Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islam angry since Jan Sobieski handed them their hat at Vienna?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    It struck me as a naive idea that 'religion causes war', being a belief, any could be utilised, including any philosophy, deities included or not, pressed into service for the approving the political designs behind a given conflict.
    ------
    'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

    If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Selous View Post
      It struck me as a naive idea that 'religion causes war', being a belief, any could be utilised, including any philosophy, deities included or not, pressed into service for the approving the political designs behind a given conflict.
      And I would say that you'd be wrong. Only two things cause wars: greed and fear. Greed is what one stands to gain by war. Fear is what one might loose to an aggressor. An example from today's headlines might read, "Muslims moved to violence by fear that evolution of modern society will render them irrelevant and ultimately extinct." That's what the headline will read, at any rate. The truth, however, is that "Imams greedy for attention and prestige rile up their followers with exaggerated and fabricated fears of the West's designs on them." It's an easy game to play. Here's how it works:

      A Pakistani minister has revealed hundreds of cases of alleged child sex abuse at Islamic schools, or madrassas.

      There were 500 complaints this year of abuse allegedly committed by clerics, Aamer Liaquat Hussain, a minister in the religious affairs department, said.

      That compares with 2,000 last year, but as yet there have been no successful prosecutions, Mr Hussain told the BBC.

      The minister's revelations have sparked death threats and infuriated some religious political leaders.

      Mr Hussain said he had received death threats from clerics, but that he had done his job and his conscience was clear. . . .

      However, the revelations have angered some Islamic leaders. At a parliamentary meeting this week, some demanded he apologise. . . . .

      "Madrassas hit by sex abuse claims," by Paul Henderson, BBC News, 10 Dec 2004
      The imams didn't like that their racket had been exposed to public scrutiny, so they sent a message:

      In 2005 [religious affairs minister Aamer Liaquat Hussain] was attacked by "enraged youths" during his visit to Jamia Binoria. Provincial minister for Planning and Development Shoaib Bukhari was also with him during this visit. He was detained in Jamia Binoria after a member of the crowd stole a gun from his gunman. It was reported that the windscreen of his car was broken and he had to go hide in the girls' hostel, from there he made a frantic call to the police claiming that his life was in danger. Although, police later reported that it was never the case, he did suffer some injuries.

      Wikipedia
      Since the message was received loudly and clearly, the imams have been free to return to their previously scheduled child-diddling with impunity.

      And that's how this works. Violence is expensive. Most men are possessed of rather similar physical abilities. So assuming that the perpetrator in question isn't a genuine sociopath, he has to be moved to violence some how. Only desire for gain or fear of loss can motivate a normal man enough to overcome his innate aversion to burning calories and risking his safety.

      Of course, how one views gain and loss need not be logical, or based on any hard facts: they need only be felt, in order for a "golden throat" to work his special brand of magic.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #48
        But are not greed and fear a 'political' issue more than a religious one, with religion or what have you, being the theme of it more than the thing itself?
        Fear, Honour and Interest (perhaps standing in for Greed) of Thucydides always seemed to me as the political motives for conflict. In other words, I see the Imam part you referenced as being a political behaviour - desiring to look after their racket.
        The influencing of others to take up arms for your cause can be as tangible (gold) or intangible (paradise, the rightness of god's will) as you can spin it I guess. To borrow phraseology I picked up from you, the man at the top is usually safeguarding or expanding his rice-bowl and that to me is the political in 'war is the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means' or the Fear, Honour and Interest, of the Thucydidian trinity (well, I'm wondering where Honour fits in that at the moment)
        ------
        'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

        If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

        Comment


        • #49
          A mix of the Crusades, the failed Iberian expasion, colonialism, and mutual bigotry from Ottoman invasions of Europe, counter-invasions, etc.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Selous View Post
            But are not greed and fear a 'political' issue more than a religious one, with religion or what have you, being the theme of it more than the thing itself?
            Politics is merely the means by which one suckers others into advancing his own interests: by pretending that it's their interests at stake. It's the oldest fraud going.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #51
              Well I can agree with that, but I think, and I may have the wrong end of the stick, that doesn't rule out that greed and fear being 'politics' in the sense that politics is usually understood to be;

              The activities associated with the governance of a country or area.
              The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries.
              ------
              'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

              If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                Hardly. All you have to do is read your postings-and yes, I believe you to be pro-terrorist by your postings.
                Wut? WHAT THE ****?



                I sincerely don't understand you. Knowing that religion is always used as a a rallying banner for those who seek to direct the anger of the feeble minded is somehow pro-terrorist?

                Knowing about stuff like Mossadegh's deposition is pro-terrorist?

                UTTERLY DISAGREEING WITH ANY RELIGION-INSPIRED CONFLICT IS PRO-TERRORIST?
                And if you take a look, France allied itself with the Ottomans in the 15th century and remained an ally until 1807 when Sultan Selim, Napoleon's ally, was murdered.
                Heh, it just so happens that I already stated this half a dozen times...


                You see, I would try to be politically correct, if you showed something other than blatant disrespect and, to be blunt, stupidity.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by slick_miester View Post






                  Yeah. It's funny how religiously-inspired conflict keeps raising its head.
                  I never. Ever. Ever. Said that religion inspires conflict in itself. I merely said that most any religion, particularly the monotheistic ones, lend extremely well to belligerent interpretation. Neither did I say it's the only cause for war. No, the only cause for war is ambition and greed. Among those in power. Notice one thing belligerent religion, nazism and communism have in common - mass movements, simple, populistic ideas and conscious attempts at alienating the others.

                  After all, codified religion is little more than means of controlling the masses.
                  Had the Ottomans imposed Islam upon all of their subjects simultaneously they would have lost the revenue generated by the jizya, the tax levied on non-Muslims residing under Muslim governments, and they would have lost the manpower provided by the devşirme, the primary means by which the Ottoman sultans recruited ostensibly reliable soldiers and administrators. Indeed, there were accounts of Muslim parents passing their young sons off as Christians in order to qualify for the devşirme, as the parents reasoned that on account of their poverty the child would achieve a better life as the sultan's slave than as a Muslim raised by his own family.
                  Do tell me something I don't know. Too bad your reasoning is faulty, since we never actually see any attempts of totally assimilating the population of Europe or the non-conformist regions of the middle east. This was largely limited to allowing ghazis to settle. FFS, they kept the Shiite shrines in Iraq intact, despite the fact that these were often used by the neighboring Shi'a Safavids as pretext for invasion. There was very little drive toward assimilation in any way. Why? Because the Ottomans, like most lasting empires, knew better than to alienate millions of already-warlike subjects.
                  The first step in enlarging an empire is to defeat the first immediate challenger -- is it not?
                  The Ottomans had pretty much stopped expanding for about a hundred years already. The Austrians had in fact pushed back, somewhat. If you want to see what amounts to a possible start of a full-scale invasion of western Europe, see Suleiman the Magnificent's failed siege of Vienna, in 1529. Which is, oh, only 150 years before the one in question.

                  It was just as large, maybe even larger, than the 17th century one. The reason it doesn't get as much renown is because it lacks the populistic "decisive final battle" value.
                  So did Karl Marx.
                  He was an idiot, then. Disliking religion =/= being a communist. I hate communists more than I hate religious people, for quite obvious reasons.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    You shouldn't hate anyone-all that causes is more hatred and in the end, you lose...

                    Sincerely,
                    M
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      You shouldn't hate anyone-all that causes is more hatred and in the end, you lose...

                      Sincerely,
                      M
                      Once your "argument" gets totally destroyed by virtue of it never having existed, you just try to impose some sort of authority. Pathetic.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Perhaps you shouldn't judge others by your own low standards?

                        Sincerely,
                        M
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Selous View Post
                          Well I can agree with that, but I think, and I may have the wrong end of the stick, that doesn't rule out that greed and fear being 'politics' in the sense that politics is usually understood to be;

                          The activities associated with the governance of a country or area.
                          The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries.
                          Going back to Caveman times, people only organized themselves into larger political units because they either felt that they could gain more as larger units rather than smaller, or they felt that they could better protect or preserve what they had from outside forces. Were there not something to covet or fear, then there would have been no impetus to organize any political unit larger than a clan or a tribe.

                          Probably 90% of people prefer to forgo physical confrontation. By and large, most Homo sapiens are possessed of rather similar physical, intellectual, and emotional qualities. In direct confrontation, it can be rather difficult to discern one combatant's advantage over his adversary before the commencement of hostilities. Whether the weapons in question are stick-and-stones or M16's and AKM's, the same holds true: most people are rather evenly matched against each other. Therefore it must take something of great value being at steak in order to motivate significant numbers of "Regular Joe's" to choose war as a means of seeing to interests or settling disputes. All that being said, the question that begs asking is, what kind of person does it take to motivate his neighbors to see war as the means needed to see to their interests?

                          Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                          I never. Ever. Ever. Said that religion inspires conflict in itself. I merely said that most any religion, particularly the monotheistic ones, lend extremely well to belligerent interpretation. Neither did I say it's the only cause for war. . . . .
                          Suffice to say you failed to make the distinction clear.

                          Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                          After all, codified religion is little more than means of controlling the masses.
                          Well, the little plebs do need direction, don't you know.

                          Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                          Do tell me something I don't know. Too bad your reasoning is faulty, since we never actually see any attempts of totally assimilating the population of Europe or the non-conformist regions of the middle east.


                          I just said that: it was not in the Ottomans' interests to convert the masses of their "occupied territories" to Islam. Their apparent leniency wasn't the result of their innate humanity: they were serving their own interests.

                          Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                          The Ottomans had pretty much stopped expanding for about a hundred years already. The Austrians had in fact pushed back, somewhat. If you want to see what amounts to a possible start of a full-scale invasion of western Europe, see Suleiman the Magnificent's failed siege of Vienna, in 1529. Which is, oh, only 150 years before the one in question.
                          I'll concede that, with one caveat: if they could find a way to reinvigorate their empire's demographic and economic base, then they very much would have been interested in recommencing their empire-building program. The fact is, however, by the 17th century, they knew that most of their offensive force was spent, so their energies and resources were invested more into maintenance rather than expansion.

                          Originally posted by Roachthegreat View Post
                          He was an idiot, then. Disliking religion =/= being a communist. I hate communists more than I hate religious people, for quite obvious reasons.
                          Это не настолько очевидно.

                          [Ducks]

                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            'How much Islamic terrorism was there even during Cold War against West?'

                            Ever hear of the PLO?

                            Then we also have Hamas and Hexbollah.

                            I believe these terrorist organizations came about during the Cold War.

                            Sincerely,
                            M
                            The PLO was essentially secular and was in fact made up of a mix of Marxists, Communists, left-wing groups, socialists and so on.
                            "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                            G.B Shaw

                            "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                            Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Marc, I don't disagree with this, I don't think it excludes the notion that war is the continuation of political activity with the means of violence, if that 'politics' is based on the greed/fear we agree on.
                              I want to answer your question on the kind of person in that situation, but I gotta scram for a minute.
                              For now, I suppose a person commanding enough leadership/political savvy skill to coerce or motivate others is necessary for the building of evedr larger political units, but once established, you dont need so much to maintain it - otherwise we'd surely have anarchy each election - it's bad enough as it is.
                              ------
                              'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                              If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                I just said that: it was not in the Ottomans' interests to convert the masses of their "occupied territories" to Islam. Their apparent leniency wasn't the result of their innate humanity: they were serving their own interests.
                                I never said otherwise. Is it so hard to comprehend text? In fact, I stated that very clearly in the previous post. For future reference: if you plan accusing me of believing in innate humanity, you will never have ground to do so - because I don't. The fact that my favorite historical peoples like Richard Neville, the earl of Warwick and Wallenstein is telling.
                                I'll concede that, with one caveat: if they could find a way to reinvigorate their empire's demographic and economic base, then they very much would have been interested in recommencing their empire-building program. The fact is, however, by the 17th century, they knew that most of their offensive force was spent, so their energies and resources were invested more into maintenance rather than expansion.
                                Again, exactly what I have been saying all along. They no longer had the power to launch a serious attempt at conquering an entire continent. Not that they ever had the power to conquer it, anyway.
                                ***
                                Perhaps you shouldn't judge others by your own low standards?
                                Funny. You throw around insults and attacks, and yet never even bother explaining what your position is. Instead, you throw around random and extremely stupid accusations.

                                The way I see it, is that my comments about religion are tearing your ass up. No reason to bother with common manners when my opposition has none.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X