Religion of Peace? Hurrf, Burrf!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,948
6,796
126
Why did this start in the first place?

Who started your war of silence against me? Was it you because you justified it because I wouldn't answer a questions or me because I justified not answering because you get an answer and rationalize it away with new questions, or you because you ficus on my answer as an insult, or me because I will give you an answer I know you will react negatively to and give it anyway, or is it because........

The start of violence is always preceded by a justification for using it. Payback is a bitch is one way to justify it. Payback is always justification because it announces itself. You deserved what you got because you earned it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Who started your war of silence against me? Was it you because you justified it because I wouldn't answer a questions or me because I justified not answering because you get an answer and rationalize it away with new questions, or you because you ficus on my answer as an insult, or me because I will give you an answer I know you will react negatively to and give it anyway, or is it because........

The start of violence is always preceded by a justification for using it. Payback is a bitch is one way to justify it. Payback is always justification because it announces itself. You deserved what you got because you earned it.
Yes, I did become frustrated earlier and essentially gave up talking to you for a while as I got the feeling you were more interested in talking 'at me' rather than talking 'with me'. There is no war of silence. I did not feel insulted. I simply lacked motivation.

I'm not justifying anyone's actions in CAR beyond self-defense/self-preservation...and I'm especially not justifying the brutality exhibited on both sides of this conflict...I was just trying to give some context to what happened there. Perknose didn't tell the whole story.
 
Last edited:

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
I don't think Mohammad murdered anyone, the best comparison would be all the millions of people murdered/killed in the name of Jesus by lots of Popes, Christian leaders
Somehow all these guys had Biblical backing

Edit- google list of killings in name of Jesus
Edit2- nobody says Jews emulate Jewish leaders killing Jesus anymore, people started to stop believing that crap after WW2

I think he killed 7 people,and ordered many,many more.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_did_Mohammed_kill?#slide=1

Sources:http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/meccan10.html
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,734
3,454
136
None of those people give a genuine shit about their religion with regard to the killings. They would be killing without it.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
This part of the article probably should have been quoted:

The current violence, hatred, and instability are a direct result of the human rights crisis that began in December 2012, when mostly Muslim Seleka forces launched an armed offensive that culminated in their seizure of power in March 2013. In power for nearly ten months, the Seleka were responsible for massacres, extrajudicial executions, rape, torture, and looting, as well as massive burning and destruction of Christian villages.

As the Seleka withdrew, the international forces allowed the anti-balaka militias to take control of town after town. The resulting violence and forcible expulsion of Muslim communities were predictable.

The waning power of the Seleka has not lessened their brutality as they leave. Even with their movement and operational capability significantly hampered, they have continued to carry out vicious attacks on Christian civilians and their property. Armed members of Muslim communities, acting independently or alongside Seleka forces, have also carried out brutal and large scale sectarian attacks on Christian civilians.

“The urgency of the situation demands an immediate response,” said Joanne Mariner. “It is time for the peacekeeping operation in CAR to protect the civilian population, deploy to threatened areas, and stop this forced exodus.”

Fern
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I reread the OP and now understand what Perknose was saying and I completely agree. His thread title and selective quoting threw me off.

I guess I'll just leave out that these attacks by "Christian" militias were in retaliation for large scale attacks by "Muslim" militias on Christians, and are basically tribal in nature and have NOTHING to do, in either case, with the basic modern tenets of either Christianity or Islam.
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
In which religion are its followers emulating their messiah by murdering others? See, you comparison fails when one examines the two prophets and sees a murderous warlord VS a pacifist martyr. The two stories, or religions, could not be more dynamically opposed.

OTOH, this does not change the fact that I would not invite those "Christians" in your OP to dinner. Nor would I invite them to my country. I would keep them separated from us, banished to the hell in which they live.

Though we squabble on details, I hope, at least, we agree that their violence has no place among us. So long as you agree with that then we stand united on such matters.

Christ was not a pacifist.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,934
10,817
147
I reread the OP and now understand what Perknose was saying and I completely agree. His thread title and selective quoting threw me off.
I guess I'll just leave out that these attacks by "Christian" militias were in retaliation for large scale attacks by "Muslim" militias on Christians, and are basically tribal in nature and have NOTHING to do, in either case, with the basic modern tenets of either Christianity or Islam.

Bingo! Thanks, Doc! I know we seldom agree so you seeing past the parody hysterics and getting my point is much appreciated. I'll keep it in mind and try to return the favor down the line. :thumbsup:
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Yeah, someone who quotes the Golden Rule is definitely a militant extremist.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Uh, not being a pacifist doesn't make one a militant extremist. It amounts to acknowledgment that fighting is sometimes a necessary act.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,948
6,796
126
Yes, I did become frustrated earlier and essentially gave up talking to you for a while as I got the feeling you were more interested in talking 'at me' rather than talking 'with me'. There is no war of silence. I did not feel insulted. I simply lacked motivation.

I'm not justifying anyone's actions in CAR beyond self-defense/self-preservation...and I'm especially not justifying the brutality exhibited on both sides of this conflict...I was just trying to give some context to what happened there. Perknose didn't tell the whole story.

Sorry for the delayed answer. I had it all typed out and got interrupted and lost it to do something else. I never like my second attempt as well as my first for some reason.

I accept what you say. My post was directed at the 'bitch' post not the one with details of how things began.

Then I added some stuff about what I believe about the circle of violence that flowed out so nicely the first time and which I don't now want to rehash.

Bottom line, feel what ever one feels but don't act out your feelings, oh the hell with it........
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,948
6,796
126
Bingo! Thanks, Doc! I know we seldom agree so you seeing past the parody hysterics and getting my point is much appreciated. I'll keep it in mind and try to return the favor down the line. :thumbsup:

Hehe, I think of him as the other half of a hall of mirrors.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
None of those people give a genuine shit about their religion with regard to the killings. They would be killing without it.

You mean like Pol pot, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Kahn, etc.,:hmm:

Separation of religion from state, freedom of speech, human rights, Atatürk showed it was possible in the Muslim world, too bad most of the apologists here forget that and enable the Wahhabi Islamists through multiculturalism nonsense instead of treating them equally under secular law.

On 1 March 1924, at the Assembly, Mustafa Kemal said “ The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as had been the case in the past.[69] ” On 3 March 1924, the caliphate was officially abolished and its powers within Turkey were transferred to the GNA. Other Muslim nations debated the validity of Turkey's unilateral abolition of the caliphate as they decided whether they should confirm the Turkish action or appoint a new caliph.[68] A "Caliphate Conference" was held in Cairo in May 1926 and a resolution was passed declaring the caliphate "a necessity in Islam", but failed to implement this decision.[68]


Two other Islamic conferences were held in Mecca (1926) and Jerusalem (1931), but failed to reach a consensus.[68] Turkey did not accept the re-establishment of the caliphate and perceived it as an attack to its basic existence; while Mustafa Kemal and the reformists continued their own way.[70]


On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".[58][71]


The removal of the caliphate was followed by an extensive effort to establish the separation of governmental and religious affairs. Education was the cornerstone in this effort. In 1923, there were three main educational groups of institutions. The most common institutions were medreses based on Arabic, the Qur'an and memorization. The second type of institution was idadî and sultanî, the reformist schools of the Tanzimat era. The last group included colleges and minority schools in foreign languages that used the latest teaching models in educating pupils. The old medrese education was modernized.[72] Mustafa Kemal changed the classical Islamic education for a vigorously promoted reconstruction of educational institutions.[72] Mustafa Kemal linked educational reform to the liberation of the nation from dogma, which he believed was more important than the Turkish war of independence.


“ Today, our most important and most productive task is the national education [unification and modernization] affairs. We have to be successful in national education affairs and we shall be. The liberation of a nation is only achieved through this way."[73]

” In the summer of 1924, Mustafa Kemal invited American educational reformer John Dewey to Ankara to advise him on how to reform Turkish education.[72] His public education reforms aimed to prepare citizens for roles in public life through increasing the public literacy. He wanted to institute compulsory primary education for both girls and boys; since then this effort has been an ongoing task for the republic. He pointed out that one of the main targets of education in Turkey had to be raising a generation nourished with what he called the "public culture". The state schools established a common curriculum which became known as the "unification of education."


Unification of education was put into force on 3 March 1924 by the Law on Unification of Education (No. 430). With the new law, education became inclusive, organized on a model of the civil community. In this new design, all schools submitted their curriculum to the "Ministry of National Education", a government agency modelled after other countries' ministries of education. Concurrently, the republic abolished the two ministries and made clergy subordinate to the department of religious affairs, one of the foundations of secularism in Turkey. The unification of education under one curriculum ended "clerics or clergy of the Ottoman Empire", but was not the end of religious schools in Turkey; they were moved to higher education until later governments restored them to their former position in secondary after Mustafa Kemal's death.



Atatürk with his Panama hat just after the Kastamonu speech in 1925.




Beginning in the fall of 1925, Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Turks to wear modern European attire.[74] He was determined to force the abandonment of the sartorial traditions of the Middle East and finalize a series of dress reforms, which were originally started by Mahmud II.[74] The fez was established by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 as part of the Ottoman Empire's modernization effort. The Hat Law of 1925 introduced the use of Western-style hats instead of the fez. Mustafa Kemal first made the hat compulsory to civil servants.[74] The guidelines for the proper dressing of students and state employees were passed during his lifetime; many civil servants adopted the hat willingly. In 1925, Mustafa Kemal wore his "Panama hat" during a public appearance in Kastamonu, one of the most conservative towns in Anatolia, to explain that the hat was the headgear of civilized nations. The last part of reform on dress emphasized the need to wear modern Western suits with neckties as well as Fedora and Derby-style hats instead of antiquated religion-based clothing such as the veil and turban in the Law Relating to Prohibited Garments of 1934.
Even though he personally promoted modern dress for women, Mustafa Kemal never made specific reference to women’s clothing in the law, as he believed that women would adapt to the new clothing styles of their own free will. He was frequently photographed on public business with his wife Lâtife Uşaklıgil, who covered her head in accordance with Islamic tradition. He was also frequently photographed on public business with women wearing modern Western clothes. But it was Atatürk's adopted daughters, Sabiha Gökçen and Afet İnan, who provided the real role model for the Turkish women of the future. He wrote: "The religious covering of women will not cause difficulty ... This simple style [of headcovering] is not in conflict with the morals and manners of our society."[75]


On 30 August 1925, Mustafa Kemal's view on religious insignia used outside places of worship was introduced in his Kastamonu speech. This speech also had another position. He said:


“ In the face of knowledge, science, and of the whole extent of radiant civilization, I cannot accept the presence in Turkey's civilized community of people primitive enough to seek material and spiritual benefits in the guidance of sheiks. The Turkish republic cannot be a country of sheiks, dervishes, and disciples. The best, the truest order is the order of civilization. To be a man it is enough to carry out the requirements of civilization. The leaders of dervish orders will understand the truth of my words, and will themselves close down their lodges [tekke] and admit that their disciplines have grown up.[56]

” On 2 September the government issued a decree closing down all Sufi orders and the tekkes. Mustafa Kemal ordered their dervish lodges to be converted to museums, such as Mevlana Museum in Konya. The institutional expression of Sufism became illegal in Turkey; a politically neutral form of Sufism, functioning as social associations, was permitted to exist.[citation needed]


The abolition of the caliphate and other cultural reforms were met with fierce opposition. The conservative elements were not happy and they launched attacks on the Kemalist reformists.[68]
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
You mean like Pol pot, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Kahn, etc.,:hmm:

Separation of religion from state, freedom of speech, human rights, Atatürk showed it was possible in the Muslim world, too bad most of the apologists here forget that and enable the Wahhabi Islamists through multiculturalism nonsense instead of treating them equally under secular law.

Sounds like that guy was far more advanced then the US was in '24, still today the struggle to keep religon out of government rages on with new cases every month, and of course like several threads here show, race is still a huge problem.
The US is 46 th in freedom of the press rankings

But ya..the Middle East
 
Last edited:

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
2
0
We're all going to do this ethnic cleansing very soon. Just like in the Balkans, but this time it will be all of Europe and nobody will stop it. Muslims are a cult of evil. Man, woman, child.

Good Job Central Africa.

Just stop with the hate speech.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Not all Muslims are terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. That is a fact.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,838
20,433
146
ah yea, islam vs. christianity....the holy war that keeps on giving, one century at a time.
 

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
2
0
ah yea, islam vs. christianity....the holy war that keeps on giving, one century at a time.

At this stage of the games it's democracy vs fascism, Islam is the cult that is at it's base. Literally, if you live in a muslim culture you might as well be living in North Korea. You are brainwashed all day everyday and conditioned with fear and violence.

It's a disgusting culture where most despicable rise to power, where pedophilia and arranged marriage to children is legal.

They even control the people in our western culture and if you don't believe it, draw a picture of allah or burn a koran and put it on youtube... scared?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
At this stage of the games it's democracy vs fascism, Islam is the cult that is at it's base. Literally, if you live in a muslim culture you might as well be living in North Korea. You are brainwashed all day everyday and conditioned with fear and violence.

It's a disgusting culture where most despicable rise to power, where pedophilia and arranged marriage to children is legal.


The worst part is that you could be describing either a villiage in NW Pakistan or a town in NW Utah. No joke.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
The problem is that you have lots of people living together in (relative) peace, when a small group of terrorists causes mayhem. Then the moment those are beaten the people turn on their neighbours, claim they are part of it, and start slaughtering them. Did every single Muslim join the Seleka militias? No, only a handful. Most didn't want them either. The Christian militias and all those joining them are no better, and they also should be treated as a terrorist organisation and hunted down to the last man.

But of course that won't happen as long as international economical interests are not threatened. So instead they'll say 'Oooh, that's bad what you are doing, you shouldn't do that!' and look away from the genocide taking place.