Reply to: This terrorist stuff in Kenya

[amcdonald]

Hadn't the terrorists rented a retail unit of some kind in the centre? If so it would be pretty easy to smuggle in anything short of an 88mm howitzer, just by parking in the service area at the back and carting in a load of crates.

Even then couldn't they claim to be rehearsing as an AC/DC tribute act, and the need howitzers to practise Hells Bells

[OwlHoot]

Get through what? It's a shopping centre. There might have been one or two lightly armed security men at the front door, but not much more than that to get through.

Hadn't the terrorists rented a retail unit of some kind in the centre? If so it would be pretty easy to smuggle in anything short of an 88mm howitzer, just by parking in the service area at the back and carting in a load of crates.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

The point is you can't reason with an ideology whether it's trying to impress on Milliband that socialism is a dead end or that that modern political islam won't acheive an islamic caliphate in the west

That sounds like a change in tone. Have to say it's spot on though - this is political Islam. At the heart of all religions is God and spirituality, so the form we see out there is a politicised form. People need to see this both for truth's sake and also to know how to battle the disease.

[amcdonald]

Even if it were true then that would strengthen my point even more i.e. it is a political ideology backed with money from Saudi that has it's origins in Nazism. That is actually a load of tosh. It goes back a bit further than that to "scholars" who twisted the religion for political objectives. Not too dissimilar to Zionism and Christian-Zionism.

The point is you can't reason with an ideology whether it's trying to impress on Milliband that socialism is a dead end or that that modern political islam won't acheive an islamic caliphate in the west

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Well that and the Nazis...

Even if it were true then that would strengthen my point even more i.e. it is a political ideology backed with money from Saudi that has it's origins in Nazism. That is actually a load of tosh. It goes back a bit further than that to "scholars" who twisted the religion for political objectives. Not too dissimilar to Zionism and Christian-Zionism.

[amcdonald]

The Quran makes no reference to sword at any point in time, you would think that if violence was so fundamental it mention sword, how to kill, when to kill etc. The reality is that there is a fanatical interpretation currently funded by Saudi (It's no coincidence that the rise of extremism has occurred at the same time as Saudi has become super wealthy due to oil)

The extreme ideology has infiltrated and influenced Muslims around the world due to money and nothing else.

Well that and the Nazis...

[Mich the Tester]

We don't need to belive in a deity to have a moral compass or have a functioning society, that time has passed

YOU don't, but some people feel they do and you'll struggle to persuade them otherwise. And why would you, if the vast majority are doing you no harm at all?

I'm not religious either, but I think it's just too simplistic to suggest that nobody needs religion.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

It is the religous leaders that need to be targeted. The texts of most religions were written thousands of years ago and religions need to evolve to become more current. There is a lot in the bible that isn't applicable in the modern world. The Qur'an and the Haddith both talk about rewarding those who fight in the name of Allah, when they were written the levels of massacre we have witnessed in the last 15 years were not possible. It is the duty of the religious leaders to ensure followers do not blindly follow these words, but provide modern day interpretations to prevent the extremism we have seen. This is one thing Christianity has done well, it has evolved teachings to fit into modern day society, but if you look over history, Christians were anything but tolerant of other religions.

The Quran makes no reference to sword at any point in time, you would think that if violence was so fundamental it mention sword, how to kill, when to kill etc. The reality is that there is a fanatical interpretation currently funded by Saudi (It's no coincidence that the rise of extremism has occurred at the same time as Saudi has become super wealthy due to oil)

The extreme ideology has infiltrated and influenced Muslims around the world due to money and nothing else.

[RedSauce]

It is the religous leaders that need to be targeted. The texts of most religions were written thousands of years ago and religions need to evolve to become more current. There is a lot in the bible that isn't applicable in the modern world. The Qur'an and the Haddith both talk about rewarding those who fight in the name of Allah, when they were written the levels of massacre we have witnessed in the last 15 years were not possible. It is the duty of the religious leaders to ensure followers do not blindly follow these words, but provide modern day interpretations to prevent the extremism we have seen. This is one thing Christianity has done well, it has evolved teachings to fit into modern day society, but if you look over history, Christians were anything but tolerant of other religions.

[amcdonald]

It is impossible to define universal morality except through a religion. The very idea of morality requires religion is a point of reference. Your idea of morality is very different to somebody who lives in the jungle or somebody who lives in another culture. The only way to bring the two together is through religion.

Ah the Asimov idea

We need a crux to mould our world view round because we're too simple as a species to cope with reality

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

We don't need to belive in a deity to have a moral compass or have a functioning society, that time has passed

Life doesn't have to be that simplistic anymore

And just because something is popular doesn't make it right

It is impossible to define universal morality except through a religion. The very idea of morality requires religion is a point of reference. Your idea of morality is very different to somebody who lives in the jungle or somebody who lives in another culture. The only way to bring the two together is through religion.

[amcdonald]

So perhaps you should take a more balanced view of things? There are 1.5 billion + Muslims as well as over 2 billion Christians. The most influential figures in history remain Jesus and Mohammed (even according to Time). There must be some value in their respective messages to command such a huge following after 2000 years.

We don't need to belive in a deity to have a moral compass or have a functioning society, that time has passed

Life doesn't have to be that simplistic anymore

And just because something is popular doesn't make it right

I was brought up with all that religious mumbo jumbo, let it go the world needs to change

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

I probably would, but then we are where we are

So perhaps you should take a more balanced view of things? There are 1.5 billion + Muslims as well as over 2 billion Christians. The most influential figures in history remain Jesus and Mohammed (even according to Time). There must be some value in their respective messages to command such a huge following after 2000 years.

[amcdonald]

If you were alive at that time would you be saying the opposite to what you are now?

I probably would, but then we are where we are

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Meanwhile more signs of insanity here, here, here, here

Seriously how are you supposed to reason with people who believe that stuff

I can't see this madness stopping in our lifetime

I agree that any religion which professes those type of things is a silly religion. I know that the religion does not and it is some twisted individuals taking their own spin on things. The history of Islam is a very interesting one and I have seen programmes on the BBC about it before. There was a golden age where knowledge, science and progression was at the heart of it. Maths, Science, Philosophy etc. was advanced by Muslim scholars. If you were alive at that time would you be saying the opposite to what you are now?