Thanks for the insight into Islam. I rather think that has absolutely nothing to do with current day wars between Shia's and Sunni.
Thats where your wrong, sure its not about the son should of been the successor or not. But they have been fighting for so long that its all they know. Its all because of their belief system, and thats where it began. Your welcome for the insight
Jesus was a convicted terrorist. Is that why Catholics are?
Is that all they know?
What a load of nonsense. War didn't start with Islam anymore than terrorism started with Jesus.
Wars in the middle east didn't suddenly start with the Birth of Islam either. There has been constant fighting in the region since the dawn of man. Read the Old testament for a few examples.
The Ancient Assyrians, masters of war. Seen that move 300, The Persians, masters of war.
Was their peace in the middle east before Mohammed died?
There has never been peace in the middle east.Not in Moses' time Not in Jesus's time, not in Mohammeds time. Islam didn't start it any more than any other middle eastern religion did. None of them have ever known lasting peace.
And that goes for all the other religions everywhere else in the world too.
I didnt say war started with Islam I said that the 2 seperate factions in islam began fighting because of different views. I know "war" or terrorism didnt start with islam, you might want to read my statement a little more closely. Two different "factions" started fighting because due to conquest there emerged different classes, like conservatives and traders. One group got the upperhand (while both groups changed their religion so it would fit their needs) and thus wars started.
BTW, search the history of any part of the world. There has never been peace anywhere. Im sorry but the highlighted part is wrong, I dont know where you got that information from but pick up any book about the history of Islam or take any Introduction course on religion and you will realize that.
Also as stated in my comments above I didnt say that Muslims were the first to start war. *hears the typical sound of a closing trap*
Aha. Now we see your true knowledge about the issue. What I said is something that's widely accepted within the muslim world. They're less hypocritical about the link between politics and religion than the Christians are.
For example the split between Shia and Sunni muslims was a simple product of a war of succession. The ruling clans and factions (Sunni) wanted to install a kind of triumvirate caliphate after mohammeds death. This would've meant that hte power would've been with the areas that were considered to be the starting point of the "religious" conquests. The ones who actually did the conquests and governeed the new territories or the people who ventured on trading journeys far beyond the middle east didn't agree with this. They started a more moderate ideology which took the many different conquered cultures into account. For example the Shia believed that only the descendants of Mohammed (or people appointed by him) had any true religious power, not the Caliphs who were nothing but a new religious coat of paint over the old ruling factions. This Shia interpretation of Mohammeds succesion made Sunni control a lot harder since they wouldn't have any religious authority. And the Shia were quite powerful as they were in effective control over trade routes and new territories. However, it still took quite a long time for the Shia splinter group to gain power. This happened when Ali became the 4th Caliph. Later on the Sunni's staged a coup against his rule.
Even a retard with no knowledge of history or sociology sees within this struggle the battle of old (Sunni and them believing that the word of the Qur'an is holy no matter what) versus new (the Shia who had to deal with a whole bunch of new influences and thus needed something that could adapt and wasn't affected by internal struggle such as elections). Im sorry but if you would of read wtf i said you would understand I said the exact same thing without getting into the specifics. But good job on going to wikipedia and reading up on the subject real quick. If your going to try and make someone look like they dont know what they are talking about you might want to make sure your not saying the same shit that they have already said. With that, Im going to bed and leave you to your oh so bountiful knowledge of searching wikipedia and using the information as if it were your own.
Oooh look at me I can look at this website and act like I know what Im talking about
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a nice guy, and I think that he needs to be dealth with. The people of Iran don't need to be blown to all hell though.
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a nice guy, and I think that he needs to be dealth with. The people of Iran don't need to be blown to all hell though.
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Those civilians aren't innocent they are patriots, last two wars they had, the women and children were right up there on the frontlines with guns in their hands.
When he says "death to America", they all cheer and fire their guns in the air.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a nice guy, and I think that he needs to be dealth with. The people of Iran don't need to be blown to all hell though.
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Those civilians aren't innocent they are patriots, last two wars they had, the women and children were right up there on the frontlines with guns in their hands.
When says "death to America", they all cheer and fire their guns in the air.
You're absolutely right. Whe should just go in and bomb the hell out of them all.
I mean all that talking about hating Isreal is just uncalled for.
Edit: So you just roll over when someone brings an army into your country?
I don't care what they're yelling when they shoot thier guns into the air. The bullets aren't hitting anyone.
No ones brought an army into my country for a millenia or so. Your guess is as good as mine.
I should think most people would just roll over. It depends on whose army it is I suppose. I don't think many would put up much resistance if it was the Dutch, the Italians, the Danish or the French. We never have in the past.
We've had 2 million Eastern Europeans arrive in the last 24 months and no ones complained. And the Saxons took half the country without so much as a battle.
No one here has any weapons for that matter, and the government isn't well loved. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on a third of us rolling over willingly for the chance to be in the new regime, and another third continuing to roll over grudgingly because there is nothing we can do about it anyway and the final third jumping ship with as many valuables as they can carry.
We haven't been in a war in the last hundred years that the public wanted to fight. All the lefties wanted to surrender to Hitler and the right to mind our own business and let the world police itself.
No ones brought an army into my country for a millenia or so. Your guess is as good as mine. I should think most people would just roll over. It depends on whose army it is I suppose. I don't think many would put up much resistance if it was the Dutch, the Italians, the Danish or the French. We never have in the past. We've had 2 million Eastern Europeans arrive in the last 24 months and no ones complained. And the Saxons took half the country without so much as a battle. No one here has any weapons for that matter, and the government isn't well loved. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on a third of us rolling over willingly for the chance to be in the new regime, and another third continuing to roll over grudgingly because there is nothing we can do about it anyway and the final third jumping ship with as many valuables as they can carry. We haven't been in a war in the last hundred years that the public wanted to fight. All the lefties wanted to surrender to Hitler and the right to mind our own business and let the world police itself.
Britain, the first target in the formation of the greater Belgian Empire......
No ones brought an army into my country for a millenia or so. Your guess is as good as mine. I should think most people would just roll over. It depends on whose army it is I suppose. I don't think many would put up much resistance if it was the Dutch, the Italians, the Danish or the French. We never have in the past. We've had 2 million Eastern Europeans arrive in the last 24 months and no ones complained. And the Saxons took half the country without so much as a battle. No one here has any weapons for that matter, and the government isn't well loved. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on a third of us rolling over willingly for the chance to be in the new regime, and another third continuing to roll over grudgingly because there is nothing we can do about it anyway and the final third jumping ship with as many valuables as they can carry. We haven't been in a war in the last hundred years that the public wanted to fight. All the lefties wanted to surrender to Hitler and the right to mind our own business and let the world police itself.
So because you feel that the people in your country lack patriotism or a sence of loyal to home and self that would have you stand up and defend your nation should it ever be invaded, makes it ok to invade another country that hasn't done anything that constitutes an act of war.
The Iranian people being loyal to thier country is hardly a reason to attack them.
And no. Countries don't typically just roll over when they are able to defend themselves.
Thanks for the insight into Islam. I rather think that has absolutely nothing to do with current day wars between Shia's and Sunni.
Thats where your wrong, sure its not about the son should of been the successor or not. But they have been fighting for so long that its all they know. Its all because of their belief system, and thats where it began. Your welcome for the insight
Jesus was a convicted terrorist. Is that why Catholics are?
Is that all they know?
What a load of nonsense. War didn't start with Islam anymore than terrorism started with Jesus.
Wars in the middle east didn't suddenly start with the Birth of Islam either. There has been constant fighting in the region since the dawn of man. Read the Old testament for a few examples.
The Ancient Assyrians, masters of war. Seen that move 300, The Persians, masters of war.
Was their peace in the middle east before Mohammed died?
There has never been peace in the middle east.Not in Moses' time Not in Jesus's time, not in Mohammeds time. Islam didn't start it any more than any other middle eastern religion did. None of them have ever known lasting peace.
And that goes for all the other religions everywhere else in the world too.
I didnt say war started with Islam I said that the 2 seperate factions in islam began fighting because of different views. I know "war" or terrorism didnt start with islam, you might want to read my statement a little more closely. Two different "factions" started fighting because due to conquest there emerged different classes, like conservatives and traders. One group got the upperhand (while both groups changed their religion so it would fit their needs) and thus wars started.
BTW, search the history of any part of the world. There has never been peace anywhere. Im sorry but the highlighted part is wrong, I dont know where you got that information from but pick up any book about the history of Islam or take any Introduction course on religion and you will realize that.
Also as stated in my comments above I didnt say that Muslims were the first to start war. *hears the typical sound of a closing trap*
Aha. Now we see your true knowledge about the issue. What I said is something that's widely accepted within the muslim world. They're less hypocritical about the link between politics and religion than the Christians are.
For example the split between Shia and Sunni muslims was a simple product of a war of succession. The ruling clans and factions (Sunni) wanted to install a kind of triumvirate caliphate after mohammeds death. This would've meant that hte power would've been with the areas that were considered to be the starting point of the "religious" conquests. The ones who actually did the conquests and governeed the new territories or the people who ventured on trading journeys far beyond the middle east didn't agree with this. They started a more moderate ideology which took the many different conquered cultures into account. For example the Shia believed that only the descendants of Mohammed (or people appointed by him) had any true religious power, not the Caliphs who were nothing but a new religious coat of paint over the old ruling factions. This Shia interpretation of Mohammeds succesion made Sunni control a lot harder since they wouldn't have any religious authority. And the Shia were quite powerful as they were in effective control over trade routes and new territories. However, it still took quite a long time for the Shia splinter group to gain power. This happened when Ali became the 4th Caliph. Later on the Sunni's staged a coup against his rule.
Even a retard with no knowledge of history or sociology sees within this struggle the battle of old (Sunni and them believing that the word of the Qur'an is holy no matter what) versus new (the Shia who had to deal with a whole bunch of new influences and thus needed something that could adapt and wasn't affected by internal struggle such as elections). Im sorry but if you would of read wtf i said you would understand I said the exact same thing without getting into the specifics. But good job on going to wikipedia and reading up on the subject real quick. If your going to try and make someone look like they dont know what they are talking about you might want to make sure your not saying the same shit that they have already said. With that, Im going to bed and leave you to your oh so bountiful knowledge of searching wikipedia and using the information as if it were your own.
Oooh look at me I can look at this website and act like I know what Im talking about NOW I looked at the Wiki (as did you appreantly, as you didn't believe anyone can know anything from their heads) and in the whole article there isn't a single mention of any link between social and cultural differences and the religious differences between Shia and Sunni. How I knew it? I talk with muslims. And if you cross-check... There's differences between what I said and what Wiki said.
In short. You said I was wrong. I wasn't. Doesn't matter how I know I was right. If you want to comfort yourself with thinking that I read it on Wiki (tho Wiki doesn't mention many of the things I mentioned) then be my guest.
End conclusion: Religions aren't a factor in starting wars.
I would not attack Iran unless they were a major (proven) aggressor in a middle-eastern war. Iran does not help Al-Qaeda (although it supports hezbollah) and therefore is not a threat to America and Europe. If they do build nukes, they wont be using with the current leadership, as they know that a nuclear strike on Israel (or any other country for that matter) will cause Iran to become a nuclear wasteland. Ahmejinedad (or however you spell it) wants to improve relations with the west,except for israel, diplomatically, but many nations are not giving him a chance.
If America can appease Iran, relations between the Sunni and Shiite states in the middle-east can approve too.
You can't negoiate with these religious fanatics... Even if you do some how get something done, they will just build the nukes behind your back.
Religion isn't a factor.
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe.
I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact.
You can't negoiate with these religious fanatics... Even if you do some how get something done, they will just build the nukes behind your back.
Religion isn't a factor.
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe. I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact.
No it's ingnorance, because you obviously don't know a thing about Islam.
Being Muslim doesn't make you a fanatic.
There are extremist Chritians and Jews in the world that are no better then extremist Muslims.
And it's not a religious factor, it's a political one. People like the president of Iran just use religion to garner support for his causes, and extremists use it to justify thier atrocities. Hardly does religion truelly guide these people. It's usually personal, political, and monetary reasons that they do the things they do.
"Muslims" do not blow stuff up. Extremists do.
Edit: The only fact in making a statement like, "I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet" is that you harbor hate for a peoples that practice a faith that isn't yours, or that you consider to belong to a "good country". People that aren't racists or bigots don't make statements like that.
You can't negoiate with these religious fanatics... Even if you do some how get something done, they will just build the nukes behind your back.
Religion isn't a factor.
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe. I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact. Before we continue our constructive discussion let's establish some basic common ground with facts of which we all know they're true:
You don't know anything about Islam.
You don't know anything about muslims.
You don't know anything about religion.
You don't know anything about the politics in your country.
You don't know anything about the politics in Iran.
You don't know anything about politics in the world at large.
There was a fox news special about Muslims and Islam. The Muslim proffesor even said that Muslim/Islam is a very violent religion. If you are not muslim then they are suppost to convert you, if you dont convert, they are suppost to kill you for being a infadel.So please shut the hell up and learn something, because you obviously dont know.
Right.... There was a fox news special about Muslims and Islam. The Muslim proffesor even said that Muslim/Islam is a very violent religion. If you are not muslim then they are suppost to convert you, if you dont convert, they are suppost to kill you for being a infadel.So please shut the hell up and learn something, because you obviously dont know.
You just fucked up your point and your case.
Come back when you've talked/lived with muslims and when you've read the Qur'An. Not that I'm saying it's an easy book.
Don't come back until you've opened your eyes ("You've never used them before, Neo") and stopped getting your info from... *spits* Fox News.
HAHA let me guess you get your news from MSNBC or some other liberal network eh? Like they are any better then FOX news. Pfff fox news is the number 1 network for news ''Fair and balanced" Unlike your liberal networks.
Right.... There was a fox news special about Muslims and Islam. The Muslim proffesor even said that Muslim/Islam is a very violent religion. If you are not muslim then they are suppost to convert you, if you dont convert, they are suppost to kill you for being a infadel.So please shut the hell up and learn something, because you obviously dont know.
Stop watching Fox News. In fact stop watching TV news all together. All it does is misinform you. Islam is the religion, a Muslim is a follower of Islam. Seems like you and that Fox news "expert" doesn't know jack.
As far as if Islam a peaceful or violent religion. Depends on who you ask. There are fundies and moderates in all religions. I could take one look at the Christian Crusades and the Christians in Kansas and say Christianity is a violent religion. I could look at the moderate Muslims living peacefully in America and say they are a religion of peace. It all depends on how one interprets their religion and the writings.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
HAHA let me guess you get your news from MSNBC or some other liberal network eh? Like they are any better then FOX news. Pfff fox news is the number 1 network for news ''Fair and balanced" Unlike your liberal networks.
Heh... you just proved my point in a debate I had with Draenor. Thanks.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
Jesus was a convicted terrorist. Is that why Catholics are?
Is that all they know?
What a load of nonsense. War didn't start with Islam anymore than terrorism started with Jesus.
Wars in the middle east didn't suddenly start with the Birth of Islam either. There has been constant fighting in the region since the dawn of man. Read the Old testament for a few examples.
The Ancient Assyrians, masters of war. Seen that move 300, The Persians, masters of war.
Was their peace in the middle east before Mohammed died?
There has never been peace in the middle east.Not in Moses' time Not in Jesus's time, not in Mohammeds time. Islam didn't start it any more than any other middle eastern religion did. None of them have ever known lasting peace.
And that goes for all the other religions everywhere else in the world too.
I didnt say war started with IslamBTW, search the history of any part of the world. There has never been peace anywhere. Im sorry but the highlighted part is wrong, I dont know where you got that information from but pick up any book about the history of Islam or take any Introduction course on religion and you will realize that.
Also as stated in my comments above I didnt say that Muslims were the first to start war. *hears the typical sound of a closing trap*
Aha. Now we see your true knowledge about the issue. What I said is something that's widely accepted within the muslim world. They're less hypocritical about the link between politics and religion than the Christians are.
For example the split between Shia and Sunni muslims was a simple product of a war of succession. The ruling clans and factions (Sunni) wanted to install a kind of triumvirate caliphate after mohammeds death. This would've meant that hte power would've been with the areas that were considered to be the starting point of the "religious" conquests. The ones who actually did the conquests and governeed the new territories or the people who ventured on trading journeys far beyond the middle east didn't agree with this. They started a more moderate ideology which took the many different conquered cultures into account. For example the Shia believed that only the descendants of Mohammed (or people appointed by him) had any true religious power, not the Caliphs who were nothing but a new religious coat of paint over the old ruling factions. This Shia interpretation of Mohammeds succesion made Sunni control a lot harder since they wouldn't have any religious authority. And the Shia were quite powerful as they were in effective control over trade routes and new territories. However, it still took quite a long time for the Shia splinter group to gain power. This happened when Ali became the 4th Caliph. Later on the Sunni's staged a coup against his rule.
Even a retard with no knowledge of history or sociology sees within this struggle the battle of old (Sunni and them believing that the word of the Qur'an is holy no matter what) versus new (the Shia who had to deal with a whole bunch of new influences and thus needed something that could adapt and wasn't affected by internal struggle such as elections). Im sorry but if you would of read wtf i said you would understand I said the exact same thing without getting into the specifics. But good job on going to wikipedia and reading up on the subject real quick. If your going to try and make someone look like they dont know what they are talking about you might want to make sure your not saying the same shit that they have already said. With that, Im going to bed and leave you to your oh so bountiful knowledge of searching wikipedia and using the information as if it were your own.
Oooh look at me I can look at this website and act like I know what Im talking about
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Coming from me who would have to fight in Iran....i say ....
OOOOORAHHHH!!!!
Getting rid of Israel and creating another state in its place is ok with me.
Holocaust part 2 is not ok with me.
Of course there is the matter of fairness.
Why is it we're ready to defend Jews from genocide but not Rwandans or Darfurians?
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Those civilians aren't innocent they are patriots, last two wars they had, the women and children were right up there on the frontlines with guns in their hands.
When he says "death to America", they all cheer and fire their guns in the air.
They will do if your planning on going in to get their leaders.
He hasn't done anything at the moment that warrants starting a war with him.
If the people of Iran have to suffer through a war, at least let the reason be justifiable. Not that any reason is good for innocent civilians to lose thier lives.
Those civilians aren't innocent they are patriots, last two wars they had, the women and children were right up there on the frontlines with guns in their hands.
When says "death to America", they all cheer and fire their guns in the air.
You're absolutely right. Whe should just go in and bomb the hell out of them all.
I mean all that talking about hating Isreal is just uncalled for.
Edit: So you just roll over when someone brings an army into your country?
I don't care what they're yelling when they shoot thier guns into the air. The bullets aren't hitting anyone.
Wish Darkfall would release.
No ones brought an army into my country for a millenia or so. Your guess is as good as mine.
I should think most people would just roll over. It depends on whose army it is I suppose. I don't think many would put up much resistance if it was the Dutch, the Italians, the Danish or the French. We never have in the past.
We've had 2 million Eastern Europeans arrive in the last 24 months and no ones complained. And the Saxons took half the country without so much as a battle.
No one here has any weapons for that matter, and the government isn't well loved. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on a third of us rolling over willingly for the chance to be in the new regime, and another third continuing to roll over grudgingly because there is nothing we can do about it anyway and the final third jumping ship with as many valuables as they can carry.
We haven't been in a war in the last hundred years that the public wanted to fight. All the lefties wanted to surrender to Hitler and the right to mind our own business and let the world police itself.
Britain, the first target in the formation of the greater Belgian Empire......
So because you feel that the people in your country lack patriotism or a sence of loyal to home and self that would have you stand up and defend your nation should it ever be invaded, makes it ok to invade another country that hasn't done anything that constitutes an act of war.
The Iranian people being loyal to thier country is hardly a reason to attack them.
And no. Countries don't typically just roll over when they are able to defend themselves.
Edit: I win for biggest run on sentence.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Jesus was a convicted terrorist. Is that why Catholics are?
Is that all they know?
What a load of nonsense. War didn't start with Islam anymore than terrorism started with Jesus.
Wars in the middle east didn't suddenly start with the Birth of Islam either. There has been constant fighting in the region since the dawn of man. Read the Old testament for a few examples.
The Ancient Assyrians, masters of war. Seen that move 300, The Persians, masters of war.
Was their peace in the middle east before Mohammed died?
There has never been peace in the middle east.Not in Moses' time Not in Jesus's time, not in Mohammeds time. Islam didn't start it any more than any other middle eastern religion did. None of them have ever known lasting peace.
And that goes for all the other religions everywhere else in the world too.
I didnt say war started with IslamBTW, search the history of any part of the world. There has never been peace anywhere. Im sorry but the highlighted part is wrong, I dont know where you got that information from but pick up any book about the history of Islam or take any Introduction course on religion and you will realize that.
Also as stated in my comments above I didnt say that Muslims were the first to start war. *hears the typical sound of a closing trap*
Aha. Now we see your true knowledge about the issue. What I said is something that's widely accepted within the muslim world. They're less hypocritical about the link between politics and religion than the Christians are.
For example the split between Shia and Sunni muslims was a simple product of a war of succession. The ruling clans and factions (Sunni) wanted to install a kind of triumvirate caliphate after mohammeds death. This would've meant that hte power would've been with the areas that were considered to be the starting point of the "religious" conquests. The ones who actually did the conquests and governeed the new territories or the people who ventured on trading journeys far beyond the middle east didn't agree with this. They started a more moderate ideology which took the many different conquered cultures into account. For example the Shia believed that only the descendants of Mohammed (or people appointed by him) had any true religious power, not the Caliphs who were nothing but a new religious coat of paint over the old ruling factions. This Shia interpretation of Mohammeds succesion made Sunni control a lot harder since they wouldn't have any religious authority. And the Shia were quite powerful as they were in effective control over trade routes and new territories. However, it still took quite a long time for the Shia splinter group to gain power. This happened when Ali became the 4th Caliph. Later on the Sunni's staged a coup against his rule.
Even a retard with no knowledge of history or sociology sees within this struggle the battle of old (Sunni and them believing that the word of the Qur'an is holy no matter what) versus new (the Shia who had to deal with a whole bunch of new influences and thus needed something that could adapt and wasn't affected by internal struggle such as elections). Im sorry but if you would of read wtf i said you would understand I said the exact same thing without getting into the specifics. But good job on going to wikipedia and reading up on the subject real quick. If your going to try and make someone look like they dont know what they are talking about you might want to make sure your not saying the same shit that they have already said. With that, Im going to bed and leave you to your oh so bountiful knowledge of searching wikipedia and using the information as if it were your own.
Oooh look at me I can look at this website and act like I know what Im talking about
In short. You said I was wrong. I wasn't. Doesn't matter how I know I was right. If you want to comfort yourself with thinking that I read it on Wiki (tho Wiki doesn't mention many of the things I mentioned) then be my guest.
End conclusion: Religions aren't a factor in starting wars.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I would not attack Iran unless they were a major (proven) aggressor in a middle-eastern war. Iran does not help Al-Qaeda (although it supports hezbollah) and therefore is not a threat to America and Europe.
If they do build nukes, they wont be using with the current leadership, as they know that a nuclear strike on Israel (or any other country for that matter) will cause Iran to become a nuclear wasteland. Ahmejinedad (or however you spell it) wants to improve relations with the west,except for israel, diplomatically, but many nations are not giving him a chance.
If America can appease Iran, relations between the Sunni and Shiite states in the middle-east can approve too.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
I like John McCain. At least he's got humor. :P
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe.
I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact.
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe. I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact.
No it's ingnorance, because you obviously don't know a thing about Islam.
Being Muslim doesn't make you a fanatic.
There are extremist Chritians and Jews in the world that are no better then extremist Muslims.
And it's not a religious factor, it's a political one. People like the president of Iran just use religion to garner support for his causes, and extremists use it to justify thier atrocities. Hardly does religion truelly guide these people. It's usually personal, political, and monetary reasons that they do the things they do.
"Muslims" do not blow stuff up. Extremists do.
Edit: The only fact in making a statement like, "I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet" is that you harbor hate for a peoples that practice a faith that isn't yours, or that you consider to belong to a "good country". People that aren't racists or bigots don't make statements like that.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Are you freaking kidding me? They want to wipe out jews and they will kill any non-muslim for "alah" give me a freaking break, they are all just plain retarded.I would wipe out every single muslim off this planet if it were to keep my people, Austrailia, france, UK, Ireland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany and all the other good countries people safe. I would not hesitate. Its not racist or prejudice its fact. Before we continue our constructive discussion let's establish some basic common ground with facts of which we all know they're true:
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
There was a fox news special about Muslims and Islam. The Muslim proffesor even said that Muslim/Islam is a very violent religion. If you are not muslim then they are suppost to convert you, if you dont convert, they are suppost to kill you for being a infadel.So please shut the hell up and learn something, because you obviously dont know.
Come back when you've talked/lived with muslims and when you've read the Qur'An. Not that I'm saying it's an easy book.
Don't come back until you've opened your eyes ("You've never used them before, Neo") and stopped getting your info from... *spits* Fox News.
Also... CHECK YOUR SPELLING.
I make lots of mistakes too, but it's not my bloody mothertongue.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
As far as if Islam a peaceful or violent religion. Depends on who you ask. There are fundies and moderates in all religions. I could take one look at the Christian Crusades and the Christians in Kansas and say Christianity is a violent religion. I could look at the moderate Muslims living peacefully in America and say they are a religion of peace. It all depends on how one interprets their religion and the writings.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American