Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Logres 0]

And I have yet to see a thread about how Christianity is planning for World Domination but I guess it's ok to have a thread full of hate for muslims but not for Christians or Jews right? par for the course on this and many other message boards.

It does seem that many followers of religions originating from the middle east have caused violence........

[sara535 15]

wait a minute, I thought it was the MORMONS who were out to dominate the world.....

Edited September 12, 2007 by sara535

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And I have yet to see a thread about how Christianity is planning for World Domination but I guess it's ok to have a thread full of hate for muslims but not for Christians or Jews right? par for the course on this and many other message boards.

It does seem that many followers of religions originating from the middle east have caused violence........

That is undeniable. That said – the other poster was correct to point out that during the middle-ages the Jews were tolerated much better in the ME than they were in Europe, and all things considered most of the major ME countries were pretty advanced - culturally and technologically speaking, up until several watershed moments - one being the point where the Mongols invaded and destroyed much of Persia, from which the region has never really recovered (Europe could have easily ended up in much the same way if the Mongols had gotten a stronger foothold in the west), the other being the ascension of 'low-caste' groups like the Mamluks which precipitated a decline in the regions 'high' culture.

[DeadPoolX 9]

so many christians did so many things in the name of Christ ...

i've yet to see anyone defend any of those actions either on vj......

And I have yet to see a thread about how Christianity is planning for World Domination but I guess it's ok to have a thread full of hate for muslims but not for Christians or Jews right? par for the course on this and many other message boards.

My theory is that there is so much hatred in the world people have to vent it somewhere so I guess it's our turn now to take one for the team. I wonder who will be next.

As long as there are people around who paint an entire religion with a broad brush due to a few lunatics then there will never be peace on earth.

Well, here's the thing, Doodle...

Christianity has already attempted (and some would even say succeeded) in "world domination." For centuries, the Christian Church (yes, I know there are many different sects of Christianity, but to save time, I'm combining them all into one title) practically governed mankind. At the very least, Christianity was the guiding principle in much of Western Society's overlying morales and values, even if many people pay little attention to most of them today. Christianity is also the most widespread and widely practiced monotheistic religion in the world. Now tell me if that doesn't seem like "world domination" to you?

At it's core, Christianity is a fine religion. Unfortunately, people have found a way to pervert it. History shows us this in the many different Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the blood libel forced upon Jews (relating to Jesus Christ), the Ku Klux Klan (many in the KKK use Christianity as part of the basis for their actions), and more recently, the Westboro Baptist Church (headed by Fred Phelps), in addition to other things. So no... Christianity is not "off the hook" at all; it's just that, for the most part, the religion has calmed down a little over the centuries -- or at least, those who're still overzealous have learned to hide it or just aren't taken very seriously and have little power to do anything anyway.

Judaism, is an interesting subject, however. Overall, this religion hasn't done a whole lot that's "wrong" to the world. On an individual basis, it probably has (I'm Jewish and I'm certainly no "saint," and I've known quite a few Jews who're jerks too), but as a religion itself, it's mostly kept a low profile. Jews had been enslaved at one point in history, hunted down like animals, murdered and/or tortured for no other reason than merely being a Jew, scapegoated (inflation, plague, etc), banned from most areas of work and universities, forced to live in certain areas of the cities, and almost completely eliminated as a people.

It's hardly a huge leap in logic to realize why Jews decided against standing out amongst the crowd. Because of this, Judaism was never in a position to "enforce it's will" on others as a number of other religions had been. So when I say that Judaism hasn't done a lot that's "wrong" to the world, I'm not suggesting that Jews are perfect (we're not by any means), but just that Judaism as a whole has never had the opportunity to "dominate the landscape." Given the chance, perhaps Judaism would be no different than Christianity or Islam.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

I guess it's our turn now to take one for the team.

quit talking dirty to me doodle, you're gonna get me excited

[Heracles 417]

What if it was due to a good ole USA or Israeli bomb? It's ok then?

but they are not. For every one child the US has killed by accident, 100 have been deliberately targeted and executed by the extremists. Many seem to forget that little technicality because of their hatred of the US and it's so-called foreign policy.

Could you give me your source for those statistics please?

It was an example. Pretty much every day there is a car bombing with X deaths there. Do you think American soldiers are driving them and blowing themselves up??

[Heracles 417]

doodlebug,

I wouldn't call them 'statistics'

How about this case? Beslan School massacre where they took hostage and killed children. 386 killed who where mainly children in an elementary school.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

doodlebug,

I wouldn't call them 'statistics'

How about this case? Beslan School massacre where they took hostage and killed children. 386 killed who where mainly children in an elementary school.

thats one example, not statistics

[Heracles 417]

doodlebug,

I wouldn't call them 'statistics'

How about this case? Beslan School massacre where they took hostage and killed children. 386 killed who where mainly children in an elementary school.

thats one example, not statistics

One example!!!!!! If I was Russia I would have nuked Chechnya and then said here is your separation. Allah Akbar m/fssss..

[doodlebug 3]

What if it was due to a good ole USA or Israeli bomb? It's ok then?

but they are not. For every one child the US has killed by accident, 100 have been deliberately targeted and executed by the extremists. Many seem to forget that little technicality because of their hatred of the US and it's so-called foreign policy.

Could you give me your source for those statistics please?

It was an example. Pretty much every day there is a car bombing with X deaths there. Do you think American soldiers are driving them and blowing themselves up??

When you say something specific like "For every one child the US has killed by accident, 100 have been deliberately targeted and executed by the extremists. ", you really should have a source to back that up. Otherwise people might think you're pulling it out of your..............hat.

[Heracles 417]

doodlebug,

I wouldn't call them 'statistics'

How about this case? Beslan School massacre where they took hostage and killed children. 386 killed who where mainly children in an elementary school.

thats one example, not statistics

I can find a lot of cases where Muslims have deliberately killed children in both Israel and Iraq. Sorry that is not opinion but reality..

What if it was due to a good ole USA or Israeli bomb? It's ok then?

but they are not. For every one child the US has killed by accident, 100 have been deliberately targeted and executed by the extremists. Many seem to forget that little technicality because of their hatred of the US and it's so-called foreign policy.

Could you give me your source for those statistics please?

It was an example. Pretty much every day there is a car bombing with X deaths there. Do you think American soldiers are driving them and blowing themselves up??

When you say something specific like "For every one child the US has killed by accident, 100 have been deliberately targeted and executed by the extremists. ", you really should have a source to back that up. Otherwise people might think you're pulling it out of your..............hat.

It was my opinion hence why I did not back it up.. Maybe GWB is killing the kids

Edited September 12, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Jenn! 918]

:lol:

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

How is that a fictional story? The British Empire did own the land (and much of the area in the Middle-East) for a long time. In fact, the British controlled most of the world at one point in time, so why is it so difficult to believe that they also owned Israel/Palestine?

Were they the original owners of the land? No, of course not. But they got it through war -- which is how most territory belonging to countries today exists. It really doesn't matter who the land belonged to first. What does matter is who can take the land, control the land and keep the land. Whoever can do all of that owns the country in question. Otherwise, someone else forces their way in and "sets up shop."

Whoever owns the land can make the laws there. If the people living in that country dislike it, then they have three choices: 1) Learn to live with it; 2) Move away to somewhere else; 3) Fight back as either "rebels" or "terrorists," depending on your point-of-view.

Is that situation necessarily fair? Probably not, but then again, the world has never really been a very fair place either.

Fortunately for us today, most countries don't engage in that sort of behavior anymore. There's too much money at stake in business efforts to risk losing foreign investors and consumers, so going to war "over land" isn't worth as much as it was a few hundred years ago (and further back), economically speaking. Beyond the financial angle, technology has become so great (and invasive), that if one country decided to invade another, it would hardly be a secret. Everyone would know about it on the news before it happened -- or at the very least, during the actual events -- in which case the invader would have a difficult time persuing their goals of conquest.

As for Israel... I think that country would gladly attempt to work out a peace treaty with the Palestinians that is effective. The problem is seems to be that Palestinian militants and terrorist groups are hell-bent on opposing any negotiations with Israel (even if it means saving the lives of their own people), so they attack and kill Israelis. Then, of course, Israel retaliates. The terrorist groups use this response as fodder to feed their sick hatred of Jews, brainwash more Palestinians into killing even more Israelis, and... well, it doesn't take a genius to see how this is working out.

you make some good points about the type of conquering that goes on today, as opposed to the traditional way, but there are some other things that i just dont agree with

its not as thought britain recieved a mandate over palestine because they went to battle in the middle east and won...that is not the case...they were on the winning end of WWI, yes, but they didnt ever fight a war specifically to obtain those lands, nor did they fight the palestinian people for the land...they obtained a mandate over the land and a few (about 30) years later they created israel...you argue that the palestinians are the aggressors here and that the israelis are peace loving and willing to negotiate, but is it the chicken or the egg...the point is that the original aggressor was the british by creating this state in the first place, and granting themselves power that they had no right to have

[Heracles 417]

you make some good points about the type of conquering that goes on today, as opposed to the traditional way, but there are some other things that i just dont agree with

its not as thought britain recieved a mandate over palestine because they went to battle in the middle east and won...that is not the case...they were on the winning end of WWI, yes, but they didnt ever fight a war specifically to obtain those lands, nor did they fight the palestinian people for the land...they obtained a mandate over the land and a few (about 30) years later they created israel...you argue that the palestinians are the aggressors here and that the israelis are peace loving and willing to negotiate, but is it the chicken or the egg...the point is that the original aggressor was the british by creating this state in the first place, and granting themselves power that they had no right to have

I would like to know what your opinion is on Turkey's occupation on Cyprus. After all this did occur in 1974 and not 1948.

[Raspect 0]

Well, don't you just know everything?

Of course civilian casualties occur, its a sad reality of war. Any chance the enemy can, they will force you into a position to injure civilians. Then they twist the events out of context in an attempt to gain support.

If the media was sooo biased in our favor, why did they broadcast the Haditha killings, what about the five soldiers charged in the rape and murder of that 14 year old girl, Abu Ghraib, I can keep going. So don't worry, the media is not with-holding any of the horrible things from you.

Panel: U.S. Underreported Iraq Violence

WASHINGTON -- U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

** Hence the media can only report on the stories they know about**

Here is the link to the full story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120601325.html