Hateful chatter behind the veil

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I don't think anyone here condones terrorist acts

However, I bet you could get quite a discussion started on what is and what isn't a terrorist act. And the debate wouldn't be solely among Muslims, either.

sounds like a thread for you to start, as

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think anyone here condones terrorist acts

However, I bet you could get quite a discussion started on what is and what isn't a terrorist act. And the debate wouldn't be solely among Muslims, either.

sounds like a thread for you to start, as

No. I have conflicted views on the subject.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Agent Smith

[Veiled Princess 1]

I don't think anyone here condones terrorist acts

However, I bet you could get quite a discussion started on what is and what isn't a terrorist act. And the debate wouldn't be solely among Muslims, either.

sounds like a thread for you to start, as

No. I have conflicted views on the subject.

Please share

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think anyone here condones terrorist acts

However, I bet you could get quite a discussion started on what is and what isn't a terrorist act. And the debate wouldn't be solely among Muslims, either.

sounds like a thread for you to start, as

No. I have conflicted views on the subject.

Please share

ladies first.....

[Veiled Princess 1]

ladies first.....

Well the obvious...

Killing innocent people who have nothing to do with the actual conflict

Raping women, children and men

Any act in which the objective is to "terrorize" the people

Your turn....

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

ladies first.....

Well the obvious...

Killing innocent people who have nothing to do with the actual conflict

Raping women, children and men

Any act in which the objective is to "terrorize" the people

Your turn....

democrats, and especially hillary clinton, terrorize me.

[incanada1234 0]

democrats, and especially hillary clinton, terrorize me.

I don't know who's worse - Hillary or Ted Kennedy.

Edited July 5, 2006 by approvemedammit

[Fandango 1,439]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

democrats, and especially hillary clinton, terrorize me.

I don't know who's worse - Hillary or Ted Kennedy.

let's hope they don't have kids together - it would be the antichrist!

[Veiled Princess 1]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

I guess it depends on what you consider a radical... ?

[incanada1234 0]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

Yes, thank you for enlightening us.

[Alex+R 0]

Why don't y'all like Hilary?

I mean, other than for personal reasons...

[ceriserose 1]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

I guess it depends on what you consider a radical... ?

I think it was me that used the term 'radical' first on this thread. I'll explain what I meant, but please understand this is only my opinion.

I meant it to mean 'unbalanced' in the understanding/practice of the tenets of the faith. I think that every religion on this planet has people that can be unbalanced in how they apply the concepts put forth in whatever religious book used/philosophy taught. I think also that with man's interference and our penchant for 'custom' over intent, that sometimes what a religion was initially based upon often becomes obscured with human interests...which aren't always altruistic. Sometimes those interests are so enmeshed in the traditions of the religion they occur by rote and not as part of the original concept.

Most religions, to my understanding, do not operate in a vacuum, nor are most simply in existence as sado-masochistic vehicles for no purpose but to hurt and destroy others. (Note, I said most. ) All of the religions of older origin share a commonality of balance (yin-yang; male-female), and a lot of religions derived from that have developed in patriarchal societies with a heavy emphasis on division between men and women as equals. (Not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of this, either. To each his/her own.) However, my point is when anyone falls outside of the balance that most religions have inherently within them, I would term them radical. Not close to middle, but extreme ends. That's not only on the harsh side, but also on the side of those who might withdraw from society completely and live only within that paradigm as well.

To be clear, as it was mentioned...I don't believe that praying 5 times a day or having 'sisters only' swimming as a recreational outlet is radical. There are plenty of religions that advocate community and talking to God. One person may pray once a day and call it the appropriate amount; another may pray 10 times and not feel it's enough. All in the perception.

Anyway, that's what I meant.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ladies first.....

Well the obvious...

Killing innocent people who have nothing to do with the actual conflict

Raping women, children and men

Any act in which the objective is to "terrorize" the people

Your turn....

I already said I was conflicted, so any response from me will be conflicted.

Sorry

Edited July 5, 2006 by Agent Smith

[Fandango 1,439]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

I guess it depends on what you consider a radical... ?

I think my definition would mean one who automatically hates another/would rejoice in someone's death because they don't share one's faith.