Jihad Watch

[kenneal - lagger]

..........Did you see this lot on Facebook, Ken?
https://www.facebook.com/14899822313212 ... =3&theater

I didn't see that Biff but I am well aware that we fought a war for six years, with millions of deaths on both sides, to prevent him taking over the world. Are you advocating that we also go to war with militant Muslims for however long it takes to defeat them in their aim of global domination?

[kenneal - lagger]

.......I've never met a violent Muslim who advocates war.

You are lucky then but the are thousands of people who have met violent Muslims, many unfortunately dead, in Brussels, Paris, London, Madrid, Bali and many other places who have; and quite recently too. That's not to mention those who have fallen foul of ISIS and the Taliban.

[johnhemming2]

I'm not advocating war with anyone. I'm just saying that all branches of Islam have been at war with us at some stage for a while.

That probably also applies equally to all branches of christianity, Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism as well as animists. It depends upon how much detail we go into.

It doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of how we approach international and national policy.

The reason that people like Donald Trump are dangerous with their divisive rhetoric is that they create disputes where disputes don't already exist.

I think Theodore Roosevelt's policy is a lot better: "speak softly, and carry a big stick."

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not advocating war with anyone. I'm just saying that all branches of Islam have been at war with us at some stage for a while.

That probably also applies equally to all branches of christianity, Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism as well as animists.

No it doesn't.

It depends upon how much detail we go into.

No, it doesn't, you're just completely wrong.

The reason that people like Donald Trump are dangerous with their divisive rhetoric is that they create disputes where disputes don't already exist.

The "dispute" between Islam and everything non-Islamic is very real indeed.

[jonny2mad]

800 million of the worlds muslims cant read or write, most muslim majority countrys are too weak at the moment to be a military threat to non muslims .

Thats why your still alive. Mix that with ancestors that fought off every islamic invasion into europe and there have been several of them .

But what your doing by letting muslims into the west and enabling them to take over the west via demographics, is giving islam the power it hasnt had for centurys to be a military threat to the entire world.

[johnhemming2]

I'm not advocating war with anyone. I'm just saying that all branches of Islam have been at war with us at some stage for a while.

That probably also applies equally to all branches of christianity, Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism as well as animists.

No it doesn't.

OK identify a major branch of a religion specified above where we have not been at war with adherents of it at some stage.

[UndercoverElephant]

That probably also applies equally to all branches of christianity, Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism as well as animists.

No it doesn't.

OK identify a major branch of a religion specified above where we have not been at war with adherents of it at some stage.

Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism.

Confucianism is not equal to China. Hinduism is not equal to India. We have been involved with conflicts with both the Chinese and Indians (both started by us), but there is no nation that we're at war with when we talk about Islam. It's the religion itself that we, and everything non-Islamic, are in conflict with. Islam is a self-proclaimed political entity, transcending national borders in a way that none of those other religions are. Catholicism was also once a self-proclaimed political entity, with a lot of unfortunate consequences. That politicial entity is now reduced to the Vatican, and accept the sovereignty of other nations outside the borders of the Vatican.

[johnhemming2]

Catholic Christianity clearly had a overwhelming political element for centuries, which has now reduced, but is not uninfluential.

Sikhism has a political element.

Historically politics and religion have been closely intertwined across the world.

[UndercoverElephant]

Catholic Christianity clearly had a overwhelming political element for centuries, which has now reduced, but is not uninfluential.

Sikhism has a political element.

Historically politics and religion have been closely intertwined across the world.

Yes, they have. But there is a question about how possible it is to un-intertwine them it is, and the answer is different for different religions.

For example, Hinduism is probably the most tolerant religion out there with respect to its tolerance for other religious systems. The only other religion Hinduism has historically not been able to live peacefully with is Islam, and the reasons for this come down to Hindu scripture, which is as all-inclusive as it is possible to be, because it considers all concious beings to be identical to the supreme Hindu God (Brahman). Even tigers and woodlice are welcome, but you have to watch out for muslims because they'll slaughter you for being a Pagan if you are a Hindu, regardless of how peaceful you are. On the other hand, Hinduism does have historical societal connotation in the form of the caste system, which has been inherited by Indian society in general and regardless of the fact that caste-related discrimination has been outlawed in India, it is still unthinkable to marry outside of your caste, regardless of your religion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890967

Another example is Christianity in the western world. In the UK, we are technically a Christian constitutional monarchy, but in reality the Church of England has very little power. In the US, there is constitutional church/state seperation, but the "Christian Right" has far more real power than the CoE does in England. However, history has a part to play in this case, because the scientific and protestant revolutions happened in Europe (aka "Christendom") and try as they might, the most powerful forces modern Christianity cannot overturn either science or what passes for democracy in the western world. We are ruled by corporations and the rich, not Christians.

Compare with Islam. Islam was a political system from beginning, and it still is, and it is completely resistant to reform. The only example of a country with a majority of muslims that has anything resembling state/religion seperation is Turkey, and that was only achieved by a secular leader who outlawed Islamic dress, Islamic writing and Islamic schools. Turkey was also home to the headquarters of the eastern half of the Catholic empire, and their non-Islamic political system is under severe threat.

1400 years after it was invented, there is no evidence to suggest that Islam can be disconnected from politics. This was intentional. Islam was designed by its founder to be impossible to disconnect from politics. An understanding of history is important here. Christianity had been taken over by the Roman authorities 300 years earlier, and, as far as Mohammed was concerned, corrupted by people who had non-spiritual motives. So he made absolutely sure that the same fate would not befall Islam, and it looks like he succeeded.

[kenneal - lagger]

That probably also applies equally to all branches of christianity, Sikhism, Confucianism and Hinduism as well as animists.

No it doesn't.

OK identify a major branch of a religion specified above where we have not been at war with adherents of it at some stage.

I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about the here and now; the last ten to fifteen years.

[johnhemming2]

The UK does, however, have an established church which is in part managed by laws passed through parliament. It also has theocrats, people who are placed in the house of lords as a result of their religious position.

Although not reported there is quite a bit that goes through parliament relating to the CoE and an MP is given the task of answering questions on behalf of the CoE. It was Tony Baldry in the last parliament.

To me history is important in informing decisions as to what we do today. However, it remains that I don't think we should be trying to promote a global war between the adherents of Islam (of all of its different varieties) and everyone else.

[snow hope]

However, it remains that I don't think we should be trying to promote a global war between the adherents of Islam (of all of its different varieties) and everyone else.

You may not think so, but there seems to be a lot of extremists on the Islam side, ISIS for a start, who are hell bent on it and if you can't see that you need to open your eyes a bit wider before it is too late!

[johnhemming2]

However, it remains that I don't think we should be trying to promote a global war between the adherents of Islam (of all of its different varieties) and everyone else.

You may not think so, but there seems to be a lot of extremists on the Islam side, ISIS for a start, who are hell bent on it and if you can't see that you need to open your eyes a bit wider before it is too late!

Although there are Muslims who support Daesh there are also Sunni Muslims who oppose Daesh (such as the Kurds for example).

Now Daesh would like a global war of the religions. It appears that you agree with them and hence would like to declare war on all Muslims including the Kurds who are fighting Daesh.

Regardless of any issues of principle, there is a simple practical issue, which is that if you declare war on people they tend not to like this and tend to respond negatively.

Hence your position in supporting a global religious war is indeed directly aligned and supportive of the strategy of Daesh.

My view is that on any level that is a strategy that is completely nuts.

[vtsnowedin]

Well we can't take on 1.2 Billion Muslims all at once so I suggest we start first with the ones that are trying to kill us and if we ever run out of them we can think again about what if anything to do with the rest of them.

[Little John]

However, it remains that I don't think we should be trying to promote a global war between the adherents of Islam (of all of its different varieties) and everyone else.

You may not think so, but there seems to be a lot of extremists on the Islam side, ISIS for a start, who are hell bent on it and if you can't see that you need to open your eyes a bit wider before it is too late!

Although there are Muslims who support Daesh there are also Sunni Muslims who oppose Daesh (such as the Kurds for example).

Now Daesh would like a global war of the religions. It appears that you agree with them and hence would like to declare war on all Muslims including the Kurds who are fighting Daesh.

Regardless of any issues of principle, there is a simple practical issue, which is that if you declare war on people they tend not to like this and tend to respond negatively.

Hence your position in supporting a global religious war is indeed directly aligned and supportive of the strategy of Daesh.

My view is that on any level that is a strategy that is completely nuts.

So, presumably, when the rest of the world decided to go to all out war with the Nazis, because the Nazis were themselves bent on world domination, the rest of the world was fully aligning themselves with and in support of the Nazis by going to war with them...right?