If you know what I'm talking about, I hope you agree with me that he is a complete moron. He is putting our troops over in Afghanistan at risk, by making 'moderate' muslims 'extreme' muslims. Post your ideas on this topic here:
First of all: The Koran was burned in the USA and innocent people were killed in Afghanistan. I mean, the UN is there to help them! Why would they kill UN soldiers that had nothing to do with it?! Second, it's total hipocrisy. Do you know who burns/destroys the most korans? Muslims! Egyptians and Saudi Arabs destroy a Koran if it comes from Iran and vice versa... Some prisoners destroy the Koran (to protest). etc... Third, if I'd burn the bible were I live I wouldn't be killed! And no innocent people would be killed! I don't know how this is in Poland... but it doesn't change anything: Murder because of a burned book is crazy! Fourth, just because Christianity was/is very bad doesn't mean that we have to accept radical muslims.
I *don't* say that radical muslims should be accepted. I just pointed out, that existence of religious radicals is normal thing (sad, but normal), and made claim that it is connected with actual age of religion. Second - xenophobia is normal *everywhere*. It's alien. They're evil. They're not respecting our religion. Shouldn't they be punished? (Obviously not, but such thinking is *not* exclusive to Afghanistan, for sure...) Third, you're doing the same thing. "Them". "They" burnt Koran <- from Afghan point of view. It is wrong. BUT: "They" are hypocrits, becuse "they" are burning Koran themselves. It always annoys me, when people get categorized as group *just* beacuse they are of the same religion, skin color... Every man is responsible for his own actions, you can't accuse a *group* (big one) after actions of *individuals*. (How would you feel if someone would say "every unbeliever is Koran-burning *******", just because of actions of topic-mentioned moron? I don't say my country is full of ultra-radicals. I was just trying to point out, that every religion has radicals, you can't tell that it is ONLY muslims... Also, take into account, that local population is from some time taking heavy two-front abuse in their own country. Talebs from one side, "Allies" from the other. They could get used to hate *everyone* alien to them.
I *don't* say that radical muslims should be accepted. I just pointed out, that existence of religious radicals is normal thing (sad, but normal), and made claim that it is connected with actual age of religion.
I would agree that it is a typical byproduct, though I don't see how age of the religion effects anything. It can be seen back when the religions where still young that there was also a large amount of radicals, if not more so statistically.
It always annoys me, when people get categorized as group *just* beacuse they are of the same religion, skin color...
You do understand that these murderers are just everyday citizens? They are not radicals. They are 2000 normal citizens with a mob mind attacking some innocent men. It is, of course, a foul to claim that all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists, but it would be illogical to claim that religion didn't have a huge hand in this. Religion, that idiotic thing that has turned 2000 normal citizens into murderers, killing several other citizens of different nations as well as several guards.
Every man is responsible for his own actions, you can't accuse a *group* (big one) after actions of *individuals*. (How would you feel if someone would say "every unbeliever is Koran-burning *******", just because of actions of topic-mentioned moron?
From what I hear, that IS what happened. ONE man in America burned a book, and the "rotesters" took their idiotic religious anger out on other Westerners, who had absolutely nothing to do with the burning. Of course, once again, not every Muslim is a terrorists and I don't see anyone here claiming that they are. But, also once again, religion played a bloody hand in this.
I don't say my country is full of ultra-radicals. I was just trying to point out, that every religion has radicals, you can't tell that it is ONLY muslims...
These are not radicals. These are just everyday people. Everyday, peaceful people who where spun into action by the mindless violence of religion. I personally am blaming all religions, all religions are violent poisons to the mind that cause violence like that which we observed here.
Also, take into account, that local population is from some time taking heavy two-front abuse in their own country. Talebs from one side, "Allies" from the other. They could get used to hate *everyone* alien to them.
They could, and it seems they have. But does that make killing right? Nope. Everyone has their reasons, but of course the main one in this case is religion, which I will assume that you will not deny.
Mob behaves like a mob. That's sad, but people in mob don't behave like normally. That's not religion, at least NOT ONLY. It was just one of factors.
From what I hear, that IS what happened. ONE man in America burned a book, and the "rotesters" took their idiotic religious anger out on other Westerners, who had absolutely nothing to do with the burning.
I *dont* try to say they're good. But categorising Muslims as "THEM" you are as close-minded as this mob, really. Now imagine reverse - crowd of angry people in USA, mobbing muslims because of mentioned murders. Absurd? Maybe. I'm just trying to say, that, _GENERALISATION_IS_WRONG_ And don't tell it isn't. So please, stop this "THEY" thing, because I'm sick of it. If we want to talk of certain people behaving like madmen of certain reasons, alright, but don't make it look like *EVERY* muslim did these murders. :/
Mob behaves like a mob. That's sad, but people in mob don't behave like normally. That's not religion, at least NOT ONLY. It was just one of factors.
Religion is the major factor. What started the mob? Religion. What lead the mob to be violent? Religion. What pointed the mob toward the innocent UN men? Religion. This would not have happened without religion.
I *dont* try to say they're good. But categorising Muslims as "THEM" you are as close-minded as this mob, really.
When had I used the term "them"? You are the one who continuous says "them". I keep saying the "rotesters" with the quotations, stating it was the group who murdered who is responsible, not whoever this "them" is you are referring to.
Now imagine reverse - crowd of angry people in USA, mobbing muslims because of mentioned murders. Absurd? Maybe. I'm just trying to say,
Completely insane, but it is possible. From what I heard, it happened after the 9/11 attack. But, I like to think, that in a world power people are educated enough not to be total bigots and attack someone who doesn't even have anything to do with the "rotesters" who had caused the murders.
And don't tell it isn't.
It is wrong. But who is generalizing? You seem to think that everyone who goes against you is some kind of racists, you keep stating that a "Us against 'them'" mentality is wrong, even though no one has exhibited anything like this.
So please, stop this "THEY" thing, because I'm sick of it. If we want to talk of certain people behaving like madmen of certain reasons, alright, but don't make it look like *EVERY* muslim did these murders. :/
Dude. **** you. I rarely use the word "they" or "them", and when I do I am referring to the "rotesters" who had done the murders. Where do you keep getting that I am somehow suggesting that *every* (You know that is starting to get really annoying) Muslim is somehow to blame? I am blaming Islam. I am blaming the protesters. I am not blaming "all Muslims", as you seem to think I am.
I have to agree with everyone he is an idiot but he is our president and even though he is a bone head at sometimes I can't believe I am saying this we should treat him with some respect.
About generalisation - it WASN'T personal. Really. It wasn't precisely aimed at you. Especially not at you. Felt insulted? Sorry then, but I'm just too annoyed with people saying "they". (Again, sorry, it wasn't at you. Lost track a little with the discussion.) Ah - and it wasn't religion which made them do it. According to article, it was group of "certain mullahs". That is, radicals. It was *radicals* who *organized* a mob. Again, certain persons, abusing their power and authority (as priests). I still say, that religion was just one of factors. Important, yes, but not only one.
Well, we could, in my opinion, just pull out the good people in afganistan, such as women, children, and soldiers, and just nuke it. I know this is extreme, but my dad is in afganistan and has been on and off for 6 years. The war MUST END.
Nuke... it? Civilians? Everyone? Especially, that they were (at least offically) there to help them? Nice. Argh. WAr surely must end... But I think that you gone too ******* far with this nuking thing... :////
About generalisation - it WASN'T personal. Really. It wasn't precisely aimed at you. Especially not at you. Felt insulted? Sorry then, but I'm just too annoyed with people saying "they". (Again, sorry, it wasn't at you. Lost track a little with the discussion.)
So when you are talking to me, you are not talking to me? Great focus there.
Ah - and it wasn't religion which made them do it.
No? So they attacked do to not liking the UN hats then?
According to article, it was group of "certain mullahs". That is, radicals. It was *radicals* who *organized* a mob.
So religious influenced men used their religion to convince other religious men in order to attack a UN because they felt their religion was insulted. How does that not have anything to do with religion?
Religion is mainly used to control normal people, a good portion of those 2000 people where just everyday men. A charismatic man with a religious book in his hands can lead an army of Nazis. Without the religion the *party members* (Since you seem to like those so much) would have just stayed at home, maybe have called the cops and warned about three or four guys attempting to attack armed UN guards alone without an army. But hey, you know what they say. Ð"ва коммÑниÑÑа ведÑÑ Ð±ÐµÑпаÑÑийнÑÑ... ÑÑиÑÑа. Probably going to show up weird, this sight doesn't seem to like any language but English.
Again, certain persons, abusing their power and authority (as priests).
So religious powered men who, under the influence of religion, convince other less religious men to murder some innocent men because their religion tells them to. How does this not involve religion?
still say, that religion was just one of factors. Important, yes, but not only one.
Not the only one. They probably also didn't like the UN members hats, right? *I realize that you are probably referring to the *us* against *them* thing again, but even that is mainly caused by religion*
Hey, I'm not such great at orientation at many topics at once as you :P You said interesting word. Nazi. *Every* belief or ideology can be abused and turned into tool. Every charismatic person could turn mob on UN, on *any* principles.
Not the only one. They probably also didn't like the UN members hats
Not. There were radical nationalist mullahs. There were hatred for unbelivers, not on religious basis, but for most of the time, Afghan people were bombed, occupied, shot and tortured by any kind of armies, so them being extremely xenophobic is nothing strange. (Nothing good, too...)
You said interesting word. Nazi. *Every* belief or ideology can be abused and turned into tool. Every charismatic person could turn mob on UN, on *any* principles.
Really? So how do you think the charismatic men could convince those guys to attack the UN? "They have different hats. Lets get them"? The *protesters* where typically peaceful people, convinced by their beliefs that they where doing the work of a god. It would take a huge army, a lot of propaganda, and almost absolute power to begin with to even try to convince the people to absolutely follow, and even then they still would not have a reason to attack the UN.
Not. There were radical nationalist mullahs
Priests, correct? Religious leaders?
There were hatred for unbelivers, not on religious basis
Apparently I need an new dictionary, from what I know "Unbelievers" are religious based.
but for most of the time, Afghan people were bombed, occupied, shot and tortured by any kind of armies, so them being extremely xenophobic is nothing strange. (Nothing good, too...)
These guys where not getting shot, tortured, or bombed, it is people across the country who are. So if this is true, then why did it take a religious motivation to do this? Why did it take religiously motivated leaders? Why would this not have happened say, a week ago, a year ago, an hour ago? It seems to me these guys where just hanging out and chilling before a religious leader influenced them.
ALL I'm trying to say (here and on the second topic :P) that it is NOT religion 100% responsible for this. So far, you claim it is FULLY responsible.
Not fully. 99.99999999999999999999999999999% responsible. The remaining percentage is because they just don't like westerners.
Actually, what you are saying is that religion has an inability to take the blame for something, but it is obvious in a case like this by far the main factor is religion.
