.

[David Jones + 84]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The trappings of a religion matter less than the philosophy it teaches. Philosophy leads to thought, thought leads to action, and action leads to tangible results.  We care about the results.  E.g. does your religion, on average, convince people to be peaceful, or does it encourage violence? 

The similarities between Islam and Christianity are superficial.  Mohammad stole elements from Judaism, Christianity, and possibly other religions.  He then weaved those elements into his own, personal philosophy - a philosophy which is radically different from and completely incompatible with Christian values.  This is why Christianity slowly established human rights and uplifted Europe while Islam continues to destroy everything it touches. 

I'm reasonably sure that you are not a theologist and certainly not specialised in the Islamic religion so I'll reserve my judgement for later, after having read through their text at some point if I decide to look into it further. If your judgement is based on what the "jihadists" are doing then it is almost certainly flawed since the actions of the leaders have a strong whiff of revenge and power seeking rather than actual religion. That is unlikely to be the true face of Islam as a religion and as in any religion (including Christianity and Judaism), the extremes are not pretty. These extremes certainly do not preach "human rights" or "peace" with the "infidels" (anyone that doesn't conform to their beliefs, a "thought" that is common in religion in general and not specific to extremes of Islam) regardless of which religion they originate from.

Those values you mention in terms of application on a broader global institutionalized platform that have uplifted western civilization are almost certainly a result of the enlightenment phase that came with the Renaissance and are in fact thus a result of letting go of religion as a driving force in our lives as well as focusing on rationality rather than a result of Christianity. Based on what is happening in western countries right now (attacks on science, the scientific process and rationality in general), my guess is that these institutionalized values of human rights that you attribute so much to Christianity will begin to dwindle if the current direction is not reversed.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 7/9/2019 at 4:27 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Islam did not.  Islam needs to either get with the program or disappear. 

Probably worth noting Arabs are actually a minority of the Islamic world. Oil money allowed them to export the wahhabism, which was kind of an aberration. That regressive group had been around quite a while, since the early 18th century, but really nobody much cared outside of the KSA. Their alliance with the Sauds allowed King Abdullaziz to push back the alliance of the Houthies and and Rashids, who had forced the Sauds into what is now Kuwait. The Iran/Houthie is mostly b.s.. Though the Houthies are happy for the limited support they get from, and it helps sell the war on Yemen by KSA to the west. Plus we make money selling munitions and support. 

Now mainstream/moderate Islamists are the ones that need to step up to stop the madness tearing apart Islam. 1979 is a huge year. Fundamentalist win in Iran, and the country still hasn't recovered from that. And the Saudis had their issues in Mecca, setting off their odd way of dealing with it, and inadvertently setting up a Sunni extremist revival. Take away Saudi support, no 9-11, no ISIS, the world is different. But those happened. Still struggle to understand our determination to protect those that funded it. It wasn't Iran. We've kept Iran broke for a lot of years. Recently I was reading a book published in 1999 which had many pages dedicated to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. 9-11 was the second time they attacked the towers. This sort of fundamentalism is a cancer, and to beat cancer takes relentless pursuit. B43 and Cheney didn't continue the pursuit of Al Qaeda that Clinton learned the hard way (USS Cole and first attempt on the Twin Towers). 

I haven't read translations of the hadiths (how Mohammad lived, as opposed to the Koran), but I've gone thru the Koran a few times. IMHO, milder than the Old Testament.  The hadiths is where allegedly a lot of the odd crap we see in Islam comes from. Trying to live like a 9th century person, caravan leader, bedouin warrior just doesn't work. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

20 hours ago, Wastral said:

You need to learn some basic history for WHY the crusades were launched to begin with.  They were launched in defense of the Byzantine empire which used to be Roman(still kind of were) + Christian and were being slaughtered by the Muslim Turks.   Keep up your alternative history.

Alternative history? 

Do you really believe that 11th century European feudal lords went to war because the pope asked them to? Seriously? 

[turki al-habsi 0]

anyone will do the same thing, dont care who where they if someone get to your house taking a wake 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Alternative history? 

Do you really believe that 11th century European feudal lords went to war because the pope asked them to? Seriously? 

Who ruled Europe again? Oh right... the pope. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Alternative history? 

Do you really believe that 11th century European feudal lords went to war because the pope asked them to? Seriously? 

The Pope advised that their place in heaven would be assured if they went and fought the infidel (sound familiar?) . Virtually everyone believed in God, Heaven and Hell, fearing the latter in the extreme. 

Most of the people who went were Knights / Junior Lords rather than Kings. Richard I was somewhat exceptional although not unique. Other Kings did participate. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

26 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Who ruled Europe again? Oh right... the pope. 

Unfortunately the Popes nose was stuck into everything of note in Lower Europe during the 11th Century. Specifically the battle of Hastings which tied most of the families of Europe and what’s now Scandinavia into battles or title wars for most of the century.

The Pope was most certainly a key player in the 11th Century, and his blessing was sought and valued before making most military or acts of progression.

Edited July 11, 2019 by James Regan

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 7/10/2019 at 1:09 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

another example - Switzerland has a great program for treating drug addicts. They give them free drugs. This reduces crime (and police resources to crime) and actually they have a much higher success rate at geting the addicts out of the addiction. But morally speaking this stupid libtard policy - why should we reward people that make bad choices; even if it is cheaper and more effective than punishing them. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-drugs/swiss-drug-policy-should-serve-as-model-experts-idUSTRE69O3VI20101025

Because it makes sense and works. It seems distasteful because addiction is seen by many as an immoral choice and because it's not "fair." 

People will reject unfair deals even when it's not in their best interest (something is better than nothing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game 

I am surprised just how much beer they give out at a local shelter, one beer an hour for the most addicted; but I'm sure it saves us loads of money in the long run as we pay for the hospital admissions up here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/treating-alcoholics-with-wine-a-look-inside-edmonton-s-program-1.3927653

"participants were admitted to emergency rooms 47 per cent fewer times than when they weren't in the program. Their interactions with police were also down 41 per cent."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 7/3/2019 at 8:18 PM, Jan van Eck said:

No. And the reason is that those avionics are on board an aircraft, a place where self-destruct "explosives" are uniquely not suited.  The on-going problem would be accidental detonation in flight, with the loss of the aircraft and crew.  Having anything on board that would cause a spy plane to blow up is a uniquely lousy idea.  Besides, if one crashes, typically the non-hardened electronic equipment does not do that great.  The stuff gets wrecked.

Hmmm, since I live in a Muslim majority country, and can very quickly get arrested for touching on certain religious sensitivities of a certain religious belief system, I will refrain from touching that high voltage third rail in this thread.

Meantime, I offer a slightly-less-off-topic article for this thread, on the lessons learned from military accidents.  (The lesson is "don't touch unexploded bombs" although I suspect Darwin Awards may instill that lesson pretty darn quick.)

U.S. Air Force Accidentally Drops Bombs on Florida

The United States Air Force “inadvertently” dropped three “non-explosive” training munitions on Florida after their A-10C Thunderbolt II hit a bird.

In a press release, 23d Wing Public Affairs say the accidental bomb droppings happened on July 1 around 1:15 pm.

The plane was assigned to the 23d Fighter Group stationed at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.

As far as where the bombs landed, the report states, “The exact location is unknown but the suspected area is located 54 miles southwest of Moody Air Force Base in the general vicinity of 2 kilometers west of Highway 129 near Suwannee Springs.”

The BDU-33s each weigh 25 pounds and are used to simulate the M1a-82 500-pound bomb. They’re about 22 inches long, and are equipped with a small pyrotechnic charge.

Floridians have been warned to stay away from the bombs.

Nobody died or got hurt, except the bird.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 7/10/2019 at 2:06 PM, David Jones said:

I'm reasonably sure that you are not a theologist and certainly not specialised in the Islamic religion so I'll reserve my judgement for later, after having read through their text at some point if I decide to look into it further. If your judgement is based on what the "jihadists" are doing then it is almost certainly flawed since the actions of the leaders have a strong whiff of revenge and power seeking rather than actual religion. That is unlikely to be the true face of Islam as a religion and as in any religion (including Christianity and Judaism), the extremes are not pretty. These extremes certainly do not preach "human rights" or "peace" with the "infidels" (anyone that doesn't conform to their beliefs, a "thought" that is common in religion in general and not specific to extremes of Islam) regardless of which religion they originate from. 

Those values you mention in terms of application on a broader global institutionalized platform that have uplifted western civilization are almost certainly a result of the enlightenment phase that came with the Renaissance and are in fact thus a result of letting go of religion as a driving force in our lives as well as focusing on rationality rather than a result of Christianity. Based on what is happening in western countries right now (attacks on science, the scientific process and rationality in general), my guess is that these institutionalized values of human rights that you attribute so much to Christianity will begin to dwindle if the current direction is not reversed. 

It's worth noting that Islam is an Arab religion that they violently thrust upon other cultures, destroying what came before in the process.  When thrust upon a culture, it seems to have the effect of increasing violence. 

Islam has pissed off, annihilated, or oppressed every culture it's come into contact with.  There are precious few examples of Islam coexisting with other cultures.  Even fewer examples of a Muslim majority coexisting with non-Muslim minorities.  There's also a remarkable correlation between religious extremism and Islam.  I don't need to read a religious text to see that. 

Again, I don't care what they claim to preach.  I care about results. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

16 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Alternative history? 

Do you really believe that 11th century European feudal lords went to war because the pope asked them to? Seriously? 

 

7 hours ago, Wastral said:

Who ruled Europe again? Oh right... the pope. 

 

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The Pope advised that their place in heaven would be assured if they went and fought the infidel (sound familiar?) . Virtually everyone believed in God, Heaven and Hell, fearing the latter in the extreme. 

Most of the people who went were Knights / Junior Lords rather than Kings. Richard I was somewhat exceptional although not unique. Other Kings did participate. 

 

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

Unfortunately the Popes nose was stuck into everything of note in Lower Europe during the 11th Century. Specifically the battle of Hastings which tied most of the families of Europe and what’s now Scandinavia into battles or title wars for most of the century.

The Pope was most certainly a key player in the 11th Century, and his blessing was sought and valued before making most military or acts of progression. 

What @James Regan said.  The feudal lords warred constantly; Christianity made constant efforts to control them.  For lords who actually believed, the pope would threaten excommunication.  For lords who merely payed lip service to their faith, the pope would order priests to withhold the sacraments within the lord's lands.  Fearful of hell, the common people would immediately revolt against the lord. 

The crusades are interesting because the pope, whose normal role was to suppress violence, merely had to suggest that it would be acceptable to counter-attack Islam.  Without further ado, the aggressive, fiercely competent knights of Europe tore into the Middle East. 

There's a similar situation going on today, except now it's popular opinion that constrains powerful Western armies.  If Islam continues pushing its luck and Western civilians finally grow tired of the violence, the resulting crusades will be far more violent - and effective - than those of Christian Europe. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

Most of the people who went were Knights / Junior Lords rather than Kings. 

This was true of the knigths etc the joined the various military orders such as the knigths templar or Hospitallers (who later became the knigths of Malta). But the big armies that were fielded and launched needed to be funded and led, if  not by kings then by other feudal lords.  

I am not disputing the role of the church, just saying that it wasn't only the dream of salvation that led the crusaders to leave. It was also the promise of the spoils of war.... 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

9 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Because it makes sense and works. It seems distasteful because addiction is seen by many as an immoral choice and because it's not "fair." 

People will reject unfair deals even when it's not in their best interest (something is better than nothing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game 

I am surprised just how much beer they give out at a local shelter, one beer an hour for the most addicted; but I'm sure it saves us loads of money in the long run as we pay for the hospital admissions up here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/treating-alcoholics-with-wine-a-look-inside-edmonton-s-program-1.3927653

"participants were admitted to emergency rooms 47 per cent fewer times than when they weren't in the program. Their interactions with police were also down 41 per cent."

preaching to the choir... 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 hours ago, Wastral said:

Who ruled Europe again? Oh right... the pope. 

The pope was influential, but he did not rule Europe. Details Matter. 

[NickW + 2,714]

29 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This was true of the knigths etc the joined the various military orders such as the knigths templar or Hospitallers (who later became the knigths of Malta). But the big armies that were fielded and launched needed to be funded and led, if  not by kings then by other feudal lords.  

I am not disputed the rule of the church, just saying that it wasn't only the dream of salvation that led the crusaders to leave. It was also the promise of the spoils of war.... 

I am sure the spoils of war were an added bonus for those attending.

As for the Kings & Lords who provided funds. Well there are no pockets in a funeral shroud and when Gods representative on Earth (the Pope) tells you that participation assures your place in Heaven for eternity its a hard offer to refuse along with the possible threat of being discommunicated.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

I am sure the spoils of war were an added bonus for those attending.

As for the Kings & Lords who provided funds. Well there are no pockets in a funeral shroud and when Gods representative on Earth (the Pope) tells you that participation assures your place in Heaven for eternity its a hard offer to refuse along with the possible threat of being discommunicated.

So I guess we only disagree on how much each factor influenced the crusaders. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What @James Regan said.  The feudal lords warred constantly; Christianity made constant efforts to control them.  For lords who actually believed, the pope would threaten excommunication.  For lords who merely payed lip service to their faith, the pope would order priests to withhold the sacraments within the lord's lands.  Fearful of hell, the common people would immediately revolt against the lor

Have a look at Frederic Barbarossas Italian campaigns and conflicts with the pope. 

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The crusades are interesting because the pope, whose normal role was to suppress violence, merely had to suggest that it would be acceptable to counter-attack Islam.  Without further ado, the aggressive, fiercely competent knights of Europe tore into the Middle East. 

I remember reading a piece on the crusades that concluded : Theologists view the crusades as a conflict between Christianity and Islam; historians view it as a struggle for riches & power. The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

There's a similar situation going on today, except now it's popular opinion that constrains powerful Western armies.  If Islam continues pushing its luck and Western civilians finally grow tired of the violence, the resulting crusades will be far more violent - and effective - than those of Christian Europe. 

the world does not need more conflict. 

Have a look at @John Footes above post - maybe the ME would have been different if the West had not protected KSA? 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The pope was influential, but he did not rule Europe. Details Matter. 

When you dictate who can marry, and require tithes(taxes) while allowing effective local autonomy, you rule.  True, it was a benign rule from afar, but still it was ruling.  There is a reason the farther one got from the Pope in Rome the more autonomy one had and why Spain/France/Italy were the last to be under the Catholic boot when everyone else was independent.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

5 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This was true of the knigths etc the joined the various military orders such as the knigths templar or Hospitallers (who later became the knigths of Malta). But the big armies that were fielded and launched needed to be funded and led, if  not by kings then by other feudal lords.  

I am not disputing the role of the church, just saying that it wasn't only the dream of salvation that led the crusaders to leave. It was also the promise of the spoils of war....  

And there's nothing wrong with that.  Europe needed an army for self defense, and it hired de facto mercenaries. 

 

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

the world does not need more conflict. 

Have a look at @John Footes above post - maybe the ME would have been different if the West had not protected KSA?  

The ME was violent and oppressive long before the West had any influence on it.  We need to put that red herring to rest. 

The world needs less conflict.  The way to get there is to contain those responsible for the violence.  Personally, I think the fastest route to "less violence" is to strip the Middle East of its resources and return the inhabitants to a harmless, tribal state. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Back on the subject of Iran, my wife is in Tehran this week boosting their economy on a family visit / shopping trip so interesting to hear what things are like at a local level. 

Things are tight but the city and society are functioning. There is reasonable availability of goods in shops. Iran has a very big manufacturing sector so not realiant on imports like the gulf states. 

Trump and Co probably assume the I-ranians are just another bunch of soft 'ragheads' who don't do any work. In reality Iranians do virtually all the work in Iran and have dealt with 40 years of hardship. They lived through the longest conventional war of the 20th century. 

She said its very relaxed. Walking around Tehran most women don't even wear the Hijab - they just wear a lose scarf. No aggro from Police / Revolutionary guard. 

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 5:50 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

And there's nothing wrong with that.  Europe needed an army for self defense, and it hired de facto mercenaries. 

 

The ME was violent and oppressive long before the West had any influence on it.  We need to put that red herring to rest. 

The world needs less conflict.  The way to get there is to contain those responsible for the violence.  Personally, I think the fastest route to "less violence" is to strip the Middle East of its resources and return the inhabitants to a harmless, tribal state. 

everywhere was violent and oppressive until the last century, and in some western states its not far from that even now. N.Ireland is not a distant memory. lots more than there too.

[JR EWING + 123]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:42 PM, NickW said:

Back on the subject of Iran, my wife is in Tehran this week boosting their economy on a family visit / shopping trip so interesting to hear what things are like at a local level. 

Things are tight but the city and society are functioning. There is reasonable availability of goods in shops. Iran has a very big manufacturing sector so not realiant on imports like the gulf states. 

Trump and Co probably assume the I-ranians are just another bunch of soft 'ragheads' who don't do any work. In reality Iranians do virtually all the work in Iran and have dealt with 40 years of hardship. They lived through the longest conventional war of the 20th century. 

She said its very relaxed. Walking around Tehran most women don't even wear the Hijab - they just wear a lose scarf. No aggro from Police / Revolutionary guard. 

always interesting to hear a point of view like that!

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

54 minutes ago, JR EWING said:

everywhere was violent and oppressive until the last century, and in some western states its not far from that even now. N.Ireland is not a distant memory. lots more than there too. 

The key point is not that the West is perfect; it's that the West made progress while the Middle East remained mired in the 7th century.  Westerners have demonstrated a capacity for positive change; those from the Middle East have not. 

[Toranaga + 49]

On 7/10/2019 at 3:06 PM, David Jones said:

I'm reasonably sure that you are not a theologist and certainly not specialised in the Islamic religion so I'll reserve my judgement for later, after having read through their text at some point if I decide to look into it further. If your judgement is based on what the "jihadists" are doing then it is almost certainly flawed since the actions of the leaders have a strong whiff of revenge and power seeking rather than actual religion. That is unlikely to be the true face of Islam as a religion and as in any religion (including Christianity and Judaism), the extremes are not pretty. These extremes certainly do not preach "human rights" or "peace" with the "infidels" (anyone that doesn't conform to their beliefs, a "thought" that is common in religion in general and not specific to extremes of Islam) regardless of which religion they originate from.

Those values you mention in terms of application on a broader global institutionalized platform that have uplifted western civilization are almost certainly a result of the enlightenment phase that came with the Renaissance and are in fact thus a result of letting go of religion as a driving force in our lives as well as focusing on rationality rather than a result of Christianity. Based on what is happening in western countries right now (attacks on science, the scientific process and rationality in general), my guess is that these institutionalized values of human rights that you attribute so much to Christianity will begin to dwindle if the current direction is not reversed.

There was an "enlightenment phase that came with the Renaissance" but it's really two different eras- the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman learning which began as early as the 1100s in Italy but is given as about 1450 in other places. The Enlightenment was after 1650.  One way to look at it is ancient Greek and Roman methods of thinking (aside from the polytheism and idol worship) getting refined, improved and deeply applied in the West. It does NOT necessitate an end to religion. Ever since 1650, a scientist can view his or herself as trying to understand God's creation. 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, and we don't know what it is. 

The real problem in what you are saying is that the institutionalized values of human rights come directly from what Jesus said and did. Just ask yourself, what would Jesus have done when it comes to any subject of human rights? You have a good approximation of actual human rights law.  Now ask yourself, what would Muhamed have done in any given situation? And you do NOT have human rights law.  

Then you write that in any religion, "the extremes are not pretty."  Extreme Christianity is turning the other cheek if attacked, sharing food, living ascetically and so on.  That is a Christian fundamentalist- taking the bible literally.  Not what the media defines it as, but that is what it is. Extreme Judaism is the "black hatters" who spend their lives in prayer, only hold jobs because they need to have enough food and shelter to read and understand the holy books and raise a family.   People that the media labels as extremist Jews are something else that I will not digress to discuss unless asked.

Here is one of the many lists of Jihadist verses. [https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html]  When does the "out of context" become so numerous that it is actually the context?  Probably more than a few of the claimed jihad verses are not actually that. I run each claim through a website that gives multiple alternative translations of each verse. Start with [http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp or https://www.quranbrowser.org/]  but there may be another, better site.

Please show me the New Testament and Old Testament verses that say to do this stuff now, today, to every "non-believer" (which the Koran says to do).   The problem is that if only .1% of Muslims take the Koran literally, you have a BIG problem. Given the 1.2 billion Muslims, it is 1.2 million people. It is too many for the intelligence agencies of the free societies to track  I do believe ISIS are psychopaths.  The problem is that the Koran, The Hadith, and the life of Muhamed tell them they are doing the right thing, and those books and teachings make some % of other Muslims silent supporters. 

This is mostly a ridiculous article by a journalist who has good credentials. They stamped her "passport" with the B.A. from elite Williams College and the fellowship at Yale Law School. Result: she's a useful idiot.  [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788]  If you wish to discuss it, I'm game. 

[TommyK + 3]

Maybe the US sent up the drone to get a better indicator of their missile defense positions.  An expensive way to determine that, but it would pinpoint their positions.