Islam - What's your view on it?

[Furinkazen]

Obama is a terrorist is what I am saying.



Trying to generalise an act of terrorism to atheism is virtually impossible to due the vast number of sub groups that are present within atheism.

Sorry for OT, but i'm intrigued as to how Barack Obama is a terrorist.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[MadFlavour]

Sorry for OT, but i'm intrigued as to how Barack Obama is a terrorist.

Dropping bombs on innocents around the world?
Since 1945 the american government has attempted to over throw 50 foreign governments.
That ain't going to change with the race of the president.

 

[Furinkazen]

Dropping bombs on innocents around the world?
Since 1945 the american government has attempted to over throw 50 foreign governments.
That ain't going to change with the race of the president.

Well if you want to get specific, Obama was not the one who sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq...

 

[Roflwaffle]

I think there should be a rule that you have to have a certain IQ or higher to have an opinion

 

[MadFlavour]

Well if you want to get specific, Obama was not the one who sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq...

He didn't? Who's been bombing Gaza for the past years? Who's been pumping 33 times more opium out of Afghanistan since 2007? That would in fact be Obama.

 

[MadFlavour]

I think there should be a rule that you have to have a certain IQ or higher to have an opinion

Indeed, this thread would have quite a bit more backing to it if people didn't turn a blind eye to those with the power and money.

 

[Furinkazen]

I wouldn't call Obama a terrorist. I'd call the US government more having a general belief they should be perceived as crusaders of justice, virtue, and all things good and great. I reckon the US certainly want to maintain some kind of grip around the middle east for the resources they can get. Also removing a 🤬 dictator is a good cause, but when executed with the finesse of a bombshell by also wrecking a country, botching up and not even having concrete truthful reasons (Iraq), you really don't do any good.

Obama is not a terrorist. But generally I reckon there is this slightly gung-ho attitude.

 

[MadFlavour]

I wouldn't call Obama a terrorist. I'd call the US government more having a general belief they should be perceived as crusaders of justice, virtue, and all things good and great. I reckon the US certainly want to maintain some kind of grip around the middle east for the resources they can get. Also removing a 🤬 dictator is a good cause, but when executed with the finesse of a bombshell by also wrecking a country, botching up and not even having concrete truthful reasons (Iraq), you really don't do any good.

Obama is not a terrorist. But generally I reckon there is this slightly gung-ho attitude.

 

[Furinkazen]

What??

 

[sumbrownkid]

He didn't? Who's been bombing Gaza for the past years? Who's been pumping 33 times more opium out of Afghanistan since 2007? That would in fact be Obama.

Opium production boomed after the Taliban were driven out because A.) it's a lot more cheaper to produce that than other crops and B.) poverty begets desperation.

The Taliban themselves were involved in the opium trade for the vast amount of money they can rake in. Now with them out of the way, with a government in Kabul that's as useless as a broken toilet, and a US populace that is more or less forgetting that we have fought a war there for over a decade, the plight of the average Afghan farmer is not going to be heard over the Sochi Olympics.

It's sad that the same farmer cannot also afford to bring his crops to market because transportation is not available or provided to them, whilst drug cartels are more than happy to provide transportation to market.

Yes, America has a hand in this, but a very indirect one. I have a very hard time seeing Obama signing paperwork and giving orders to Afghanis to grow more Opium. If Afghanis are anything, it's that they are very resilient and will oppose the foreigner to the bitter end. Alexander the Great saw that same resilience. So too the British. And now we are.

And Obama wasn't sworn in until 2009 by the way, so if you want to direct any criticism for the year 2007-2008 send it to George W Bush.

Obama being a terrorist is also subjective matter. To us he's our president, but to others, such as yourself, he's a terrorist. Likewise, Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, but to others he was a hero resisting the American infidel.

In short, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Now as for religion causing much of the world's problems, I can say yes it has, but it also inspired many people to do great things in this world too. For some reason people forget about Mother Theresa*, Pope John Paul II*, Gandhi, Muhammad Yunus, etc. and their accomplishments when it comes to this argument.

I can't say that it is religion alone that drives man to kill man. If religion didn't exist I'm more than certain that man will inevitably find other reasons to kill and maim the other. Politics, economy, nationalism, philosophy, and maybe even love for a woman. Man is just a creature that can be very violent.

Edit: Let's put an asterisk next to Mother Teresa name, after seeing what Scaff, Carbonox, and Liquid said about her. Same goes to the Pope I guess.

Replace her with Martin Luther King Jr if you prefer. Replace the Pope with Slash if you prefer. Sa sa sa SLASH!!!

 

[Scaff]

You could say that Hitler did as he wanted nothing but a pure race of people who were white, blond and blue eyed. He also opposed the churches at the time.

Hitler was a practicing Catholic Christian who attempted to move the church in a direction he wanted (and worked with the Catholic Church in Germany to achieve this), he most certainly wasn't an athiest at all.

He was quite clearly a theist and anyone who has actually read Mein Kampf will know that, particularly given that he dedicates his entire struggle against the Jewish people to God.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
Both 1922

"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God"
1923

And just to show he didn't change over time.
"I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence."
1944

He also, while Chancellor. specifically targeted atheists, saying in 1933 "We have stamped [Gottlosenbewegung] out." (Gottlosenbewegung is literally movement of the godless).

So can we please stop with the quite clearly nonsensical view that Hitler was an Atheist, as the body of evidence to show he was a practicing theist are rather substantial.

He didn't? Who's been bombing Gaza for the past years? Who's been pumping 33 times more opium out of Afghanistan since 2007? That would in fact be Obama.

Given that they are facts you will have no problem at all providing evidence that the US administration has directly ordered the bombing of Gaza (or carried it out) and has actually produced and exported Opium out of Afghanistan.

Oh and on Obama being an Atheist terrorist, please can you cite the time he said he was carrying out a terrorist act to forward an an Atheist agenda (well actually anyone will do), I would be more than happy to 'carpet bomb' you with Theist example if you like.

Now as for religion causing much of the world's problems, I can say yes it has, but it also inspired many people to do great things in this world too. For some reason people forget about Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Gandhi, Muhammad Yunus, etc. and their accomplishments when it comes to this argument.

I wouldn't use either Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II as examples of people who have done great things in the world at all, in particular not the fast track saint who believed people should suffer for God (while she exempted herself from that same belief).

 

[Carbonox]

I wouldn't use either Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II as examples of people who have done great things in the world at all, in particular not the fast track saint who believed people should suffer for God (while she exempted herself from that same belief).

...Thank you!

I sure have gotten tired of people always talkingg about Mother Theresa as being some kind of a perfect person who has never done an evil deed in her life. 👎

 

[Rage Racer]

Saying a religion is responsible for terrorism is kind of stupid in my opinion.

LOL. They didn't kill for atheism. They did it for authority.

 

[sumbrownkid]

...Thank you!

I sure have gotten tired of people always talkingg about Mother Theresa as being some kind of a perfect person who has never done an evil deed in her life. 👎

Everyone has done an evil deed in their life. It's how we reconcile with it that matters. Sure she may have exempted herself as noted, but at the end of the day she still helped many people in India.

Compared to many people I see today, she is among the more perfect people. You think Bieber would do the same?

 

[Carbonox]

Everyone has done an evil deed in their life. It's how we reconcile with it that matters. Sure she may have exempted herself as noted, but at the end of the day she still helped many people in India.

Compared to many people I see today, she is among the more perfect people. You think Bieber would do the same?

I think she ranks in the same category with - not probably Hitler and Stalin, but someone like Osama - in terms of evilness, thanks to all the "suffering for God" crap and friendship with dictators that will hopefully eventually become known to everyone so that her legacy would deservedly be tainted, and people would no longer refer to her everytime they're trying to imagine some sort of an all-good figure from the history of mankind.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I think we're gonna have to disagree here about that one Carbonox.

I'm just coming from the fact that she helped people that were unfortunate and used religion as avenue to help. Friends with dictators or what not may put a smudge on her image, but she for one could care less about it. And suffering for God may not be ideal to some people but if it helps them help their fellow person, then I'm not gonna criticize it.

And for any radical Islamists reading this, suffering for God does not mean to put bombs on yourself and then go into a public area and take as many people with you. Suffering via giving money to the needy, via giving your food to the hungry, via giving your time to people who are largely being forgotten, that is the suffering Allah wants. Suffering that makes one remember their humanity.

I wouldn't use either Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II as examples of people who have done great things in the world at all, in particular not the fast track saint who believed people should suffer for God (while she exempted herself from that same belief).

Pope John Paul's II view that suffering for God may not gel with you and that's fine, but this is the same guy that forgave and managed to pardon a man that tried to kill him. I can't even picture myself doing that.

But if you want a different example, how about Martin Luther King Jr?

 

[Rage Racer]

And, if any radical Islamists come to your country for doing Jihad - you know how to "tolerate" them.

(MVD Spetsnaz on a road to Nazran, Ingushetia, January 2011)

 

[Carbonox]

@sumbrownkid, even while leaving the dictator friendship out, I frankly don't know how anyone could justify the way she refused to give dying people a proper painless death, but rather made them suffer in the name of religion, claiming it's somehow the right thing to do to please the (apparently quite sadistic) god.

Since I believe human beings have the right to leave this world in a painless way, I can't see her as our moral superior, but only someone who managed to convince a lot of people she was actually doing all good deeds in the poorer countries, thus earning an undeserved reputation. 👎

Oh, and just a friendly tip, remember to use the Twitter-style tagging function if you want me to quickly receive a notification for a message directed at me. 👍

 

[Liquid]

I'm just coming from the fact that she helped people that were unfortunate and used religion as avenue to help. Friends with dictators or what not may put a smudge on her image, but she for one could care less about it. And suffering for God may not be ideal to some people but if it helps them help their fellow person, then I'm not gonna criticize it.

Just to chime in on Mother Teresa, while she may have tried to do noble things with her own justification, she was anti-abortion and claimed "if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between". This is absolute nonsense.

Equally, she allegedly blessed dying patients/people without their affirmed consent and without prior knowledge of their religion. This I find good ground for criticism.

In less stronger terms than Carbonox, whom we all know (including himself) is very direct on issues like this, Mother Teresa did indeed do some positive things but she is not immune to criticism and did not lead a perfect life or champion perfect causes.

Same goes for JPII. Admittedly, I do like him somewhat for his world travels and attempts to bring different cultures together but his orthodox ecclesiastic conservatism leaves him open to criticism as any individual, Pope or not, should be.

Regarding the bolded bit, how does telling someone they're suffering for god mean you're helping yourself to help others?

 

[sumbrownkid]

@Carbonox: think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on her reputation Carbonox. At least we got a good conversation out of it

@Rage Racer

I see your Spetsnaz and I raise you one SEAL Team 6

@Liquid:

What I said May seem confusing but I believe suffering in terms of losing what you covet inorder to get closer to god reminds one of humility and humanity and just how lucky one can be in what they have. That's one of the principle reasons of fasting in Ramadan. That principle hopefully drives one to alleviate the suffering of others that are not as lucky as you or me.

 

[Scaff]

I'm just coming from the fact that she helped people that were unfortunate and used religion as avenue to help. Friends with dictators or what not may put a smudge on her image, but she for one could care less about it. And suffering for God may not be ideal to some people but if it helps them help their fellow person, then I'm not gonna criticize it.

You seem to be mistaken that she suffered herself, quite the opposite she made sure that she had the finest medical care the world offered. The people she believed should suffer for God were the poor of India, many of whom she converted without consent on their deathbed (handing out tickets to St Peter as she described it - while boasting about the number she had done this to).

Issues also arrise that many other organisations offered far better levels of care, for far more people, with far less money. Which has lead to very valid questions about money and what it was used for (well we know some of that, world class heart surgery doesn't come cheap). Particularly as some of the missions never admitted a single ill person and were used soely for conversion.

That the catholic church then utterly ignored its own rule to fast track her to sainthood is another issue on top of all the above.

Did she do good? Well given the funds she had at her disposal a very strong argument exists that she could have done significantly more, but appears to have been more interested is deathbed conversion and making god happy via the suffering of others.

But if you want a different example, how about Martin Luther King Jr?

A much better example, however we don't see anything close to as many of him as we do MT's

 

[Liquid]

What I said May seem confusing but I believe suffering in terms of losing what you covet inorder to get closer to god reminds one of humility and humanity and just how lucky one can be in what they have. That's one of the principle reasons of fasting in Ramadan. That principle hopefully drives one to alleviate the suffering of others that are not as lucky as you or me.

Doing this without assurance that what it stands for is actually true or will turn out to be true can be reckless depending on the context.

You want to fast during ramadan for the reasons given in the Koran? Fine. If you think what the fasting represents is real then go ahead; this only affects you as an individual even though I personally do not understand it.

But to believe that consciously allowing people to suffer in the name of an unproven deity and not only believing it, but actually doing it, actually letting people suffer on their deathbed is inhumane no matter the justification.

 

[sumbrownkid]

@Scaff: hmm I guess I should retract my statement on her. However I actually did some more googling on Gandhi and from what I can gather he was more spiritual than outright religious, so I'm not sure if he works to my argument.

 

[Azuremen]

Oh god the irony.

@Scaff: hmm I guess I should retract my statement on her. However I actually did some more googling on Gandhi and from what I can gather he was more spiritual than outright religious, so I'm not sure if he works to my argument.

Most people acting in the name of religion are acting out of some fear of punishment rather than the interest of others. The whole "what is the point of life without faith and salvation" kind of skews people to doing things for a clear cut reward.

Religion is ultimately born out of fear of the unknown, and thus its aspirations are rarely noble.

 

[MadFlavour]

What??

And, if any radical Islamists come to your country for doing Jihad - you know how to "tolerate" them.

(MVD Spetsnaz on a road to Nazran, Ingushetia, January 2011)

I don't think you know what that word means.

 

[Furinkazen]

I don't think you know what that word means.

Jihad from my understanding means "to rise against the oppressed" such as repelling an invader or outside hostile force. Not "let's blindly go around bombing westerners".

 

[MadFlavour]

Jihad from my understanding means "to rise against the oppressed" such as repelling an invader or outside hostile force. Not "let's blindly go around bombing westerners".

The word jihad means a struggle, and applies to any great effort on the personal as well as the social level.
"Now lets get drunk and tear our own homes to pieces."

 

[Rage Racer]

I don't think you know what that word means.

I know and I'd like you to know, too.

Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Abrahamic God (Allah).

 

[MadFlavour]

I know and I'd like you to know, too.

Not true, incorrect translation.