Islam--a rapist religion

[Paul bunyan]

MJ, the Serbs lived under demonic turkish oppression for many years

they suffered various turk innovations like impalement death they did not want to be a large population of Orthodox Christians in a turk muslim mulah controlled government of Bosnia hercovinia which was formerly a part of Serbia. the turk~muslims committed atrocities against serbs during that

war but these war criminals will never

stand trial at the Hague like Slobodan Milosevic

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
Dear Thoth,

I don’t fool myself. But I don’t necessarily agree with you that the treaties you mentioned are designated to benefit particular corporations. As a rule, in countries where the labor environment is very lax the productivity is also low, and the political and other stability is also questionable, the currency problems are rampant, the credit problems are rampant (thus the cost of financing is high), etc. These are tings that corporations don’t like.

---

Well - these treaties do a number of things on different levels (some good certainly) - however, I suspect much is crafted for certain advantage. Such as to more easily allow access to cheap labor and environmentally lax locations to set up low-mid skilled manufacturing businesses...while not in this category look at the explosion of cheap Chinese goods in the markets worldwide - using cheap labor etc...plenty of folks are making big bucks (and the cheapness of the products is holding down inflation...) There are oppurtunities such as this in free market nations as well (with Western corporations hoping to reap the profits...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
I agree that nations have to have the choice of which elements of their culture they abolish and which ones they preserve. However, cultures are also dynamic phenomena. They evolve and change. But nobody can forcefully change any culture, at least over a short time horizon. In particular, I don’t see how, for example, the US may change the culture in Mexico, as much as Mexico may be economically dependent on the US, today.

---

Sure - nothing is stagnant. However nations ussually have traditions/practices etc which they like to perpetuate as it makes them what they are..etc. Sometimes nations, like France, want to keep agricultural production on a smaller scale because the French greatly value high quality produce...well these things can be threatened by cheaper alternatives (that busy/hurried people will likely utilize...some of this is already happening)...its a cultural choice to prevent this - in order to perserve something worthwhile - perhaps intangeble to traditional economics (perhaps not)...(are you familiar with the writings of economist Thorestein Veblen?) (may have his name slightly off)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
I don’t think that the Mega-conglomerates need to destroy the local businesses. If things are done properly (and each country has a government to regulate this process), the local businesses may still be a big part of the overall national economy based on the value that they generate. The market economy, unless there are artificial levers, puts everything in its right context. To the contrary of what you allege, I think the local businesses may significantly benefit from the mentioned above conglomerates. And the competition should not be eliminated. It has to be maximally encouraged. On the other hand, if the native business is unable to grow and claim market share, produce the necessary products, provide people with jobs on its own, what’s the use of it?

---

No they don't need to - and I am not denying the (many potential) benefits either. The lure of the (easy & seductive) western way (and the Disney/Hollywood/McDonaldization of the world) is often too much for nations to resist - the result with be homogination of culture - inevitable to some degree...and we are all in for much larger changes on the horizon in any event...(so what can really be done anyway...? Turn Amish?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
Speaking of the Noble Prize, I think it is one of the most corrupt prizes on its own, along with the Oscar. So feel free to reveal to me your plan, please.

---

My lips are sealed for the moment...(However, I agree somewhat concerning the Noble prize...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

You say above:

I am totally in the opposite camp - our environment - our earth - our home - once destroyed will (likely) never be the same. We only have a limited insight into the true damage(s) we are doing....If it is a religion...it is one that is tangible and "correct" (LOL)...mankind has had and is having enormous (negative) impact...
I am with you on the subject of cherishing the earth and preserving its soil, atmosphere, pristinely, etc. However, I don’t see much of an evidence, other than some isolated episodes, where the modern corporate world has threatened the environment. In fact, I think the opposite. The current technological advances only reduce such possibility. The dangers of environmental damage are more of an actual issue in technologically less fortunate countries. The implementation of modern technologies produces or frees up cash reserves which would allow greater emphasis on the cleanness of the industry. Additionally, the growing “white color” lifestyle and the army of its representatives are becoming increasingly more aware of the importance of the environment. But the resources of the earth have to be exploited, have they not? Only they have to be exploited in a reasonable manner. Be it in Russia, India or the US.
Maybe our political system doesn’t indeed encouraged the system you advocate. But it is resulted from the hijacking of the political process by the left and right-wing extremists, including the environmentalists (sorry ). Basically, the moderate, reasonable, thinking, constructive people are driven out of the political system, or are simply disgusted by it. The politics is sort of being left to one-issue extremists.

---

There is plenty of evidence - retreating glaciers and warming of oceans are clear (in a very short timeframe)nand measured. Forests & Jungle are being lost - desertification is occuring...our climate is changing - rapidly...I have recently seen reports where certain scientists indicate global warming seems to be happening more rapidly/severely than earlier predicted. While I may agree the "proof/causation" may not be 100% ironclad - it seems very likely (IMO) that we are the cause - and the consequences will be most severe...do you really think we can ignore such? Sure developing countries without controls are high risk pollutors. Don't think that the developed nations are all sqweeky clean however - and we are polluting in more ways than we even know/acknowledge (related issue of potential dangers of genetic manipulation of foodstuffs etc....promiss as well of course...but...)

Not exactly. Certainly we have seen manufacturing shifts...but with increased demand there is need for increased production…and once again shifted away from nations with stricter controls/oversite for labor/environment etc. I don't want to say to developing nations - "no you can't" - but in order for our earth to sustain such on the grand scale we must revise many practices ("or else"...I beleive...)

Be more specific, please. I am not following you. [/QB]

As demand increases so will production. Sure much is just shifting from developed to developing - but our industrial output worldwide is increasing - and we should be concerned over the impacts (more industry with less controls). I think human industry in general is potentially threatening to the (fate of life on) earth. We must encourage development and use of mitigating technologies and practices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
On the environment … Actually, I didn’t have a doubt that the evidence you allege exists in Science Fiction/Science book. On a serious note, however, there is no such evidence contrary to your claims. There is only a hypothesis, and the scholars of the field are divided on the issue. As a person of scholastic training, I cannot take any statement of the kind at its face value. After all, the burden of proof on the existence of an “overwhelming approaching environmental Armageddon” is on the alleging side. It sounds much like the Armageddon at the end of each millennium.

---

Cheap shot. Great book BTW - particularly for those of scientific/scholarly backgroud. It is based on some very real science (with of course some [potential] projections) - it will cause you to think a bit...Again - I strogly disagree that there is no evidence for such phenomenon...

Again I disagree. There were only so many ancient trees & the like to produce our carbon based fuels - evidence is that we may run out within our lifetimes....(heavy shit...). We need responsible usage (restrictive to what can't be done other ways...and huge investment in alternative energy research & production....NOW!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
There we go about energy again. What projections and what sources of information is this statement based on? Or is it based on a feeling? Or what is the time horizon you are talking about? 1000 years? Maybe you are right in that case. However, such projections are meaningless. And what do you mean by alternative sources of energy? Is the nuclear source one of them or not? Do you know that significant research in the area of alternative sources of energy has been done in the last 20 years? Why do you want more research in this area rather than implementing what is already known. And why are you not skeptical about the alternative sources of energy (bio-mass, etc). Nobody knows their impact on human health, either, if it is exploited in large proportions, right?

---

It is my understanding that we are about to exhaust our known petroleum reserves within the next century (at current usage). Certainly you would agree that the supply is finite - no? thus our way of life - as currently envisioned - is not sustainable. Alternative energy research and implementation is underfunded and undersupported in general - IMO. Yes I include nuclear (you must) in this - however there are mitigating issues with safety and waste disposal...doesn't necessarily mean "no" - but must be implemented better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
If your comment regarding me being Republican mean a Republican party member, then you are wrong. However, I embrace most of their agenda with some substitutes from the Libertarians. But in some very broad sense, I am indeed very “Republican” (I think a true Republican ). In that sense Libertarians are closer to being true Republicans. But this doesn’t qualify me for abomination, does it?

---

I have sympathy for Libertarian values...though fundementally I think human society has outstripped "pure" application (we have grown in numbers and in means of enacting violence and other crimes while not developing morally or such to keep pace - IMO) I am often suspicious of the motives of Republicans yes - and I abhor some of their programs/solutions (primarily in the social policy arena). I also can't spell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
[QBP.S. BTW, we are deviating strongly from the original topic, even though the original topic had no merits in the first place. Do you want to open a special thread, perhaps under the International forum, and move this discussion there? [/QB]

---

up to you (though you have labled environmentalism as a religion...so I have no problem keeping it here)

[MJ]

But why should one oppose that somebody makes profits? This is my fundamental question. If the other side benefits from it (I mean the poor), if the rest of the world benefits from it, what is wrong with someone making profits (even large). After all, they also take large risks, don’t they?

 

Let the nations of the world perpetuate whatever traditions they want. If these traditions don’t hamper their growth, they will preserve them. Otherwise they will abandon them sooner or later. We (my family) live in the US, but we don’t eat fast food or genetically altered food (to the best of our knowledge). I am sure, French will also eat whatever they want. I am not aware of the economist you mentioned. Btw, yes, I am a US citizen – you were asking me about it in your previous note.

 

There is plenty of evidence - retreating glaciers and warming of oceans are clear (in a very short timeframe)nand measured. Forests & Jungle are being lost - desertification is occuring...our climate is changing - rapidly...I have recently seen reports where certain scientists indicate global warming seems to be happening more rapidly/severely than earlier predicted. While I may agree the "proof/causation" may not be 100% ironclad - it seems very likely (IMO) that we are the cause - and the consequences will be most severe...do you really think we can ignore such? Sure developing countries without controls are high risk pollutors. Don't think that the developed nations are all sqweeky clean however - and we are polluting in more ways than we even know/acknowledge (related issue of potential dangers of genetic manipulation of foodstuffs etc....promiss as well of course...but...)

 

I am not sure if it constitutes evidence. True, it is observed that that some glaciers are retreating and there is a slight warming of the oceans (I think by 1 degree F in 100 years?). However, there is no evidence that the climate is changing rapidly. Significant numbers of climatologists claim that these observed effects are due to the warming cycle in the climate, which supposedly would be followed by similar cooling one – apparently that’s what the cliamte does – it varies. I don’t have a position on this issue. I am not climatologist, and when I see that reputable scientists disagree on this issue (by the way the academicians as a rule are left-wingers), I feel that I have to be more carefull with taking sides. I, myself, have studied the daily maximum temperature patterns of 200 cities in the US for the last 50 years for a specific purpose, lately. I can report to you (as much as my report may sound credible in your eyes) that I don’t see a shred of evidence of global warming. But it is evident that there is some 10-year cyclicity pattern. The meterologists also claim it. However, rather than claiming that there is no such thing as Global Warming, I would only claim that I don’t see an evidence of Global Warming. See the difference? If there is one, however, I would readily embrace it.

But the real issue, in my view, is not whether the phenomenon exists or not. This is rather esoteric and, perhaps, rhetoric issue. The issue is what do we reasonably and rationally do for taking better care of our environment regardless of the rhetorics.

 

As far as the demand and supply are concerned, I believe that the supply would not grow if the demand is not able to consume the output. It is more likely to have deficit than oversupply in a non-totalitarian system, which the world has a tendency to become. But I have no problems with encouraging mitigating technologies and practices, as you put it. Why not? However, separation of the reality from the fiction, and maintaining balance is an important issue.

 

Cheap shot. Great book BTW - particularly for those of scientific/scholarly backgroud. It is based on some very real science (with of course some [potential] projections) - it will cause you to think a bit...Again - I strogly disagree that there is no evidence for such phenomenon...

 

Sorry that you feel that way. It was meant to be a joke. But if you say there is a strong evidence supporting the phenomenon of Global Warming, I would like to see it. Then I would stand next to you.

 

It is my understanding that we are about to exhaust our known petroleum reserves within the next century (at current usage). Certainly you would agree that the supply is finite - no? thus our way of life - as currently envisioned - is not sustainable. Alternative energy research and implementation is underfunded and undersupported in general - IMO. Yes I include nuclear (you must) in this - however there are mitigating issues with safety and waste disposal...doesn't necessarily mean "no" - but must be implemented better.

 

I am not aware of such projections that the petroleum reserves would end in the next century. But let’s assume so, for a moment. The question is what is its implication? Does it mean that we have to give up its exploration and extraction now, and throw all the resources at the developing of the alternative sources of fuel? I don’t think it would be a good management practice. In fact, it would be a very bad practice affecting the world economy and the wellbeing of the people. I think that the existing resources have to be explored and materialized at a steadily growing rate, but the environmental issues have to be given a sufficiently high priority. The issue is where is the threshold. The issue is whether we are trying to impose restrictions on the exploration and extraction of traditional sources of energy out of environmental considerations, or out of one of the most fundamental features of human essence – the envy (vs. greed).

 

I am glad that you embrace the nuclear energy. That is an irreplaceable source of energy. Sure a special attention has to be given to its safety. But do you think anybody would be ready to disregard that issue? I can give you one example. When the Chernobyl catastrophe took place in Ukraine, most of the radiation was damped in Belorussia, and some of it was dumped in Northern Europe, which means that nobody can guarantee that the nuclear accident would have only local implications. Therefore, it would be a high priority for any non-totalitarian system to do its best to guarantee the ssafety of such facilities. As far as the waste is concerned, the issue is that even if we contain the wastes in safe (for now) containers, it is not clear what would happen to them in 500 years, per se. Which means that this issue, being an academic one for the time being, also deserves a special attention, but there is enough time to do something about it.

 

Further, I disagree with you about the pessimism you express regarding the inadequate moral development of the humanity. I think that development (if we look at it from a historic perspective) is overwhelming. Sure, there is long way to go yet, but the world is a better place in our era than it has ever been in any respect. It is just darn fast. That’s the burden.

 

To the contrary of what you say, I see a great deal of wisdom in the Republican social agenda. There are some wings of Republicans and some issues which tend to be out of the mainstream, in my view. However, I have no questions about their motives. I think they have the most noble motives. But if you know something – let me know, please. If I have to choose between two extremes/evils (assuming no alternatives), I definitely would chose the right-wing over the left-wing.

[MJ]

So all that gives a mandate to the Serbs to wipe out the Albanians and to commit despicable atrocities against them?

[gamavor]

An interesting survey has been conducted during the Kosovo conflict regarding the religiosity of the problem. So, according to this survey only 4% of the entire Serbian population were practicing (I do not like this word) Orthodox Christians, or at least affiliate themselves as such. The rest are as "Christians”, as we Armenians are.
It was quite clear that Kosovo is not about religion but cultural differences and international politics and in my humble opinion, repeatedly, PETROL.
By the way, NATO forces have killed for shorter period much more civilian Albanians as a result of wrongful military operations then Serbian forces "managed" to do so.
In addition, as a side note. Just before the famous Kosovo battle (which in many ways for the Serbs is like our Vartanantz), according to the legend, an angel came down from heaven and asked the Serbian king, what he prefers, either eternal life with his heavenly father or military victory. The Serbian king responded that he would rather join his Lord and so did happened. Serbians were defeated but the moral victory was with them. The Christian element was slowly but surely wiped out and voala.... why this is so familiar to me!

[MJ]

Dear Thoth,

 

I don’t fool myself. But I don’t necessarily agree with you that the treaties you mentioned are designated to benefit particular corporations. As a rule, in countries where the labor environment is very lax the productivity is also low, and the political and other stability is also questionable, the currency problems are rampant, the credit problems are rampant (thus the cost of financing is high), etc. These are tings that corporations don’t like.

 

I agree that nations have to have the choice of which elements of their culture they abolish and which ones they preserve. However, cultures are also dynamic phenomena. They evolve and change. But nobody can forcefully change any culture, at least over a short time horizon. In particular, I don’t see how, for example, the US may change the culture in Mexico, as much as Mexico may be economically dependent on the US, today.

 

I don’t think that the Mega-conglomerates need to destroy the local businesses. If things are done properly (and each country has a government to regulate this process), the local businesses may still be a big part of the overall national economy based on the value that they generate. The market economy, unless there are artificial levers, puts everything in its right context. To the contrary of what you allege, I think the local businesses may significantly benefit from the mentioned above conglomerates. And the competition should not be eliminated. It has to be maximally encouraged. On the other hand, if the native business is unable to grow and claim market share, produce the necessary products, provide people with jobs on its own, what’s the use of it?

Speaking of the Noble Prize, I think it is one of the most corrupt prizes on its own, along with the Oscar. So feel free to reveal to me your plan, please.

 

You say above:

 

I am totally in the opposite camp - our environment - our earth - our home - once destroyed will (likely) never be the same. We only have a limited insight into the true damage(s) we are doing....If it is a religion...it is one that is tangible and "correct" (LOL)...mankind has had and is having enormous (negative) impact...

I am with you on the subject of cherishing the earth and preserving its soil, atmosphere, pristinely, etc. However, I don’t see much of an evidence, other than some isolated episodes, where the modern corporate world has threatened the environment. In fact, I think the opposite. The current technological advances only reduce such possibility. The dangers of environmental damage are more of an actual issue in technologically less fortunate countries. The implementation of modern technologies produces or frees up cash reserves which would allow greater emphasis on the cleanness of the industry. Additionally, the growing “white color” lifestyle and the army of its representatives are becoming increasingly more aware of the importance of the environment. But the resources of the earth have to be exploited, have they not? Only they have to be exploited in a reasonable manner. Be it in Russia, India or the US.

Maybe our political system doesn’t indeed encouraged the system you advocate. But it is resulted from the hijacking of the political process by the left and right-wing extremists, including the environmentalists (sorry ). Basically, the moderate, reasonable, thinking, constructive people are driven out of the political system, or are simply disgusted by it. The politics is sort of being left to one-issue extremists.

 

Not exactly. Certainly we have seen manufacturing shifts...but with increased demand there is need for increased production…and once again shifted away from nations with stricter controls/oversite for labor/environment etc. I don't want to say to developing nations - "no you can't" - but in order for our earth to sustain such on the grand scale we must revise many practices ("or else"...I beleive...)

 

Be more specific, please. I am not following you.

 

On the environment … Actually, I didn’t have a doubt that the evidence you allege exists in Science Fiction/Science book. On a serious note, however, there is no such evidence contrary to your claims. There is only a hypothesis, and the scholars of the field are divided on the issue. As a person of scholastic training, I cannot take any statement of the kind at its face value. After all, the burden of proof on the existence of an “overwhelming approaching environmental Armageddon” is on the alleging side. It sounds much like the Armageddon at the end of each millennium.

 

Again I disagree. There were only so many ancient trees & the like to produce our carbon based fuels - evidence is that we may run out within our lifetimes....(heavy shit...). We need responsible usage (restrictive to what can't be done other ways...and huge investment in alternative energy research & production....NOW!)

 

There we go about energy again. What projections and what sources of information is this statement based on? Or is it based on a feeling? Or what is the time horizon you are talking about? 1000 years? Maybe you are right in that case. However, such projections are meaningless. And what do you mean by alternative sources of energy? Is the nuclear source one of them or not? Do you know that significant research in the area of alternative sources of energy has been done in the last 20 years? Why do you want more research in this area rather than implementing what is already known. And why are you not skeptical about the alternative sources of energy (bio-mass, etc). Nobody knows their impact on human health, either, if it is exploited in large proportions, right?

 

If your comment regarding me being Republican mean a Republican party member, then you are wrong. However, I embrace most of their agenda with some substitutes from the Libertarians. But in some very broad sense, I am indeed very “Republican” (I think a true Republican ). In that sense Libertarians are closer to being true Republicans. But this doesn’t qualify me for abomination, does it?

 

P.S. BTW, we are deviating strongly from the original topic, even though the original topic had no merits in the first place. Do you want to open a special thread, perhaps under the International forum, and move this discussion there?

[Mayja]

no, Vilnius is Russian's Target I can say u the very important fact which may be interesting for u... in 1940 USSR occupation of Lithuania was agreed by USA - USSR treaty.. USA promised not to meddle in USSR deals about Lithuania..This fact is tought at school.

[MJ]

Mayja, Mayja,

 

Why such misinformation?

 

There has never been any such treaty between USSR and USA. USA has never had anything to do with Lithuania. What you are perhaps referring to is the Ribentrop-Molotov treaty between Germany and USSR.

[MJ]

Gamavor,

 

I have never been inclined to explain these things through religion, and I agree with most of your points, except the one about NATO killing more Albanians than the Serbs have done. I think that assertion takes the facts out of their proportions.

 

As a matter of fact I have tried to make the same logical point as you have -Islam has not much to do with the atrocities that have been committed by some of the Islamic nations throughout history, and these things are rather of cultural, political and other character.

 

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

Mayja,

 

I had missed your replies inserted inside my previous text quoted in the previous email. Let me respond to them.

 

Arabs want to have their own nuclear gun. Why america is against that? America has its nuclear gun, as we know...

 

Yes, America has nuclear arms, and it has misused them once. Tell me, please, why do Arabs want to have nuclear arms? Isn’t the world trying to get rid of the nuclear arms altogether?

 

There was no proves that bombing of American airplane in Scotland was made by the order of Khadafi.. The crime was made by independent Maltese terrorists, which have found asylum in Libya. That’s all.

 

I don’t think so. It is established I think that the two terrorists were working with the secret service of Libya. I don’t know Algeria, but I know that in the past America has been involved in many questionable acts. There is a joke from the Armenian Radio in this regard, which I’ll convey a bit later. Unfortunately, I don’t know of the Algerian events you are referring to.

 

I am not the all-knowing... But why then Osvald was sentenced ? He was unguilty, its real fact. By the way, MJ , have u seen JFK by O.Stone?

 

It is time to appeal to th Jesus Christ. (It’s OK, I hope. ) When was Osvald sentenced? Wasn’t he shut on the spot? No, I have not seen the movie. Never take my facts from movies.

 

I this question is unsolvable, is impossible to come back to the past and to stop Balfour, which was, by my opinion, the guiltiest person in this case....

 

Elaborate, please.

 

U are laughing at me???Why are u so sarcastic??? i am sure that u dont care about this "accurate chronology of the events"

 

Not at all. Not an element of sarcasm. I am totally serious. Why do you think I am not interested in the accurate chronology of the events? Obviously, I don’t mean the unimportant events from the point of view of the development of the logic of the conflict. Perhaps you could open a new thread under the Forum International, and try to facilitate such discussion there?

 

But i view Israel as darling of the USA, anyway.

 

So what? What’s wrong with it? Isn’t everybody somebody’s darling?

 

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

An Armenian Radio joke:

 

Question to A.R.: Who is the most aggressive nation of the world - USSR or USA?

 

Answer: Of coarse USA, since it meddles all the time in the internal affairs of USSR in all corners of the world.

[gamavor]

There were instances where Serbians very "cleverly" used civilians as a human shield - no doubt about that. I don't like it, I disapprove that . It is cowered. In other instances NATO pilots took a tractor for a tank and.. Boom 124 people died at once.

 

As to the propaganda. Yes, You are right. Both sides used propaganda and this is part of the "game.” The difference is that those who were sympathetic to the Serb, did not rush to help them, or if they do that was in very limited scope, while our retarded neighbors in the same time started shouting on the streets of Contstantinopole "Hold on Kosova, We are coming!”

[vahan]

There is no need to insult any religion ,you could have been born in that country and today you would be insulting your own religion!!!

Religions are constructs of the mind(intellect)to help us conquer the fear of death,in reality,it is your illusory ego that is frightened,once you understand that your ego,is a construct of your mind,than you relax....you are not your mind and your ego is non-existent.

In this context ,almost all religions are to confort the ego...EXCEPT budhism,where

it turns it's attention to more wordly phenomenae,and comprehension of the self,then

you don't need to be scared nor feel forced to believe in anything that requires imagination or insults your intelligence.

(I teach zen to professionals)

[MJ]

Welcome, Vahan.

 

I see you have opened a thread called Zen in the Theology forum. Why don't you educate us all...assuming that you don't charge for it...

[MJ]

It is possible. But in one case it is a very costly technical error, in the other case - a criminal act. Additionally, we have no knowleddge of the numbers of civilians murdered by the Serbs in the questioned period.

For the sake of the fairness we have to also admit that those who were sympathetic to the Serbs were in no position to help them. Besides, there are two levels of being sympathetic to Serbs. One is on the level of Serbia's territorial integrity, the other may be on the level of sympathizing Serbia's homophobic attitudes and actions.

[gamavor]

MJ,

I meant civilian casualties as a result of mistaken military decisions during the war (or the operation). The atrocities committed by Serbian authorities against the Kosovo Albanians were prior to the war. During the War NATO bombs have killed hundreds of civilian Albanians and this is indisputable fact. At that time Serbian militia and army were not active against Albanians, especially in and around the theater of the military strikes.
The propaganda war against Serbians influenced heavily the public opinion.

[MJ]

Gamavor,

 

I had understood you correctly. However, I think there was no independent source to confirm whether more Albanian civilians were killed in the result of air-strikes (and it is known that it has happened) or as a result of Serbian operations. Additionally, it is known that Serbians have used the Albanian civilians on a capacity of human shields, populating some objects of military significance with Albanian civilians.

 

Propaganda is one of the instruments of conducting war, and both sides, I think, have used it during the Kosovo crisis.

[Kazza]

I think sometimes people just get busy..shame. If you see him around anyway.. I still remember that forum that he started, and I think he used to come on here too. Well about religion that's just my basic general veiw. I do beleive, like most male-dominated things, they use the religion as an excuse to opress women. I also beleive most of the modern day double-standards are rooted from religion too. becasue it makes out women are only useful for the set roles that they are meant to be in instead of people in their own right. I think from the few males that truly beleive in this are the insecure ones that are scared of women really. But religion is a very good and useful tool if you know how to take the good things from it. But people get into religion because they want to accept it as "all or nothing". once I opened up a topic just going on and on about it and others gave their ideas too. It's in this forum and is called "religion, god, and what people think of it", if you like to browse though it.

I hear a lot of devil worshipping still goes on, and meduims and such. I hate it when people dabble in the occult when they haven't got a clue what they might be messing around with.

I personally like the anciant greek pagan religion with the gods and goddesses on mount olympus it's the best. Only joking. Seriously if you were in the right class in those days the lifestyle was the BEST!

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:


I think sometimes people just get busy..shame. If you see him around anyway.. I still remember that forum that he started, and I think he used to come on here too. Well about religion that's just my basic general veiw. I do beleive, like most male-dominated things, they use the religion as an excuse to opress women. I also beleive most of the modern day double-standards are rooted from religion too. becasue it makes out women are only useful for the set roles that they are meant to be in instead of people in their own right. I think from the few males that truly beleive in this are the insecure ones that are scared of women really.

---

Yea - Ararat is a great guy - miss him not around as well. I agree with everything you have said above...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:
But religion is a very good and useful tool if you know how to take the good things from it.

---

I agree to a point - problem is that it quickly becomes "us or them" versus external folks and often a tool for internal repression/retaliantion/obtaining advantage (of females/percieved devients/folks who have something others want...etc) - so I see that there have been great crimes commited in the name of religion - and religion used for justification of such...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:
But people get into religion because they want to accept it as "all or nothing". once I opened up a topic just going on and on about it and others gave their ideas too. It's in this forum and is called "religion, god, and what people think of it", if you like to browse though it.

---

I'll give it a look at some point - the topic does interest me...& I understand the "all or nothing" - on several occasions I have commented to Christian friends of mine that I thought Christianity wouldn't be so bad if they just didn't take the Bible so seriously...(LOL)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:

I hear a lot of devil worshipping still goes on, and meduims and such. I hate it when people dabble in the occult when they haven't got a clue what they might be messing around with.

---

Well - the occult (in its myriad of forms)and devil worship are two very different things - IMO. (I have studied various forms of occult a great deal - though do not practice or believe per se) Of course many Christians will falsely IMO) label it as the same - and label Paganism (or worship/practice of basically any other religion besides their brand of Christianity as Devil worship/inspired and such - even regarding other nominally Christian sects...I have often heard (fundementalist Protestant) folks attribute Catholoscism and/or Mormanism etc as essentially Devil Worship...LOL). First you have to beleive in a/the Devil for such - no? (do you?). I don't at all - nor do I believe in (any kind of) spirits & such (only perhaps archtypical in nature...and that is only our way of personifying/relating IMO)...I see no evidence or reason to believe in any form of disembodied spirit or soul (or demon/devil)or such - seperated from the chemical processes of the body...). And would you beleive that Wiccanism or Crystal (new age) stuff (whatever its called) and such is "Devil worship"?...how is this different from use of Christian talismans/elixers, holy relics, sacred sites, speaking in toungues and such? If you supose that man is limited (in his ability to percieve the truth of things) as compared to God or Satan - could we not all be fooled into believing that what we percieve as proper worship etc of God - is not in fact all a trick of the Devil? I could make many arguments to support such...(almost with IMO - overwhelming evidence...but I will leave this to your imagination at this time...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:
I personally like the anciant greek pagan religion with the gods and goddesses on mount olympus it's the best. Only joking.

---

I think the religion of the Greeks - through use of allegory and archtype to explain natural phenomonon and teach behavoral lessons etc is just as valid (and I agree - more sensual) than/as Christianity (for explaining the truth of the cosmos [and all the more pedestrian stuff] to the ignorant masses of humanity - LOL - [who truly believe] and for the rest of us - who can absorb the lessons as they are intended and are applicable...and enjoy all the nice stories as well (everyone enjoys a good tale - eh? Blood & guts, betrayal, sacrifice and heroism, getting the girl etc etc...its all in there and pervades all these type of religious texts...have you ever read any of the Hindu "stories"..Uppinshads (sp) and others? Great stuff!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kazza:
Seriously if you were in the right class in those days the lifestyle was the BEST!

---

Always true in any age...don't you think the super rich have it pretty good today? (and with sanitation & anti-biotics) Or are you missing slaves & such - total control with no guilt/remorse...?

LOL - take care - Winston (THOTH)

[Hakob]

I didn't really answer the sex and rape part of this thread.

 

source: http://members.boardhost.com/tajikistan/msg/7792.html

 

 

1. SEX

Carnal gratification, man's greatest desire, is the first temptation that the concept of Jihad carries. A Mujahid i.e. the Islamic warrior, who at that time suffered pangs of sexual starvation in the torrid land of Arabia, was promised plenty of sensual enjoyment as a reward for participating in the carnage whether or not he survived the rigors of the battlefield. If he got killed, he was assured that the houris waited for his glorious company in Jannnat i.e. paradise, and if he survived, he had a share in the plunder, which included women of the infidels. Islam has prescribed flogging, and death-by-stoning for sexual offenses such as fornication and adultery because it holds such acts as unlawful when committed out of wedlock but when a Muslim "fights in the way of Allah" to murder the infidels and plunder their property, then the Koran relaxes this rule:

 

"And anyone of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing free women in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hand owns ......So marry them, with their people's leave, and give them their wages honorably as women in wedlock, not as in license or taking lovers." (Women, IV: 25)

These verses demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the Koran forbids sexual intercourse outside wedlock: marriage is a must for the fulfillment of sensual desires, but this law is blown off by the wind of change when it comes to a Muiahid (the Holy warrior):

During the battle of Autas, the Muslims captured some women along with their husbands. Though earlier, a Muslim had been forbidden sexual intercourse with an unbelieving married woman, at this occasion, it was revealed to the Prophet that Allah had relaxed this restriction and permitted copulation to the warrior if she had fallen to his lot in the battle and thus became his property. ( TIRMZI, vol. one, P 417 )

 

What a lure for becoming a fighter! Even the institution of marriage loses its varnish, value and validity. It must be remembered that having carnal relationship with one's concubine in the Byzantine Empire, was considered an offense punishable by death, but Islam, the true religion of God, permitted it at will!

 

Even the Prophet Muhammad himself indulged in this Divine Concession. Having forced the Jewish tribe of Banu Qureza to surrender as an exercise of Jihad, he put 800 men to death. Among the victims were the husband, father and brothers of Rehana, a twenty-year-old Jewish beauty, who fell into Muhammad's lot as his share of the plunder. Having presided over the massacre of the Jews, he returned to his tent where mournful Rehana awaited her fate. Charmed by her radiant figure, the Prophet proposed marriage to Rehana, sobbing with grief and utter frustration. Realizing that he was so impervious to other peoples' bereavement and sorrow, she refused to acknowledge him as the Prophet of God and preferred to end up as his concubine instead of wife.

 

Sex was a big bait to attract followers, and eventually, make them sincere devotees. After the people of Taif surrendered in February, 1639 AD to escape horrors of the siege, Muhammad was presented with three beautiful women; he gave one of them "to Ali, another to Usman and the third to Omar." To realize the significance of this episode, one ought to remember that both Ali and Usman were his sons-in-law and Omar was his father-in-law.

 

The holy warriors of Islam have been given an unusual privilege of sexual merriment. If they survive the battle, they secure concubines but if they fall, they are sure to enter paradise full of houris, living in the most luxurious environment. See for yourself:

 

" For them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision, fruit and a great honor in the Gardens of bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round to them, while, a pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide eyed maidens flexing their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls. (The Rangers, 40-45)

 

"Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms." (The Tidings: 30)

The houris are ever-young women who have wide eyes, flexing glances and swelling bosoms. Fancy the modesty of Allah and holiness of His manners. Can anyone honestly say that it is not a lure to attract followers? How desperate Allah is for votaries!

To bring out the veracity of this point, I may refer to HADITH TIRMZI, volume two (p 35-40) which gives details of the houris:

 

1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like red wine in a white glass.

 

2 She is of white color, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child bearing and the related pollution .

 

3. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large breasts which are round, and not inclined to dangle. Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.

 

Now add to this description of houris what MISHKAT, volume three Says on pages 83-97:

 

4. If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be filled with light and fragrance .....

 

5. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The marrow of her shins is visible tothe eyes.

 

6. Every man who enters paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he is admitted into paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and shall not age any further.

 

7. TIRMZI, vol. 2 states on page 138:

 

A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men.

 

Need I add more to the sexual temptation that Islam offers to turn its followers into warriors?

[MJ]

As if you did now? Replacing one crap by another makes only two craps.

[ThornyRose]

Yes, Hakob, all too true. I've often used this kind of stuff (especially the "high bosomed virgins" part) to un-nerve a fundamentalist Turk I know from other boards. Great stuff.

[Juggernaut]

Damn, I wish I could have come earlier, this would have been a good debate. Anyways I have skimmed through the posts and will add my two cents.

 

Is Islam a rapist religion?

 

NO! Islam is as much of rapist religion as Christianity, Judaism, Taoism etc. The reason why Islam is seen in such a bad light can be attributed to two things, the media and the Muslim people themselves ie. on average Muslims are less 'civilised' than Christians, and their 'excesses' weather in war or peace are the result of their culture and race not religion. In fact Islam has played a great part in civilising the nomadic Turks for one. Islam is an agressive religion compared to Christianty. Both Islam and Judaism urge their followers to virtually attack and/or impose taxes on their neigbours if they happen to belong to another faith. Cant be botherred adding anything else

[ThornyRose]

Although I do not use such sweeping terms myself, I do not agree that Islam is "just like any other religion"... "It is the culture, etc.," is what Muslims who have settled in Western countries try to make others believe. I do not believe it. Sure, there are elements of pagan culture incorporated into the mores and the what-not circling Islam, but that doesn't undo the truth.

[Pilafhead]

Isn't this because Christianity has often had government approval to do its deeds? Islamic people have had to be more aggressive just to survive under Christian States.