Muslims

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Spock - I have SEEN that movie; Midnight Express is a fantastic film! And it definitely gives one pause for thought when considering smuggling dope out of Turkey.

Completely excellent film. Saw it years ago, in a late-night double bill with Taxi Driver. (In those days you could smoke in the cinema!) Ma eyes were popping oot o ma heeed


Hasty Ent, that was class.

[inked]

Reuters news reports on Nigeria with political, cultural, and religious considerations:

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissin...=1140522642000

So, I think IR's comments about causes other than religion per se are validated in this report.

Particularly interesting are the multiple causes of the outbreaks of violence. Only one out of the three are linked to the cartoons.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmmmm, if you read it you would see it's not.

Then Id advise reading it again because it clearly is. If its only about religion then is it your contention that christianity is a violent terrorist religion as well?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then Id advise reading it again because it clearly is. If its only about religion then is it your contention that christianity is a violent terrorist religion as well?

I think so. I don't care much for Christianity, at ALL. I think it's violent to the human mind and spirit, in its worst most blackly hypocritical manifestations, JUST - LIKE - ISLAM. No bleedin' difference; the evils of each of these said organised religions just manifest themselves differently one culture from the next. Just as the GOODS, the BENEFITS and positicve stuff of each of these religions is different, or whatever. And listen, don't get all offended and appalled, all you Christians reading this, because murder of the spirit is just as disgusting as murder of the body.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I think so. I don't care much for Christianity, at ALL. I think it's violent to the human mind and spirit, in its worst most blackly hypocritical manifestations, JUST - LIKE - ISLAM. No bleedin' difference; the evils of each of these said organised religions just manifest themselves differently one culture from the next. Just as the GOODS, the BENEFITS and positicve stuff of each of these religions is different, or whatever. And listen, don't get all offended and appalled, all you Christians reading this, because murder of the spirit is just as disgusting as murder of the body.

yo, I just wanted to post this link it summarises the difference between Islam and Christianity, and I wanted to say like the Super bowl Insurance ads, "don't judge too quickly" click here

[rohirrim TR]

so what are y'all's views on the U.S./ UAE port issue that all the politicians are waving their hands over?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then Id advise reading it again because it clearly is. If its only about religion then is it your contention that christianity is a violent terrorist religion as well?

Actually I'm not sure how your reading interpretation skills are and so I foolishly believed that the article stated the Christian Nigerians rioted against the Muslim Nigerians and burned their Mosques in reprisal for Muslim acts of arson against the Christian community.

In so interpreting, I had the distinct impression that it meant what it said. The religious differences and acts of violence, triggered a like response.

[inked]

Now the Canadians....

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=48912

What do you think? Is this equal opportunity blasphemy? equal opportunity humour? equal opportunity tastelessness? anti-homosexual? pro-homosexual?

I can see any and all of the above, and I'm not Islamic, just Christian.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually I'm not sure how your reading interpretation skills are and so I foolishly believed that the article stated the Christian Nigerians rioted against the Muslim Nigerians and burned their Mosques in reprisal for Muslim acts of arson against the Christian community.

In so interpreting, I had the distinct impression that it meant what it said. The religious differences and acts of violence, triggered a like response.

Since you are a master at missing/avoiding the point Ill once again point out the clear fact that BOTH groups acted violently against each other.

PLEASE feel free to counter THIS CLEAR point if you wish/dare…

That is to say MUSLIM violence occurred and CHRISTIAN violence occurred. This occurred ALL in one culture. So... what do you conclude from that exactly? That Islam is a vile and violent religion and christianity is not OR that this is how things operate in this CULTURE sometimes? Hm? What do your advanced "reading interpretation skills" tell you exactly?

Furthermore, (speaking of reading interpretation) the article itself points out that "Thousands of people have died in religious violence in Nigeria since 2000." NOT MUSLIM violence. But RELIGIOUS violence. Do thousands of people die in say Australia because of religious violence? Do you think this could have something to do with the difference in the culture between Nigeria and Australia? Heaven forbid…

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Furthermore, (speaking of reading interpretation) the article itself points out that "Thousands of people have died in religious violence in Nigeria since 2000." NOT MUSLIM violence. But RELIGIOUS violence. Do thousands of people die in say Australia because of religious violence? Do you think this could have something to do with the difference in the culture between Nigeria and Australia? Heaven forbid…

The fact that the violence is religious doesn't mean that both sides are responsible. It might be that the Christians started it and it might be that the Muslims did. The article doesn't specify, and we don't have sufficient understanding of the situation to make the judgment. Either the Christians or the Muslims might have started the violence, or both might have. The article doesn't specify. We don't know the particulars. You're right in saying that the article doesn't say, "the Muslims started it," but that does not mean that they didn't start it. We'd have to research the issue in more depth to get the understanding necessary to form an educated opinion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I think so. I don't care much for Christianity, at ALL. I think it's violent to the human mind and spirit, in its worst most blackly hypocritical manifestations, JUST - LIKE - ISLAM. No bleedin' difference; the evils of each of these said organised religions just manifest themselves differently one culture from the next. Just as the GOODS, the BENEFITS and positicve stuff of each of these religions is different, or whatever. And listen, don't get all offended and appalled, all you Christians reading this, because murder of the spirit is just as disgusting as murder of the body.

I say anything good and noble can be twisted, misrepresented or abused by evil people. The Bible acknowledges that readily too; when Jesus was tempted by the devil, Satan tempted him by misinterpreting scriptures with an evil agenda.

Insidious Rex, I found an article on CNN which describes the fighting in Nigeria some. It describes the fighting as having initially started because Muslims were angered at rumors of a desecrated Koran, and also angered by the cartoons. Christians then initiated retaliation with revenge killings of a number of Muslims. It does seem that Muslims were initially responsible in this case, though I definitely do NOT argue that the Christians are without blame in their reaction.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...eut/index.html

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Insidious RexIt describes the fighting as having initially started because Muslims were angered

It goes back much further then that Im afraid Lief. The roots of the violence lie in rivalries exploited by the British between the 300-odd ethnic groups of Nigeria. So it is TRIBAL rivalries that are really the end issue here. Which is why its a joke to use this as an example of how bad/good Islam/christianity is because its simply about the CULTURE involved. Not the specific religion. Which has been my point all along.

[Spock]

roots, smoots, it's the living people, Christian and Muslim that do and say what and why and nobody is quoting 300 yr. old history there.

[Earniel]

What happened 300 years ago can still have a large influence on today's world, whether it is being quoted or not.

[Spock]

"can have infulence" -that's us looking through the telescope of time. It has no bearing on the emotional acts of the people whose homes and churches/mosques, are being burned. I'm positive their reactions are based more on the here and now and not on the look back of history.
...sigh....

[Earniel]

No, IMO it's realising that the 'here and now' are still a product of the past, whether we acknowledge it or not.

[Spock]

Ah yes, but IMO or IYO doesn't mean either is the correct answer.

[Spock]

the causes are in the here and now even if the motivation tracks across centuries.....

[Insidious Rex]

Um first off that was 300 odd TRIBAL GROUPS... not 300 years ago. The tribal groups are still very much alive and apparent even today...

Secondly have a look at this from the BBC:

Some of the violence has pitched Muslims against Christians, but all of them have fallen across different tribal and cultural divides.

From the deserts of the north to the tropical forest regions of the south and east, it is home to around 120 million people, divided up into some 250 different ethnic groups.

The broad characterisation of a Muslim Hausa-speaking north, and a Christian south made up of two dominant tribes - the Yoruba in the southwest and the Ibo in the southeast - is a vast over-simplification.

In some states across central Nigeria, for example, it is possible to drive down a road, stopping at each tiny settlement, encountering a different language spoken in every single one.

Furthermore:

It [conflict] most often boils down to competition between those that see themselves as the true 'indigens' of an area, and those that are considered to be more recent 'settlers'.

Whatever the historical justifications, the conflict is always and everywhere about access to scarce resources.

So its their contention that the disagreements are at base economic more then anything else. Certainly a good point which has also been ignored here although I would say its directly related to culture (who is indiginous and who isnt) then to religion.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

I'm positive their reactions are based more on the here and now and not on the look back of history.
...sigh....

*sighs back*
The reactions are based on the present and the present is based on the past. The igniting spark may be a product of today but the fuel that feeds a conflict is very often a historic remnant of yesterday.