Jihad..

meep98324 · Post by **meep98324** » 03-02-2006 23:02

Of course there are Hindu extremists! Look at what's going on between India and Pakistan, as well as with Kashmir and internal struggles in India. Also, I don't think that there would be a very large Islamic fundamentalist problem if it wasn't for the fact that they had oil. The only reason they have the money to carry out their terrorism is that we're supplying it to them. That's what makes them so dangerous right now, they're killing us while we channel our money to them.

R3L!K · Post by **R3L!K** » 03-02-2006 23:10

The Kashmir conflict and the India / Pakistan conflicts are purely political - nothing to do with religion - and was brought about by the British when they were forced out of India.

The resulting power vacuum naturally caused internal fighting - which ultimately lead to the creation of Pakistan where the majority of Muslims migrated to.

meep98324 · Post by **meep98324** » 03-02-2006 23:14

I'm talking about what led to the Pakistan/India confrontation. When they were unified, and going even further back, to when the British controlled India, the Hindu's and the Moslems were essentially engaged in a civil war. People were assassinated based on their religion, from both sides. It may have been political, but it was racial as well. It wasn't just one political group hating another, it was Moslems hating Hindu's, and Hindu's hating Moslems.

R3L!K · Post by **R3L!K** » 03-02-2006 23:27

I do see your point. But the racial antagonism was entirely a product of the political power games at the time.

In the resulting civil war, yes religion was the dividing line between the two sides, but the violence was never in the name of Islam or Hinduism.

I guess my point is the battles were not ideological - which is what motivates fundamentalists acting in the name of their religion.

edit: did a bit of research - yes there are Hindu extremists - quite suprising - but they seem pretty small scale - more like localised thugs. But isn't that inevitable in a secular society these days?

meep98324 · Post by **meep98324** » 03-02-2006 23:38

I see your point about the battles not being ideological, but in many countries religions are able to get along fine. I can't think a of a democracy where the party platforms are based on religion. Well, at least where they say that they're based on religion.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » 03-02-2006 23:47

Nothing proves that any Islamic fundemantalist movement was behind 9/11.
This may sound odd to some of you but until someone proves me wrong I'm stinking to what I said.

R3L!K · Post by **R3L!K** » 03-02-2006 23:51

me neither. (edit: referring to Meep's post)

I think it's one of the main reasons India hasn't progressed on the world stage.

R3L!K · Post by **R3L!K** » 03-02-2006 23:53

Shinobi wrote: Nothing proves that any Islamic fundemantalist movement was behind 9/11.
This may sound odd to some of you but until someone proves me wrong I'm stinking to what I said.

So who do you think is responsible?

Jelly · Post by **Jelly** » 04-02-2006 02:14

Shinobi wrote: http://www.f3f3.com/rasool.php

Hahahaha! This is hilarious. First there are these pictures, with circles around the articles thats about the case:

Then suddenly this comes:

For those who dont speak danish, the article says:
Camel forced to breed
The police in Saudi-Arabia rescued a camel that was captured and forced to make she-camels pregnant.

!

The guy who pointed out these pictures wasnt danish!

Messy · Post by **Messy** » 04-02-2006 13:19

InSaNe` wrote: I'm obviously biased so I won't comment on the newspaper itself. Freedom of speech can only go so far. When you begin to insult religions like that, you should be no longer protected by "freedom of speech".. How can you support anything that's this insulting? I honestly can't think up of anything more insulting than this.

Every philosophy, ideal or political worldview is inherently different from another, thus opposing other worldviews, hence often offending them.

I agree it's done in quite a direct manner in this instance , but banning everything that can be interpreted as even remotely 'insulting' or offensive is the ultimate censorship of all philosophies.

edit:

R3L!K wrote: Fair point about Africa, though it has been a popular subject in recent films (The Constant Gardner, Hotel Rwanda, Lord of War - all fantastic films btw)

Yes, yes, yes!! <3 I agree on both points

(Africa being largely ignored despite huge problems going on - people have no idea, as well as those films being great ;p).
I absolutely love Hotel Rwanda, and I'm reeling The Constant Gardener soon $\o/$ (and seeing it as well

obviously).

meep98324 · Post by **meep98324** » 06-02-2006 05:06

One thing I would like to add about the whole contraversy, the people who are complaining about the cartoon, (islamic fundamentalists) are the same people who are telling people to go out and destroy israel, and pretending the Holocaust did not exist. yet they are trying to portray these cartoons like they are the worst thing that has ever happened. while I think the cartoons are horrible and shouldn't have been published, I think the irony of these radicals trying to portray them as victims is much worse.

subgenius · Post by **subgenius** » 06-02-2006 12:05

not to mention the fact that the actions that are being taken now (riots, burning of the danish and norwegian embassies) do nothing but strengthen and perpetuate the ideas that were being presented in the cartoon. Perhaps the cartoon was taken a bit too far, but the response seemed almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I condone neither the ideas presented in the cartoon, nor the response which was taken. In response to religious issues, violence should not be an option. This of course applies to all religion-(and therefore state) violence as well... no exeptions for jews, christians, muslims.

Austin^13 · Post by **Austin^13** » 06-02-2006 16:05

what is every1 fighting for... whats that thing everybody is supposed to have... freedom of speech? if a cartoonist cant draw a picture because of its content does that mean this is the end of free speech or is it just muslims who are allowed free speech?

Austin^13 · Post by **Austin^13** » 06-02-2006 16:09

furthermore a quick search on the internet can give any1 thoushands of images and jokes about a particular person or subject, so should the internet be banned?
silly people cant they just take a joke?

Isil · Post by **Isil** » 06-02-2006 20:26

subgenius wrote: not to mention the fact that the actions that are being taken now (riots, burning of the danish and norwegian embassies) do nothing but strengthen and perpetuate the ideas that were being presented in the cartoon. Perhaps the cartoon was taken a bit too far, but the response seemed almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I condone neither the ideas presented in the cartoon, nor the response which was taken. In response to religious issues, violence should not be an option. This of course applies to all religion-(and therefore state) violence as well... no exeptions for jews, christians, muslims.

Seconded