War against terror

[denoir 0]

...religion is far from the only source of bad things happening to people. It is however a significant source in the context of the thing we're discussing here, namely contemporary terrorism.

Which religions?  Or are you primarily focusing on the role of just one religion; namely Islam?

(You may or may not have noticed that I place the problem at the door of several religions, and its origins WAY before 11 Sept 2001.)

I think the three monotheistic religions create problems. I do however think that Islam is as practiced today the primary problem. I do not however wish to underestimate for instance the damage that the US Christian right is doing on the global scale.

Still, even in America Christianity has been secularized to the degree that it is more pragmatic than dogmatic. In Europe it has of course gone even further in the secular direction.

As for Judaism.. well, the one-faith, one country idea seems a bit fishy. "God's chosen people" doesn't exactly bode well for inter-religious cooperation etc In practice however Israel is also secularized to a large degree.

I think you can only go so far with moral relativism. I would not hesitate to say that Buddhism has created far less violent problems than any of the monotheistic religions. And I would also say that as it looks today, Islam as currently practiced is the most problematic large religious movement.

[Panda-PL- 0]

@RNA issue. I don't speak DNA duplication. Rather the way that DNA was achived in evolution from RNA without having DNA at the first place.

I don't make things up. Some Japaneese experimated with bacteria and achived such results - the weaker bacteria spicie survived.

Darvinism was a kidnapped ideology... So is religion. Should we destroy darvinism.

Had You noticed anyone critisizing Darvin and his methods is labeled crazy and banned out of media? Scientific approach?

On the same basis people would label Einshtein as an imbecile.

@the earth issue - You missed the point - the thesis was made on philozophical assumptions.

You didn't reffer to modern RCC. My gues about You being stuck in medieval could be right?

Also no reference to comments on empiria.

I say that there was a dragon in my garage. You say there was a French Revolution. What is the difference?

[denoir 0]

@ July 18 2005,23:26)]@RNA issue. I don't speak DNA duplication. Rather the way that DNA was achived in evolution from RNA without having DNA at the first place.

Oh, gee and we can't evolve a dinosaur out of an amoeba in a lab..wonder why? Could it possibly be because evolution takes hundreds of millions of years?

Quote[/b] ]I don't make things up. Some Japaneese experimated with bacteria and achived such results - the weaker bacteria spicie survived.

Ehh..

Definition:

Weak = the one that dies, (Unfit for survival)

Strong = the one that lives (Fit for survival)

If a bacteria species survived, then it was the stronger one - per definition.

Quote[/b] ]Darvinism was a kidnapped ideology...

Kidnapped ideology?

Quote[/b] ]Had You noticed anyone critisizing Darvin and his methods is labeled crazy and banned out of media?

Not more than people that claim that that the earth is flat.

Quote[/b] ]On the same basis people would label Einshtein as an imbecile.

No, but Einstein would surely label people who thought the earth was flat as imbeciles.

Quote[/b] ]@the earth issue - You missed the point - the thesis was made on philozophical assumptions.

No, it was made on empirical observations. Eratosthenes discovered that at the solstice at two different places, the sun was at a different angle. So he did some measurements and came up with the theory that the earth was round. He followed up by traveling a further away and repeating the measurements, confirming his theory and making a calculation of the circumference of earth. A textbook scientific approach.

Quote[/b] ]You didn't reffer to modern RCC. My gues about You being stuck in medieval could be right?

I didn't have time then, but I'll do it now. The change in the catholic church has been scientifically liberal (your favourite, the previous pope supporting evolution for instance) but socially conservative. And sure Ratzi continues the tradition, but after he's gone, the younger far more socially liberal cardinals will take over. Within 20 years, you'll see a very different church.

Which again proves my point of it being arbitrary. For something that's supposed to be the final and ultimate truth, you do change it a lot.

Quote[/b] ]Also no reference to comments on empiria.

I say that there was a dragon in my garage. You say there was a French Revolution. What is the difference?

1. Documented observation from thousands of witnesses

2. Historical artifacts from the period

Mind you though that history is not science. It does not use the scientific method in the same way as the natural sciences do. Instead it's more a work of just collecting information.

Now, since you were kind enough to list the things I didn't reply to at first, I'll return the favour. You avoided the following issues:

1. "Proof" in science

2. Non-specified argument from alleged Polish TV show

3. Nazism & social Darwinism

4. Science as a source of violence

5. Science vs Religion ontology

6. Knowing about stars

7. The arbitrary re-interpretation of religious texts

8. Consistency and completeness in science and religion

9. Economy & Social sciences don't use the scientific method

10. Free will, omniscience and the existence of evil

Quote[/b] ]Why don't You - based on the same logic - fight motorisation. Oh the horrible traffic incidents! Want a link to some photos? Looks not better then terrorism.

The answer is simple - both cause far more good then bad.

The difference is that religion does little good. Their social role is no longer needed. Poverty is handled by secular governments. The morality is for the most part outdated and the rest is law anyway.

I really can't say that I see much positive in religion. Perhaps as a cultural and historical heritage, but that's it.

Again, I'm not saying that religion should be banned. I do however say that we must look at the problems it creates with open eyes. To take your example - The same way we control that cars are safe, and acknowledge that cars are a source of traffic deaths, we must do the same with religion. Unfortunately it's a very apologetic climate political climate right now. It has in reality nothing to do with religion, but more with people being über-sensitive of respecting cultural values of others - and that includes religion. That is all very noble, but at some point you have to take a look at reality and acknowledge that there is a problem.

[Blink Dog 0]

I hope they don't ban religion, I'm looking to form a religious cult in the near future.

[red oct 2]

looks as if MI5 made the same mistake the FBI/CIA made

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691547.stm

[Bernadotte 0]

And I would also say that as it looks today, Islam as currently practiced is the most problematic large religious movement.

In your opinion, since when has it been the most problematic for those fighting the War on Terrorism?

When would you say it began practicing "as currently practiced?"

[philcommando 0]

Quote[/b] ]In your opinion, since when has it been the most problematic?

When would you say it began practicing "as currently practiced?"

So in your opinion there are no problems,everyone is living in peace since the religion was introduced, that you seek to ask such a question?

Some say, we have ears, but we hear not. Some say, we have eyes, but we see not. Our belief system are based on our perceptions, the sum of our experience, or the lack of it.

Remember, there is always the other side of the coin to both problems and solutions. Some will ask, if there are no problems, then would young teenagers with a life ahead of them scream allah akbar as they bomb the heck out of innocent men, women, children and babies?

The closest next current screams of men who murder innocent civilians are ' go to hell, you son of a bit*h!" His religion must be something to do with dogs or cats and thankfully, he is a minority. Not many worship dogs or cats that i know of, though equally despicable, but not a problem the local police can't handle.

Unlike those who lay the blame of murder onto an unseen Almighty that is shared by many of the same faith in millions, evoking pity many times in the past but hopefully now with disgust by others of the same faith, who needs immediately to cleanse their religion of such butchers of who are no more than dog or pig worshippers in disguise. The butcher leaders worship no true god but his own god of power and greed like pigs to control and enslave mankind, using others with crocodile tears for his own ends.

Do the world a favour today, not because of religion but for the sake of humanity; Please co-operate fully with the authorities with any info on such butchers or would-be pig worshippers.Thanks

[Bernadotte 0]

So in your opinion there are no problems,everyone is living in peace since the religion was introduced, that you seek to ask such a question?

No.

Edit: Perhaps you should spend more time flaming people's answers instead of their questions.

[Placebo 29]

Did I somehow mistake this with a theology thread? Discuss the war on terror only, discussions about religion should be done some other place away from these forums.

[Panda-PL- 0]

You didn't react.

I do share this oppinion, yet it was Denoir that claimed a few pages back that religion and terrorism come together.

If You'd search the posts You'd see that not even in one place I claimed that religion is right, nor tried to convert anyone.

All I try to achive is get Denoir not to publicly accuse my religion of all the evil in the word.

Sorry.

[Bordoy 0]

@ July 19 2005,12:34)]All I try to achive is get Denoir not to publicly accuse my religion of all the evil in the word.

Isn't that infringement on the right to free speech. He is not Inciting to religious hatred. He is merely expressing his own opinion.

[Panda-PL- 0]

@ July 19 2005,12:34)]All I try to achive is get Denoir not to publicly accuse my religion of all the evil in the word.

Isn't that infringement on the right to free speech. He is not Inciting to religious hatred. He is merely expressing his own opinion.

Thanks for explenations.

The freedom of speach ends where other people's personal freedom and dignity begins.

If I say that someone's mother was a b*** in public and it is my personal oppinion, then a question arises can I express it...

If Denoir says I'm a morron and I belive b***, then...

You get the point?

And that's literally what he said...

You cannot assault people in public, even if it's just BBs and people write various wise or unwise things.

However no intervention was made at the time (a mod was on holliday propably?).

I have a strange feeling I'll get some kinds of restrictions instead of Him if this keeps up, so Ill leave His oppinions alone.

[Sandman214155 0]

@ July 19 2005,13:34)]Denoir claimed a few pages back that religion and terrorism come together.

he's right this War on Terrorism has put the US and Middle East at each others throughts for some time, dating back to the Crusades. The very reason Bin Laden Attacked the US on 9/11 was that the US, a primarily Christain country, set foot on Suidi Arabia, a muslim "Holy Ground".

so that is were religion ties in with the War on Terror. but it doesn't put us at any position to attack any relegion or force it on another man/woman. so this is how were going to start back on track...

Pakistan is now helping out the US and British in capturing Terrorist crosing the border.

[denoir 0]

@ July 19 2005,13:34)]All I try to achive is get Denoir not to publicly accuse my religion of all the evil in the word.

I thought we went through this Panda. In a discussion, you can't make things up. You need to separate reality from fantasy.

What I said was that in the case of the London suicide-bombings, religion (Islam) was at the core of the problem and shouldn't be ignored. Unless you are a Muslim and think that suicide bombings are "all the evil in the world" then I can hardly have accused your religion for all the evil in the world, now could I?

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ]

In your opinion, since when has it been the most problematic for those fighting the War on Terrorism?

When would you say it began practicing "as currently practiced?"

I don't know if I can give an answer to that as there are many factors involved. It's not just the religion, but the religion in context of the social and technological developments around the world. There are several important time frames, such as the last crusades which saw a radicalization of Islam (they started to return the same type of violence they were subjected to by the crusaders), there's the colonization, the decolonization, the rapid  westernization etc

Actually, perhaps a better way of putting it is that the practice has changed relatively little compared to how much the world has changed. Christianity has gone through a secularization, that Islam has not. And while the practice of the religion might have not changed dramatically, it does come in conflict with social progress. The west has taken a pragmatic approach and killed off most of the interference of religion in affairs of any significance. This of course not an absolute rule, there are exceptions, but the trend is clear.

In addition to the religion itself, you have other enabling factors, such as poverty, authoritarian regimes, technology (communications, travel etc)

Specifically, the Islamist movement is a fairly recent one. It had its roots in opposition partially to pan-Arabism, but most of all the westernization of the Islamic world (their perceived nemesis was Atatürk who secularized Turkey). The Islamists became a relevant force first in the 80's through their involvement in Afghanistan. After that war ended, during the 90's they gained political strength in the Mid East and for a while it looked like they would come to power through democratic means in at least Egypt and Algeria. So the governments there found themselves in the position of either following democratic procedure and leave the power to people who had sworn to remove democracy and introduce the caliphate as a form of government - or to ban them. They did the latter which led the islamists to turn to violence. This did create some big problems, but at the end of the 90's they were pretty much extinct, at least in the Mid East. Afghanistan was the primary training spot for militant islamists movement. It should be noted that AQ while an islamist movement, at least at the time did not in any way represent the mainstream. Most islamists were only interested in overthrowing their own governments. With the 2001 invasion the remnants of those movements were obliterated by US bombs. Instead what we are seeing today is the proliferation of the ideas of a then small islamist faction: AQ.

Now equating the islamist movement with followers of Islam is not correct, but the strong religious faith in the Mid East has been an enabling factor for islamism. It is also worth pointing out that at least in the early 90's there was a strong popular support for the movement. Had Algeria and Egypt not acted, these people would have won the elections. So to call the islamists a small extremist faction isn't quite right either.

I think that the Egyptians and the Algerians understood the basic problem far better than the US, UK and the west in general do.

[red oct 2]

http://www.cnn.com/2005....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, praised the recent terror attacks in London and said many more would follow.

Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four bombers.

so much for having to be just poor and unemployed to be a terrorist. bet this idiot gets arrested.

[Bernadotte 0]

Christianity has gone through a secularization, that Islam has not.

By secularised religion do you mean not bound by strict discipline; unregemented?  If not, please explain.

If so, I don't necessarily see a strong connection between strict discipline or regementation and radicalism.  In fact, these terms would tend to suggest the opposite of radicalisation.  Isn't Buddhism strictly disciplined?

The west has taken a pragmatic approach and killed off most of the interference of religion in affairs of any significance.

In most of Europe and Canada, yes.  But not in much of the US.  An American religious leader may still have only one vote, but his beliefs continue to sway the votes of countless followers.  And it is those votes that continue to influence affairs of very great significance in US and world politics.

Had Algeria and Egypt not acted, these people would have won the elections. So to call the islamists a small extremist faction isn't quite right either.

Perhaps they would have won representation, [in so far that these nations have representative democracies ] but they were hardly in a position to win a majority/plurality.

So what happened instead?  In Egypt, Pres. Mubarek outlawed them and gave himself emergency authority to retain leadership, which has now lasted more than 22 years.  Do you honestly think it would take 22 years for the US to become a hotbed of radicalism if Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to stay in power indefinitely?

But at least Egypt is being nice to its neighbours and gives the US a place to legally torture its illegal combatants.

...As if that's going to put an end to radicalism.  

I often wonder how things might have been different if Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood had been allowed by Anwar Sadat to participate in the political process, back in the late 70s.  Instead, Sadat saw them as political rivals, branded them as extremists and outlawed them.  In response, an extremist group split off and assassinated Sadat.  That's when Mubarek arrested their leaders and tortured them for months.  One of those leaders, a doctor and university lecturer got extra torture because he could speak English and was able to convey to the world media reports of their illtreatment.  In the end, they could only jail him for a brief period by claiming to have found a gun in his home.  That man was Ayman Zawahiri who then fled Egypt and later became the brains of Al Qaida.

Things could have gone very differently if Zawahiri and all his radical views had been allowed into the political process.  I suspect he would have ended up safely exiled to the back benches of Egypt's parliament instead of the foothills of Afghanistan.

Example:  Remember Muqtada Al-Sadr?  He was well on his way to becoming another Zawahiri.  But now he's safely pulling political strings instead of pushing detonator buttons.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Did I somehow mistake this with a theology thread? Discuss the war on terror only, discussions about religion should be done some other place away from these forums.

did everyone ignore this post or is it just a figment of my imagination?

in other words: SHUT UP WITH THE REGIOUS SPAM AND START GETTING BACK ON TRACK!!!

to bad i have nothing to start it off with

[Bordoy 0]

Did I somehow mistake this with a theology thread? Discuss the war on terror only, discussions about religion should be done some other place away from these forums.

did everyone ignore this post or is it just a figment of my imagination?

in other words: SHUT UP WITH THE REGIOUS SPAM AND START GETTING BACK ON TRACK!!!

to bad i have nothing to start it off with  

Well there's a blur where terrorism ends and religious extremism starts, so I guess thats where everyone is aiming their discussion (at the blur)

[Placebo 29]

Pages of arguing atheism versus christianity are neither a blur nor a discussion of war on terror. If it reverts to that again, ever, this thread is done.

[Garcia 0]

Just saw on TV that there's (maybe) been another explosion in the underground in London...3 stations been evacuated, and theres reports of smoke and a small explosion from one of the trains

[Panda-PL- 0]

Skynews reported of an still unconfirmed bus explosion.

Both explosions are told to be small and it is not likely that there will be fatal casualties.

The train bomb is told to have been filled with nails, yet the explosion was little.

Either an attempt to scare people or someone's incompetence with modern explosives (lack of a propper detonator).

[Garcia 0]

Norwegian telly reported that the bomb on the train was a rather small nail bomb. There's also been heard gunfire on warren street, and an unconfirmed explosion on a bus. Though, there's no reports of anyone wounded or killed...

[Panda-PL- 0]

One person wounded confirmed at warren street station.

[Fork122 0]

MSNBC just said that they were just detonators, not bombs. The one witness said it sound like popping the cork on a bottle of champagne.

Edit: They just said that Tony Blair is going to speak in 30 minutes.

[denoir 0]

Yepp, BBC says detonators only as well - that the explosions were quite small

Tube cleared after minor blasts [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Minor explosions using detonators only have sparked the evacuation of three Tube stations and the closure of three lines, a BBC correspondent has said.

Police cordoned off large areas around Warren Street, Oval and one of the Shepherd's Bush Tube stations.

A route 26 bus in Hackney Road in Bethnal Green had its windows blown out by a blast. There were no injuries. Police in London say they are not treating the situation as "a major incident yet".

One person was injured at Warren Street. There were reports the injured person may have been holding a rucksack containing the detonator. The whole of the Northern Line has been suspended, along with the Victoria Line and the Hammersmith and City line. A number of other stations were closed including Westminster tube station, Waterloo station and King's Cross Thameslink. There were also reports that St Paul's tube station was closed.

Tony Blair cancelled events in the afternoon and will be attending a meeting of the Cobra committee along with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The BBC's Andrew Winstanley said devices had been found but appeared to have been dummies, containing no explosives. London Underground went to an amber alert with trains taken to the next station and evacuated.

An eyewitness at Oval station said there had been a small bang, and a man had then run off when the Tube reached the station. A spokesman for Stagecoach said the driver of the number 26 bus travelling through Shoreditch had heard a bang on upper deck, gone upstairs and seen the windows were blown out.

The bus driver was very shaken but said to be fine. At Shepherd's Bush station, police told reporters that a man had threatened to blow himself up and then ran off. Sosiane Mohellavi, 35, was travelling from Oxford Circus to Walthamstow when she was evacuated from a train at Warren Street.

"I was in the carriage and we smelt smoke - it was like something was burning.

"Everyone was panicked and people were screaming. We had to pull the alarm. I am still shaking."

The BBC's Rory Barnett said there had been no smoke on the platform at Warren St. Liz Edwards, who works near Warren Street Underground station, said the area was full of activity.

"There are police, fire engines and ambulances all around there. A guy from our office had just come back from the station and said the police were aggressively keeping people away from the station and that you could not get anywhere near it."

A hoax or an failed attempt?