·to·Alice fashion, as you well know.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:04 AM

And I Don was talking about theirs.

As far as know (AND before you dive back into the mists of time here DON I am referring to recent history) our nutters have not ordered our troops to deliberately target and kill men, women and children indiscriminately because of their religion or attempted to justify those deaths on the grounds of the beliefs of those they have killed.

I do not go to paradise because I murdered a ........... (fill in any religion, or sect of a religion you like). But judging by events there are more than enough Muslims wandering the planet who do believe that exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM

!!Come on Don T tell where they have written or decreed that what I have written above is NOT THEIR STATED AIM.""

I was talking about YOUR aim you twerp.

You make out that all muslims are a threat, when you know damn well that only a minority of fundamentalists indulge in terror tactics, and you use that lie to cover up the other lie, denying that there are terrorists on the other (Christian ) side as well.

The relevance of the history lesson (and I'd like you to tell me what part of that was untrue), was to illustrate that it would not be too surprising if the followers of Islam had some major scores to settle, given that they were among the victims.

Leaving religion aside, it is my opinion that Blair, Bush, Cheney et al were, and are, just as much terrorists as OBL. And if you want to call him my friend, you had better be able to show evidence of my ever having posted anything in his favour. Failing that, you are just proving my point about your deficiency in the thinking department.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:22 PM

Is there anything which our torture-friendly members would see as unacceptable, if it worked?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:37 PM

Teribus, how many of all persuasions - his own side and all others - did George Bush kill because he went to war in Iraq because God told him that Gog and Magog were doing the devil's work in Baghdad.

Bush's words. Spoken to by him to Jacques Chirac, reported by Chirac, never denied by Bush or the Whitehouse.

There are murderous cranks on all sides - you sound like a pretty good candidate. Your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:44 PM

Don't Sugarfoot best go and ask them.

All I do know with regard to Christianity is how I apply it to me, and that reflects the way it was taught.

Old Testament = Fables, Fairytales where good overcomes evil

Only part of it of relevance is the story of the Ten Commandments and even then we got it wrong.

Apparently there is no such commandment as "Thou shalt not kill". The actual translation is "Thou shalt not do murder" Which is different by a long shot.

As for no Muslim claiming that he has the right to kill me as a non-believer, I will err on the side of caution, as it all depends on who the turbaned twat has just been listening to down the Mosque.

After all, over the past twenty years and more, we have seen supposedly devote Muslims kill quite a large number of pagans, people-of-book, apostates, fellow Muslims albeit of a different sect and even some of their own. Now tell me CarolC if them as did the killing were such devout Muslims and their book, which I believe they reckon is the only book, specifically instructs and commands them not to kill, how come all those people died?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Stu
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:07 AM

Hold on T - we must clear this up as it's a new one on me: are you seriously suggesting Christians don't take any notice or guidance from the teachings of the Old Testament? No ten commandments etc?

This is a thread all by itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:19 AM

Teribus, you said this...

The only repeat ONLY religion that calls for my death as an non-believer is the Muslim faith.

You are wrong, you have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and you don't have the grace to admit that you were wrong. You just keep shifting the goal posts to try to weasel out of your wrongness. I saw somewhere you said that unlike some other people, you at least admit when you are wrong. Well, that's bullshit. You have been shown to be wrong when you say that only the Muslim faith calls for the death of non-believers. The proof has been posted more than once in this thread. But you don't have the grace to admit when you are wrong, so you are clinging to your efforts to try to change the subject. It won't work. You are still wrong no matter how many times you try to change the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Royston
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:16 AM

The passage you quoted, Teribus, is one man's essay, it is a good essay. It is an essay in which he asserts that Muslims CANNOT go around causing mayhem and murder. It is the majority Muslim view. Slicing off one or two sentences and presenting them as saying something totally different is not going to work here. We are not "Sun" readers.

The complete assertion has been printed here, we both know what it says and now does everyone else. Muslims are neither commanded nor obliged to do the the things that you say.

So you still haven't found any commandments about murder in the Qur'an then?

I'm quite happy that you dismiss the entire OT. Out goes death for murder, out goes homophobia, out goes "eye for en eye". You won't have anything to back up a lot of your arguments before long.

Are there any Christians out there that believe the OT needs removing from The Bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture in a civilised world
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 01:15 AM

Just tell me Royston and a simple yes or no will do for an answer:

In the link I posted does the following passage appear as part of the response:

It needs to be understood in this context that at the end of the mission of Muhammad when God, in his absolute Knowledge, knew that those who were rejecting faith were not rejecting because they had any confusion with regards to it, rather they were rejecting out of mere arrogance and pride, He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.

Now as it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel Royston, please answer the following:

So as one of the people of the book I can be fought against (?? - combatted? killed??) until I am politically subservient to Muslims (any particular one or just all of them?)


And the following by me still holds good.

Bollocks, if any body wants to fight me on the instruction of their mullah, immam or ayatollah because of what they interpret as being written in their book about their imaginary friend then they had best come loaded for bear.

I have never seen enraged groups of Christians or Jews out in the streets rioting just on the word some prat uttered at the weekly religious service. At any religious service I have never been commanded to chant for the death of a people (In Tehran it happens every week and has happened every week for the last 31 years).

I am accused by CarolC of taking the actions of a minority and applying their words, actions and interpretations of their religion to all followers of that religion. Then she herslf refers me to certain Christian religious sects.

As for those religious sects CarolC:

Still if that is what you are reading over there (NAB & NLT Old Testament Passages) in the the home of the brave and the land of the free, the land of Hollywood and Walt Disney then its no bloody wonder that so many of you are so Fucked Up.

The pillocks who jumped onboard the Mayflower should have hung around over this side for a few centuries to see how it all turned out, on the religious stakes we seem to come off with the slightly saner outlook on life.

The OT during instruction we were told was the story of what went before, nothing more, and the passages are stories of things that happened to the people from whom Jesus of Nazareth came.

Oh and if ever I am going to kill anybody CarolC, I would need a damn sight better reason than one that would be given to me based on religion or by the irrational rantings of the likes of youself.

Oddly enough in that link I posted, the common perception of the Muslim faith is as illustrated in the Question, that has not come to be by deliberate misinformation put about by anybody else. It is a perception arrived at by observation which gives rise to:

All Muslims are not terrorists; but all terrorists nowadays seem to be Muslims"