What is wrong with religion?

[gnostic]

So are you saying there is less violence there then before. Do you know anyone who is from Iraq and lived there before the war.

No, I am not saying that. Far from it.

I thought the US strategy in Iraq was stupid blunder, long before suicide bombings began, that the US have already lost the peace, when the collapsed of Saddam's regime, and disbanding the entire Iraqi army and police force.

What I am trying to say that the Iraqis would fight among themselves, and kill each others, regardless of the US presence being reduced in Iraq. The US invasion left political and security vacuum right after the Fall.

This is self-evidence in the amount of civilians being killed by the various Iraqi factions, ie the Sunni and Shiite militiamen. If you don't see that, then you are blind.

Besides Afghanistan was about the same thing oil and drugs.

You are only partially right. There are bumper crops of drugs, but there is no natural significant resource in Afghanistan, like oil. Petroleum is rather insignificant in Afghanistan, and there never have been that much in this country. On the other hand, they do have natural gas, but this is largely untapped. So you are wrong about oil.

There have been far too much wars in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan have been in the hands of warlords, who don't know much about getting the resources. All they know how to raid and terrorize their neighbors.

Growing crops in Afghanistan is never good even at the best of time, because the soils are poor in fertility, and the lands have eroded too much to grow anything of significance. It is far more easier to grow poppies for opium, because it doesn't required as much water. Also Afghans are mainly nomadic, and relied more on animal husbandry than on farming.

You should not confused Afghanistan with Iraq or Iran, because there were never great civilisations, and have mostly being ruled tribally.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

No, I am not saying that. Far from it.

I thought the US strategy in Iraq was stupid blunder, long before suicide bombings began, that the US have already lost the peace, when the collapsed of Saddam's regime, and disbanding the entire Iraqi army and police force.

But what you are missing is what you think was there agenda in Iraq to disband Saddam and bring peace blah blah blah, was not even close to the real agenda of the interantional bankers, and the CFR, and Bilderberger, and Tri lats. This line of bs they are feeding us is something to keep everyone entertained. And all this turmoil in Iraq is the result of the miltary occuptation for live in Iraq was not like that before the war.

What I am trying to say that the Iraqis would fight among themselves, and kill each others, regardless of the US presence being reduced in Iraq. The US invasion left political and security vacuum right after the Fall.

Again so are you saying that what is going on over there now is what was happening before the US invasion. are you sure about that. do you know anyone from Iraq.

This is self-evidence in the amount of civilians being killed by the various Iraqi factions, ie the Sunni and Shiite militiamen. If you don't see that, then you are blind.

If you do not see that these militia were formed because of the occupation, all this stuff is happening because the US is there. Then you are the one who is blind. Just like Palestine, if the Jews were not in gaza then there would not be an issue. If the US and its allies were not in a country that did not want them to be there there would be no beef. that is like me having a family issue with a cousin and you come in my house and try to tell me how I need to deal with my cousin my family and everything when I one did not even ask you to be there, and two you are completely destroying the infrastructure of my house and putting all its inhabitants under serious distress.

You are only partially right. There are bumper crops of drugs, but there is no natural significant resource in Afghanistan, like oil. Petroleum is rather insignificant in Afghanistan, and there never have been that much in this country. On the other hand, they do have natural gas, but this is largely untapped. So you are wrong about oil.

You are forgetting about the oil pipeline they needed to run through Afghanistan. taliban said no, so they were removed from power.

There have been far too much wars in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan have been in the hands of warlords, who don't know much about getting the resources. All they know how to raid and terrorize their neighbors.

Really that funny because the weapons the Taliban used to fight russia came from the US. so you are contending that they do not know how to get the resources. come on it easy you just ask the lords of war for it. the US,it allies, and the international bankers, and war machine corporations.

Growing crops in Afghanistan is never good even at the best of time, because the soils are poor in fertility, and the lands have eroded too much to grow anything of significance. It is far more easier to grow poppies for opium, because it doesn't required as much water. Also Afghans are mainly nomadic, and relied more on animal husbandry than on farming.

so what? When they taliban took over they outlawed the production of opium according to sharia and told the farmers to plant something else. People have been crowing other crops there for thousands of years they just chose now to grow this under the pressure of corrupt governments.

[You should not confused Afghanistan with Iraq or Iran, because there were never great civilisations, and have mostly being ruled tribally.

I am not confusing them they are all different but the difference is mostly in locale. But the same people, the same credit lines, the same people who orchestrated Afghan are also doing Iraq and then soon Iran. the same people are responsible. wanting the same results and outcomes. and they will achieve their goals whether you or I like it or not.

the rabbit hole is much deeper then you think.

 

[gnostic]

Really that funny because the weapons the Taliban used to fight russia came from the US. so you are contending that they do not know how to get the resources. come on it easy you just ask the lords of war for it.

Are you really that naive?

The war in Afghanistan with the Russians had nothing to do with oil in Afghanistan. The Russians and US have been cold war enemies for decades. Both sides have always been supplying the other side with weapons who are in war. Of course, the US would supply Afghans with weapons, to fight the Russians. The Russians had supplied weapons to Koreans and Viets, and Cubans with US war on these soils.

Also, I have never said that US hadn't supplied the Afghans during Afghan-Russian war. When did I said anything that they didn't? I have never said anything like that the Americans weren't involved. I know about this.

You are putting words in my mouth.

The Americans and Russians call it keeping a balance. I call it hypocritical bull. Just as I think the US invasion in Iraq to be nothing more than hypocritical bull.

You are forgetting about the oil pipeline they needed to run through Afghanistan. taliban said no, so they were removed from power.

Pipelines, or no pipelines. It still means that Afghanistan didn't have their own oil. So you are still wrong about them fighting for oil. This is nothing than hypocritical bull. Beyond the opium, there is no wealth that can be generated through this poverty stricken land, other than through drug.

Talibans were never interested in wealth. They just power and their ridiculous religious zealous.

Again so are you saying that what is going on over there now is what was happening before the US invasion. are you sure about that. do you know anyone from Iraq.

Again. You are ignoring that the Iraqis are killing Iraqis. There would be bloodshed with or without Americans on these.

You are ignoring the political reality that Sunni are killing Shiites and vice versa.

And you are forgetting that I don't support the US invasion in Iraq. I've never had.

If you do not see that these militia were formed because of the occupation, all this stuff is happening because the US is there.

You are completing ignoring that not all Iraqis opposed the invasion and occupation. Again you are forgetting that there is a 3rd faction in this whole political mess - namely the Kurds. The Kurds want US/Allied troops in Iraq; they also wants their independence. The Kurds were only one who truly welcomed foreign troops.

 

[TashaN]

From what I understand, the Sunni-Shiite conflict originated with 'Ali between 656-661, who was involved in several wars before his murder. Husayn, 'Ali's son refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Yazid. The Battle of Karbala in 680 (I think; I am not of dates). Since then the Shiite have great resentment to the Sunni.

There was some conflicts but there was no such thing as wars between sunni and ****i.

What do you want the Americans to do, TT? Have a military coup? Start a revolution or civil war? Have someone assassinate Bush? Is that what you want? How many coups successfully transit into a stable, reliable government that everyone would like?

To condemn his wars, not justify it.

 

[doppelganger]

To condemn his wars, not justify it.

An significant majority of Americans do just that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[TashaN]

I have a lot of problems with religion. Although I do feel that in some respects, religion is helpful to people, there is a lot more about them that I find repulsive and wrong. In no particular order:

1. Religious wars - not merely Islamic religions, other religions are guilty of this too.

This is a generalization, not all religions fight in holy wars, and even if they did, its for plain political reasons but not religious one.

2. Religion trying to answer scientific questions - science does not try to answer the questions of God, or address moral problems, so why does religion have to try and answer scientific questions such as evolution or the age of the earth?

Maybe to prove that there is a sort of divine revelation whom they get their information from.

3. Religions that damn all people that do not adhere to their set of beliefs.

Yep, that's a problem in many religions, but not all.

4. People that force their children to go to church or the equivalent thereof before they are old enough to make a rational decision about what they wish to do religiously.

What's wrong with that?

5. People that do not allow their children to learn about science because it clashes with their religious ideas.

That's definitely awful thing in many religions, but not all.

6. Religions that apply one ruling across all situations, no matter what the results or complications could be - contraceptives, abortions, and so forth. There are sound reasons to allow these, even on a restricted basis.

I believe there should be flexibility to keep up with changes in life.

7. Religions that force followers to conform to rules that they do not wish to.

Why they don't want to conform to in general or?

I would add another few, Rojse.

8. Religions trying to force or impose religious policies agenda on political and legislative issues. They tried to blur the line of separation between State and Religion.

There is no problem in combining state and religion as long as the religion is comerehsnive and reasonable to adopt by people.

9. Religions that intimidated people for leaving the religion or often facing being ostracized from their families and communities.

If they want to leave their religion so no one will say a thing, but once they went on further and step up to insult their pervious religion in public then that's a plain stupid thing to do.

 

[TashaN]

An significant majority of Americans do just that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Well, that's refreshing. Most of people in RF told me that they don't have any problem with invading Iraq because Sadam was a bad guy. :cover:

 

[gnostic]

There is no problem in combining state and religion as long as the religion is comerehsnive and reasonable to adopt by people.

Fair enough.

However, some religion-state would leave you no choice. There is no guarantee that the theistic state would be fair and tolerant, so I would hate to be non-Muslim or non-Christian citizen living within those countries.

To condemn his wars, not justify it.

I have already condemned his wars. I have also condemned my PM (John Howard) involvement in the war too. What more do you want? How many more times you want to condemn Bush and his allies? Start a revolution? Assassinate them?

Why are you not condemning the Al-Qaeda, Hama, Hezobulliah, etc, especially when they targetted civilians? Quite often Muslims justify their actions as being that of freedom-fighters, and since Israel is occupying Palestinian territories or US occupying Iraq, it is alright for these terrorists to bomb marketplace, wedding receptions, buses, because Muslims believe them to be justifiable civilian targets.

That's a hollow and hypocritical bulls I hears so often from Muslims.

 

[Blindinglight]

There is nothing wrong with a religion, as some people need the "milk and baby food" it provides. Some people tend to not be weaned of it though, out of fear, lazyness, social preassure, or other reasons. Some people are just not spiritually mature enough to move on to a higher grade, and ditch the books, the dogma, the groups, and set forms of thinking, to take on there own journey for the truth.

 

[TashaN]

Fair enough.

However, some religion-state would leave you no choice. There is no guarantee that the theistic state would be fair and tolerant, so I would hate to be non-Muslim or non-Christian citizen living within those countries.

Its your own right whether to like it or not, after all, for every system, there is advantages and disadvantges.

I have already condemned his wars. I have also condemned my PM (John Howard) involvement in the war too. What more do you want? How many more times you want to condemn Bush and his allies? Start a revolution? Assassinate them?

I don't understand why do you keep repeating the words revolution and assassination !!!

The problem is that most of people didn't condemn it because it wasn't a fair war but because they are losing money in thi war and their sons are being killed there at that land.

Why are you not condemning the Al-Qaeda, Hama, Hezobulliah, etc, especially when they targetted civilians?

You can condemn your government because you know whats going on but why should i condemn something which i don't have any clue about it's situation at that area?

Just because Bush condemned them so i have to follow him?

Quite often Muslims justify their actions as being that of freedom-fighters, and since Israel is occupying Palestinian territories or US occupying Iraq, it is alright for these terrorists to bomb marketplace, wedding receptions, buses, because Muslims believe them to be justifiable civilian targets.

Where did you see me or any other muslim in here justifying doing these things?

 

[gnostic]

You can condemn your government because you know whats going on but why should i condemn something which i don't have any clue about it's situation at that area?

Just because Bush condemned them so i have to follow him?

Who said anything about Bush?

Did I say anything about Bush?

I condemned not because of Bush or any Israeli PMs. I condemned because I have seen the consequence of their actions.

Perhaps, I did not see it 1st-hand, but have you, yourself seen any of the destruction that they left behind?

Of course, then you would probably accuse me of taking the media too serious. But the media are nice to Bush or to Israel too.

Where did you see me or any other muslim in here justifying doing these things?

I respect your point of view and your opinion
but please let me explain that all plastenian including hamas were living in peace until Isreal had come and took thier land
all poeple living in occupied pelastenian land they are involved in the Isrealian crimes, even if they are not soliders .
becuase they are supporting the Isrealian strategy

Islam is againts killing children , women and old poeple

but all poeple living in occupied pelastenian land they are involved in the Isrealian crimes, even if they are not soliders .
becuase they are supporting the Isrealian strategy
by living in other poeple's land

The Truth Only contradict himself with 2 paragraphs.

Since all Israeli are living in "Palestinians lands", including civilians, such as women and children, it is okay in his mind for Palestinians, like the Hama to bomb buses, restuarants and marketplaces. All people! How can you not include Israeli women and children in those bombed area as not being part of the people. It would seem that there is no such thing as civilian targets in The Truth Only's mind, as long as the Israeli are in those areas.

It would seem that he doesn't see women and children killed to be as innocent civilians, since they are in Israelis in "Palestinian" territories.

 

[rojse]

Thanks to The Truth for finding the time to reply to my post.

My post was generic. My accusations are only applicable to some religions, not all. I acknowledge that, and I apologise to you if this was not apparent through my post. I do recognise that many religions are not guilty of what some others do. Also, I am not as well versed on Islamic religion as Christian religion, due to my upbringing, so I cannot argue in regards to Islamic religions, so I will try to answer in generic terms only.

Firstly, not all religions fight in holy wars, and it is not merely Islamic religions either, as I pointed out in my previous post. My thread was merely a general statement, and if I did not make my point clear enough, not all religions fight each other through holy wars. I did acknowledge that this was a problem of multiple religions. I know that Christianity has waged holy war before. If there are politcal reasons involved in a war, there are also religious reasons involved, and they are much more important to the soldiers themselves, and perhaps the leaders too. For example, the Crusades might have been partly political in nature, but there was the central idea of liberating the birthplace of Jesus in there, too. People would not have been so eager to join up except there was that involved, too. if it was merely conquering a far off land where nobody would ever visit, who would have been interested then?

Second point - I am not religiously versed enough to understand your counter objection about science. However, it seems to me that whenever religious scientists try to solve a scientific problem, they enter with assumptions that are either incorrect or not proven, and their solutions end up proving their assumption, as this is what their research and study is based upon. I mainly level this at Christian scientists, as I am not aware of the relationship between religion and science of Islam. However, I am aware that your religion does not allow contradictions between science and religion, but if you could elaborate or correct me on this, I would be grateful.

Third point agreed to.

Fourth point - how can a child make an informed, rational decision about the existence of God? How could a child decide dispassionately whether hell exists or not when they are probably frightened witless? Most religious education, particularly within the confines of a church, is biased to one sect or religous group. I think that religious education should occur later in life, and all major religions should be taught, along with a smattering of minor religions, which would allow for a more informed decision on religion and God.

Fifth and sixth point agreed to.

My seventh point was mainly for cults, but also at religions that require people to abstain from things that they wish to do. If it is a voluntary request, that is not a problem with me, but when it is forced, and there are religious consequences, I have moral problems with that.

I will try and reply for Gnostic too, as he was kind enough to expand my original reply.

Point eight - I think that Gnostic was trying to point out that some religions try and impose their ideals on the laws and legislation, and this should not be allowed. For example, in Australia, one Catholic Archbishop threatened several parliamentarians with "dire consequences" should they not vote the Christian way, although I do not think that threatening people is Christian, either. Should this be allowed? If it had been an Islamic religious leader, would this improve the situation any better?

To reply to the other part of your point, who decides whether a religion is reasonable or not? You may say that it is, but others would disagree. Other people would say their religion is reasonable, and you would not. Some people find the Christian ideal of no abortion unreasonable, especially if the child would be disabled, or increase a family's financial disadvantage, and I am sure there are countless other situations for other religions, too.

Point nine - I think that Gnostic's reply was more for cults that do not allow members to leave, or punishes those that do through religious punishments, such as being damned to hell. I do not know of any major established religions that are intolerant of their members finding God through another route. If a former cult member tries to tell people about their experiences so others will not be drawn in, is that wrong, especially if they were the victims of crimes?

 

[MBones]

Mythology is God. God is a myth... And some believe... Some don't ...I'm more on the don't side. Not because I don't believe in all the hocus pocus, but I have fossiles... These fossiles telll me that the earth is far beyond 5000 years old or what ever god tells us.. I do not support any religion, because all religions are false and wrong. what I do support is that this world was created, more that a billion years ago, what created it, I have no idea, I would like to believe in one creator, and that would be nice.... But you people keep fighting about the right religion and that makes me think, you are all most surely wrong. No god would have all of these fighting people killing eachother at will for a belief. At at least the God I know. Think for a minute.... Look at the world and the continents, how they fit together, once long ago. it is like a jigsaw puzzle and no one can deny that. Homo Sapiens came from Africa, that is a fact, then traveled throughout the world as we know it today. The United States was very long on the list of people who came,, We are all one people and religion, class, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and what ever difference in this world, will not make us different, we are all one, and until that is realized we are doomed.

 

[TashaN]

The Truth Only contradict himself with 2 paragraphs.

Since all Israeli are living in "Palestinians lands", including civilians, such as women and children, it is okay in his mind for Palestinians, like the Hama to bomb buses, restuarants and marketplaces. All people! How can you not include Israeli women and children in those bombed area as not being part of the people.

Where did i say that i support killing women and children dear gnostic. If i did please give the link to that particulat thread and post.

Thank you.

 

[TashaN]

Thanks to The Truth for finding the time to reply to my post.

My post was generic. My accusations are only applicable to some religions, not all. I acknowledge that, and I apologise to you if this was not apparent through my post. I do recognise that many religions are not guilty of what some others do. Also, I am not as well versed on Islamic religion as Christian religion, due to my upbringing, so I cannot argue in regards to Islamic religions, so I will try to answer in generic terms only.

You are most welcome, and you don't have to apologize for anything.

Firstly, not all religions fight in holy wars, and it is not merely Islamic religions either, as I pointed out in my previous post. My thread was merely a general statement, and if I did not make my point clear enough, not all religions fight each other through holy wars. I did acknowledge that this was a problem of multiple religions. I know that Christianity has waged holy war before. If there are politcal reasons involved in a war, there are also religious reasons involved, and they are much more important to the soldiers themselves, and perhaps the leaders too. For example, the Crusades might have been partly political in nature, but there was the central idea of liberating the birthplace of Jesus in there, too. People would not have been so eager to join up except there was that involved, too. if it was merely conquering a far off land where nobody would ever visit, who would have been interested then?

But you see, those people used Jesus birth land as you said and religion in general to invade other nations but should we blame those who used religion for that matter or the religion itself?

Some people might kill others and say that they are doing it for the country, should we blame their country then?

I can see clearly that when it comes to religion, the double standard appear on the surface.

However, I am aware that your religion does not allow contradictions between science and religion, but if you could elaborate or correct me on this, I would be grateful.

Hmmm, what do you mean by the notion *does not allow*?

Do you mean that Islam might force science to be side by side with religion or something?

Fourth point - how can a child make an informed, rational decision about the existence of God? How could a child decide dispassionately whether hell exists or not when they are probably frightened witless? Most religious education, particularly within the confines of a church, is biased to one sect or religous group. I think that religious education should occur later in life, and all major religions should be taught, along with a smattering of minor religions, which would allow for a more informed decision on religion and God.

Well, as a muslim, i'll teach my children to be good muslims and to believe in God. I don't know why its wrong to do so. Maybe if i forced them telling them that they will go to hell if they didn't follow me so we can say it's plain wrong, but as long as i provide a clear rational evidence and the positive aspects of believing in God, while welcoming all their questions and doubts without hesitations, i don't see any problem with that.

Fifth and sixth point agreed to.

My seventh point was mainly for cults, but also at religions that require people to abstain from things that they wish to do. If it is a voluntary request, that is not a problem with me, but when it is forced, and there are religious consequences, I have moral problems with that.

I believe that an individual should be free to do what s/he wants as long as his actions doesn't affect the freedom of others.

Point eight - I think that Gnostic was trying to point out that some religions try and impose their ideals on the laws and legislation, and this should not be allowed. For example, in Australia, one Catholic Archbishop threatened several parliamentarians with "dire consequences" should they not vote the Christian way, although I do not think that threatening people is Christian, either. Should this be allowed? If it had been an Islamic religious leader, would this improve the situation any better?

Thats so absurd. People should have the freedom to vote for whom they desire, and there is no such thing in Islam as hreatening and stuff for political reasons. Nevertheless, in muslim countries nowadays adopting the secular way of ruling, they somehow force their agendas and they don't abide with islamic teachings anymore.

To reply to the other part of your point, who decides whether a religion is reasonable or not? You may say that it is, but others would disagree. Other people would say their religion is reasonable, and you would not. Some people find the Christian ideal of no abortion unreasonable, especially if the child would be disabled, or increase a family's financial disadvantage, and I am sure there are countless other situations for other religions, too.

Well, that's debatable.

If a former cult member tries to tell people about their experiences so others will not be drawn in, is that wrong, especially if they were the victims of crimes?

Is it something like asking people to stop believing in Christianity/Islam because its a bad and evil religion?

I find this very provoking and childish, i rather find it so interesting to discuss things deeply with those who don't feel comfortable with their religions instead of just labeling it and calling it names without any evidence or based on false information. I think freedom of speech must be granted for anyone as long as it was in a professional way, not in insulting way.

 

[TashaN]

Mythology is God. God is a myth... And some believe... Some don't ...I'm more on the don't side. Not because I don't believe in all the hocus pocus, but I have fossiles... These fossiles telll me that the earth is far beyond 5000 years old or what ever god tells us.. I do not support any religion, because all religions are false and wrong. what I do support is that this world was created, more that a billion years ago, what created it, I have no idea, I would like to believe in one creator, and that would be nice.

Is this opinion based on your experience with one religion or with religions in general?

 

[spicoli77]

Does anyone know of a link to an interesting article on this topic?

 

[rojse]

Out of all the lands Europe decided to invade, they managed to pick the holy place? There were plenty of closer areas, or areas that had more of a strategic importance at that time. Although there were politics involved, I will agree with you on this, but choosing the birth place of Jesus also had a religious component in it. Remember, this was at a time when kings and queens were crowned through the power of God, just about everyone had a devout belief in Christianity, and so forth.

I do remember reading in other posts that Muslims do not have the differences between religion and science in their Koran the way that the Bible does. A good example of this is that Biblical Genesis says the earth is six thousand years old. Most people will concur otherwise. What I meant was that the truth of science was alongside the truth of the Koran, and whatever ideas changed in science, the ideals and truths revealed in the Koran did not. I apologise for not making this clear before, I have tried to do so now.

My point about children was that how are young children able to examine the idea of God and question it? Children accept the presence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on far more tangible evidence - presents and chocolate eggs, and I hope that most people on this forum accept this as a child's story. Whether God is real or not is debatable on other forums, but my point is if children can accept Santa Claus, despite the significant impossibilities of his existence, how could they rationalize whether God exists or not?

I agree with your point about cults.

I agree that all people, regardless of religion, should be able to vote however they choose. If that Archbishop had tried to point out how Christianity sees abortion as wrong, or quoted bible passages, I would have no problem with this, just the same as a pro-abortion person had made points as to why abortion should be allowed. Everyone should be allowed to speak their own ideas. I would feel disgust, however, if a pro-abortion person had threatened the parliament should they not vote the way he or she wishes to vote, just the same as I feel disgust for the Archbishop making threats to the Christian parliament members.

The mere fact that you and I can debate on the reasonableness of one aspect of the Christian ideal - abortion - means that many other people can, too. A law based on ideals that suited a time two thousand years ago may not be suited for us today, especially considering how the people of two thousand years ago did not have to deal with any of the circumstances that arise today, and did not have any laws that adequately cover these situations.

Your point about people talking about the negatives of their religion. I remember watching a show where two girls grew up in a small polygamorous cult. They were forced to marry under the legal age, and were threatened with hell should they not follow their arranged husband's wishes. Was it wrong for them to tell everyone about their experiences?

I do not equate Christianity or Islam in this way, and I apologise if I made you feel that way through my previous post. Christianity and Islamic religions are far more open than the cult. They allow people of all denominations to walk in, listen to a sermon, ask members questions should they wish. In contrast to the cult I previously mentioned, they did not allow people to view, threatened legal action on the show that aired the news, did not answer questions, and kept members of the religion away from the filming crew. I therefore see no comparison between Islamic and Christianic religions and the cult.

I do agree that every person who has a problem with their religion should not just be able to air their views on television, because everyone could make unwarranted, baseless accusations. There has to be a process that they go through before the speech is allowed, and I believe that the legal obligations of a television network go somewhat towards this goal.

Again, I apologise if anything in my posts has offended you. I am only here for an open conversation, so that I can learn from all points of view, not to throw childish insults.

 

[gnostic]

Where did i say that i support killing women and children dear gnostic. If i did please give the link to that particulat thread and post.

You have said any posts from Muslims here.

Where did you see me or any other muslim in here justifying doing these things?

So I've quoted a Muslim member - The Truth Only (not you), in another topic called Islam = peace.

He (The Truth Only, not you) made justification that Palestinians have every right to use suicide bombing, targetting at restaurants, markets, buses, etc, civilians or no civilians, women and children are valid targets, since Israelis are considered invaders of Palestinian territory land (thus Israel), and all Israelis are enemies, regardless of civilians, women and children.

 

[TashaN]

You have said any posts from Muslims here.


So I've quoted a Muslim member - The Truth Only (not you), in another topic called Islam = peace.

He (The Truth Only, not you) made justification that Palestinians have every right to use suicide bombing, targetting at restaurants, markets, buses, etc, civilians or no civilians, women and children are valid targets, since Israelis are considered invaders of Palestinian territory land (thus Israel), and all Israelis are enemies, regardless of civilians, women and children.

Do you mean this one?

Islam is againts killing children , women and old poeple