Wind of Change: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain

[Roamy]

From a fire to a flame, like we say in our country. With Mubarak gone, military junta rules the country.

I honestly think that democracy only works in countries where you have decently educated and economically independent middle class. Otherwise every revolution is used by either crooks or bigots for their own ends.

yes = unfortunately democracy has become a figment of our imagination

[ShiftingGears]

the car trunk shooter. Your reply was inept, as is your rhetoric.

He was not Muslim. He was a member of Nation of Islam, which any actual Muslim will tell you is a total perversion of the actual Islamic faith. I'm not sure Nation of Islam even qualifies as a religion, as opposed to a racial hate group.

[Mark]

I've had to add Bahrain to the list on the thread title..

[Eki]

I've had to add Bahrain to the list on the thread title..
Maybe you should add it to the F1 forum too. They are pondering if the Bahrain GP should be canceled or not.

[Bob Riebe]

He was not Muslim. He was a member of Nation of Islam, which any actual Muslim will tell you is a total perversion of the actual Islamic faith. I'm not sure Nation of Islam even qualifies as a religion, as opposed to a racial hate group.
In your mind.

[ShiftingGears]

In your mind.

So if I create a white supremacist group where I claim to be the messiah, and justify my insane beliefs using random quotes from the bible, would you be pleased that some would claim it as a Christian group, and would use that to brand all Christians? Or would you rather just claim it to be a nutjob white surpremacist group?


Or is that different, because it is Christianity, not Islam?

[BDunnell]

So if I create a white supremacist group where I claim to be the messiah, and justify my insane beliefs using random quotes from the bible, would you be pleased that some would claim it as a Christian group, and would use that to brand all Christians? Or would you rather just claim it to be a nutjob white surpremacist group?

Or is that different, because it is Christianity, not Islam?

I suspect it is different because Bob Riebe thinks it is, which automatically makes it so.

Apologies if anyone finds my rhetoric obtuse.

[Roamy]

So if I create a white supremacist group where I claim to be the messiah, and justify my insane beliefs using random quotes from the bible, would you be pleased that some would claim it as a Christian group, and would use that to brand all Christians? Or would you rather just claim it to be a nutjob white surpremacist group?


Or is that different, because it is Christianity, not Islam?

Rocky I doubt you would get much of a following - but you are free to have at it. In the case or radical Islam they seem to get quite a few followers which has led to taking over entire countries. The only way you are going to get a country is if Bullwinkle helps you and that would probably only be Canada.

[Roamy]

And btw squirrel I supposed you think Jimmy Swaggart did this:

Tunisian police have dispersed dozens of Islamists demanding the closure of a brothel in the capital Tunis.

The police reportedly fired in the air to break up the crowd.

Separately, a Polish Catholic priest was found dead with his throat slit outside the capital.

[Bob Riebe]

So if I create a white supremacist group where I claim to be the messiah, and justify my insane beliefs using random quotes from the bible, would you be pleased that some would claim it as a Christian group, and would use that to brand all Christians? Or would you rather just claim it to be a nutjob white surpremacist group?


Or is that different, because it is Christianity, not Islam?
They are Muslims.

The Muslim religion preaches to destroy anyone who disses Mohammed, especially the Jews.
They just picked one that is more liberal.

[Bob Riebe]

I suspect it is different because Bob Riebe thinks it is, which automatically makes it so.

Apologies if anyone finds my rhetoric obtuse.
Do not apologize for being obtuse, you are what you are, run with it.

[ICWS]

The Nation of Islam is an African-American religious movement founded by Wallace D. Fard Muhammed that set a goal of improving the spiritual, mental, social, and economical state of Black men and woman in America.

The NOI does not preach traditional Islam, it has its own perspective of the religion and has its own teachings. For example, the NOI believes that Allah appeared in the person of Wallace D. Fard Muhammed on July, 1930. Traditional Muslims would say that this belief is blasphemous to believe, as believing that Allah would manifest into a human is heretical and that likening any human to Allah is a sin (shirk). The NOI believes that Black people were the original people, and white, yellow, and brown people came from them. The NOI believes that white people are not worthy of being evangelized, thus white people are not accepted to join the NOI. Traditional Muslims would say that all races of people are equal, thus any person can become a Muslim. The NOI believes that the Honorable Elijah Muhammed was a messenger and was taught by and given the message from Allah (who manifested as the Master Wallace D. Fard Muhammed, according to the NOI). Traditional Muslims say that Muhammed the Prophet was the last messenger sent by Allah to Earth, and there would be no more messengers after him... There are other comparisons but those are the main ones.

The last time I checked, the Nation of Islam has been considered to be a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Group, due to its racist, separatist, and antisemitic beliefs and teachings. The authenticity in their teachings of Islam is clearly into question, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph: it is no coincidence to me that people like Malcom X, Muhammed Ali, and Warith D. Mohammed eventually left the group in order to become real Muslims.

[ShiftingGears]

They are Muslims.

The Muslim religion preaches to destroy anyone who disses Mohammed, especially the Jews.
They just picked one that is more liberal.

I notice you did not answer my question - NOI also uses passages from the bible to justify its ridiculous dogma. Does that make it in some way associated with Christianity, considering that no Islamic organisation has endorsed, associated or condoned the NOI group?

[ShiftingGears]

And btw squirrel I supposed you think Jimmy Swaggart did this:

Tunisian police have dispersed dozens of Islamists demanding the closure of a brothel in the capital Tunis.

The police reportedly fired in the air to break up the crowd.

Separately, a Polish Catholic priest was found dead with his throat slit outside the capital.

Jimmy Swaggart is a dirty dirty hypocrite, but I don't see what connection you are establishing, to be honest.

[Bob Riebe]

I notice you did not answer my question - NOI also uses passages from the bible to justify its ridiculous dogma. Does that make it in some way associated with Christianity, considering that no Islamic organisation has endorsed, associated or condoned the NOI group?
Religions use the Bible out of context, or change the context to serve their purposes; therefore they cannot be Christian because to truly be a part of the Christian Faith one must take the Bible at face value with no man-made alterations.

Are some supposed "christian" churches so far of of the mark that God considers them not of the faith?
God only truly knows.

[Bob Riebe]

The Nation of Islam is an African-American religious movement founded by Wallace D. Fard Muhammed that set a goal of improving the spiritual, mental, social, and economical state of Black men and woman in America.

The NOI does not preach traditional Islam, it has its own perspective of the religion and has its own teachings. For example, the NOI believes that Allah appeared in the person of Wallace D. Fard Muhammed on July, 1930. Traditional Muslims would say that this belief is blasphemous to believe, as believing that Allah would manifest into a human is heretical and that likening any human to Allah is a sin (shirk). The NOI believes that Black people were the original people, and white, yellow, and brown people came from them. The NOI believes that white people are not worthy of being evangelized, thus white people are not accepted to join the NOI. Traditional Muslims would say that all races of people are equal, thus any person can become a Muslim. The NOI believes that the Honorable Elijah Muhammed was a messenger and was taught by and given the message from Allah (who manifested as the Master Wallace D. Fard Muhammed, according to the NOI). Traditional Muslims say that Muhammed the Prophet was the last messenger sent by Allah to Earth, and there would be no more messengers after him... There are other comparisons but those are the main ones.

The last time I checked, the Nation of Islam has been considered to be a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Group, due to its racist, separatist, and antisemitic beliefs and teachings. The authenticity in their teachings of Islam is clearly into question, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph: it is no coincidence to me that people like Malcom X, Muhammed Ali, and Warith D. Mohammed eventually left the group in order to become real Muslims.
Thank you for the very informative post.

Shia and Sunni Muslims also kill each other because of differences in dogma:

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).-- -- so I really just see the NoI to be just another branch off of the same tree.

[Captain VXR]

Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Northern Ireland until around 15 years ago

[Eki]

Thank you for the very informative post.

Shia and Sunni Muslims also kill each other because of differences in dogma:

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).-- -- so I really just see the NoI to be just another branch off of the same tree.
You'd probably also see the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea be just another branch of the tree of democratic countries. It has to be democratic, because it says so in the name, right?

[Bob Riebe]

You'd probably also see the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea be just another branch of the tree of democratic countries. It has to be democratic, because it says so in the name, right?
Your rhetoric is as obtuse as usual. Do you hang-out with BDunnell?

[Bob Riebe]

Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Northern Ireland until around 15 years ago
Your point is?
If you look up the history of Christianity, Lutherans killed Lutherans and Roman Catholics killed Roman Catholics- in internal squabbles also.

This has what to do with curent Muslims killing anyone who does not dance to their dogma at their choosing.

[ShiftingGears]

Religions use the Bible out of context, or change the context to serve their purposes; therefore they cannot be Christian because to truly be a part of the Christian Faith one must take the Bible at face value with no man-made alterations.

Are some supposed "christian" churches so far of of the mark that God considers them not of the faith?
God only truly knows.

So according to your logic, the Nation of Islam, which uses the Koran greatly out of context, cannot be considered Islam.

Which was my original point....

[Bob Riebe]

So according to your logic, the Nation of Islam, which uses the Koran greatly out of context, cannot be considered Islam.

Which was my original point....
And Islam corrupts what was written in the Bible so it is just another hack job- cult.
,

[ArrowsFA1]

Religions use the Bible out of context, or change the context to serve their purposes...
Religions of all kinds use their religion to serve their own purposes and impose their will on others.

If there is one thing we really should have learned by now it is that individuals, regardless of religion, view and interpret words and actions in very different ways. We see this every day on this forum, and we see it being enacted out on far bigger stages.

Give people information, whatever the format, and they'll interpret it in many different ways. It's called having a free mind, something that neither religious or political leaders can completely control.

[Eki]

And Islam corrupts what was written in the Bible so it is just another hack job- cult.
,
Then Christianity is another hack job cult of Judaism and the New Testament corrupts what was written in the Old Testament.

[Bob Riebe]

Then Christianity is another hack job cult of Judaism and the New Testament corrupts what was written in the Old Testament. The Old Testament sets-up all that is the New Testament.
You can go back to Jew hating now.

[ShiftingGears]

And Islam corrupts what was written in the Bible so it is just another hack job- cult.
,

Again you did not answer my question - and you could argue any religion is a cult.

[Roamy]

Again you did not answer my question - and you could argue any religion is a cult.

So what - All cults do not seek the destruction of other people.

[Bob Riebe]

Again you did not answer my question - and you could argue any religion is a cult.I did, you were not paying attention or do not like the truth.

Faith is the base of any true religion; Islam ignores, as do those who follow what is left of the old Jewish faith, God's word as written in the Bible.
Now is the Bible for real, that is a matter of faith, but if it is, Islam literally spits in God's face, as did their cousins the Jews.

[Eki]

The Old Testament sets-up all that is the New Testament.
You can go back to Jew hating now.
And the Old Testament and the New Testament together set up all that is the Koran. You can go back to Muslim hating now.

[BDunnell]

Your rhetoric is as obtuse as usual. Do you hang-out with BDunnell?

Bob, it may have escaped your notice that my previous 'apology' for using 'obtuse rhetoric' was not in any way meant seriously — in fact, it may possibly have been intended to suggest to you that you overuse the phrase to an extent that has become tiresome. Just a thought.

[BDunnell]

Ought the title of the thread not to have Libya added? I find what is happening there fascinating, obviously, given all the regime there has been through in the course of 42 years, and the attempts of Western governments to kow-tow towards the Gadaffi regime in the last decade or so. It's yet another example of how close trading links with a country have little or no effect in terms of democratising it or improving human rights there. It hasn't done so in China, and it hasn't done so in Libya. Having visited Libya two years ago, the question must also be posed as to where the revenues derived from (if I remember correctly) being in possession of the world's eighth largest oil reserves have gone. Clearly, the wider Libyan populace has never derived any benefits from these riches.

[ArrowsFA1]

I did, you were not paying attention or do not like the truth.
Ah, the "truth". There's only ever one version of that isn't there.

You appear to make the assumption that the Bible is the only "true" religious text and Christianity is the only "true" religion, therefore (so your argument appears to go) any other religion, or more particularly Islam, is bogus because it does not accept the "truth".

Would that be a fair summary?

[Dave B]

You do know that the bible and the Koran are both fictional, right? It's like two bald men arguing over a comb.

[markabilly]

Bob, it may have escaped your notice that my previous 'apology' for using 'obtuse rhetoric' was not in any way meant seriously — in fact, it may possibly have been intended to suggest to you that you overuse the phrase to an extent that has become tiresome. Just a thought.

Don't know about Bob, but I thought it was another of your coy personal insults designed to provoke an angry reponse rather than to further debate

[BDunnell]

An interesting point about Libya is made by the BBC's Nick Robinson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/02/an_unforgettabl.html

[Mark]

Things are rapidly falling apart in Libya now. Gadfi is reported to be fleeing to Venuzela. Meanwhile jets are bombing Tripoli.

[Roamy]

Hey lets go whack the Lockerbie Bomber !!!

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, it may have escaped your notice that my previous 'apology' for using 'obtuse rhetoric' was not in any way meant seriously — in fact, it may possibly have been intended to suggest to you that you overuse the phrase to an extent that has become tiresome. Just a thought.
As were mine.

[BDunnell]

As were mine.

Forgive me for not having noticed.

[BDunnell]

Hey lets go whack the Lockerbie Bomber !!!

You go over there if you'd like to! Personally, I think the crisis may have a bit longer to run than many would like to think. I doubt that it will end cleanly as long as members of Gaddafi's family remain in Libya. Sadly, what has happened there today proves what I had thought having visited the country and seen the state it and its military were in — that the Libyan armed forces pose no real threat at all to anyone outside Libya, being outdated and starved of cash in spite of the wealth of the regime, but would instead only be suitable for doing a lot of damage to Libya's own people if used against them.

[Bob Riebe]

And the Old Testament and the New Testament together set up all that is the Koran. You can go back to Muslim hating now.It is obvious you have not read the Bible or you would not make such an idiotic statement.

[BDunnell]

No matter what disagreements we may have on policy, I don't think there's any need for religious intolerance, from either side.

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, the "truth". There's only ever one version of that isn't there.

You appear to make the assumption that the Bible is the only "true" religious text and Christianity is the only "true" religion, therefore (so your argument appears to go) any other religion, or more particularly Islam, is bogus because it does not accept the "truth".

Would that be a fair summary?
Absolutely, as it says in the Bible, one cannot serve two masters; therefore there can only be one true God and one true faith.

As much as I loath the muslim religion one cannot but begrudgingly respect the strength with which they honor their faith.

[BDunnell]

Absolutely, as it says in the Bible, one cannot serve two masters; therefore there can only be one true God and one true faith.

Now I see where the utter, absolute certainty, far beyond anything I would ever claim, on various views that you hold stems from.

[Bob Riebe]

Ought the title of the thread not to have Libya added? I find what is happening there fascinating, obviously, given all the regime there has been through in the course of 42 years, and the attempts of Western governments to kow-tow towards the Gadaffi regime in the last decade or so. It's yet another example of how close trading links with a country have little or no effect in terms of democratising it or improving human rights there. It hasn't done so in China, and it hasn't done so in Libya. Having visited Libya two years ago, the question must also be posed as to where the revenues derived from (if I remember correctly) being in possession of the world's eighth largest oil reserves have gone. Clearly, the wider Libyan populace has never derived any benefits from these riches. Libya absolutely must be included, especially to see how Obama, for the U.S. citizens anyway, handles him if he gets as blood-thirsty as he is threatening.

[BDunnell]

Libya absolutely must be included, especially to see how Obama, for the U.S. citizens anyway, handles him if he gets as blood-thirsty as he is threatening.

Well, the UK is doing a very good job of pretending that there is nothing contradictory — I won't say hypocritical — about the way we have treated Libya in recent years. Of course, the Conservatives cannot be held responsible for this policy, having only been in power since last May, but you can bet your life that they would have adopted exactly the same policy as Labour did, namely to forge close ties with the Gaddafi regime once it had renounced certain past acts, and once it became clear that there were major trade opportunities in terms of arms and oil. The arms sales have never come to fruition for the reasons I've given previously. Oil is a different matter. It all goes to prove the utter bankruptcy (and not just in metaphorical moral terms) of such policies in relation to unpleasant regimes. Trading never results in democratising.

Oh, and I spelled Gaddafi incorrectly in the post you quoted above. Of course, there is no 'correct' translated spelling as such, but Gadaffi is never even remotely right, for which apologies.

[ArrowsFA1]

Absolutely, as it says in the Bible, one cannot serve two masters; therefore there can only be one true God and one true faith.
Can you understand how that might be seen as being rather arrogant? You decide to serve one particular "master", and others choose theirs, and yet yours is the only "true" one.

Still, it's your choice to make, and IMHO faith is a very individual thing.

[Daniel]

Can you understand how that might be seen as being rather arrogant? You decide to serve one particular "master", and others choose theirs, and yet yours is the only "true" one.

Still, it's your choice to make, and IMHO faith is a very individual thing.

Yeah but it's HIS individual thing :p

[Eki]

Yeah but it's HIS individual thing :p
And I could give a hint where he can shove HIS individual thing. And it's not down my throat.

[BDunnell]

And I could give a hint where he can shove HIS individual thing. And it's not down my throat.

I may dislike the opinions expressed by some people with great vehemence, but that comment, Eki, is totally unnecessary.

[Bob Riebe]

Can you understand how that might be seen as being rather arrogant? You decide to serve one particular "master", and others choose theirs, and yet yours is the only "true" one.

Still, it's your choice to make, and IMHO faith is a very individual thing.
At face value, no.
There is only one truth.
The Christian church fractured because men tried to twist the truth to fit their aspirations, much like the Jewish leaders who prayed so loudly in the Temple.

The actions of the one, or the many, can turn it into arrogance, and also an absolute farce (the jack and jenny-asses who put on public displays to condemn homosexuals, is an example) but the fact there is only one truth, and one who accepts only the truth is never being be arrogant. (i.e. Daniel in the lions den)
At the same time, in the Bible, the Jews who loudly prayed in the temple to show how Godly they were, were criticized by Jesus himself.
He said to go into one's secret place and pray/speak to God in whispers, not make a public display to show how
falsely holy you are.

[Dave B]

At face value, no.
There is only one truth.
The Christian church fractured because men tried to twist the truth to fit their aspirations, much like the Jewish leaders who prayed so loudly in the Temple.

Psssst, Bob, it's all made up.

[Eki]

I may dislike the opinions expressed by some people with great vehemence, but that comment, Eki, is totally unnecessary.
Well, it was meant tongue-in-cheek. If that's an excuse.

[ArrowsFA1]

At face value, no.
There is only one truth...and one who accepts only the truth is never being be arrogant.
Fair enough. Makes it easier to understand where you're coming from :s mokin:

[Retro Formula 1]

At face value, no.
There is only one truth.
The Christian church fractured because men tried to twist the truth to fit their aspirations, much like the Jewish leaders who prayed so loudly in the Temple.

I agree 100%

The truth is that the Universe began with a big bang and this Planet formed about 4.5 Billion Years ago and not 10,000 years ago as the Faithful would have us believe.

Christians have since tried to twist and turn the words of the bible to fit facts and failed miserably, claiming it is merely a guide when faced with evidence contrary to the written word and an absolute definitive doctrine when you feel you can get away with it such as your bigoted views on homosexuality.

There is truth and there is faith. You are blinded by faith and closed to the truth.

That is your choice but I couldn't live with myself following a false belief. You can.

[BDunnell]

Christians have since tried to twist and turn the words of the bible to fit facts and failed miserably, claiming it is merely a guide when faced with evidence contrary to the written word and an absolute definitive doctrine when you feel you can get away with it such as your bigoted views on homosexuality.

I am an atheist and proud of it, and I hate to defend Bob Riebe or his beliefs to any extent, but didn't he say specifically in his last post that he opposes those Christians who protest against homosexuality?

[Retro Formula 1]

I am an atheist and proud of it, and I hate to defend Bob Riebe or his beliefs to any extent, but didn't he say specifically in his last post that he opposes those Christians who protest against homosexuality?

Not unless I have forgotten how to read. He says that there is one truth and overt public displays undermine that.

You will also notice that I use the term "Christians" and "your" in the same sentence as in referring to Christians.

If you feel I am wrong about Bob, perhaps he can clarify his stance on this.

[Dave B]

Religious zealots (on all sides) aside, isn't it lovely to note that our PM is cashing in on the trouble by touring the region trying to drum up arms sales? When he said "we're all in this together" I had no idea that's what he meant :s

[Daniel]

Perhaps he's confused between the middle East issues and screwing us over in terms of the budget

[race aficionado]

I won't comment on what is being discussed because I now don't know what is actually being discussed . . . .

I just want to sit back and smile as I witness (we all are witnessing) the most amazing and important wind of change that is happening in our planet right now.

People Power is not only a concept, it's a force of reckoning and a change maker.

This is serious stuff!!!!
:D


:s mokin:

[Dave B]

Gaddafi (Duck) is at this moment making a heartfelt but clearly desperate address about how his glorious country has defied oppression and that he'll die a martyr rather than surrender to world superpowers. The demented rantings of a madman, possibly, but they'll probably be his last words so he might as well enjoy them.

[Roamy]

Race

I hoped you tucked away a lot in Colombia - We may have to go there before this is all over :)

[Dave B]

Gaddafi is now talking about committees being set up by local people to run the country. Fair play to Cameron then, he must be spreading his BS around while he visits the area.

Anybody else watching this speech? It's quite literally mental.

[Dave B]

William Hague has announced that the UK is sending HMS Cumberland to evacuate British citizens from Libya. Thank goodness we're not decomissioning these ships anytime soon. Oh, wait... :s

[Mark]

Precisely. This just shows the folly of getting rid of our military capabilities. As ever the key is the army, just as in Egypt. Unlike Mubarak, Gadafi really is mental and so isn't going to see reason.

[Mark]

Just watching his speech. Yep, he's insane.

[Bob Riebe]

Not unless I have forgotten how to read. He says that there is one truth and overt public displays undermine that.

You will also notice that I use the term "Christians" and "your" in the same sentence as in referring to Christians.

If you feel I am wrong about Bob, perhaps he can clarify his stance on this.You interpreted what was written as you chose to interpret it, much like various Christian groups do the same with words that are, in context quite clear, but do not fit their opinions.
---------------------------------------

This has gotten off the hard topic but in reality the differences between Christian, Jew and Muslim faiths are the core value.
Back to the countries involved.

[Mark]

Gadafi has said he'd rather be killed than give up. That can be arranged..

[Daniel]

Gaddafi is now talking about committees being set up by local people to run the country. Fair play to Cameron then, he must be spreading his BS around while he visits the area.

:rotflmao:

[ArrowsFA1]

:rotflmao:
+ 1 :p :

[Sonic]

I heard on the radio that the UN are considering a no fly zone over the capital to prevent air strikes against the public.

[Roamy]

We could start a pool for how may more days he makes it :)

[Retro Formula 1]

We could start a pool for how may more days he makes it :)

I'll put ten bucks that he's gone by the time England beat France at the weekend. $$$

[Roamy]

Well I don't know this looks pretty sad now. I am hearing of mass murder in the streets. When will the world learn - We have to take these guys out when we have the chance.
I am not saying another Iraq war. We should have just taken out Saddam just like the world should have taken out Omar years ago. This guy has been bad news from day one. But just wishful thinking the world apparently has no intrest in getting together and policing rogue nations. So we will continue with these stupid wars until someone pull out the big one. I hear the protesters have captured two cities- maybe some caring nation will fly in some ammo. I also heard the UN may invoke a no fly zone. Could this be true - the UN does something !

[Eki]

I'll put ten bucks that he's gone by the time England beat France at the weekend. $$$
Which weekend and year?

[Mark]

Far too many countries around the world being ruled by dictators, quite often ones as mental as Gadafi! Problem is you can't just go and kill them and their henchmen and then expect the country will magically become democratic overnight, just look at Iraq..

Egypt was the best solution. The army are the only ones who can keep order on a countrywide scale, so the sensible thing was done there and have the army take over for 6 months until elections can be held, assuming of course they are held!

[BDunnell]

Precisely. This just shows the folly of getting rid of our military capabilities. As ever the key is the army, just as in Egypt. Unlike Mubarak, Gadafi really is mental and so isn't going to see reason.

Indeed, but the Libyan armed forces are in such an appalling state that it would be extremely simple militarily to counter them in an effective manner. Believe me — I have been there and been up close with their armed forces. They have had little money spent on them for years, rely heavily on aged equipment and are generally not a credible adversary. In truth, as their performance in the 1980s against US and French forces illustrated, they probably never were. Libya can do plenty of damage to its own civilians with its forces, but little to anyone else. The question is whether the will exists to take any action, and I think caution is wise, even now.

[BDunnell]

We should have just taken out Saddam just like the world should have taken out Omar years ago. !

What we should not do is sell arms to them, yet still we never learn.


I also heard the UN may invoke a no fly zone. Could this be true - the UN does something !

By far the best option, in my view. The Libyans could do little to counter it, and it would be a meaningful course of action.

[BDunnell]

Gaddafi is now talking about committees being set up by local people to run the country.

Which is supposedly what have existed there for years already. On arrival at Tripoli airport, one is confronted with signs saying things like 'COMMITTEES EVERYWHERE!'

[BDunnell]

You interpreted what was written as you chose to interpret it, much like various Christian groups do the same with words that are, in context quite clear, but do not fit their opinions..

I notice, though, that in saying that you don't make it clear whether or not you yourself condemn homosexuality, or just those who indulge in overt displays of their condemnation.

[ArrowsFA1]

When will the world learn - We have to take these guys out when we have the chance...the world apparently has no intrest in getting together and policing rogue nations.

I assume you would advocate a neo-conservative foreign policy?

a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms[/*:m:2ux93xqv]
low tolerance for diplomacy[/*:m:2ux93xqv]
readiness to use military force[/*:m:2ux93xqv]
emphasis on US unilateral action[/*:m:2ux93xqv]
disdain for multilateral organisations[/*:m:2ux93xqv]
focus on the Middle East[/*:m:2ux93xqv]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825039.stm

[markabilly]

all i can say about this, is the price of oil and gas is going up and up.....so everyone will soon be paying the price for the winds of change.

[Mark]

all i can say about this, is the price of oil and gas is going up and up.....so everyone will soon be paying the price for the winds of change.

Yep! The markets hate 'uncertainty' and that's what we've got right now.

[Dave B]

In other news, Ricky Gervais will be the new president of Libya :p

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/feb/23/ricky-gervais-mocks-net-worth-reports

[Mark]

No way, Gadafi is way funnier than Gervais could ever hope to be!

[BDunnell]

No way, Gadafi is way funnier than Gervais could ever hope to be!

I don't want to seem too po-faced, but I think Gaddafi's behaviour on this occasion has, for the moment, gone beyond anything humorous given the consequences of his actions.

[Bob Riebe]

I notice, though, that in saying that you don't make it clear whether or not you yourself condemn homosexuality, or just those who indulge in overt displays of their condemnation.The thread and the subject is not about me, nor shall I let it become so.

[Roamy]

Hopefully his bullet will arrive shortly

[Roamy]

I assume you would advocate a neo-conservative foreign policy?

a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms[/*:m:1piisqhm]
low tolerance for diplomacy[/*:m:1piisqhm]
readiness to use military force[/*:m:1piisqhm]
emphasis on US unilateral action[/*:m:1piisqhm]
disdain for multilateral organisations[/*:m:1piisqhm]
focus on the Middle East[/*:m:1piisqhm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825039.stm

1. you mean good countries and bad countries - yes
2. Yes fairly low - but you can give it a short shot - but if the world powers had a track record of togetherness things could get much easier
3. Well military force is changing - I think your can take out the leadership quite easily and then let the people rule. People need to be free to choose.
4. I would like to get out of this mode. I like the big fence and stay at home. But Israel will probably keep us in the middle east forever
5. Depends if they do anything - UN is fairly worthless
6. Again we are there with Israel - I think the current event will spark a energy revolution over here which will change the face of our country and perhaps the world. The old saying "A pig get fatter and a Hog gets slaughtered" For years now the middle east have be oil hogs.

[BDunnell]

1. you mean good countries and bad countries - yes

How, then, in your eyes does a country cease to be a 'bad' one and turn into a 'good' one?

[Daniel]

In other news, Ricky Gervais will be the new president of Libya :p

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/feb/23/ricky-gervais-mocks-net-worth-reports

What a d***head, people are dying trying to get rid of Gaddafi and this unfunny idiot is trying to score laughs off it.

[BDunnell]

I must say, generally I think that any subject, no matter how horrendous, is suitable for humour in the right circumstances, but I am rather uncomfortable with it in this instance.

[Daniel]

Ditto. It's just not right to have a laugh while this is going on

[Sonic]

Ditto. It's just not right to have a laugh while this is going on

Sadly it's the way of things, and there's bound to be someone somewhere who finds it funny. I remember after 9/11 it took less than 24 hours before some sick b@stard made a joke out of it.

[veeten]

How, then, in your eyes does a country cease to be a 'bad' one and turn into a 'good' one?

when it makes a deal with the United States,... you know, good for 'US'. ;)

[BDunnell]

when it makes a deal with the United States,... you know, good for 'US'. ;)

It would be interesting to see whether there are those who genuinely think along those lines. Personally, I think the matter is more complex.

[Daniel]

Sadly it's the way of things, and there's bound to be someone somewhere who finds it funny. I remember after 9/11 it took less than 24 hours before some sick b@stard made a joke out of it.

But there are completely different ways of being humourous about an event. Charlie Brooker deals very well with making humourous points whilst talking about tragic events

aZRJtAED8uo

He doesn't make you laugh at the Haitian people, he makes you laugh at the coverage and journalists.

[BDunnell]

But there are completely different ways of being humourous about an event.

Exactly right.

[Daniel]

Exactly right.

Ben, just wondering what you think of Charlie Brooker? Although he is a little samey after a while I find him the perfect antidote to rubbish quality news.

[BDunnell]

Ben, just wondering what you think of Charlie Brooker? Although he is a little samey after a while I find him the perfect antidote to rubbish quality news.

I haven't seen much of his recent stuff, since I moved abroad. Before that, I thought he was very good, if becoming a little over-exposed. One thing is for sure, though — he is another example of the sort of TV that would simply never be made, let alone broadcast, anywhere else but the UK.

[Daniel]

I haven't seen much of his recent stuff, since I moved abroad. Before that, I thought he was very good, if becoming a little over-exposed. One thing is for sure, though — he is another example of the sort of TV that would simply never be made, let alone broadcast, anywhere else but the UK.

His "How TV ruined your life" series has been up and down, some episodes are fantastic and some just a bit boring. OVerall I've like it though, especially the episode about love and the other about aspirations :)

[Roamy]

How, then, in your eyes does a country cease to be a 'bad' one and turn into a 'good' one?

well you can start - when the free the people to elect their own government

[Rollo]

well you can start - when the free the people to elect their own government

Does that mean that the United States was a "bad" country for 13 years? The Federal Government didn't exist until 1789.

[Roamy]

Does that mean that the United States was a "bad" country for 13 years? The Federal Government didn't exist until 1789.

were the people free??

[Eki]

well you can start - when the free the people to elect their own government
Iranians did that in 1979, but Bush still called them an evil country. The Palestinians also elected Hamas to be their government, but the US wasn't happy about it.

And the Germans elected the Nazi-government in power, so according to your criteria, Nazi-Germany was a good country.

[markabilly]

Far too many countries around the world being ruled by dictators, quite often ones as mental as Gadafi! Problem is you can't just go and kill them and their henchmen and then expect the country will magically become democratic overnight, just look at Iraq..

Egypt was the best solution. The army are the only ones who can keep order on a countrywide scale, so the sensible thing was done there and have the army take over for 6 months until elections can be held, assuming of course they are held!

That is the problem, assuming the army does what it does hold elections.

However, as I recall, it was under this type of scenario that the colonel Gadafi was able to grab control and do what he has done.

[Eki]

Ghadaffi is starting to sound like George W Bush. He claims that al-Qaeda is behind the riots in Libya. Sure, al-Qaeda, the usual suspect, is always the root of ALL evil.

[donKey jote]

His "How TV ruined your life" series has been up and down, some episodes are fantastic and some just a bit boring. OVerall I've like it though, especially the episode about love and the other about aspirations :)

yes, I also think the love episode has been the best so far :laugh: :laugh:

[donKey jote]

Indeed, but the Libyan armed forces are in such an appalling state
I read somewhere recently that Gaddafi has deliberately undermined them to avoid the risk of a Coup against him. The real force are his militia.

[Mark]

I looks like the descent into Civil War.. It certainly isn't peaceful protest of the likes of Egypt, there's open fighting between the rebels and the government.

[Roamy]

they are saying that this ghadfi has chemical weapons and they suspect he will use them on his own people. What I can't figure out is if we can hit a guy in a tent in northern pakistan why can't some kill this prix standing on a balcony??

[Eki]

They interviewed some Libyan protester on TV. He called Gaddafi a Zionist and an atheist. Maybe that gives us a hint what the next government in Libya will be like.

[Eki]

they are saying that this ghadfi has chemical weapons and they suspect he will use them on his own people. What I can't figure out is if we can hit a guy in a tent in northern pakistan why can't some kill this prix standing on a balcony??
Well, usually when you try to hit a guy in a tent in Northern Pakistan, you hit a school, hospital or a wedding party some distance away instead.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, usually when you try to hit a guy in a tent in Northern Pakistan, you hit a school, hospital or a wedding party some distance away instead.

No, sometimes they just hit the tent. The problem always is when these cowards hide in the middle of a village so they can assume that the drone's wont get them.

Ah yes, one man's freedom fighter is yet another man's coward.....

As for Gaddafi, well, I am sure Eki you have a good defense for what he is doing....you usually go out of your way to defend dictators who hate Israel and America....

[Eki]

As for Gaddafi, well, I am sure Eki you have a good defense for what he is doing....you usually go out of your way to defend dictators who hate Israel and America....
Seems like his enemies might hate Israel and America even more than him.

And I only defend dictators who are being dethroned by foreign powers without asking their citizens, not when they are being dethroned by the citizens themselves. That's because I dislike when stronger countries use force to meddle with internal affairs of weaker countries.

[Mark]

Gaddafi has denied there are any problems in Libya :s

The UK, US and others need to be careful. We're rightly sending warships to the area, but Gaddafi might and probably is taking that in the wrong way thinking that we are going to try to invade Libya, after all, it's not without precedent!

[Dave B]

I think Gaddafi is slowly morphing into Charlie Sheen, it's getting hard to tell their insane rantings apart. :s

My fear is that when people speak about Islam or Muslim they equate the two when in fact there are several sects. Most that I have seen here already are aware of that.

What will happen when group a) is happy that things are going so well but group b) is not as pleased by the amount of power and influence. My worry would be more so when it comes to the various moderates like Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan.

[ShiftingGears]

I think Gaddafi is slowly morphing into Charlie Sheen, it's getting hard to tell their insane rantings apart. :s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz

[Tazio]

I looks like the descent into Civil War.. It certainly isn't peaceful protest of the likes of Egypt, there's open fighting between the rebels and the government.
With over 1,000 dead already I think it's safe to say that it has reached the early stage of civil war status. And Gaddafi being so delusional, I believe it is going to get much worse before it gets better

[Daniel]

With over 1,000 dead already I think it's safe to say that it has reached the early stage of civil war status. And Gaddafi being so delusional, I believe it is going to get much worse before it gets better

I think there's a difference between a civil war and a revolution. I think this may drag on for a little while, but it's not going to turn into a full blown civil war.

[Tazio]

I think there's a difference between a civil war and a revolution. I think this may drag on for a little while, but it's not going to turn into a full blown civil war.Yes definitely a difference, but we may or may not be at a point where it has begun. The fighting has taken on a strategic nature and many are throwing around that term. Perhaps it is best defined as a rebellion right now. :confused:


The increasingly violent clashes threatened to transform the two-week popular rebellion into a drawn-out civil war.

The regime has retaken at least two towns and threatened a third, while rebels repulsed attacks on three other key areas: Misrata to the east of the capital, Zawiyah to the west, and the mountain town of Zintan to the south

http://www.smh.com.au/world/dictators-forces-recapture-towns-as-risk-of-civil-war-increases-20110302-1beyk.html

[Hondo]

It is way past high time to leave the Middle East and Africa alone. It is time for those countries, all of them, including wannabe countries, to deal with their citizens, defenses, infrastructure, water, oil, and power on their own. Whatever the West will do will be wrong. Whatever the West doesn't do will be wrong. Let the Arabs find Arab ways to settle their differences.

[Mark]

Were talking about government held areas and rebel held areas. With the government attempting to take territory by force. Sounds like a war to me.

[Daniel]

Were talking about government held areas and rebel held areas. With the government attempting to take territory by force. Sounds like a war to me.

Well of course. But the rebels have no centralised leadership and it's hardly been going on for months or years just yet.

At the moment this is just a load of really pissed off civilians and some soldiers rising up. I see it as more of an uprising than civil war

[Mark]

Just watching John Simpsons report on the news. It's a war alright.

[Hondo]

I seriously doubt these are all coincidental popular uprisings. You can bet both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are both behind the scenes pushing, directing, and funding. When it is over, they will step in and take control and the common peoples lives will be no better.

[Roamy]

I seriously doubt these are all coincidental popular uprisings. You can bet both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are both behind the scenes pushing, directing, and funding. When it is over, they will step in and take control and the common peoples lives will be no better.

yea that was the mistake Hitler made - he should have just told us he had a new religion call Hitlism and we would have just welcomed him in !

[Bob Riebe]

I seriously doubt these are all coincidental popular uprisings. You can bet both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are both behind the scenes pushing, directing, and funding. When it is over, they will step in and take control and the common peoples lives will be no better.
That is A: a bit paranoid, and B: giving those two concerns more organization than they are shown to have ever had.
Are muslim political wannabes helping drive this, probably, but most of the people seem to not want to replace one form of controlled living, with another.

[Retro Formula 1]

That is A: a bit paranoid, and B: giving those two concerns more organization than they are shown to have ever had.
Are muslim political wannabes helping drive this, probably, but most of the people seem to not want to replace one form of controlled living, with another.

Those naughty Muslim Political Wannabes are already in power so I doubt this is one of those murderous, extreemist Muslim Vs virtuous, Holy Christian battles.

[Bob Riebe]

Those naughty Muslim Political Wannabes are already in power so I doubt this is one of those murderous, extreemist Muslim Vs virtuous, Holy Christian battles.Unless the government governs by Sharia law, you are wrong,
Try again.

[Retro Formula 1]

What has that to do with it?

Quite frankly, I think Sharia law has a lot of good points. Of course, you will quote extreme examples but have you looked into it?

BUT, if a Country's people decide to accept Sharia Law, what's that got to do with anyone else?

[Bob Riebe]

What has that to do with it?

Quite frankly, I think Sharia law has a lot of good points. Of course, you will quote extreme examples but have you looked into it?

BUT, if a Country's people decide to accept Sharia Law, what's that got to do with anyone else?
You mean if the men decide.

I never thought you to be a sexist, but your attitude and selective reading of Sharia says otherwise.

Women's Rights and the Sharia

According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html

[Tazio]

Tripoli/Cairo, March 3 (DPA) Embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has endorsed a plan by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for mediated talks with opposition forces in the country, according to media reports Thursday.

Chavez's plan would see an international peace commission head to Libya to negotiate between Gaddafi and opposition groups. :grenade:

http://www.sify.com/news/gaddafi-endorses-chavez-negotiation-plan-as-violence-continues-news-international-lddrkpeiadf.html

[Eki]

Women's Rights and the Sharia

According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html
That's Europe and North America just hundred years ago.

[ioan]

What has that to do with it?

Quite frankly, I think Sharia law has a lot of good points. Of course, you will quote extreme examples but have you looked into it?

BUT, if a Country's people decide to accept Sharia Law, what's that got to do with anyone else?

Ever been to Saudi Arabia, or at least the Middle East?!

[Bob Riebe]

That's Europe and North America just hundred years ago.
Maybe in your part of world but your extreme ignorance is showing concerning the U.S.
I did not know they beat their wives in Scandinavia.
In this part of Minnesota, wife beater were taken out back and educated with a 2x4. It has never been tolerated in this part of the country, as many communities families (into the early seventies) were connected by marriages and the beating of one's sister or daughter was usually a one-way street to misery.

From the mid-eighteen nineties through the twenties was the progressive age which ended with the roaring twenties and a society that is the anti-thesis of what Muslims want to preach.

[Eki]

Maybe in your part of world but your extreme ignorance is showing concerning the U.S.
I did not know they beat their wives in Scandinavia.
In this part of Minnesota, wife beater were taken out back and educated with a 2x4. It has never been tolerated in this part of the country, as many communities families (into the early seventies) were connected by marriages and the beating of one's sister or daughter was usually a one-way street to misery.

From the mid-eighteen nineties through the twenties was the progressive age which ended with the roaring twenties and a society that is the anti-thesis of what Muslims want to preach.

Did you know that in the US women got the right to vote as late as 1920? In Finland they got it "already" in 1907:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

[race aficionado]

The winds of change have been spreading out.


Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/03/middle.east.africa.unrest/index.html?iphoneemail
:s mokin:

[Roamy]

Race : What are you missing it will be the Christians vs the Muslims using the atheists as cannon fodder. Get off the Communist News Network. Viva la Roma

[Bob Riebe]

Did you know that in the US women got the right to vote as late as 1920? In Finland they got it "already" in 1907:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage
During the progressive age.
Of course women voters also brought about prohibition and the mafia that followed- damn progressives. They gave the vote to those trouble makers..

[Bob Riebe]

Race : What are you missing it will be the Christians vs the Muslims using the atheists as cannon fodder. Get off the Communist News Network. Viva la Roma
I see in Pakistan, the only Christian member of the government was assassinated.
He and a liberal Muslim were trying to change the law that makes insulting Islam punishable by death.

Gotta love that sharia based law.
-----------------------------------------
Sad to say this Republican shows why some one's supposed bible based stances are assininely self-righteous, on their best day.

Georgia Politician Proposes Law to Make Miscarriages Punishable by Death Penalty

http://rollingout.com/newsapolitics/politics/13599-georgia-republican-proposes-law-to-make-miscarriages-punishable-by-death-penalty.html
How twits like this get elected makes one wonder.

I read while browsing today that there is a "Christian Church" of whom at this moment I forget, but the story is that the go the funerals of military men and denounce

homosexuals. All of this in full view of police and most unfortunately the families of those killed.

It does not seem to matter if they were gay or staight. I now recall the name . It is Wetborough (UK/GB/ROI) spelling. How can this be allowed. Is that the reason

people being so afraid they have to have guns and are laughed at around the civilized world for the idiotic rationalization they give all the while the gun deaths

mount to third world levels.

Why don't you do what the other industrialized countries do. Have amendments change to coincide with the times. Get rid of politicians that are inept and if the

government is not performing do what the Irish have done twice in two years.

This week they got rid of the party that always held the most seats in the equivalent of Congress. The biggest defeat in history. Gerry Adams was elected to the

Senate and there will be a coalition Government, meaning that no single party that the ultimate say.

The US should follow.

[Tazio]

Iona don't put too much creedence in what you asertain about the USA and it's constituent belief system. We have a bigger mess here than we have since our civil war. There is simply more people willing to believe the spin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFowNFvmUxw

[Bob Riebe]

I read while browsing today that there is a "Christian Church" of whom at this moment I forget, but the story is that the go the funerals of military men and denounce

homosexuals. All of this in full view of police and most unfortunately the families of those killed.

It does not seem to matter if they were gay or staight. I now recall the name . It is Wetborough (UK/GB/ROI) spelling. How can this be allowed. Is that the reason

people being so afraid they have to have guns and are laughed at around the civilized world for the idiotic rationalization they give all the while the gun deaths

mount to third world levels.

Why don't you do what the other industrialized countries do. Have amendments change to coincide with the times. Get rid of politicians that are inept and if the

government is not performing do what the Irish have done twice in two years.

This week they got rid of the party that always held the most seats in the equivalent of Congress. The biggest defeat in history. Gerry Adams was elected to the

Senate and there will be a coalition Government, meaning that no single party that the ultimate say.

The US should follow.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled they have the Constitutional right to do that.
As much as the liberasl want to head in that direction, we are no a police state yet.

Get rid of inept or corrupt politicians?
Damn few are not, and the ones that are the worst have senority.
This country is still a Republic and thank God for that.

[Retro Formula 1]

You mean if the men decide.

I never thought you to be a sexist, but your attitude and selective reading of Sharia says otherwise.

Women's Rights and the Sharia

According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html

So you just did exactly what I said you would; quote specifics rather than the subject as a whole.

Did I say it was right? No

Did I say I agreed with it? No

Did I say that a lot of it made sense but there were extreem specifics that didn't.

Hmmmmmm.

But, Sid the sexist who has never been to the Middle East is me :laugh:

[Retro Formula 1]

That's Europe and North America just hundred years ago.

Good point.

We love pontificating about how f%*king wonderful Western democracy and values are but we are still evolving and 100 years ago had pretty similar (or worse) values than Sharia Law.

What amazes me is that some of our rooting, shooting redneck cousins are apposed to it in name but if they could read (it) would probably agree with the principal (or call it a bit liberal :laugh: ).

[Tazio]

The USA is so vast that you have the absolute ability to live where guns and gun ownership issues are a matter of concern
Or live in an enlightened area where gun ownership would never come up in the course of conversation. The pro gun ownership constituency is completely balanced out by evolved Americans that are so busy they don’t have time to play with those particular types of toys!
What it really comes down to is supply and demand. Personally there is and has been a reduction of (actual) demand. But then again I'm pretty handy with a 34 ounce Louisville slugger, and I pity anyone that would drive me to the point where I would actually have to resort to budgening into submission as I'm sure my first "cut" would knock them into tomorrow, I have no Idea which of my neighbors have fire arm and which models they may own. In San Diego you have a much higher probability of being shot by law enforcement than a crazed gun owner

[Bob Riebe]

So you just did exactly what I said you would; quote specifics rather than the subject as a whole.

Did I say it was right? No

Did I say I agreed with it? No

Did I say that a lot of it made sense but there were extreem specifics that didn't.

Hmmmmmm.

But, Sid the sexist who has never been to the Middle East is me :laugh: Are you saying write an abstract but leave out the details? http://foolstown.com/sm/sumo.gif

[Bob Riebe]

Good point.

We love pontificating about how f%*king wonderful Western democracy and values are but we are still evolving and 100 years ago had pretty similar (or worse) values than Sharia Law.
The problem is neither Europe or North America was like that one hundred years ago, that statement is bogus bs.

Other wise, give proof.

[Bob Riebe]

The USA is so vast that you have the absolute ability to live where guns and gun ownership issues are a matter of concern
Or live in an enlightened area where gun ownership would never come up in the course of conversation. The pro gun ownership constituency is completely balanced out by evolved Americans that are so busy they don’t have time to play with those particular types of toys!
What it really comes down to is supply and demand. Personally there is and has been a reduction of (actual) demand. But then again I'm pretty handy with a 34 ounce Louisville slugger, and I pity anyone that would drive me to the point where I would actually have to resort to budgening into submission as I'm sure my first "cut" would knock them into tomorrow, I have no Idea which of my neighbors have fire arm and which models they may own. In San Diego you have a much higher probability of being shot by law enforcement than a crazed gun owner
Just what thread are you responding to?

Beyond that, the demand is at an all time high since Pres. Obama took over. Do a fact check before you make such statements.

"The pro gun ownership constituency is completely balanced out by evolved Americans that are so busy they don’t have time to play with those particular types of toys!"------Ah yes those are the ones who get shot or have family members killed and they run around blaming the firearm not the criminal.
But then ignorance is bliss.

[Eki]

The problem is neither Europe or North America was like that one hundred years ago, that statement is bogus bs.

Other wise, give proof.
The point was that patience is needed, give them time to adjust and don't push them too hard, or it may turn against you.

[Bob Riebe]

The point was that patience is needed, give them time to adjust and don't push them too hard, or it may turn against you.If they stop being Muslims and ignore the Koran maybe.

[Tazio]

Ah yes those are the ones who get shot or have family members killed and they run around blaming the firearm not the criminal.
But then ignorance is bliss.Bob I have lived in the same relative area going on 57 years I have never been shot at nor has any of my extended family.
In fact I can not think of a single friend or aquintance that has. But since hand guns are legal I don't have a problem with ownership. It may make the difference between some people getting a good night sleep or not. Myself I sleep just fine without them. End of conversation.

[Eki]

If they stop being Muslims and ignore the Koran maybe.
Most Europeans and Americans didn't stop being Christians and ignored the Bible completely, they just stopped to take it literally or stopped to make silly and outdated interpretations of it.

[Hondo]

I see nothing even remotely paranoid with my statement about al-Qaeda and the Taliban having their hands in these "spontaneous, popular uprisings" in the Arab countries. In fact, I should have included Hezbollah. Are they all of it? Of course not. But are they funding, arming, and providing encourgement for the local cannon fodder? You're a fool if you think they are not. By their own addmissions, their intended goal is nothing less than Islamic rule of the world. That's not being paranoid, that's taking them at their word. A veiwpoint strenghtened every time someone yells "Allah Akbar" and explodes. When this nonsense is over, the populace will be staggering around punch drunk, not knowing how to proceed. They know not to trust government but still have trust in their holey men, who will step up to the plate with their revolutionary guards. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all these royal houses and Gaddfi will fall. This time.

[Bob Riebe]

Most Europeans and Americans didn't stop being Christians and ignored the Bible completely, they just stopped to take it literally or stopped to make silly and outdated interpretations of it.So what-- there is no analogy which makes your absolute lack of knowledge of what the Bible says quite clear.

[Eki]

So what-- there is no analogy which makes your absolute lack of knowledge of what the Bible says quite clear.
I probably know more about the Bible than you about the Koran.

[Bob Riebe]

I probably know more about the Bible than you about the Koran.It is impossible for me to know less than zero, which by your rhetoric seems to be what you know about the Bible and the Christian Faith.

You can keep at it- but I am returning to the topic of this thread and am done with this peeing match.

[Roamy]

so now they set the oil on fire - Sh!t why doesn't the civilized world just off the whole f____king deal. Oh I get it the TIREs have a pipeline from Russia.

[donKey jote]

Sh!t why doesn't the civilized world just off the whole f____king deal.

You could start by asking your friend Berlusconi :p

[Eki]

You could start by asking your friend Berlusconi :p
Berlusconi is in Finland. Or at least was yesterday, I don't know if he's left.

[Roamy]

You could start by asking your friend Berlusconi :p

Well maybe I will just have to fly over there and see. Little vino on the spanish stairs while I wait around.

[Retro Formula 1]

If they stop being Muslims and ignore the Koran maybe.

I find your blatant anti-Islamic prejudice disgusting.

You are just an ignorant little man who's vitriolic bile is offensive and nauseating.

You're welcome to this thread. In fact I will remove you from my settings so will not be replying to you in future.

[Bob Riebe]

I find your blatant anti-Islamic prejudice disgusting.

You are just an ignorant little man who's vitriolic bile is offensive and nauseating.

You're welcome to this thread. In fact I will remove you from my settings so will not be replying to you in future.If you so believe and so wish.
Have a nice day.

[ioan]

I find your blatant anti-Islamic prejudice disgusting.

You are just an ignorant little man who's vitriolic bile is offensive and nauseating.

You're welcome to this thread. In fact I will remove you from my settings so will not be replying to you in future.

WTH?!

We all have some kind(s) of prejudice, no need to get offended like this.

BTW I asked you in this thread if you ever traveled to KSA or at least to the Middle East and I didn't get an answer yet.
I am just curious to know if you experienced the Islam first hand, nothing else.

[Eki]

WTH?!

We all have some kind(s) of prejudice, no need to get offended like this.

BTW I asked you in this thread if you ever traveled to KSA or at least to the Middle East and I didn't get an answer yet.
I am just curious to know if you experienced the Islam first hand, nothing else.
You can't experience Islam first hand unless you're a Muslim yourself.

[ioan]

You can't experience Islam first hand unless you're a Muslim yourself.

Than what exactly would you call living in a Muslim society?! :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Than what exactly would you call living in a Muslim society?! :rolleyes:
Second hand experience. Just like a person who doesn't smoke amongst others smoking is a second hand smoker. Second hand smokers don't often enjoy smoking as much as first hand smokers, and second hand Muslims don't often enjoy Islam as much as first hand Muslims. Like Karl Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", not just nicotine.

[Bob Riebe]

Second hand experience. Just like a person who doesn't smoke amongst others smoking is a second hand smoker. Second hand smokers don't often enjoy smoking as much as first hand smokers, and second hand Muslims don't often enjoy Islam as much as first hand Muslims. Like Karl Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", not just nicotine.That is so inept and lame, anyone, anyone who is born, or lives in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan whether a Muslim or not has a first hand experience off Muslims.

The smoking analogy is absolutely stupid.

Let's see Islam has Sharia Law and smoking has-smoke rings which you are blowing.

[airshifter]

That is so inept and lame, anyone, anyone who is born, or lives in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan whether a Muslim or not has a first hand experience off Muslims.

The smoking analogy is absolutely stupid.

Let's see Islam has Sharia Law and smoking has-smoke rings which you are blowing.

Although sometimes I think Eki makes some strange points, in this case I'd have to more agree with his view over yours. I've been in Muslim majority countries, had Muslim friends, and have a basic understanding of the religion. That still doesn't give me first hand information about what it's like to live as a Muslim.

Having been exposed to the religion long before any major terrorist activity took place on US soil, I'm glad I took the time to learn a bit about it. Otherwise I might actually believe some of the anti Muslim crap spewn about on the internet, usually by people who are scared of the entire religion due to ignorance of the same.

[ICWS]

In my opinion, there's been an anti-religion sentiment in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) for a while now, and I genuinely believe that sentiment stems from people ignorance of what religion really is and what its purpose is supposed to be. Obviously, Islam has received lots of criticism from ignorant people in the U.S. via internet, T.V., radio, etc., but so has other religions and their sects. Christianity is another example; the U.S. media has perceived Christians to being pedophiles and polygamists, similar to how it perceived Muslims as terrorists. But we all know that it is very ignorant for someone to label every single person of a certain religious faith as pedophiles, polygamists, terrorists, or any other stereotype of people who belong to a certain religion.

I do think liberalism in the U.S. and Western society has a factor in this ignorance of religion because liberals, in the name of freedom, fear the thought of implementing the principles of moral reformation and discipline that religion offers into their own lives because that would mean they would allow themselves to be hard-working, settling down and starting a traditional family, staying clear of excessive hedonism, etc. But liberals clearly don't like working hard, finding a wife/husband to start a family with, and having to give up the excessive hedonistic pleasures of promiscuous sex, gambling, drinking, gluttony, etc. Because of this, liberals love to hate on religion, out of fear, and claim that it causes more problems that it does solutions for people, even though the very lifestyle of negligence, apathy, promiscuity, and hedonism that liberals openly embrace can be/is more destructive and can/does cause many more problems to themselves and other people they know (family, friends, co-workers, etc.) than religion can or does for those who embrace its principles...

[ioan]

Second hand experience. Just like a person who doesn't smoke amongst others smoking is a second hand smoker. Second hand smokers don't often enjoy smoking as much as first hand smokers, and second hand Muslims don't often enjoy Islam as much as first hand Muslims. Like Karl Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the masses", not just nicotine.

Everything you see directly with your own eyes and where you are involved with the people concerned by is first hand experience, second hand is what you witness from a distance.

Muslims are people just like us and most of them are not interested by anything else but a decent life, and they know that they can achieve that only if the dinosaurs that enforce and misinterpret the Sharia will be gone. They care less about imposing their beliefs and religion than most of us would imagine, however they have been under these regimes for ever and it is difficult for them to brake through. But now that it has started let's hope it all goes well for them and they will not have the same fate Iran had after overthrowing the Shah!

[Eki]

Everything you see directly with your own eyes and where you are involved with the people concerned by is first hand experience, second hand is what you witness from a distance.

That's what I said. You observe the Muslims from a distance (psychological distance, not physical distance), unless you're one of them and share their beliefs.

[Bob Riebe]

That's what I said. You observe the Muslims from a distance (psychological distance, not physical distance), unless you're one of them and share their beliefs.
If they are Muslims, this is what they read, and must follow, or they are heretic.
Unlike the Bible which is closed ended, with the New Testament fulfilling all that was written in the Old and true people of Faith abandoning the old ways of the Jews, this is open ended. These ways are forever or until God returns.

My best friends in college the first time were Muslims, as at the time I had no love for Israel, it was easy to do.

This is easy to understand for anyone who can read:

4:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'" verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 5:59 - "Say: 'People of the Book, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was formerly revealed, and because most of you are evil-doers?' Say: 'Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil."

verse 5:72 - "Unbelievers are those that say:'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary."

verse 5:73 - "Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is one of three.'"

verses 109:1-6 - "Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.'"

Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe." If you are not a Muslim, you wont get any sleep tonight.

Verse 49:15 makes this very clear. "The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true."

Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people."

Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah."

[Eki]

My best friends in college the first time were Muslims, as at the time I had no love for Israel, it was easy to do.

Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Apparently you're not a Jew or a Christian then.

From where did you copy those quotes? From some anti-Islam hate site?

[ArrowsFA1]

By their own addmissions, their intended goal is nothing less than Islamic rule of the world. That's not being paranoid, that's taking them at their word.
Which is what Christian Missionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_(Christianity)) over the centuries have attempted to do. A desire to impose one set of beliefs on others who, until that point, have not shared those beliefs.

[ioan]

That's what I said. You observe the Muslims from a distance (psychological distance, not physical distance), unless you're one of them and share their beliefs.

So we've got ZERO chances of ever understanding them? :rolleyes:
Way to go Eki, I always thought you are an opened minded person and now you are failing me.

[Malbec]

Muslims are people just like us and most of them are not interested by anything else but a decent life, and they know that they can achieve that only if the dinosaurs that enforce and misinterpret the Sharia will be gone. They care less about imposing their beliefs and religion than most of us would imagine, however they have been under these regimes for ever and it is difficult for them to brake through. But now that it has started let's hope it all goes well for them and they will not have the same fate Iran had after overthrowing the Shah!

I suspect its not a coincidence that this paragraph is written by someone who has actually spent some time in the Middle East... Most of the rest of the posts on this thread serve only to demonstrate the ignorance of the posters.

[Eki]

So we've got ZERO chances of ever understanding them? :rolleyes:
Way to go Eki, I always thought you are an opened minded person and now you are failing me.
You can understand (maybe not fully) them observing them second hand, like non-smoking researchers may understand the mechanisms causing nicotine dependency, but they will never now what exactly it feels like being a nicotine addict without smoking themselves. Like the saying goes: "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes."

[Hondo]

Which is what Christian Missionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_(Christianity)) over the centuries have attempted to do. A desire to impose one set of beliefs on others who, until that point, have not shared those beliefs.I was not questioning the rights or wrong of their actions. I was merely explaining that because of their stated doctrine, to say the more radical factions are supporting in part these uprisings, is not a paranoid statement by any strech.

[edv]

Well, having lived in Libya for years up until recently, I have to say I am fascinated with the unfolding events, and am relieved that most of my friends there have gotten out safely, although not without adventure.
One pal remains, in Tripoli, where he claims all is still quiet (except for the airport and areas in the east end of town). He's a Brit, and he's been quite heroic in helping others to escape, including his family and friends. He and some other Brits are staying put, hunkered down ('stiff upper lip and all that', he says) to await the outcome of the unrest.

I am excited for the locals, although I cannot speak with them for fear for their safety. Under Ghaddafi's rule, paranoia reigns supreme.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, having lived in Libya for years up until recently, I have to say I am fascinated with the unfolding events, and am relieved that most of my friends there have gotten out safely, although not without adventure.
One pal remains, in Tripoli, where he claims all is still quiet (except for the airport and areas in the east end of town). He's a Brit, and he's been quite heroic in helping others to escape, including his family and friends. He and some other Brits are staying put, hunkered down ('stiff upper lip and all that', he says) to await the outcome of the unrest.

I am excited for the locals, although I cannot speak with them for fear for their safety. Under Ghaddafi's rule, paranoia reigns supreme.
Bravo for him.
When one thinks about it, if the rebels win, for those who wish to do business there, the locals will be more impressed with those who stayed through thick or thin, than those who come rushing over after it is safe.

[Daniel]

Bravo for him.
When one thinks about it, if the rebels win, for those who wish to do business there, the locals will be more impressed with those who stayed through thick or thin, than those who come rushing over after it is safe.

I think they'll be more impressed with the colour of their money than anything else.

[Roamy]

So reading this thread I am learning that we have people with supreme intelligence here and many people are ignorant because of their lack of understanding someone else's perceived knowledge of religion. And the muslims continue to kill the christians - interesting world nonetheless.

[Daniel]

So reading this thread I am learning that we have people with supreme intelligence here and many people are ignorant because of their lack of understanding someone else's perceived knowledge of religion. And the muslims continue to kill the christians - interesting world nonetheless.

Do you think Christians would do any different in the same situation?

[Mark]

The situation in Libya has nothing to do with religion.

[Mark]

It does look at the moment that the tide is turning against the rebels in this war n

[BleAivano]

So reading this thread I am learning that we have people with supreme intelligence here and many people are ignorant because of their lack of understanding someone else's perceived knowledge of religion. And the muslims continue to kill the christians - interesting world nonetheless.

if you would have bothered to check your facts, during both the middle-age crusades and during the 21st century crusades Muslims were and are killed by Christian crusaders.

personally i think the actual differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam aren't really that big. Especially since they all origin from Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham).

[Bob Riebe]

if you would have bothered to check your facts, during both the middle-age crusades and during the 21st century crusades Muslims were and are killed by Christian crusaders.
[/URL].
That would be because the Muslims invaded the Holy Land and Christians wanted to take it back.

[Bob Riebe]

Do you think Christians would do any different in the same situation?

Absolutely, or they would not be of the true Faith.

[donKey jote]

:laugh: :laugh:
:dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

So reading this thread I am learning that we have people with supreme intelligence here and many people are ignorant because of their lack of understanding someone else's perceived knowledge of religion.
Actually that false rhetoric give reason to why Muslims do what they do, and why they will always be dangerous.

You are not Muslim because you were not born Muslim; therefore you can never be Muslim; therefore you are an insult to Mohamed and should be dealt with harshly as written in the Qur'an.

Brillant!

[Bob Riebe]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305

Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks
Rights groups say African migrant workers and black Libyans face beatings and detention by rebel fighters who suspect them of being mercenaries hired by Moammar Kadafi to put down the rebellion.

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya — About a dozen African men stood lined along a hallway of the courthouse in the eastern city of Benghazi. The men were suspected of being mercenaries fighting on behalf of Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and had been rousted from their homes in the morning, turned in by residents responding to a rebel campaign urging them to report "suspicious people."

We are construction workers, one of the men said, pleading his innocence to a Times reporter visiting the courthouse, which now serves as the headquarters of the rebel government.

[Bob Riebe]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305

Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks
Rights groups say African migrant workers and black Libyans face beatings and detention by rebel fighters who suspect them of being mercenaries hired by Moammar Kadafi to put down the rebellion.
March 04, 2011|By David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya — About a dozen African men stood lined along a hallway of the courthouse in the eastern city of Benghazi. The men were suspected of being mercenaries fighting on behalf of Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and had been rousted from their homes in the morning, turned in by residents responding to a rebel campaign urging them to report "suspicious people."

We are construction workers, one of the men said, pleading his innocence to a Times reporter visiting the courthouse, which now serves as the headquarters of the rebel government.

[Hondo]

The situations that have been in place for a long time are now coming to a boil, everywhere. You have the rich, some self made, some born to it, that have bunches and want more. You have the middle, got some, want more, and damned tired of supporting them. You have them, the poor. You have always had the poor and always will have the poor partly because of bad decisions made by the poor that will ensure they stay that way. Feeding money to the poor does not eliminate them, it actually expands the class. Opportunity should be equal and fair but the results will never be. Some will make it, some will quit, and some, quite frankly, just don't have the cookies upstairs to catch on to any of it.

The main theme of the popular aspects of these protests seems to be a desire for the opportunity for advancement through employment and having a say in how they are governed. They want more. They really do want a western lifestyle. They have the I and E toys and gadgets, cell phones, and wear their western logo branded outfits with their professionally done signs in english to their protests. The problem is where they live.

They live on an artificially created mapboard of designated kingdoms and governments of other names that always become a strongman dictatorship once the right man is in office. They are so divided by tribes and sects that it has to be that way. The rest of the world needs the stability that a strongman government provides to ensure the flow of oil. There are only so many jobs these countries can create and sustain and only so much industry they can support. The kings and strongmen know that if they lose their countries, they have lost it all. They are not loved, admired, or held in deep regard anywhere except where people have to in order to stay out of prison. They will be as ruthless as they need to be to protect their holdings. They have resources far beyond what the protester's have and can field rapid strike, mobile forces of professional, private soldiers. I'd love to know how far French Foreign Legion re-enlistments have dropped since March 1. SAS men have always been popular in Yemen.

If a sitting leader does fall, the ultimate result will be a radical Islamic government that the protesters didn't have in mind. Only radical Islam will be ruthless enough to continue to chip away at the new, weakened government until it too falls

[ArrowsFA1]

This is easy to understand for anyone who can read:
Indeed it is.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/images/religion_peaceful.gif

[Tazio]

Indeed it is.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/images/religion_peaceful.gif
Brilliant cartoon Arrows!
:grenade:

[Bob Riebe]

Indeed it is.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html


As I said the Bible is a closed end book, the New Testament fulfills all of the Old, at the same time, no one but liberal fools ever said Jesus represents only love.
The Bible is full of violence, so what?
It does not preach to attack and destroy, non-believers, or that if you are not born of the True Faith, you are forever, heretic.
Jesus says "I am the way." It is open all, without exception.

As usual the blog is an out of context liberal bunch of bs.
The verses I quoted are open ended which means, as I said, till their god comes back, it never ends.

Nice try at out of context attack, but you failed.

[ArrowsFA1]

The Bible is full of violence, so what?
It does not preach to attack and destroy, non-believers...

Nice try at out of context attack, but you failed.
It is in context but it's not an attack Bob. Odd that you see it in those terms and it doesn't worry me that you feel I've failed because my aim wasn't to attack you or the Bible. I'd merely like to express the view that anyone can interpret what they wish from words, wherever those words are written.

What I don't like to see are sweeping generalisations of a whole people that lead to this kind of thing:
"The main goal is to show the extent of radicalisation within the Muslim-American community, how dangerous that is, how serious that is," he told Fox television. "It's a real threat. It's a growing threat, and it's not just me saying this." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/islam-terror-hearings-mccarthy-witchhunt

I thought that these kind of hearings were designed to look at an issue and come to a conclusion. Clearly, in this case, Peter King has pre-judged the issue before any hearing has taken place and this simply encourages an extremely divisive view; some may say deliberately divisive.

That kind of mood is rather prevalent at the moment, and it helps no-one.

[Bob Riebe]

Fair enough.

[Eki]

It does not preach to attack and destroy, non-believers, or that if you are not born of the True Faith, you are forever, heretic.
Neither does Koran, only in self-defense if Muslims or Islam are under attack. And many people have converted to Islam, so it's not true that one can only become a Muslim by birth.

[Bob Riebe]

Neither does Koran, only in self-defense if Muslims or Islam are under attack. And many people have converted to Islam, so-------- it's not true that one can only become a Muslim by birth.-------YOU said it

The rest of your statement above is either selective reading or more of your lame bs.


[b\:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'"

verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 5:59 - "Say: 'People of the Book, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was formerly revealed, and because most of you are evil-doers?' Say: 'Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil."

verse 5:72 - "Unbelievers are those that say:'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary."

verse 5:73 - "Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is one of three.'"

verses 109:1-6 - "Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.'"

Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe." If you are not a Muslim, you wont get any sleep tonight.

Verse 49:15 makes this very clear. "The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true."

Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people."

Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah."-/b]

[ICWS]

Hey Mr. Riebe, out of curiousity, since you're quoting verses from the Qur'an to justify your point(s) in this thread, what do you say in response to Verse 2:62 of that same religious text which you're quoting from?

..."Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with the Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve"...

[Bob Riebe]

Hey Mr. Riebe, out of curiousity, since you're quoting verses from the Qur'an to justify your point(s) in this thread, what do you say in response to Verse 2:62 of that same religious text which you're quoting from?

..."Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with the Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve"...

Any tome that contradicts itself is a lie, but I will do an Eki on this one.


In more recent times, we have seen in Sudan, 2 million Christians being killed by the hands of Muslims between 1998 and 2004.[7] In Iraq, 1,960 Christians have been killed, 500,000 Christian homes have been confiscated, and 200,000 Christians have been forced to pay Jizyah, between 2003 and 2009.[8] And in Iran, an estimated 4,000 homosexuals have been executed between 1979 and 2007.[9] This is just the tip of the iceberg.

To claim that these crimes are committed by a fringe group of deranged Muslims who do not represent true Islam, is at best a flagrant misunderstanding of the Islamic scriptures, and at worst its wilful ignorance. In the case of the latter, the hands of those who do this are as bloody as the “extremists” themselves.

If we define a good Muslim as someone who follow the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, then a “good” Muslim has no choice but to become a terrorists or extremist. Al Baqara (244), Al-Nisa’ (76, 77, 84, 89), Al-Anfal (12, 39), Al-Tawba (5, 14, 29, 88, 111, 123), Muhammad (4), etc. all call for the fight against non-Muslims until all religion is that of Allah, or fight in Allah’s cause (Jihad), or to kill them wherever you find them until they pay jizyah (a humiliating tax used against non-Muslim) submissively. These verses differ from those that can be found in other scriptures[10] in that they are prescriptive, not descriptive. They do not simply recount ancient tales which may or may not be true. Devoid of any context, they are all active commands to today's followers. These verses are also augmented by many similar instructions in the Hadiths. In Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386 we find the following, “We are ordered to fight you until you submit to Islam or pay jizyah with submission”, or in Sahih Muslim 1:31, “I have been commanded to fight people until they say no God but Allah, and Mohammad his only messenger”.

The above verses that call for violence against non-Muslims have logically resulted in the formation of countless Islamic terrorists organisations and groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban , and has inspired millions of present-day Islamic fanatics who persecute and kill for their god. On September 23rd, 1978, Abdullah al-Mishadd, Head of the Fatwa Council of Al-Azhar University in Egypt (the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world),[11] ordered that an apostate who did not return to Islam should be killed.[12] If we accept that any Muslim who espouses such views is an extremist, then this would almost certainly mean that the the majority of Muslims in this world are indeed extremists.

Most Islamic apologists do not quote the above verses, but rather they use the Meccan verses like Al-Baqara (256), Al-Kahf (29) and Al-Kafirun (6), which call for tolerance of other religions. The fact remains though, that these verses were “inspired” much earlier when the Muslims were weak and they were later abrogated by the above Medinan verses that explicitly call for violence, as many prominent Islamic scholars like Al- Suyuti and Al-Qurtubi have confirmed. This explains the declarations of many al-Qaeda leaders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq who said “we are only obeying the Qur'anic verses that demand the practice of violence against non-Muslims”. He also stated on numerous occasions that the verses calling for tolerance have all been abrogated by the verses calling for violence. This attitude explains all those unprovoked attacks against non-Muslims all over the world, or even against Muslims of differing sects. It further explains the burning of churches, synagogues and temples in many countries around the world. Most non-Arabic speaking Muslims are not told the truth about violence; in truth, they are deceived in many instances when it comes to the translation of the Qur'an, especially when the Qur'an contradicts simple science, history and general logic. To further implement these verses; The Third Islamic Summit Conference of 1981 (in Saudi Arabia) decided to declare holy jihad (war in Allah’s way against non-Muslims) as the duty of every Muslim, man or woman.[13] "Allah’s way" meaning becoming a Muslim and living according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. People who claim that Jihad means to fight against one’s lower desires, are not telling you the truth. In Qur'an 4:95 it says very clearly that those who practice jihad are those who sacrifice themselves and their wealth in the way of Allah.

Does this mean that all Muslims are terrorists or extremists? Of course not, as many people who profess Islam abhor violence, but with their adherence to the daily prayers and Ramadan notwithstanding, they are not considered good Muslims, because they are not practising all the obvious instructions of the Qur'an. In fact, the Qur'an and Muhammad, the prophet himself, refers to these Muslims as “munafiq” (hypocrites). Strangely these hypocrites do not support the removal of these verses that call for violence, because they would not dare to venture into changing the “words of Allah”. To heal, you must first admit that there is a problem. The inability of self-reflection among non-violent Muslims effectively kills any hope of change before it has even begun. What should be done? All Muslims that truly oppose violence have the immediate and urgent duty to demand all Islamic authorities, especially all future international Islamic conferences, to espouse firmly a resolution that abrogates all Qur'anic verses that call for violence and consider them as needed contingencies of the past and no longer valid for the present. Of course, this is a pipe dream and it would take a lot of courage to carry out, since the extremist have scripture and Muhammad's sunnah on their side to discredit the munafiq, and Islamic authorities have the means to fight and even demand the death of those who call for such changes.

[Dave B]

As Elvis might have said were he still around, a little less cut'n'pasting a little more thinking please.

[Bob Riebe]

As Elvis might have said were he still around, a little less cut'n'pasting a little more thinking please.
If thinking produces what you wrote, it does not seem to be worth much.

[Dave B]

How about a little less cut-n-pasting, and a little more critical thought?

[Bob Riebe]

How about a little less cut-n-pasting, and a little more critical thought?Your point is?

[Dave B]

My point, which I thought was obvious, is that your method of debate now seems to be to cut'n'paste articles which broadly back up the point you're trying to make, without doing any of your own thinking.

Your default position now seems to be "the Bible is true", a view which not even most Christians agree on, and that all other faiths are somehow "wrong". That's the same view that George W. Bush and Tony Blair used to justify their war on terror: that they were doing God's work. One man's freedom fighter, and all that...

[Mark]

I have to say, whenever someone posts a long article to back up their point, I never read it! Perhaps I have a short attention span..

[Dave B]

Any tome that contradicts itself is a lie, but I will do an Eki on this one.

The Bible must be BS too, by that logic. A quick Google for "contradictions in the Bible" yields dozens of results (http://goo.gl/SHZIP). I shan't bother cutting and pasting examples without reading them, I'll leave that to others ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Clashes between Muslims and Christians in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, have left 11 people dead and more than 90 wounded.
The clashes broke out on Tuesday night as thousands of Christians protested against the burning of a Cairo church last week. The church was set on fire after tensions escalated over a love affair between a Muslim and a Christian that set off a violent feud between the couple's families.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/muslim-christian-clashes-cairo


From kindergarten Egyptian citizens are branded as Christians or Muslims – a practice that many feel deepens divisions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/24/egypt-christian-muslim-religious-sectarianism?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[Bob Riebe]

My point... is that your method of debate now seems to be to cut 'n paste articles which broadly back up the point you're trying to make, without doing any of your own thinking.

Your default position now seems to be "the Bible is true", a view which not even most Christians agree onYour supposed point is vacuous.

The second statement all I see for proof is your opinion. It serves you, for truth, as well as the The Emperor's New Clothes served him.

If you want to my method of writing start a thread that does that, otherwise address the threads topic at least in some form.

[Bob Riebe]

The Bible must be BS too, by that logic. A quick Google for "contradictions in the Bible" yields dozens of results (http://goo.gl/SHZIP). I shan't bother cutting and pasting examples without reading them, I'll leave that to others ;)
That tends to make your response as empty as the supposed contradictions which take verses out of context, or are ignorant of the language of the time.
The supposed contradictions are answered but one must actually read the book.
At the same time, the Bible does contain contain metaphors and also slang as was used in the day.

As I said before the Bible is a closed tome, it has a beginning and an end. All within is answeredm there are no unanswered questions.
The Quran is open ended.

For those who actually are curious, rather than make cheap baseless responses, here is one site that answers some questions.---http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

[Dave B]

For those who actually are curious, rather than make cheap baseless responses, here is one site that answers some questions.---http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

Ah, so what that site is saying is that the Bible isn't to be taken literally, but can be interpreted in many ways. Hmmm, I wonder if that could apply to other religious texts... ;)

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, so what that site is saying is that the Bible isn't to be taken literally, but can be interpreted in many ways. Hmmm, I wonder if that could apply to other religious texts... ;)
No it does not but if that is your opinion so be it.

[Eki]

The rest of your statement above is either selective reading or more of your lame bs.


[b\:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'"

verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 5:59 - "Say: 'People of the Book, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was formerly revealed, and because most of you are evil-doers?' Say: 'Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil."

verse 5:72 - "Unbelievers are those that say:'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary."

verse 5:73 - "Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is one of three.'"

verses 109:1-6 - "Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.'"

Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe." If you are not a Muslim, you wont get any sleep tonight.

Verse 49:15 makes this very clear. "The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true."

Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people."

Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."

Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah."-/b]

You haven't told us yet from which anti-Islam hate site you copied those verses.

[Bob Riebe]

You haven't told us yet from which anti-Islam hate site you copied those verses.From the Quran.
qQ

[Eki]

From the Quran.
qQ
You own one?

[ArrowsFA1]

You own one?
It doesn't matter. Taking quotes in isolation (or out of context if you prefer) from any book will give you an incomplete picture. The only purpose of doing so is to create a particular impression of the book or religion you wish to portray. Bob appears to want to portray Islam at its core as a violent, dangerous religion.

As with many things it's not the book itself that does that, but the people who interpret it. Sadly, Bob seems to accept the interpretation of Qur'an used by a minority who would probably point to many of the same passages that he has posted here. Those extreme views do not, it is probably safe to say, represent the majority of Muslims.

As I said earlier this simply encourages an extremely divisive view; some may say deliberately divisive. That kind of mood is rather prevalent at the moment, and it helps no-one.

[Eki]

It doesn't matter. Taking quotes in isolation (or out of context if you prefer) from any book will give you an incomplete picture. The only purpose of doing so is to create a particular impression of the book or religion you wish to portray. Bob appears to want to portray Islam at its core as a violent, dangerous religion.

As with many things it's not the book itself that does that, but the people who interpret it. Sadly, Bob seems to accept the interpretation of Qur'an used by a minority who would probably point to many of the same passages that he has posted here. Those extreme views do not, it is probably safe to say, represent the majority of Muslims.

As I said earlier this simply encourages an extremely divisive view; some may say deliberately divisive. That kind of mood is rather prevalent at the moment, and it helps no-one.
True. There's a saying about reading like the Devil reads the Bible. The Devil first took one page that said "Judas Iscariot hanged himself" then he took an other page that said "you go and do the same". Maybe we should have a new saying about reading like Bob reads the Koran.

[BDunnell]

As I said before the Bible is a closed tome, it has a beginning and an end. All within is answeredm there are no unanswered questions.

How did someone manage to turn water into wine, when this is scientifically impossible?

How did someone manage to part the Red Sea, when this is scientifically impossible?

There are two, for a start.

[Eki]

How did someone manage to turn water into wine, when this is scientifically impossible?

Actually it's not impossible if you add yeast and sugar and/or starch containing ingredients to the water and wait a few days or weeks.

And walking on water is easy, if the water is frozen deep enough.

[BDunnell]

Actually it's not impossible if you add yeast and sugar and/or starch containing ingredients to the water and wait a few days or weeks.

Well, in that case the writers of the Bible were extremely poor reporters of events, given that those important facts were omitted from the account.

[Eki]

How did someone manage to turn water into wine, when this is scientifically impossible?

Actually it's not impossible if you add yeast and sugar and/or starch containing ingredients to the water and wait a few days or weeks.

And walking on water is easy, if the water is frozen deep enough.

[Bob Riebe]

It doesn't matter. Taking quotes in isolation (or out of context if you prefer) from any book will give you an incomplete picture. The only purpose of doing so is to create a particular impression of the book or religion you wish to portray. Bob appears to want to portray Islam at its core as a violent, dangerous religion.

As with many things it's not the book itself that does that, but the people who interpret it. Sadly, Bob seems to accept the interpretation of Qur'an used by a minority who would probably point to many of the same passages that he has posted here. Those extreme views do not, it is probably safe to say, represent the majority of Muslims.

As I said earlier this simply encourages an extremely divisive view; some may say deliberately divisive. That kind of mood is rather prevalent at the moment, and it helps no-one.
Actually read post 455, then grab an online Qu'an--http://quran.com/--and actually find out your, and others, pixie dust version of Islam and the Qu'an is just that, happy thoughts pixie dust.

With due credit to those who truly follow Islam, you either take the whole literally or not at all. To accept a half-truth is to accept a lie.
In that matter I do respect Muslims, as nasty as it makes them, I guess as the old saying goes, better to have an enemy for whom one has respect, than a colleague for whom one has none.

[Bob Riebe]

How did someone manage to turn water into wine, when this is scientifically impossible?

How did someone manage to part the Red Sea, when this is scientifically impossible?

There are two, for a start.
Ah the old if we, or I, cannot do it, it cannot be done.

The Gaddafi style of science and leadership.

It fits the thread.

[BDunnell]

Ah the old if we, or I, cannot do it, it cannot be done.

The Gaddafi style of science and leadership.

It fits the thread.

Ah, so you are now comparing me with Colonel Gaddafi? How charming.

Still, if you want to believe in uncorroborated stories of magic, go right ahead.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And walking on water is easy, if the water is frozen deep enough.

From the pictures I've seen in my 'Bible Stories for Children' book I think it looks like Jesus is stood on a partially submerged stone or something. So I reckon he was walking on stepping stones! :p

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, so you are now comparing me with Colonel Gaddafi? How charming.

Still, if you want to believe in uncorroborated stories of magic, go right ahead.
Actually no, it was not directed so much at you-you may believe as you wish, or do not wish. It was actually more aimed at a large portion of todays "scientists" where if one is not part of, or agrees with the Old Boys Club stance will get one ostracized, mean while, to hell with the truth.

I first read that in The Scientific American in the late eighties. From what I have gathered over-the-air, and online, it has gotten worse.

[BDunnell]

Actually no, it was not directed so much at you-you may believe as you wish, or do not wish. It was actually more aimed at a large portion of todays "scientists" where if one is not part of, or agrees with the Old Boys Club stance will get one ostracized, mean while, to hell with the truth.

I first read that in The Scientific American in the late eighties. From what I have gathered over-the-air, and online, it has gotten worse.

I don't think that those of us who dismiss the contents of the Bible as fantasy and are suspicious of those who take it at face value can be categorised in such terms, to be honest. But, as you so graciously bestowed upon me the right to believe as I wish, please feel free to carry on as you see fit.

[Bob Riebe]

This article was written by a gentleman, who teaches at St.Cloud State and was born in the region near Gaddafi's reign.
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20110309/OPINION/103090008/1006/Times-Writers-Group--Gadhafi-conflict-unlike-others

[Bob Riebe]

I don't think that those of us who dismiss the contents of the Bible as fantasy and are suspicious of those who take it at face value can be categorised in such terms, to be honest. But, as you so graciously bestowed upon me the right to believe as I wish, please feel free to carry on as you see fit.
BULLY I say, BULLY, and I shall!

[BDunnell]

This article was written by a gentleman, who teaches at St.Cloud State and was born in the area of Gaddafi's region.
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20110309/OPINION/103090008/1006/Times-Writers-Group--Gadhafi-conflict-unlike-others

'The Jamahiriya sector is comprised of elected bodies — the Basic People’s Congress (local), the Shabiyat Congress (regional) and the National People’s Congress (national) who are elected every four years. The involvement of the public in local, regional and national decision-making makes Libya more democratic than in all the surrounding Arab states.'

That statement stretches credulity rather to the limit, despite the writer's origins. I do not claim to be an expert, but the notion that the system of governance in Libya truly gave the people any semblance of power strikes me as fanciful.

[Bob Riebe]

The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in Tripoli, Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruq. Despite its successes, the educational system has failed to train adequate numbers of professionals, resulting in Libya's dependency on foreign teachers, doctors, and scientists.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

[BDunnell]

The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in Tripoli, Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruq. Despite its successes, the educational system has failed to train adequate numbers of professionals, resulting in Libya's dependency on foreign teachers, doctors, and scientists.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

Er, yes? I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. I have no doubt the facts you quote here are perfectly accurate and verifiable, but this should not be taken as a sign that the Libyan system of committees (as touted in signs at Tripoli airport proclaiming 'COMMITTEES EVERYWHERE!' represents a true system of devolved democracy, or anything approaching one.

[Bob Riebe]

Er, yes? I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. I have no doubt the facts you quote here are perfectly accurate and verifiable, but this should not be taken as a sign that the Libyan system of committees (as touted in signs at Tripoli airport proclaiming 'COMMITTEES EVERYWHERE!' represents a true system of devolved democracy, or anything approaching one.

The point is the one the writer of the article made, I do not doubt his opinion, although you may be correct.
While Qaddafi is being touted, and if he had the airliner shot down rightly, as a bad man, this bad man gave his citizens a better life than all the rest.

If the people of the country had not hand in it, then helping depose Qaddafi is an asinine move.

You cannot have it both ways. Libya was as good as it was either because the citizens helped run it, or Qaddafi is not as bad as we try to make him out to be as it is all his credit.
If the latter was true, then we may be seeing the creation of another African stink-hole.

[Dave B]

From the pictures I've seen in my 'Bible Stories for Children' book I think it looks like Jesus is stood on a partially submerged stone or something. So I reckon he was walking on stepping stones! :p
You're confusing it with Takehi's Castle:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP8IIYkxRZW-ztDk8YyH1o_YEAYaVh4NpX1ggGYFT8qh1XVuAF&t=1

:p

[Dave B]

The Bible is a collection of stories handed down through the generations - it's the world's longest game of Chinese Whispers. Even if (and it's a massive "if") the book is based on true events, what you see printed or written is likely to be far removed from the original tellings of those stories.

So why would you take any of them literally* and assume they are "the truth", yet dismiss other religious texts as somehow inferior or inaccurate?

*Obviously only the bits that suit you, of course. The type of person who uses the Bible to denounce homosexuality, for example, usually deflects when told that the self same book forbids many of the things which they enjoy...

[BDunnell]

The point is the one the writer of the article made, I do not doubt his opinion, although you may be correct.

And, of course, he criticises the Obama regime in his piece, without which I doubt you feel any article on any subject is complete.



While Qaddafi is being touted, and if he had the airliner shot down rightly, as a bad man, this bad man gave his citizens a better life than all the rest.

If the people of the country had not hand in it, then helping depose Qaddafi is an asinine move.

You cannot have it both ways. Libya was as good as it was either because the citizens helped run it, or Qaddafi is not as bad as we try to make him out to be as it is all his credit.
If the latter was true, then we may be seeing the creation of another African stink-hole.

I find your world-view on this point a little simplistic, not to say confusing. On the one hand, you elsewhere argue for the right of you and your fellow US citizens to bear arms in part on the grounds that this would enable you to rise up against an oppressive government. On the other, you argue that the Libyans should not do so on the grounds that they had a hand in the Gaddafi regime's coming to power. I simply do not understand your point in relation to Libya. It seems to assume that no citizens should ever rise up against an authoritarian leadership if said authoritarian leadership came to power on the back of popular support. Well, I hate to tell you, but times and views change. It is far from 'asinine' for a certain section of the Libyan people to want to rise up against Gaddafi.

You are also lacking historical perspective on recent Libyan history. The system of committees by which you seem to set such great store (and which, somehow, seem to be causing you to find Gaddafi a more praiseworthy leader than Obama, whose government you have never lauded to the extent that you now praise Gaddafi's) did not exist when Gaddafi came to power. He introduced them later, in response to criticism of his regime's lack of democracy. However, to quote BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson, 'that didn't mean he and his men had given un control. They merely governed the country behind a screen of nominees on the committees'. This, of course, was backed up by a security service of brutal unpleasantness. Not, in my view, a model democracy by any means.

[Bob Riebe]

And, of course, he criticises the Obama regime in his piece, without which I doubt you feel any article on any subject is complete.



I find your world-view on this point a little simplistic, not to say confusing. On the one hand, you elsewhere argue for the right of you and your fellow US citizens to bear arms in part on the grounds that this would enable you to rise up against an oppressive government. On the other, you argue that the Libyans should not do so on the grounds that they had a hand in the Gaddafi regime's coming to power. I simply do not understand your point in relation to Libya. It seems to assume that no citizens should ever rise up against an authoritarian leadership if said authoritarian leadership came to power on the back of popular support. Well, I hate to tell you, but times and views change. It is far from 'asinine' for a certain section of the Libyan people to want to rise up against Gaddafi.

You are also lacking historical perspective on recent Libyan history. The system of committees by which you seem to set such great store (and which, somehow, seem to be causing you to find Gaddafi a more praiseworthy leader than Obama, whose government you have never lauded to the extent that you now praise Gaddafi's) did not exist when Gaddafi came to power. He introduced them later, in response to criticism of his regime's lack of democracy. However, to quote BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson, 'that didn't mean he and his men had given un control. They merely governed the country behind a screen of nominees on the committees'. This, of course, was backed up by a security service of brutal unpleasantness. Not, in my view, a model democracy by any means.
No matter how you try to float the boat, Libya still had a better quality of life than the rest.
I am assuming, as dangerous as that may be, that a section of the populace may be better educated than the other countries also; therefore they know it can be better yet than it is and want that to be.

Before this uprising, and before I read that article, and the one from the net, I had little concern, if any, for Libya and Qaddafi.

Having read that article it is sad that the country with the best quality of life in an region known for little quality, has a leader who is also a nut-job.

[/u]If the Libyans want to revolt, let them revolt. Obama should shut his hypocritical mouth, and let them have at it. May the best group win.[/u]

The U.S. should stay the hell out of there.
WITHOUT regard to how it turns out, the U.S. would be blamed for any problems that result from this revolt.

Obama looked like a fool with his remarks about Egypt (accentuated by CNN when one of their reporters went there to find praise for Obama's involvement and the most positive answer he got was that Obama had nothing to do with this.)
His empty asinine remarks about Libya, prattling on about a "no-fly-zone" and then when confronted with this, backing off, emphasizes that he is nothing but another empty suit.
We should not impose a no-fly-zone, more importantly the ignorant fool we have for a president should NEVER have ever mentioned one, UNLESS he FULLY intended to impose one and at this point should just shut his damn mouth.

IF-if the U.S.- God help us, does decide to use our military there, it should go in the way Bush went into Iraq, learning from and not repeating his incompetent not enough boots on the ground cluster-f, and take FULL control. (Italy has big influence in Libya, and having them as co-partners would be the best mode. They can fly from their ground bases, give them the air-superiority role.)
Here the local populace seems to want just that, IF one can believe the reports on TV and raido.

This revolt may turn out OK, but if I were a betting man, I would split the bet with the majority going to Libya just becoming another North African stink hole.

[Hondo]

Gaddafi will crush this little uprising and remain in power, as will the other Royal Houses. They all have and control what the west wants and needs, oil. All those men know that oil alone makes them what they are and the west will only go so far in endangering it's oil supply. Unlike their western counterparts, they do not care about what the press says or public opinion. They can shut down both. They have no interest in giving up their power and taking up gardening. There is no retirement in their world. If forced out, they face only death at sometime and someplace at the hand of somebody settling a score from days past. They will shoot and imprison as many as they need to in order to remain in power. Any weaknesses in their national armies can and will be cured by the addition of private, professional forces.

This whole "no fly zone" thing is a joke. Egypt went down because it has nothing to offer or take away. The whole world can look to Iraq and Afghanistan to see how well their precious democracies work with these people. Want to support these popular revolutions? Simple, don't buy their oil. Refuse to buy their oil and they slip back into nothingness again. I know the USA won't invade them for their oil. Obama doesn't even want his own oil, much less foreign oil.

As promised, the USA has become a rather bad joke under Obama but it has been fun having to watch other countries scramble about trying to preserve oil supplies, economies, and stability on their own while Obama apologizes to Japan because exploding American battleships caused hearing problems with Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor.

Personally, I think the whole thing is funny and long overdue. As the USA meddles less and less, there will be more and more of this. Enjoy.

[BDunnell]

I am assuming, as dangerous as that may be, that a section of the populace may be better educated than the other countries also; therefore they know it can be better yet than it is and want that to be.

Having read that article it is sad that the country with the best quality of life in an region known for little quality, has a leader who is also a nut-job.

I agree very much with these bits of what you have to say.



[/u]If the Libyans want to revolt, let them revolt. Obama should shut his hypocritical mouth, and let them have at it. May the best group win.[/u]

Hang on — a few posts ago, you were saying that because they had allowed the Gaddafi regime to come about, they should not be rising up against him, describing their behaviour (inevitably) as 'asinine'? Therefore, to accuse others of being hypocritical I find a tad difficult to accept.



IF-if the U.S.- God help us, does decide to use our military there, it should go in the way Bush went into Iraq, learning from and not repeating his incompetent not enough boots on the ground cluster-f, and take FULL control. (Italy has big influence in Libya, and having them as co-partners would be the best mode. They can fly from their ground bases, give them the air-superiority role.)

You rather overstate the Italian political influence in Libya. Not been much use up to now, has it? And the notion that a US-led invasion would be best for Libya or the region, either in the short or long-term, I think can be dismissed.

[Bob Riebe]

Hang on — a few posts ago, you were saying that because they had allowed the Gaddafi regime to come about, they should not be rising up against him, describing their behaviour (inevitably) as 'asinine'?

Go back and look, I said "helping depose" Qadddafi would be asinine.

Let them have at it.

Now if one of the Libyans in revolt had connections to the boys from Blackwater, they could oust Qaddafi quite shortly.

[BDunnell]

Go back and look, I said "helping depose" Qadddafi would be asinine.

In what sense is 'helping depose' him 'asinine', but 'revolting' against him acceptable? Please explain the nuanced difference for the benefit of all.

[Bob Riebe]

In what sense is 'helping depose' him 'asinine', but 'revolting' against him acceptable? Please explain the nuanced difference for the benefit of all.The U.S. is not revolting against him, his citizens are. We-we would be-helping- them- which would be an asinine move, unless we intend to fully make sure they succeed. Even at that we should just stay out of it.

[Daniel]

You're confusing it with Takehi's Castle:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP8IIYkxRZW-ztDk8YyH1o_YEAYaVh4NpX1ggGYFT8qh1XVuAF&t=1

:p

Bwahahahahahahahahaha :rotflmao:

[Hondo]

Dedicated to Col. Gaddafi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJoM5fG99W4&feature=related