No we really don't. If the people don't like the dictator, they should revolt. Change like that is better when it comes from within. That way the people get to decide who leads their country. It's not democratic to force our ideals down the throat of other people no mattter how good and just you think those ideals are.
Gaddafi: Allow Jews, Christians entry to Mecca
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
The people of Iraq did revolt on the word of George H. W. Bush, who then allowed Saddam to put down the revolution with helicopter gunships. The people of Iraq, many ex-pats and refugees, were begging for democracy, they yearned for it with all their hearts, but they lacked the military power to acheive it. Saddam murdered anyone even suspected of trying to overthrow him. Anyway, it wasn't a matter of ideals. We needed to overthrow Saddam and his even worse sons as a matter of self-defense. Of course democracy should replace it, what else would be fair? The people of Iraq are now getting the opportunity to decide who leads their country, something that would never have happened had we not invaded.
The war on the fundamentalists has just begun. Iran is seeking nukes, and Pakistan is trying to limit our ability to kill terrorists with drones. Liberals want to pull out of Afghanistan, and we don't know what will happen with the many revolutions in the Middle East...
Anyway, it's a good idea to let Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Shinto visit Mecca. Anyone know if Buddhists and Hindu are barred from entering Vatican City? I don't think that's the case...
I think we're really entering a war of energy resources. So far the USA is winning. As well we should, we have a massive military. As long as we continue to control energy we will be able to afford our military. As long energy is sold as USD, we will continue to afford our military. We are the only nation that can print USD. Now, if the world were to stop using USD ,,,... then maybe people no longer want to work in our military. That could be a problem.
As for the war on Fundamentalism. This is really a war of education. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in superstitions.
I think we're really entering a war of energy resources. So far the USA is winning. As well we should, we have a massive military. As long as we continue to control energy we will be able to afford our military. As long energy is sold as USD, we will continue to afford our military. We are the only nation that can print USD. Now, if the world were to stop using USD ,,,... then maybe people no longer want to work in our military. That could be a problem.
As for the war on Fundamentalism. This is really a war of education. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in superstitions.
I don't think so Michael, the hijackers of 9/11 were educated people, as are most suicide bombers.
But I agree that having an exclusive ceremony isn't the best way to instill trust and cooperation between religions of ostensibly the same family.
But I agree that having an exclusive ceremony isn't the best way to instill trust and cooperation between religions of ostensibly the same family.
Sure, those guys were brainwashed. But, I don't think that's the case generally - well, let's say it's not possible to brainwash people thoroughly anymore. There just too much easy access to information. So, IMO, the general trend in the coming decades will have to be less fundamentalism. Of course, here at the start there will be some upheavals as the Fundies fight back. Whether they like it or not, they're on the losing end of the battle for world opinion. History suggests their time has come and gone.
At least I think so.....
At least I think so.....
no it can't. it can mean the struggle that leads to war but in no shape or form can it mean war.
God your ignorant. Saddam wanted a theocracy??? when the fuck did you you drink the neo con kool aid. Saddam was as secular as they come.
No now they are having to deal deal with a brutal theocratic entities who managed to gain power because of our actions. in fact their are Iraqis who say they were better off under Saddam.
you mean the christian and jewish war on Islam.
their is no conclusive proof of that. and even so any country in their position would too. lets see countries on either side of them have been invaded and one of the worlds most belligerent countries constantly threatens them. in their position anyone would be trying to gain what ever means possible of defending themselves.
by this you of course mean standing up for their sovriegnty. I know you think soveinty is meaningless unless its ISrael's and its ok to invade another country and ethnicly cleanse its people if you can claim to do a better job but its not. like it or not pakistan is a country and we can't just ignore its borders all willy nilly.
because its a clusterfuck of epic proportions
irrelevant
:roflmao:
You are wrong about that. War is one of the meanings of jihad.
No he actually wasn't. The Baath party destroyed Shi'a mosques, murdered Shi'a leaders and exploited religion wherever they could. After the fall of Saddam, they combined with the Islamist Al Quida faction to generally fuck things up and yes establish a theocratic dictatorship.
They were always there, but Saddam tended to keep their power in check with his own brutal methods. No victims of Saddam would ever say that, and those who opposed him but didn't want to fight are cowards.
Whatever. Iran is a brutal theocratic dictatorship that rules without the consent of it's people. It exports terrorism, and there is an ongoing war to sabotage their nuclear program. We cannot allow nuclear weapons to fall into their hands.
Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger
No, I mean it's a literal war with bombs and guns for the future of secular democratic civilization.
I'm not sure if people really "get" the full extent of the US Military's capacity for violence. You could add up all the world's military together and the power and reach of our military would dwarf them. The USA will remain in the ME until a time when our energy needs are secured. There isn't anything anyone anywhere is going to do about it. It's really that simple. IMO the best thing the people in the Middle East could do, for themselves, is cooperate with the wishes of the US Citizens and our Military and accept their present fate as client States of the US. They'd also do well to Westernize as in become more secular and democratic. Whatever they choose to do, is of course ultimately up to them.
That side, I like the idea of letting KSA Citizens who are Jews build Synagogues in Mecca and KSA Citizens who are Christians should build Churches there as well. That would help the people there to get used to the new world economy. Even better once the original Arab Temples are rebuilt and the Kabaa is restored to it's original use.
That side, I like the idea of letting KSA Citizens who are Jews build Synagogues in Mecca and KSA Citizens who are Christians should build Churches there as well. That would help the people there to get used to the new world economy. Even better once the original Arab Temples are rebuilt and the Kabaa is restored to it's original use.
Last edited:
hmm, nice question.
when you disbelieve something exists and it does it's kind of an offence
but when it has been greatly generous with you and given you everything you have, the offence is multiplied in magnitude.
When you expect other people to share your personal beliefs but don't feel the responsibility to produce verifiable evidence, isn't that even more offensive? And when you tell us we should feel ashamed of ourselves for thanking the brilliant and hard-working people who made our lives possible instead of thanking an invisible, untestable sky deity, that's offensive too. Goes both ways, my friend.
So how would you feel if you were visiting America or Europe and you were denied access to an entire city, because your religion is "dirty"? You're ok with a tit for tat, non-Muslims get righteous discrimination in Mecca and we can discriminate against you in kind as we please?
Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the excuse. If the French decided that Muslims could no longer visit the Eiffel tower because they're deemed to not accept the French values of diversity and enlightenment, that's ok with you? Do you really want to open this Pandora's box?
Whoa whoa whoa now, stop right there. You're the one telling me that I have a creator who owns me like a slave, and that I should be grateful to this master. This alleged creator has never come to me in person to say the same thing, so why should I believe you? Maybe you believe what you do because that's what your elders taught you to believe when you were younger. Maybe you were just sitting by the river one day and decided to be Muslim- whatever the case is, you should think more carefully before telling a non-believer that their very existence is an offense to "God". Firstly if there is a "God", it created the nonbelievers too, and why would "God" want to offend itself? Secondly, if there is a "God", you do it a great offense by making all sorts of claims about it, its personality, its desires and wishes, all without a single shred of evidence to back your statements up. You make "God" sound like a nutcase and yet you say I'm the one offending it?
I already understood from the start why Muslims ban non-believers from Mecca, you seem to have missed the purpose of my inquiry. I'm not asking for the reason Muslims do this, I'm asking for the moral justification, and why Muslims think they should be entitled to equal rights elsewhere when they don't grant equal rights to others in Muslim lands.
Of course. How enlightened they've been about the whole thing, and now they're increasing their enlightenment to the fourth power by proposing that only atheists and polytheists should be treated like dog s--t instead of all non-Muslims (non-Muslim monotheists should now be treated like bird s--t instead, the wisdom goes, which constitutes a substantial upgrade in relations).
kaffer doesnt mean dirty...
when you say a meaning of a word, try to check a dictionarry or something ok? ...what ignorance...
and being an atheist, or worshiping rocks or statues, doesnt mean to punish those people or treat them badly, you try to convince them with god and islam, if they are not convinced, that's it, nothing, it's their freedom, if you force someone on a relegion, he will never choose that relegion, infact, you can never force he's mind on that relegion, wich is the important about choosing a relegion, however, the rest is between that person, and god, god is who will judge him not you, not him, and defferently not anyone else have the right to judge he's beleifs, only if that person started to insult the other's relegion (islam or anyother relegion) and mocque on it and etc...
however, and about building synagogs or churches or others in mecca, in my opinion, i vote for no
when you say a meaning of a word, try to check a dictionarry or something ok? ...what ignorance...
and being an atheist, or worshiping rocks or statues, doesnt mean to punish those people or treat them badly, you try to convince them with god and islam, if they are not convinced, that's it, nothing, it's their freedom, if you force someone on a relegion, he will never choose that relegion, infact, you can never force he's mind on that relegion, wich is the important about choosing a relegion, however, the rest is between that person, and god, god is who will judge him not you, not him, and defferently not anyone else have the right to judge he's beleifs, only if that person started to insult the other's relegion (islam or anyother relegion) and mocque on it and etc...
however, and about building synagogs or churches or others in mecca, in my opinion, i vote for no
I didn't say "kaffir" meant dirty, Scifes was the one who drew that connection, I merely responded to what he wrote about it.
And I can understand a rule like no synagogues and churches in Mecca on the same level I can understand restrictions against synagogues and mosques inside the Vatican. But I think it's a severe sign of intolerance and injustice to grant or deny people physical access to visit a public place based on their personal beliefs. And Mecca is more than just a place, it's an entire city. Would be no different if the US or Europe decided to ban Muslims one day, same injustice.
Yeah, people forget that an army is more than its soldiers. I suspect that American hegemony will soon be subsidising Chinese and Arab agriculture.