Opinuated2

Sunisle’s question:

‘Has a Muslim country invaded, occupied and killed hundreds of thousands of people and left the infrastructure shattered?...'

Sunisle didn’t ask about Israeli terrorism. I was correct and you were well… way out of line. An apology will suffice.

Attempting to justify terrorism on the basis of ‘everybody does it’ is devoid of decency.

Terrorising civilian populations in times of war occurs and lacks justification, such was not the case in Iraq.

Human Rights Watch, published surveys, conducted by Iraqi’s on the ground in Iraq, which showed very few civilian casualties were caused by aerial bombing or missiles. Those that were were found to be deliberate and aimed at Saddam’s family and their henchmen. I cannot find the surveys now. They were published some two years ago and are no longer on that website. With about 3 hours work I could find them but I prefer you accepted I’ve said this in good faith and that the surveys did exist.

I am familiar with iraqibodycount website. Currently it publishes figures claiming civilian deaths caused directly by Americans amount to approximately 3000 during the Invasion and subsequent two years, Contradicting Sunisle’s exaggerated claims.

Mate from the reference you supplied showa no western country has acted as Sunisle claims.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php?PHPSESSID=928ff03239dde85bef11c29f235dc96c&submit3=Enter+Site

iraqbodycount claims all civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by Americans and allies. It includes American and allied deaths in its figures. It attributes all bombing deaths to Americans. That website is an anti-US propaganda outlet.

That website contradicts itself with the following:

‘Who did the killing?
• US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. (24,850 total)
• Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
• Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
• Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. ‘

It also shows a telling desire to excuse and down play the Islamic intersect killings since the invasion phase ended.

And apparently the other 18% were suicides or killing by other methods? They don't explain and I'm to tired to bother thinking about that anomalie.

Can some one explain to me the following:
1. Why is Mohammed deemed to be such a reverred prophet when he was such a well documented murderous thug and deviant, even for the standards of the day.?
2. Why is the Koran deemed to be the inviolate and absolute word of god when there is clear evidence that it evolved over many years from many sources, and could not have been recited to Mo in an intact form.?
3. What is about a book that evolved ( cobbled together is a better description) and can be recited parrot fashion by so many, yet at least 20% of it is unintelligible, even to arab speakers.?
4. Why is it that the Islamicists wont permit scholarly analysis of the Koran etc in the same open and frank way other great religious tomes have been subjected to.?
5. Why is it that of the ten least free countries in the world, 7 are islamic.?
6. Why is it that if Islam has about 2bn followers, why dont they figure more in international measures like Nobel Prizes and patents lodged. Is "Inshallah fatalism" the only reason for this.?

"For the same reason people hesitate before telling a joke about jesus christ at a party... "

I for one haven't been to a party yet where there was any hesitation whatsoever with joking about jesus or religion per se, partly because parties don't normally involve conversations about religion (or at least not the ones i've been to).

The one I've heard most often at parties is where Jesus walks into an inn late at night, throws a few nails on the counter and says "Can you put me up for the night?" Other parties I have been to have involved spontaneous, somewhat drunken and not terribly tuneful choruses of "Jehovah, Jehovah" in monty python fashion.

Like everyone else here has stated over and over again like a broken record, we're all for understanding a person's sensitivities and being compulsively polite but just because some people take themselves oh-so-seriously doesn't mean I do.

Such a primitive and hypocritical doctrinal position on cartoons as printed in denmark simply begs for satire regardless of what a few religious anal retentives think or do about it later.

Keith : If that was the question that you were answering then yes I should apologise....

Please do not think that I am justifying terrorism in any way... I am totally against it... It is one of the lowest forms of murder.

The way you worded your answer I thought that you had forgotten about the Israelis using similar tactics in earlier times. I wasn't using that to justify things but more to put it in context.

You may be right about that site being an anti American propoganda site but listening to the US Govt and our Govt is listening to a Pro USA Govt propoganda group. Sometimes it is good to see both sides of the propoganda war.

The war is a disaster and recent revelations that the USA didn't expect an insurgency backlash prior to the war means they were unprepared for the conflict.

Kekenidika : It was I who requested the information regarding the cartoons in the Egyption press thankyou for that. That is probably the most important thing for Muslims to see.. the cartoons were printed in a Muslim countries newspaper and nothing major happened.

Muslims didn't react violently when images perpoted to be Mohammad were printed in a Muslim newspaper.

Please moderate Muslims listen to reasonable people on this issue and spread the word amongst others that the violent reactions are wrong. You can't be offended at the Danish Newspaper if the Egyption paper did it first.

Here is the link again http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

The writer of the original article is wrong in saying that nothing happened to the producers of the play in which Jesus is depicted as gay. When the play was shown in the UK, The Sharia Council of Britian issued a judgement that the writers and producers should be put to death for insulting a figure (Jesus) who is venerated in Islam (Islam laying claim to Moses and the prophets, with whom they include Jesus).
This brings me to the crucial point here. Insulting someone's religion should be a right - this sort of activity is the only way societies change. Proclaiming that someone should be murdered, on the other hand, is anti-social as well, of course, as being against a particular person. Calling for someone's murder is rightly criminalised - insulting someone's feelings is rightly not criminalised.
Muslims have to get over the fact that they don't run the world any more (not that they ever controlled a majority of it, but you wouldn't know that from some of their comments). They have to get over the fact that most people don't want them to run the world, either. What's the rate of influx into Muslim-run countries? What's the outflow?
Islam isn't so much a religion as a political system pretending to be a religion. It is rejected by the world's majority, who prefer to live in countries run under rules of other religions or, more popularly, under secular rule where people make rules for themselves in places called parliaments, Diets, Dumas and the like.
And if Islam wants to wage another war of conquest, it had better wait until it is no longer in the position of weakness that it currently is in, because it will get wiped out otherwise.

Philo

Thanks for your admonition to find out what democracy means. I do know what democracy means, and I totally agree, “Everyone has rights to express their views and values and lobby politicians to reflect those values.”

I also understand what is meant by separation of Church and State.

I recognise that people are entitled to have (or not have) religious beliefs. What you forget is that the separation of church and state not only protects the state, but also protects religion from government interference.

Perhaps my paragraph, which seems to have touched a raw nerve, was badly worded.
I was referring to the apparent influence of religious views held by a Minister of the Government, who reserved the right to himself alone, having ministerial power, to decide whether or not the abortion drug should be made accessible to women. I do not call this democratic. If you do, then you have a strange idea of democracy.
If this drug were accessible to women, they could then choose according to their own conscience.

I did say that this was a conscience vote. People could vote on what their conscience tells them, so if their conscience includes religious points of view, then by all means they should vote that way.

I am NOT an atheist, I am agnostic. This means that I admit the possibility that a supreme creator exists.

It is just that I, personally, don’t know. Look up the definition of agnostic, if you don’t know what that means.

As far as religious belief goes, if you believe in everything that’s in the Bible, or in other so-called holy books, like the Koran, then by all means go ahead and believe it.
Nowhere in this forum have I ever suggested otherwise.

Your statement that I am “bordering on Third Reich world views of a Totalitarian State that reflects only one opinion” is ridiculous. Indeed, I am for the opposite!

Your view seems similar to that of Islam, which basically says that the state and the church are one.

Explain to me how your views differ from those of Islam?